126 replies to this topic

[Zola Revolution]

Yes, that is another reason for not taking the Aonuma quote into much serious consideration.

[Masamune]

In a matter of a few posts, Aonuma went from infallible to having no idea what he's talking about.

[Nerushi]

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

Yes, that is another reason for not taking the Aonuma quote into much serious consideration.

[SOAP]

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 ).

Yeah but the way I always interpretted recurring charcaters thouroughout the series centuries apart (ei Link, Zelda, Malon, Tingle ect) is reincarnation. In that way, it's the same character, just reborn every few hundred years which is why recurring characters usually retain the same personalities/names/occupations ect. In my mind, two Ganons existing simulataneously cannot work because one incarnation must die in order for a new incarnation to be born. (That's also how I view the Sleeping Zelda story. Since the SZ backstory is hard to fit at the begining of the series to explain the naming tradition of all the Zeldas in the series, I instead conclude that since that particular Zelda was cursed to eternal slumber, she could not die, therefore she could not be reborn and be a beacon of hope for her people. So instead, all females in the royal family were named Zelda in memory of the Princess of Destiny while not being true incarnations of her. Which ironically means that the first Zelda we're introduced to in LoZ is not a true Zelda, just a princess with her name.) It would be like having multiple Links existing at once. Unless there's a four sword involved, it doesn't make sense.

[Masamune]

While that may be true, it's worth pointing out that the 3D Ganondorf generally has very little in common with Blue Ganon aside from their villainous roles.

[Person]

Aonuma is generally the best authoritative source on the timeline. It's that one quote that's in doubt. And even if I want to go on creator quotes alone, my alternate timeline for the 2D games is TMC-FS-FSA-ALttP-LA-OoX-LoZ-AoL, which avoids the OoT problems altogether and still has the FS games as the "oldest tale."

[Masamune]

I have to admit there's a certain elegance in having the 2D games in their own separate canon. It also handily gives us origins for both versions of Ganon.

[Impossible]

Pfft, I make a facepalm post, and now everyone is doing it.

[Masamune]

You're not the only one who has a head that hurts.

[Zola Revolution]

In a matter of a few posts, Aonuma went from infallible to having no idea what he's talking about.

Not necessarily. Aonuma is the producer for the new games coming out. If he were to get a new idea, he could use that idea in a new game and mold the timeline into fitting his new idea. He is not 'infallible' for no one is. His timeline is like clay to him, he can mold it around his new ideas and make a perfect timeline; with no plot holes or inconsistencies.

[MikePetersSucks]

If you make a post saying that Eiji Aonuma has a "perfect timeline", you're effectively calling him infalliable. Learn English, you American, before you bastardize my language.

[Zola Revolution]

You mean Japanese? I am not using Japanese. I am using English. His timeline is perfect because he can change it around (and obviously make remakes of old games) to fit his new ideas. He is not infallible because is he were, his first ideas would remain and would not need to change old ideas to fit the new ones.

[Nerushi]

SOAP:
Well, that's nice and all. So this means that the restriction that has been placed on FSA, preventing it from going before OoT is based on the whim that there can be only one Ganon. Incarnation or whatever. Thats no different than being resurected. Of course, this also means that there's no multiple Ganon as they cannot co-exist. All this completely defeats the purpose of introducing a NEW Ganon in FSA, as the devolpers could have just thrown him in there without any introduction and we would still understand who Ganon is. Or even better, why not just directly reference this 'previous' incarnation. They don't though. Either way, 'incarnations' can't be proven and isn't concrete enough to be called evidence. Especially since it's not even implied. From what I see it's just an opinion. My point is, there's no need for Ganon to be an incarnation. The only thing we know from FSA is that a new/different Ganon has come around and he gets SEALED in the Four Sword.

Person: I don't base my timeline on creator quotes alone though. Either way, wouldn't your Two Canon theory destory the purpose of having a timeline at all? =/

Zola Revolution: I hope you realize that your argument that Aonuma is infallible ( Because of the abillity to retcon ) only support the oldest tale quote even more.

[Zola Revolution]

your argument that Aonuma is infallible ( Because of the abillity to retcon ) only support the oldest tale quote even more.

I have reevaluated my timeline, and even after reevaluation; I still came to my own conclusion that the FS games happen after OT and that there is one Ganon. However, I admit I have also concluded, in my theory, that the Palace of the Four Swords; as it was in the remake of Triforce of the Gods, is now valid for I now believe that it was Aonuma's idea so that his timeline would work.

Remember that my timeline is theory, not fact. THEORY. Fact. OK? I do not present my unofficial information as fact.

[Nerushi]

Uh, mind if I ask what made you come to the conclusion that FS happens after OoT, and that there's one Ganon? This whole topic has been about me telling you how my timeline work and what my evidence is, yet I haven't seen you post a single evidence/arguments to prove your statements that you keep repeating.

[Zola Revolution]

*siiiiiiiiiiiiiiighhhhhhhhhhhhhhh*

I don't see the point. You have your theory, I have mine. Obviously neither of us are going to get our points across to one another. My explanation is rather lengthy and I don't necessarily feel like posting it all right now. Just look at my timeline is all I can say for now.










Maybe tomorrow.

[MikePetersSucks]

If you don't want criticism for your theories, and you're not willing to share how you reach your conclusions, why are you wasting your time here? You make it seem like you don't want to discuss anything.

[Zola Revolution]

OK, at the time; I had dealt with a long day of lengthy classes and after that had some debating done on Zelda Universe. I wasn't in the mood at the time. I can explain myself just fine otherwise.

Uh, mind if I ask what made you come to the conclusion that FS happens after OoT, and that there's one Ganon?

Most of the evidence that you gave me, actually. I looked at your evidence along with my reevaluation of my timeline. The reason they aren't referring to Ganon as their King anymore is because many ages go by after the backstory of Mysterious Hat. Therefore, they would have had several kings since the days that Ganon was dead. How he was resurrected is the real challenge. However, I will say that Vaati has some interesting powers. It is unofficial but so is Ganon's break-out from the Four Sword. I believe that the Mysterious Hat backstory is entirely separate from all the other games' stories. Also, I believe that the Adventure of Link backstory happens before all these storys but after Twilight Princess. Which would put it right before the Mysterious Hat backstory. Then, as Four Swords + said, ages went by after the Mysterious Hat story. So, I think that a lot of time passed between Twilight Princess and Four Swords. So, with all of the other resurrections of Ganon happening in a matter of one hunded years between stories, I believe that someone may have resurrected Ganon in that large span of time. By who? Maybe Vaati, maybe some of his followers who gathered Link's blood after his natural death...That is obscure. But again, so is Ganon's breakout from the Four Sword, which is generally accepted but not told.

[Nerushi]

So not only are you ignoring that fact that Ganondorf has a backstory which essentialy doesn't allow him to be a Ganondorf before him, your main argument for his ressurection is that he could come back because of untold reason just becuase most argue he can break out of Four Sword, which also untold? That not entierly correctly. Vaati broke out of the FS over time as seen betwen TMC-FS. So it's implied that the FS is a rather weak seal. and it must be assumed that he breaks out at some point since he has the trident and is ever more powerful than Vaati. However, Ganondorfs ressurection in FSA isn't even implied, even in the slightes. His BIRTH as the special child born every 100 year to the Gerudo is, though.

Edited by Nerushi, 01 September 2009 - 11:34 PM.

[Person]

SOAP:
Well, that's nice and all. So this means that the restriction that has been placed on FSA, preventing it from going before OoT is based on the whim that there can be only one Ganon. Incarnation or whatever. Thats no different than being resurected. Of course, this also means that there's no multiple Ganon as they cannot co-exist. All this completely defeats the purpose of introducing a NEW Ganon in FSA, as the devolpers could have just thrown him in there without any introduction and we would still understand who Ganon is. Or even better, why not just directly reference this 'previous' incarnation. They don't though. Either way, 'incarnations' can't be proven and isn't concrete enough to be called evidence. Especially since it's not even implied. From what I see it's just an opinion. My point is, there's no need for Ganon to be an incarnation. The only thing we know from FSA is that a new/different Ganon has come around and he gets SEALED in the Four Sword.

Person: I don't base my timeline on creator quotes alone though. Either way, wouldn't your Two Canon theory destory the purpose of having a timeline at all? =/

Zola Revolution: I hope you realize that your argument that Aonuma is infallible ( Because of the abillity to retcon ) only support the oldest tale quote even more.

My two-canon theory doesn't destroy the purpose of a timeline. The story threads between the 2D games are stronger than the story threads between the 3D and 2D games. While OoT was originally meant to match up to ALttP, the sequels destroyed that connection and only a massive retcon can fit ALttP back into a timeline with OoT in it. The only reason I haven't adopted it as my sig theory is because of all the ALttP references in TP. Maybe future games will allow ALttP to fit seamlessly after OoT like it was supposed to, or maybe not.

As for the oldest tale quote, it seems to be being misapplied in this case. Aonuma was referring to GBA FS. FSA just happens some time after that. If we take Aonuma's word on this, then only TMC and FS have to go before OoT. It's not 100% confirmed that FS and FSA have the same Link. It's just implied and most people assume it (including me).

[Nerushi]

The whole interview in question was about Four Sword Adventures, and the question to Aonuma was how Link in Four Sword Adventures fits overall in the story. He answears with the GBA FS being the oldest tale, and FSA taking place some time after that. I feel that there would be a great disort of context if FSA didn't take place next to FS, which has the oldest tale status, as he was asking about FSA and not FS.
All you're doing now is saying things like Aonuma had no idea of what he was talking about ( yet he say 'we', as if refearing to the rest of the devolpers ) and that he didn't do the story so his word doesn't mean anything becuase of that. I mean C'mon! He's was the freaking producer and he contiunously states that he enjoys the story and wants to bring the timeline toghter. How could he not have know what he was talking about? The game was even already released at the time of the interview.

[Zola Revolution]

So not only are you ignoring that fact that Ganondorf has a backstory which essentialy doesn't allow him to be a Ganondorf before him, your main argument for his ressurection is that he could come back because of untold reason just becuase most argue he can break out of Four Sword, which also untold?

Vaati broke out of the FS over time as seen betwen TMC-FS. So it's implied that the FS is a rather weak seal. and it must be assumed that he breaks out at some point since he has the trident and is ever more powerful than Vaati. However, Ganondorfs ressurection in FSA isn't even implied, even in the slightes.

Well, Ganondorf always has someone resurrect him after his deaths in Triforce of the Gods, The Hyrule Fantasy, and in this case; Twilight Princess. Yes, the other two are shown; but if the other breakouts of the Four Sword are shown and one isn't: Then this case where the other resurrections are shown but one isn't could work to. So to answer your original question in full; yes: I believe that since there are other resurrections of Ganon, then there would still be one before FS+ as well.

Also, about the Four Swords Four Swords + quote topic...In the game, it also implies the same Link between Four Swords and Four Swords +...

The hero used his sword to
bind Vaati in a remote area
of Hyrule. The people
christened the blade the Four
Sword and built a shrine
around it. There it remained
undisturbed for many years.

Ages flowed by...

The wind sorcerer Vaati
broke free of his prision
and kidnapped Zelda
princess of Hyrule.

Princess Zelda's childhood
friend Link used the power
of the Four Sword to defeat
Vaati and seal him away
once again.

And, for a time, the people
of Hyrule believed that
their land was safe.

Until...

I think that implies that it is the same Link. Though a bit vague.

Edited by Zola Revolution, 02 September 2009 - 11:47 AM.

[Nerushi]

Well, Ganondorf always has someone resurrect him after his deaths in Triforce of the Gods, The Hyrule Fantasy, and in this case; Twilight Princess. Yes, the other two are shown; but if the other breakouts of the Four Sword are shown and one isn't: Then this case where the other resurrections are shown but one isn't could work to. So to answer your original question in full; yes: I believe that since there are other resurrections of Ganon, then there would still be one before FS+ as well.

Well, what you belive is faulty, because FSA clearly implies that Ganon is born within the time of 100 years, as there's a special Gerudo born every 100 year, and the one born this time was Ganondorf from FSA. Case is.
1. There's no resurrections involved, implied or even hinted at.
2. There's no NEED for a resurrection as Ganondorfs orgin and birth is explained in FSA itself, and it's not a resurrection!

I don't deny the fact that Ganon can get resurected. But the only time there actually a NEED for him to be it is before LoZ. Other than that, you're just forcing on a false, unproveable explantion over an already existing ingame explantion.

Edited by Nerushi, 02 September 2009 - 12:03 PM.

[Zola Revolution]

FSA clearly implies that Ganon is born within the time of 100 years

Really? I wish to see the context of this implication.

Ganondorfs orgin and birth is explained in FSA itself

There's no resurrections involved, implied or even hinted at.

Ganon's breakout from the Four Sword is also not implied. Only Vaati's is shown as fact and only fact. I also have yet to see implications that Ganon is more powerful than Vaati because I've always seen it as the two of them working together, not as a hierarchy.

[MikePetersSucks]

Ganon's breakout from the Four Sword is also not implied. Only Vaati's is shown as fact and only fact. I also have yet to see implications that Ganon is more powerful than Vaati because I've always seen it as the two of them working together, not as a hierarchy.

Ganon is a harder boss, and takes more effort to seal. Therefore, Ganon is stronger.

[Nerushi]

Really? I wish to see the context of this implication.

Oh, you really need to get around and play FSA. Because either you haven't or you're just ignoring the story.

Once every 100 years, a
special child is born unto
my people.

That child is destined to
be the mighty guardian of
the Gerudo and the desert.

But this child, its heart
grew twisted with every
passing year.

The child became a man
who hungered for power
at any price.

There's also plenty of other quotes from the other Gerudo's that shows that Ganondorfs was a member of the Gerudo who recently broke their laws and left for the pyramids.

Ganon's breakout from the Four Sword is also not implied. Only Vaati's is shown as fact and only fact. I also have yet to see implications that Ganon is more powerful than Vaati because I've always seen it as the two of them working together, not as a hierarchy.

Stop comparing it to the breakout of the Four Sword! They're clearly different cases. Especially since there's a need for Ganon to break out of the FS for ALTTP to work, yet there's NO NEED for Ganon to be resurrected before FSA! That's a huge difference, whether it's implied or not. Also, a resurrection COULD be referenced as it would have to happend before the game, but it isnt. However, Ganon breaking out of the FS would have to happend after the game, thus it can't be referenced. The two situation can't be compared.

Also, this is what Ganon says.

This was all there was to
the wind sorcerer Vaati, eh?

[Person]

In an example with Four Swords Adventures, I was the producer on that game, so I didn’t actually put the story for that game together—that would be put together by the director of the game. And in the end on that game, as we got closer to finishing it, of course, Mr. Miyamoto then came in and upended the tea table, and we changed the story around quite a bit at the end with Four Swords Adventures.

He says he wasn't involved in creating the storyline at all, and it got shifted around as it neared the end of development. We know from deleted text in the game that the original concept was for the game to be the Imprisoning War story, and it's still more indicative of a direct prequel to ALttP. Putting it before OoT creates way more problems than it solves.

Point is, Aonuma wasn't involved in putting the story together for FSA, and wasn't involved in GBA FS at all. This casts doubt on his "oldest story" quote. It probably falls under statements like the Miyamoto Order that way.

[Nerushi]

He says he wasn't involved in creating the storyline at all, and it got shifted around as it neared the end of development. We know from deleted text in the game that the original concept was for the game to be the Imprisoning War story, and it's still more indicative of a direct prequel to ALttP.

Yes, he wasn't involved in creating the story. Doesn't mean he didn't know the story and it's intended placement. Also, whether or not FSA was truly meant to be the Imprisoning War is rather irrelevant since it didn't end up being it. What if it had been released as the IW and still been called the oldest tale?

Putting it before OoT creates way more problems than it solves.

These so called problems you talk about are rather nonexistent. Sure, at the time of the release FSA, after OoT was probably seen as the superior placement. However, far too many people disregard FSA placement after the release of Twilight Princess. Now that's a game that creates a lot of problem for FSA.

Point is, Aonuma wasn't involved in putting the story together for FSA, and wasn't involved in GBA FS at all. This casts doubt on his "oldest story" quote. It probably falls under statements like the Miyamoto Order that way.

lol. I see it's fitting to put Aonuma on the same level as Miyamoto now in terms of timeline knowlegde, yet Aonuma has always been deeply involved in explaining things such as the split timeline even as early as 2002. Miyamoto never did care about the story, and openly expresses that. Aonuma on the other hand, speaks highly of the story. And in the very same inteview that he stated FS is the oldest tale, he also stated that he would bring the timeline together. Of course, FS being the oldest tale didn't make sense to anyone and nobody cared about Aonuma quote. However, I haven't seen any progress suggesting a movement away from it. And with the release of TP, with its 'mirror' and lack of Gerudo in general. Well, it's hard to think he is bringing the timeline together when he's only creating inconsistencies, unless FS was actually intended to be first all along.

[Person]

The supposed inconsistencies in FSA are nonexistent. The mirror is not the same as the Twilight Mirror, since we're given the Dark Mirror's backstory in FSA, and it was sealed in the Dark Temple. The backstory of the Twilight Mirror is different. It was sealed in the Arbiter's Grounds in the desert. The lack of Gerudo doesn't imply anything. FSA confirmed that they were nomadic. They don't have to be in the same place every game.

Putting FSA before OoT creates the problem of having two Ganons alive at the same time. The story simply doesn't flow that way. We would have one Ganon be born, then sealed, then another Ganon born and killed, only to have the first Ganon show up later on. This is needlessly complex. The OoT-FSA order allows for one Ganon to be born and die, and then a new one to show up in FSA.

Look at Ganon's death quote in TP:

Do not think this ends here...The history of light and shadow will be written in blood!

Look again at these quotes that were in the text dump, but deleted from the game itself.

When the chosen ones appear...They are always born into this world in perfect balance. That is the destiny of the chosen. That is the fate decreed by your gods, the only path for those who bear their crests. When this world brings forth another marked as you are...Know too, that it shall also be visited by one of my blood. Do not think this ends here...The history of light and shadow will be written in blood!

Here, Ganon is point-blank stating that one of his descendants will rise again. This matches up with FSA quite well.

And FSA still can come after OoT even if we take the Aonuma quote at face value. He said that FS goes first, and FSA just happens some time later. He did not say immediately after or that it was a direct sequel. He said that it took place sometime later. In the context of the interview, it was "FSA takes place after FS," which is true in any timeline.

[Raien]

Another idea is that the timeline is incomplete, and that an as-yet-unrevealed event follows FSA in which Ganon is killed. With such a belief, it is possible that FSA could take place before OoT, but there's no real proof for any placement of the entire FS trilogy at this time.

Edited by Raien, 02 September 2009 - 04:21 PM.