126 replies to this topic

[Zola Revolution]

I have been a long time supporter of putting all FS games after OT. However, I have come across some evidence that FS+ could possibly go before OT. Can anyone confirm or disprove this set of evidence that I have recently come across?

Simple. FSA says that a special child is born to the Gerudo every 100 year. That particular Gerudo becoem power hungry etc. and became despised by the other Gerudos. He then went after the Trident of Power- in the ancient pyramids the Gerudo had guarded. That was his mean to attain power.

OoT Ganon is also a male child born to the Gerudo. However, in OoT, Ganon is the Gerudos leader and he is respected amongs them. OoT Ganon tries to obtain the triforce as his mean to attain power.

Their means to attain power is different. FSA Ganon directly goes to the Pyramids for the trident, while OoT Ganon tries to get the Triforce. They where both clearly in human-form before they attained power. Because their backstory doesn't match up, one can only come to the conclusion that they're two different individuals born from the same tribe. Also, since that particular tribe is gone in games after OoT, it's hard to safely place FSA after OoT since no Gerudo means no Ganon.

There's also the case that there's little to no knowlegde about the Triforce in FSA, which could be explained by that the war that occurs before OoT hadn't happend yet. These wars was about when the people came to know about the Triforce and started to struggle for it. FSA do foreshadow the Triforce presence in the ending though.

[Showsni]

Whilst examining Ganon's backstory and coming to the conlusion OoT Ganon is different to FSA Ganon is fair enough, it doesn't necessarily follow which order they come in from that alone. For all we know the Gerudo become nomadic after OoT, or just aren't shown in the games for no particular reason.

[Impossible]

Just a heads up, nobody thinks you sound clever by using Japanese names that nobody else in the entire community uses, even in a conversation with other people using the other names. It's just a teensy bit pretentious, like Lex's refusal to live in the same reality as everyone else when he debates, minus the subtlety. If you won't argue on the same paradigm as everyone else, absolutely no progress can ever be made. Don't want to go in the same fucking circles for months, only for someone to always pretend it never happened, like with him...

It also doesn't help that they aren't Japanese names, they're literal translations into English of those names, which means nobody uses them anywhere in the world. And you defeat the entire point of acronyms by using ones nobody understands. Oh, and you aren't Japanese.

[Zola Revolution]

Just a heads up, nobody thinks you sound clever by using Japanese names that nobody else in the entire community uses, even in a conversation with other people using the other names.

I don't care what others think. I use the Japanese names because they were made in Japan. I do the same with everything else; I call everything by the name of its country of origin.

If you won't argue on the same paradigm as everyone else, absolutely no progress can ever be made.

I don't know about that. If you aren't ignorant, I think you can follow along just fine. Besides, we are all talking about the same games here; and you all seem to understand what I mean when I do use the Japanese titles.

Oh, and you aren't Japanese.

Um,,,duh! I don't care.

I call everything by the name of its country of origin.

So, if we could finally get off the topic of me and get back on the topic at hand...

Edited by Zola Revolution, 29 August 2009 - 08:54 PM.

[Person]

The Gerudo are not confirmed to be extinct following OoT. Just because we don't see them in TP doesn't mean they don't exist anymore. Because they're nomadic, maybe they just moved on.

[Nerushi]

There are several reason why FSA could, and should come before OoT.

State of the Triforce;
It seem like there's no general knowlegde about it. Only the Royal Family ( or Zelda ) knows about it, as we see a single Triforce in the end of FSA. What's interesting is that despite the Triforce lack of use in FSA they still want to show it in the ending, with Zelda looking at it. This completely lacks a purpose in FSA, unless they wanted to foreshadow something.

Master Sword;
It's just not there. Which is fine if FSS is before OoT since games after OoT seem to use it all the time ( WW, TP, ALTTP etc. ). I am aware that the MS had a role in FSA according to the text dump. All the more reason to wonder why it was removed.

Lost Wood;
We're show the orgin of the Lost Wood in FSA, from being the Forest of Light. What makes this really interesting becuase of a quote by the Deku Scrub. - "But we're trying to build an underground road that will let us go anywhere..." - Sounds awfully familiar with the Lost Wood in OoT, as it had underground roads which could take you far away.

Ganon;
New Orgin. One could argue that this Ganon can come either after or before OoT equally since there is no previous knowlegde about any Ganon before that ( applies to both OoT and FSA ). However, I would give FSA the egde here since it's a newer game. OoT can't reference FSA. FSA however, can reference OoT. Which it didn't.

Gerudo;
You can laugh at the AT and say that it's ridiculous that the Gerudo and their culture would last the flooding, which is shows in WW/PH. However, it would be biased to say that they were any better off on the CT. Especially since TP perfectly ignored the Gerudo. The only hint of them in TP is Ganondorfs 'band of thieves' as they were described in OoT. It IS possible that they was executed along with Ganondorf in the Arbites Ground, just to explain their lack of presence. I don't see this problem if placing FSA before OoT though, as they had to exist before in order to exist afterwards.

Dark Mirror-Twiligth Mirror;
To be honest, I am not too keen on arguing for this one, because I used to argue against it. All I can say is that wheter or not they're the same isn't a concern if FSA is placed before TP, since the mirror wasn't destoryed in FSA. One must admit though, that there are as many similarities as there are differences.

Oldest Tale;
Last, but not least.

Aonuma: The GBA Four Swords Zelda is what we’re thinking as the oldest tale in the Zelda timeline. With this one on the GameCube [(FSA)] being a sequel to that, and taking place sometime after that.

Seriously, this is probably the most revealing chunk of evidence that Aonuma has ever expressed ( Aside of the Split ). Ironically, it's also one of the most disregarded evidence. By AT and CT theorist alike. AT theorist ignores it becuase it goes against their timeline in general, as they just has to have every game after WW for a reason that's completely beyond me. CT theorist, or at least most of them, seem to have no problem with placing TMC before OoT, yet they don't follow through FS, which was actually confirmed to be the oldest tale.

If we go by the this timeline TMC-OOT/MM-TP-FS/FSA-ALTTP, then Vaati would first appear, get sealed, then he is suddenly forgotten in OoT and TP until he appear again in FS and then it's Ganon from OoT that's forgotten and everyone knows about Vaati again.
I honestly don't se why TMC-FS/FSA-OoT/MM-TP-ALTTP can't work the same way. TMC happens, and Zelda is aware of him in FS, he gets destoryed and Trident Ganon appear. That Ganon gets sealed in the Four Sword. Now, probably because of the wars that happens inbetween, that Ganon plus Vaati is forgotten before OoT, and a new one is born. OoT Ganon eventually dies in TP. Suddenly we're all set up for ALTTP. Blue Ganon is still sealed, perfectly alive in the Four Sword, just the way Vaati would be in this timeline. TMC-OOT/MM-TP-FS/FSA-ALTTP.

There's also the problem that FSA becomes separted from ALTTP, but I don't see that as a problem since they're still on the same branch ( never flooded ) and any reference to ALTTP in FSA are minor ones, or just the geography. But I think that ALTTP, OoT, TP, FSA all have the same geography so w/e.

[Zola Revolution]

It's just not there. Which is fine if FSS is before OoT since games after OoT seem to use it all the time ( WW, TP, ALTTP etc. ).

This could go either way. The Four Sword also just wasn't there in OT.

New Orgin. One could argue that this Ganon can come either after or before OoT equally since there is no previous knowlegde about any Ganon before that ( applies to both OoT and FSA ). However, I would give FSA the egde here since it's a newer game. OoT can't reference FSA. FSA however, can reference OoT. Which it didn't.

Triforce of the Gods Ganon is not referred to as being the Hyrule Fantasy Gannon.

You can laugh at the AT and say that it's ridiculous that the Gerudo and their culture would last the flooding, which is shows in WW/PH. However, it would be biased to say that they were any better off on the CT. Especially since TP perfectly ignored the Gerudo. The only hint of them in TP is Ganondorfs 'band of thieves' as they were described in OoT. It IS possible that they was executed along with Ganondorf in the Arbites Ground, just to explain their lack of presence. I don't see this problem if placing FSA before OoT though, as they had to exist before in order to exist afterwards.

Yes, but you could also say they they were nomadic. THey may have left Hyrule and came back generations later.
All that aside, you brought up some good points. Except for this:

Last, but not least.
QUOTE
Aonuma: The GBA Four Swords Zelda is what we’re thinking as the oldest tale in the Zelda timeline. With this one on the GameCube [(FSA)] being a sequel to that, and taking place sometime after that.

Seriously, this is probably the most revealing chunk of evidence that Aonuma has ever expressed ( Aside of the Split ).

I believe the quote you've presented goes back to 2004 or so. Well, this one was said by Aonuma in an interview around 2006.

Twilight Princess takes place between Ocarina of Time and The Wind Waker... As for Phantom Hourglass, as you may have guessed, it is a sequel to The Wind Waker... A Link to the Past and the NES games take place long after The Wind Waker.... Obviously Four Swords Adventures takes place before A Link to the Past; we designed that game to be a prequel to that game. Four Swords has to come before that, and The Minish Cap before them all.
--Eiji Aonuma

Huh, it goes before Triforce of the Gods, but after even Tact of Wind. Wow, that's all the confirmation I need.

Edited by Zola Revolution, 30 August 2009 - 07:30 AM.

[Masamune]

I believe the quote you've presented goes back to 2004 or so. Well, this one was said by Aonuma in an interview around 2006.

Twilight Princess takes place between Ocarina of Time and The Wind Waker... As for Phantom Hourglass, as you may have guessed, it is a sequel to The Wind Waker... A Link to the Past and the NES games take place long after The Wind Waker.... Obviously Four Swords Adventures takes place before A Link to the Past; we designed that game to be a prequel to that game. Four Swords has to come before that, and The Minish Cap before them all.
--Eiji Aonuma

Huh, it goes before Triforce of the Gods, but after even Tact of Wind. Wow, that's all the confirmation I need.

That's a quote TSA made up as an April Fool's joke.

---

Regarding Nerushi's timeline, I wonder if maybe we might consider the Ganondorf from OoT/TP (and TWW on the other side of the split) as a different Ganon from all the other games. At some point or another, the Four Sword IS broken. It would go a ways to accounting for at least one of Ganon's unexplained return to the living following Twilight Princess (such as in The Legend of Zelda). Of course, I realize this is just as problematic because of Twinrova's involvement with "Blue Ganon" in Oracles (and other reasons).

[Zola Revolution]

Yes, I read your other post. I need to start checking the sources more carefully. I should have suspected something when there was no link given to the website or the interview itself...

[Nerushi]

Zola Revolution: The interview about being the oldest tale was made after the release of FSA in Japan. I think it's legit enough. I am not even gonna comment on the rest of the stuff you posted as it only confused me.

Masamune: Why would the Blue Ganon involvement with Twinrova be problematic? They're all Gerudos after all.

[Masamune]

Well if you put it THAT way, I guess it isn't a problem.

[Zola Revolution]

OK, so my timeline is back to the way I had it. Yes, I said that the interview was done in 2004--which is the release year for FS+--and I will state again what I had before this whole fake quote thing:

It's just not there. Which is fine if FSS is before OoT since games after OoT seem to use it all the time ( WW, TP, ALTTP etc. ). I am aware that the MS had a role in FSA according to the text dump. All the more reason to wonder why it was removed.

This could go either way. The Four Sword also just wasn't there in OT.

New Orgin. One could argue that this Ganon can come either after or before OoT equally since there is no previous knowlegde about any Ganon before that ( applies to both OoT and FSA ). However, I would give FSA the egde here since it's a newer game. OoT can't reference FSA. FSA however, can reference OoT. Which it didn't.

Triforce of the Gods Ganon is not referred to as being the Hyrule Fantasy Gannon. Also, the Ganon in Mysterious Fruit of the Tree isn't referred as being any other Ganon in the series yet in that particular story he is being brought back from some kind of imprissionment or death (I can't remember which).

You can laugh at the AT and say that it's ridiculous that the Gerudo and their culture would last the flooding, which is shows in WW/PH. However, it would be biased to say that they were any better off on the CT. Especially since TP perfectly ignored the Gerudo. The only hint of them in TP is Ganondorfs 'band of thieves' as they were described in OoT. It IS possible that they was executed along with Ganondorf in the Arbites Ground, just to explain their lack of presence. I don't see this problem if placing FSA before OoT though, as they had to exist before in order to exist afterwards.

Yes, but you could also say they they were nomadic. They may have left Hyrule and came back generations later. But that's just theory.
The quote, yes; I will believe it when I get a more recent quote where Aonuma is more sure of where is goes and is talking in past or present tense, not future tense.

[SOAP]

There are several reason why FSA could, and should come before OoT.

State of the Triforce;
It seem like there's no general knowlegde about it. Only the Royal Family ( or Zelda ) knows about it, as we see a single Triforce in the end of FSA. What's interesting is that despite the Triforce lack of use in FSA they still want to show it in the ending, with Zelda looking at it. This completely lacks a purpose in FSA, unless they wanted to foreshadow something.

Master Sword;
It's just not there. Which is fine if FSS is before OoT since games after OoT seem to use it all the time ( WW, TP, ALTTP etc. ). I am aware that the MS had a role in FSA according to the text dump. All the more reason to wonder why it was removed.

Lost Wood;
We're show the orgin of the Lost Wood in FSA, from being the Forest of Light. What makes this really interesting becuase of a quote by the Deku Scrub. - "But we're trying to build an underground road that will let us go anywhere..." - Sounds awfully familiar with the Lost Wood in OoT, as it had underground roads which could take you far away.

Ganon;
New Orgin. One could argue that this Ganon can come either after or before OoT equally since there is no previous knowlegde about any Ganon before that ( applies to both OoT and FSA ). However, I would give FSA the egde here since it's a newer game. OoT can't reference FSA. FSA however, can reference OoT. Which it didn't.

Gerudo;
You can laugh at the AT and say that it's ridiculous that the Gerudo and their culture would last the flooding, which is shows in WW/PH. However, it would be biased to say that they were any better off on the CT. Especially since TP perfectly ignored the Gerudo. The only hint of them in TP is Ganondorfs 'band of thieves' as they were described in OoT. It IS possible that they was executed along with Ganondorf in the Arbites Ground, just to explain their lack of presence. I don't see this problem if placing FSA before OoT though, as they had to exist before in order to exist afterwards.

Dark Mirror-Twiligth Mirror;
To be honest, I am not too keen on arguing for this one, because I used to argue against it. All I can say is that wheter or not they're the same isn't a concern if FSA is placed before TP, since the mirror wasn't destoryed in FSA. One must admit though, that there are as many similarities as there are differences.

Oldest Tale;
Last, but not least.

Aonuma: The GBA Four Swords Zelda is what we’re thinking as the oldest tale in the Zelda timeline. With this one on the GameCube [(FSA)] being a sequel to that, and taking place sometime after that.

Seriously, this is probably the most revealing chunk of evidence that Aonuma has ever expressed ( Aside of the Split ). Ironically, it's also one of the most disregarded evidence. By AT and CT theorist alike. AT theorist ignores it becuase it goes against their timeline in general, as they just has to have every game after WW for a reason that's completely beyond me. CT theorist, or at least most of them, seem to have no problem with placing TMC before OoT, yet they don't follow through FS, which was actually confirmed to be the oldest tale.

If we go by the this timeline TMC-OOT/MM-TP-FS/FSA-ALTTP, then Vaati would first appear, get sealed, then he is suddenly forgotten in OoT and TP until he appear again in FS and then it's Ganon from OoT that's forgotten and everyone knows about Vaati again.
I honestly don't se why TMC-FS/FSA-OoT/MM-TP-ALTTP can't work the same way. TMC happens, and Zelda is aware of him in FS, he gets destoryed and Trident Ganon appear. That Ganon gets sealed in the Four Sword. Now, probably because of the wars that happens inbetween, that Ganon plus Vaati is forgotten before OoT, and a new one is born. OoT Ganon eventually dies in TP. Suddenly we're all set up for ALTTP. Blue Ganon is still sealed, perfectly alive in the Four Sword, just the way Vaati would be in this timeline. TMC-OOT/MM-TP-FS/FSA-ALTTP.

There's also the problem that FSA becomes separted from ALTTP, but I don't see that as a problem since they're still on the same branch ( never flooded ) and any reference to ALTTP in FSA are minor ones, or just the geography. But I think that ALTTP, OoT, TP, FSA all have the same geography so w/e.

I completely agree with you. I actually have no problem having the FS games before OoT. The crux of the matter for me though is ALttP. You think the connections may be minor but they're strong for me and I'm not just talking geography (which isn't a big deal for me anyways). Some don't consider the POTFS canon but it seems rather odd that Ganon would be imprisoned in the Four Sword at the end of FSA then a totally different Ganon (if we'tre to assume ALttP Ganon is OoT's Ganondorf still) keeps a shattered Four Sword in his lair. It would follow suit more to have ALttP come some time after FSA, where Ganon escapes the FS and keeps it's shattered peices in a secret location, guarded by Shadow Links so that a new hero wouldn't use it gainst him again. ALttP might as well be before OoT anyways, now that TP and TWW both effectively severed any prior connections it had with OoT. Even if TP makes a lot of allusions towards ALttP it does nothing at all to set up for ALttP or the IW. At least FSA doesn't kill Ganon off, leaving room for speculation on how he escapes his imprisonment finds the Triforce.

[Zola Revolution]

It would follow suit more to have ALttP come some time after FSA, where Ganon escapes the FS and keeps it's shattered peices in a secret location, guarded by Shadow Links so that a new hero wouldn't use it gainst him again.

Yes, and if FS+ goes before OT, then where are the pieces of the Four Sword in Tact of Wind and Twilight Princess? And where are they in OT, for that matter? I think that, maybe, FS+ could go before TG but I still don't see it going before OT.

Edited by Zola Revolution, 30 August 2009 - 08:50 AM.

[Nerushi]

SOAP: I do consider the FSA and ALTTP Ganon the same. In my opinion Blue Ganon in ( FSA, ALTTP, OoX, LoZ ) are the same, and are different from OoT/WW/TP Ganon. FSA still sets up for ALTTP to happens. Thing is, we don't know how long time it takes to break out of the Four Sword. Isn't that what allows the TMC-OoT-TP-FS/FSA-ALTTP timeline to work? It's pretty much the same as with mine, TMC-FS/FSA-OoT-TP-ALTTP, except that it's Ganon who goes on hiatus during OoT instead of Vaati.


Note:
Purple- Vaati
Blue - Trident Ganon
Green - OoT Ganon

Also, I do admit that some connections between FSA-ALTTP nags me, suchs as the thieves reference in Kakariko or the River Zoras. But well... No timeline is perfect.

Zola Revolution: OoT can't show things that games after it introduced. Besides, there's a need for those item to not be seen during OoT:

Edited by Nerushi, 30 August 2009 - 09:21 AM.

[SOAP]

I'm all for Multiple Ganons but I'm a bit wary of Multiple Ganon's existing at the same time. It would make more sense to have one rise to power, killed off, then forgetten by the passage of time to make room for a new one. It's the a different case with Vaati since he's totally different entity from Ganon/dorf.

If FSA is before OoT then ALttP-->OoT must somehow be made to work also. It might. But it would be a very hard theory to sell.

Edited by SOAP, 30 August 2009 - 09:26 AM.

[Nerushi]

I think when including the birth and rise of a new Ganon there's also a need of a race consistency - The Gerudo. While I do acknowlegde that their reason for not being in TP may have nothing to do with the timeline, it's also important to note what their lack of presence might mean. The Gerudo aren't the only case where TP seem to contradict FSA coming after it. And I think FSA has just as much of a need to be close to OoT as it needs to be close to ALTTP.
Either way, I don't have any problem with multiple Ganon's at same time as they're still different individuls sharing name ( Possible because of Gerudo namning tradition ).

[Zola Revolution]

OoT can't show things that games after it introduced. Besides, there's a need for those item to not be seen during OoT

OK...but what about Twilight Princess, which came out after Four Swords +. So, by your logic, wouldn't the Four Sword be in Hyrule in TP? That is never implied. What is your explanation on that?

TMC-FS/FSA-OoT-TP-ALTTP, except that it's Ganon who goes on hiatus during OoT instead of Vaati.

Again, where was the Four Sword that Ganon was imprisoned in? If he had already broken out, then where is this "other Ganon" and the four pieces of the Four Sword? Wouldn't Ganondorf have known about Ganon (especially in TP since it was made after FS+) and therefore referenced him at least once? After all, since there is only one male born in the Gerudo every 100 years, it seems rather important to refer to an immediate predecessor, like if he were to compare his power to the previous or try to avenge him or something? Also, if the first Ganon were Gerudo, then why do we never see his human form; as a Gerudo. He is only a beast.

No timeline is perfect.

Eiji Aonuma's timeline is perfect. His is the only absolute timeline.

I'm a bit wary of Multiple Ganon's existing at the same time. It would make more sense to have one rise to power, killed off, then forgetten by the passage of time to make room for a new one.

I agree.

Also, I am not sure that two people would have the same name. You'd think that the Gerudos, since there is only one male born every 100 years, would find the name more important than they make it out to be in your theory. If Ganon was named after this "other Ganon" then why isn't his title given a II or Jr. It seems a little sketchy to me. Of course, I am aware that the names are Ganon and Ganondorf Dragmire. However, I do believe that Ganondorf is still called Ganon; especially when he transforms into a beast. The creators seem to imply that is name is Ganon every time he transforms. I also seem to remember a time when Ganon's name was 'Gannon.' So if Gannon turns out to be this "other Ganon" and Ganondorf's name when he transforms is Ganon, then wouldn't that imply that the creators were implying a single Ganon?

Edited by Zola Revolution, 30 August 2009 - 11:19 AM.

[Nerushi]

OK...but what about Twilight Princess, which came out after Four Swords +. So, by your logic, wouldn't the Four Sword be in Hyrule in TP? That is never implied. What is your explanation on that?

The reason why we "don't" see it is because its hidden in the Four Sword Sanctuary. There doesn't have to be any other explanation for. Just ask anyoen who places TMC first.

Again, where was the Four Sword that Ganon was imprisoned in? If he had already broken out, then where is this "other Ganon" and the four pieces of the Four Sword? Wouldn't Ganondorf have known about Ganon (especially in TP since it was made after FS+) and therefore referenced him at least once? After all, since there is only one male born in the Gerudo every 100 years, it seems rather important to refer to an immediate predecessor, like if he were to compare his power to the previous or try to avenge him or something? Also, if the first Ganon were Gerudo, then why do we never see his human form; as a Gerudo. He is only a beast.

Ganon is imprisoned in the Four Sword in the Four Sword Sanctuary. What a stupid question. Also, he doesn't break out until ALTTP BS, which is after TP Ganon has died.

Stop ranting needless stuff that has nothing to do with the story. Also, nothing says OoT Ganon is an immediate predecessor to FSA Ganon or even the other way around. However, both are Gerudo's and different individuals with different BS, as implied by the game. Try realize that before you start arguing against me.

Eiji Aonuma's timeline is perfect. His is the only absolute timeline.

According to Aonuma, FS is first. So I guess that's a good start.

Also, I am not sure that two people would have the same name. You'd think that the Gerudos, since there is only one male born every 100 years, would find the name more important than they make it out to be in your theory. If Ganon was named after this "other Ganon" then why isn't his title given a II or Jr. It seems a little sketchy to me. Of course, I am aware that the names are Ganon and Ganondorf Dragmire. However, I do believe that Ganondorf is still called Ganon; especially when he transforms into a beast. The creators seem to imply that is name is Ganon every time he transforms. I also seem to remember a time when Ganon's name was 'Gannon.' So if Gannon turns out to be this "other Ganon" and Ganondorf's name when he transforms is Ganon, then wouldn't that imply that the creators were implying a single Ganon?

There's like 10 different Links and equally many Zelda throughout the whole series. Their name was never an issue, and it clearly obvious they're different. Why is it that Ganon can't be either? Especially when it's implied that it's a different Ganon. Also, Gannon is just a translation error in the original LoZ.

[Zola Revolution]

The reason why we "don't" see it is because its hidden in the Four Sword Sanctuary. There doesn't have to be any other explanation for.

OK, so where do you think it could be hidden? If it is hidden, that means that it is still there, you know.

What a stupid question.

Actually, there is no such thing as a stupid question; especially in this case. I asked because the two questions so obviously wouldn't have been answered. Oh, but I am sure you already knew that...

However, both are Gerudo's and different individuals with different BS, as implied by the game.

Especially when it's implied that it's a different Ganon.

Implied by FS+? If so, where is it implied? I would like to see some evidence.

According to Aonuma, FS is first. So I guess that's a good start.

Yes, he said they were thinking that would be the case. I don't think that they were too sure with the future titles coming along after that. I would like to see a more recent and more certain quote from Eiji Aonuma before I adopt this. Denial, no; skepticism. When the work 'think' is used, that is my cause for skeptisism; because it is not implying any certainty, it implies an idea at the time. A lot can change in five years, you know.

[Nerushi]

OK, so where do you think it could be hidden? If it is hidden, that means that it is still there, you know.

Yes? Your point?

Implied by FS+? If so, where is it implied? I would like to see some evidence.

FSA
Red Maiden
"But, no... That man was of
the Gerudo tribe."

Gerudo Elder
"Yes, this Ganondorf you
speak of is a member of
the Gerudo."

Gerudo Elder
"The villain Ganondorf will
no doubt draw his last
breath failing this trial."

OoT
Zelda
"That is Ganondorf, the leader of the Gerudos. They hail from the desert far to
the west."

Gerudo
"I used to think that all men, besides the great Ganondorf, were useless...but
now that I've seen you, I don't think so anymore!"


These quotes suggest that they're different person as they're treated with different respect from their kin. OoT Ganon was the Gerudo leader, while FSA Ganon is seen as an villian among the Gerudo. The Red Maiden also says that Ganon is a man, or at least was, but not a beast. I though at least this much was obvious.

Yes, he said they were thinking that would be the case. I don't think that they were too sure with the future titles coming along after that. I would like to see a more recent and more certain quote from Eiji Aonuma before I adopt this. Denial, no; skepticism. When the work 'think' is used, that is my cause for skeptisism; because it is not implying any certainty, it implies an idea at the time. A lot can change in five years, you know.

Skepticism? Nah. I'd call it complete disregarding of creator intent. You think the creator intent has changed, but you have no evidence to support it. Further more, you don't just think it has changed over the five years. According to you the creator intent was 'never' correct as FSA just can't go before OoT. Completely unjustified. And of course, you're also using the reverse logic that you will adopt it if they reconfirm it - Which may never happen, as the creator seldomly talk about the timeline. In the end, it depends if you want to rely on your own biased opinion or rely on the creators opinion.

Edited by Nerushi, 30 August 2009 - 01:37 PM.

[Zola Revolution]

OK. I see in the quotes that it stated that Ganon of FS+ was a Gerudo. I see that it also implies that the name of Ganon of FS+ was originally Ganondorf. I do see what you mean. The OT quotes see him as a ruler of the Gerudo while the FS+ quotes say he was merely a member of the Gerudo. That's it. I think you are reading too far into this. You seem to forget that Gerudo is a race. To be a member of a race is to be that race. Just because they said that he is not the leader, does not mean that it still isn't the same Ganon in FS+. As for the fact that he was seen as a villain, the Gerudo sage in OT saw him as a villain. I can see how her influence could change future generations to come. I still stand by the fact that there is but one, and only one, Ganon(dorf) in the Zelda series.

You think the creator intent has changed, but you have no evidence to support it.

Yes, but you have no evidence to support that he hasn't either. Stalemate. OK, in an interview; when the interviewer asks you a question about how much effort you would out forth the job being offered, if you answered "I'm thinking I would work hard" or anything with "I think" then you're probably not going to get the job. You have to be certain that you will work hard. That is the same with me, if intent has a doubtful word such as think before or after it, I am going to be skeptical of anyone's certainty on what they intend to do and that it may change over the course of time. Especially since Aonuma gets new ideas for games all the time and one of his new ideas (i.e. Twilight Princess or Zelda Wii 2) may change his mind about the placement of that.

Your point?

Well, if you think that it is in Hyrule, then obviously you must know where in Hyrule, or at least have a theory on top of all of these other wild theories, the Sanctuary is hidden, right?

[MikePetersSucks]

Yes, but you have no evidence to support that he hasn't either. Stalemate.

STOP RIGHT THERE.

It is not logically sound to assume something just because there's no evidence saying it didn't happen. If you're the one making the positive statement, you're the one who must provide proof,or the argument or idea shouldn't be taken into consideration. Basic Debating Form 101.

[Zola Revolution]

I am one who believes that FS+ should not go before OT. Nerushi, a person I previously debated with on Zelda Universe, is the one who believes that FS+ goes before OT. You should actually read some of his evidence, it is pretty good so far. I am not quite convinced for I am looking for him / her to give me certain evidence that would prove that FS+ goes before OT, oh and that there are two Ganons.

[Masamune]

No timeline is perfect.

Eiji Aonuma's timeline is perfect. His is the only absolute timeline.

No, it isn't. If and when he ever reveals his timeline, it'll be as ridden with plot holes and inconsistencies as ours are. The only difference is that he has the authority to make those kind of retcons and we do.

[Zola Revolution]

He is not only the producer, but he has Miyamoto by his side. I think that will make Aonuma's timeline pretty absolute.

[Fin]

He is not only the producer, but he has Miyamoto by his side. I think that will make Aonuma's timeline pretty absolute.

I think you missed Masa's point.

(Also, protip: Miyamoto doesn't actually care much about the timeline)

[Masamune]

I'm not denying that. I'm just saying that there is no configuration of the timelines without problems. His final timeline will still have these problems. It will be absolute and canon, but not perfect.

[Zola Revolution]

Are you sure. Are you sure that Aonuma won't take the remakes into account? That is what I think all the remakes were for, fixing up the timeline to where it would have no errors. Well, that and to add some gameplay features that they came up with later on.

[Person]

The Aonuma quote was referring to the original FS game, and he said that FSA happened "some time later," so it can still go after OoT. I put FS right before FSA because they seem to imply that they're the same Link and Aonuma wasn't really involved in FS or FSA, so his word might not be definitive in the matter. If it is, then I go with my "Two canons" theory, where the 2D games go in their own timeline.