126 replies to this topic

[Nerushi]

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.

They may be different, but it doesn't change the fact that we have two mirror sharing essentialy the same concept, with two different dark tribe apparently. This is no different than having two Ganon, as in my opinion, they're different, just the way you consider the Mirror different. Also, the lack of Gerudo is partially explained. They were Ganondorf band of thieves ( their description in OoT, and a band of thieves are mentioned in TP ). I don't think the Arbiters Ground was made for Ganondorfs execution alone...

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.

There's no problem as they're different Ganondorf. You have the same problem of having two mirror with two dark tribes yet you don't view it as a problem. It's all about the perspective. FSA Ganon was sealed in the FS anyway. It's not like he was put in the SR directly setting up for ALTTP. Also, your order completely ignores the state of the Gerudo. Although you view this as irrelevant, claiming they're nomadic, I don't, as they where still a part of Hyrule in FSA.
Also, did I mention that the Lost Wood has it's orgin in FSA, referencing OoT Lost Wood? I think I'd.

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.

Well that's brilliant. However, as it's not a part of the actual game, I have no reason to consider it canon. If anything, we should consider why it was removed. It could have been removed because the quote wasn't consistent with FSA placement. Seems logical.

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.

Some time afterwards, not a hundreds years later, as Aonuma usually describes a long amount of time between games such as OoT-WW or Oot-TP. Like I said before, that just taking things out of context.

It's like saying 'In my timeline, AoL takes place some time after TMC' - Which would be true then, despite them being in the opposite end of the timelines. That's just stupid.

Edited by Nerushi, 02 September 2009 - 04:38 PM.

[Person]

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.

That could be possible, but it doesn't seem like Nintendo wants to make any more FS games at the present time.

[Raien]

That could be possible, but it doesn't seem like Nintendo wants to make any more FS games at the present time.

But does that in itself force FSA to be connected to one of the "main series games", given that Nintendo never wrote such a connection into the story (at least, not in the released game)? Unless Nintendo decides to create a new connection in an upcoming game, I would consider FSA's ending to be a situation that is permanently unresolved.

[Masamune]

Well, the problem is that FSA IS part of the timeline. Since we're probably never going to get any kind of resolution for this (Metroid it ain't), then it has to go somewhere until the extremely unlikely scenario occurs where Nintendo explains where it goes.

[Raien]

Well, the problem is that FSA IS part of the timeline. Since we're probably never going to get any kind of resolution for this (Metroid it ain't), then it has to go somewhere until the extremely unlikely scenario occurs where Nintendo explains where it goes.

"Being part of the timeline" is not the same as "connecting to other games". It's perfectly possible for a game to be in the timeline without actually relating to the story of another game. You could call it a timeline "spin-off".

[Zola Revolution]

you really need to get around and play FSA.

I do admit that it has been a while since I've played the game.
I also admit that it has been a while since I have played Twilight Princess, thus I overlooked this quote.

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!

OK. I have received enough proof that there really are two Ganons. Though I have still not received enough evidence, yet, to say that FS+ goes after OT. It only makes more sense that FS+ goes after when I read this quote.

[Person]

Well, the problem is that FSA IS part of the timeline. Since we're probably never going to get any kind of resolution for this (Metroid it ain't), then it has to go somewhere until the extremely unlikely scenario occurs where Nintendo explains where it goes.

"Being part of the timeline" is not the same as "connecting to other games". It's perfectly possible for a game to be in the timeline without actually relating to the story of another game. You could call it a timeline "spin-off".

I think showing the origins of pig Ganon is pretty important. It's FS that is unimportant. I know plenty of people who have never even played that one.

[Raien]

I think showing the origins of pig Ganon is pretty important.

Only if you presume it's the same Pig Ganon as ALttP and LoZ, given that it hasn't been proven. Given that Ganon's avatar has always been a pig, even in OoT and TP, there's no definitive proof that this appearance really means anything significant.

[Nerushi]

Only if you presume it's the same Pig Ganon as ALttP and LoZ, given that it hasn't been proven. Given that Ganon's avatar has always been a pig, even in OoT and TP, there's no definitive proof that this appearance really means anything significant.

Apperance may not, but the Trident certainly do.

[Raien]

Apperance may not, but the Trident certainly do.

Ah, but does FSA show the origin of Ganon's possession of the Trident, or has the Trident merely been rediscovered after Ganon's defeat in ALttP? Here's the thing; in order to connect two games together in a narrative, you need to show the chronological progression of one event to the other. Without that progression, all you have is a series of recurring themes.

Events in FSA do not show any real progression to either ALttP or LoZ, and thus FSA doesn't relate to either of those games, no matter how significant it might otherwise be to the timeline.

[Person]

If we're going to ask "where did the Gerudo go?" then we might as well ask "where did the Gorons go in ALttP?" That they simply don't appear has little relevance. Arbiter's Grounds was already an ancient structure by the time of Ganondorf's execution; it was built to protect the Mirror, not as a prison originally. The problem I have with the "Gerudo were wiped out before OoT" theory is that it turns what are essentially supposed to be the good guys into genocidal maniacs. That's hardly developer intent.

[Raien]

Ignore this post.

Edited by Raien, 03 September 2009 - 08:49 AM.

[Nerushi]

Ah, but does FSA show the origin of Ganon's possession of the Trident, or has the Trident merely been rediscovered after Ganon's defeat in ALttP? Here's the thing; in order to connect two games together in a narrative, you need to show the chronological progression of one event to the other. Without that progression, all you have is a series of recurring themes.

There's a perfect progression of trident Ganon if you keep them in the order of FSA-ALTTP-OoX. With Birth, death, revival in each game. Only problem is taht Ganon dies again by OoX and it doesn't really set up for LoZ. But some also argue that Ganon essence was set back again in that game, as an return would be invenitible. There's also teh case whether you think LoZ Ganon really possesed the trident.

Events in FSA do not show any real progression to either ALttP or LoZ, and thus FSA doesn't relate to either of those games, no matter how significant it might otherwise be to the timeline.

I think FSA does more than enough by setting up ALTTP main villian. They're both blue and posses the trident. Good enough for me. Zelda games aren't really know for being that obvious with it's progression to one game to another. Guess that's why people are still theorizing after all these years.

If we're going to ask "where did the Gerudo go?" then we might as well ask "where did the Gorons go in ALttP?" That they simply don't appear has little relevance. Arbiter's Grounds was already an ancient structure by the time of Ganondorf's execution; it was built to protect the Mirror, not as a prison originally. The problem I have with the "Gerudo were wiped out before OoT" theory is that it turns what are essentially supposed to be the good guys into genocidal maniacs. That's hardly developer intent.

You think that's reasonable? Goron's weren't even technically invented by the time of ALTTP release. Although I do seem to remember mountain people's graves being mentioned in the manual, so that could explain it. Either way, comparing them to the Gerudo in TP doesn't work, as TP COULD easily have made an reference, or just a slight nod that their still around, while its impossible to do so in fo the Goron's in ALTTP.
Also, good people or not. If they follow Ganondorf they'll be forced to do bad things.

I also don't think the Arbiters Ground was built to protect the mirror. It isn't implied and the only quotes to say anything about says that the mirror was just kept there, not built for it.

[Person]

You think that's reasonable? Goron's weren't even technically invented by the time of ALTTP release. Although I do seem to remember mountain people's graves being mentioned in the manual, so that could explain it. Either way, comparing them to the Gerudo in TP doesn't work, as TP COULD easily have made an reference, or just a slight nod that their still around, while its impossible to do so in fo the Goron's in ALTTP.
Also, good people or not. If they follow Ganondorf they'll be forced to do bad things.

I also don't think the Arbiters Ground was built to protect the mirror. It isn't implied and the only quotes to say anything about says that the mirror was just kept there, not built for it.

The Gerudo are simply absent in TP, with no explanation. If we're supposed to assume they were wiped out, something that major would have almost certainly been mentioned. And the Gerudo are never painted whole cloth as an evil race, like the Moblins or whatnot. Nabooru was one of the Sages, and Ganondorf was exiled in FSA for his crimes. It would still be an unjustifiable genocide.

Whatever happened to the Zuna, then? Or the Deku Scrubs? We don't see them in TP.

[Nerushi]

The Gerudo are simply absent in TP, with no explanation. If we're supposed to assume they were wiped out, something that major would have almost certainly been mentioned. And the Gerudo are never painted whole cloth as an evil race, like the Moblins or whatnot. Nabooru was one of the Sages, and Ganondorf was exiled in FSA for his crimes. It would still be an unjustifiable genocide.

Whatever happened to the Zuna, then? Or the Deku Scrubs? We don't see them in TP.

I don't think I've ever heard of a genocide that's justifiable. Ganon was know to posses dark magic "A man who was feared as a demon thief for using magic that had evil powers." - Like The Twinrova turned 'good' Nabooru into an mere tool, I am sure ganondorfs could do the same thing. Therefore whoever killed the Gerudo could have been left with no other choice to do so.

The Zuna is a mystery wherever they go. And Deku Scrubs, well, they are missing in TP indeed, although I don't view this in the same ligth as the Gerudo. They're also found in the Lost Woods in FSA just as in OoT, so that fits me.

[Raien]

There's a perfect progression of trident Ganon if you keep them in the order of FSA-ALTTP-OoX. With Birth, death, revival in each game. Only problem is taht Ganon dies again by OoX and it doesn't really set up for LoZ. But some also argue that Ganon essence was set back again in that game, as an return would be invenitible. There's also teh case whether you think LoZ Ganon really possesed the trident.

Do you really think the progression of the Trident is enough to ignore all the other inconsistencies in FSA-ALttP? Like:
-a Maiden states the Triforce was taken by a human thief, Ganondorf.
-that Ganon would not have been able to find a portal to the Sacred Realm while sealed within his Four Sword prison.
-that nothing prevented Ganon from just repeating his attack in FSA if he ever broke free of the Four Sword prison.

On top of this, there is a big difference between an ideal connection and a proven connection. The progression of the Trident through FSA-ALttP-OoX is just one possibility of many, no matter how good it sounds to you, and unless you can provide some proof that says ALttP's Ganon is the same guy who took the Trident in FSA, then we cannot presume it to be fact.

I think FSA does more than enough by setting up ALTTP main villian. They're both blue and posses the trident. Good enough for me. Zelda games aren't really know for being that obvious with it's progression to one game to another. Guess that's why people are still theorizing after all these years.

Actually, Zelda games have always been incredibly obvious about their progression, but people have a habit of confusing recurring themes like "Ganon is a pig" with legitimate timeline connections. It's understandable why people do this, given their expectations from other fictional series, but they have to understand that Zelda is unique in the way that it deploys recurring themes.

Case in point; imagine that a game backstory referred to a hero finding three stones, taking the Master Sword and vanquishing the evil king, Ganon. How would you know that this referred to a previous game or an original event, given that the formula has been repeated so many times in the series? How would you know which familiar characters, enemies and items indicate a timeline placement, given that Nintendo has confessed to randomly include them in a game for no other reason than that they are recognisable to players? How do you know that FSA's developers depicted a blue pig Ganon to indicate a timeline placement, and not for the same reason that they included Helmaroc King from TWW, because he was recognisable?

Now, I've done some observation and I've created a two-step rule that explains how Nintendo develops the timeline, and why it is so different from other fictional series:

1) Every new Zelda game is developed as a definite sequel or prequel to a single previous game in the series. With a few exceptions (Oracles and FS, which are not definite sequels/prequels), this rule is almost universal.

-AoL is a sequel to LoZ.
-ALttP is a prequel to LoZ.
-LA is a sequel to ALttP.
-OoT is a prequel to ALttP.
-MM is a sequel to OoT.
-TWW is a sequel to OoT.
-FSA is a sequel to FS.
-TMC is a prequel to FS.
-TP is a sequel to OoT.
-PH is a sequel to TWW.

2) General timeline placements (i.e. where a new game should be placed in relation to the timeline as a whole) are only considered after game development has finished. This is something that Aonuma suggested in an IGN interview in 2007, and later interviews appear to reconfirm the sentiment. This explains why the Zelda timeline feels so disconnected, because only one previous game is taken into consideration during game development.

Edited by Raien, 03 September 2009 - 11:42 AM.

[Masamune]

Oracles effectively are prequel/sequels to one another, so the only real exception is FS. And that started as a bonus minigame anyways.

[Raien]

Oracles effectively are prequel/sequels to one another, so the only real exception is FS. And that started as a bonus minigame anyways.

For all intents and purposes, Oracles is a single story released in two parts. Since the Oracles story does not relate to a previously-released game in the series, it does count as an exception.

PS: Thinking about it, Capcom's games in general are often much less reflective of the timeline than Nintendo are. And, ironically, they're more likely to contain random recurring themes from the classic Zelda games.

Edited by Raien, 03 September 2009 - 11:57 AM.

[Person]

The Gerudo are simply absent in TP, with no explanation. If we're supposed to assume they were wiped out, something that major would have almost certainly been mentioned. And the Gerudo are never painted whole cloth as an evil race, like the Moblins or whatnot. Nabooru was one of the Sages, and Ganondorf was exiled in FSA for his crimes. It would still be an unjustifiable genocide.

Whatever happened to the Zuna, then? Or the Deku Scrubs? We don't see them in TP.

I don't think I've ever heard of a genocide that's justifiable. Ganon was know to posses dark magic "A man who was feared as a demon thief for using magic that had evil powers." - Like The Twinrova turned 'good' Nabooru into an mere tool, I am sure ganondorfs could do the same thing. Therefore whoever killed the Gerudo could have been left with no other choice to do so.

The Zuna is a mystery wherever they go. And Deku Scrubs, well, they are missing in TP indeed, although I don't view this in the same ligth as the Gerudo. They're also found in the Lost Woods in FSA just as in OoT, so that fits me.

So why are there no "Zuna genocide" or "Deku genocide" theories to explain their absence in TP? TP just doesn't use all of the races introduced in OoT. The Kokiri weren't in TP either, by the way. Are we to assume that they died out?

[Nerushi]

So why are there no "Zuna genocide" or "Deku genocide" theories to explain their absence in TP? TP just doesn't use all of the races introduced in OoT. The Kokiri weren't in TP either, by the way. Are we to assume that they died out?

Because it's not relevant to anything, I guess. Btw I think the Kokori died out alright ( because a new Deku Tree was never planted on the CT ). Anything else than the monkey theory.

Do you really think the progression of the Trident is enough to ignore all the other inconsistencies in FSA-ALttP?

To put it bluntly, yes. Most people doesn't even consider the things that you mentioned, and I think that a majority would therefore think that FSA Ganon is ALTTP Ganon. These are the things I consider creator intent. As they are obvious, and it would be misleading by the creators if they weren't meant to mean anything. Anyway, I'll try reply to your points.

-a Maiden states the Triforce was taken by a human thief, Ganondorf.

Does it specifically says a human thief? I can't seem to find the quote you're talking about.

-that Ganon would not have been able to find a portal to the Sacred Realm while sealed within his Four Sword prison.

He breaks out, of course. Remember that Ganon was lucky to be able to rediscover the Sacred Realm. I belive that a combination of trying to break out of the FS lead Ganon into the SR as an accident, but that all speculation. Either way, the Four Sword is a weak seal, as Vaati was able to escape it.

-that nothing prevented Ganon from just repeating his attack in FSA if he ever broke free of the Four Sword prison.

Note what I said above. It's not like Ganon went around searching for the Sacred Realm. He got stuck there. And while at it, ganon had already tasted defeat using only the Trident.

On top of this, there is a big difference between an ideal connection and a proven connection. The progression of the Trident through FSA-ALttP-OoX is just one possibility of many, no matter how good it sounds to you, and unless you can provide some proof that says ALttP's Ganon is the same guy who took the Trident in FSA, then we cannot presume it to be fact.

True. Aside from the 3D games, and the TMC-FS/FSA, there are few other games that can be perfectly proven connected. I am just suggesting something I consider likely, just like everyone else. I am not sure where you want to get with an argument like that, though.

Actually, Zelda games have always been incredibly obvious about their progression, but people have a habit of confusing recurring themes like "Ganon is a pig" with legitimate timeline connections. It's understandable why people do this, given their expectations from other fictional series, but they have to understand that Zelda is unique in the way that it deploys recurring themes.

Then what's your take on the timeline, if it's that obvious? Although you seem rather content connecting the games the titles that are obvious. But that's hardly enough to create a full timeline...

-LA is a sequel to ALttP.

Disagreed. But I don't wanna discuss that here...

Edited by Nerushi, 03 September 2009 - 01:14 PM.

[Raien]

To put it bluntly, yes. Most people doesn't even consider the things that you mentioned, and I think that a majority would therefore think that FSA Ganon is ALTTP Ganon. These are the things I consider creator intent. As they are obvious, and it would be misleading by the creators if they weren't meant to mean anything. Anyway, I'll try reply to your points.

Wasn't it creator intent to create plot points that make a FSA-ALttP progression virtually impossible? You're very quick to pick and choose which evidence suits your theory and just speculate away everything that doesn't suit it.

Does it specifically says a human thief? I can't seem to find the quote you're talking about.

It says he's a thief, which is enough to tell you he's human. Ganon the Demon King is not a thief, and don't bother playing the semantic "Ganondorf/Ganon have interchangeable identities" argument because that is simply untrue. It would be like arguing that Sauron the Dark Lord is also an "elf-friend".

He breaks out, of course. Remember that Ganon was lucky to be able to rediscover the Sacred Realm. I belive that a combination of trying to break out of the FS lead Ganon into the SR as an accident, but that all speculation. Either way, the Four Sword is a weak seal, as Vaati was able to escape it.

The point is that it is another problem with which you are forced to speculate a solution. And the more problems put in front of you, the sillier your speculation sounds.

Then what's your take on the timeline, if it's that obvious? Although you seem rather content connecting the games the titles that are obvious. But that's hardly enough to create a full timeline.

It's not enough to create a full timeline, but then we don't have enough evidence full stop. As long as Nintendo constantly and regularly place random recurring themes in their Zelda games, then such recurrences are unreliable as timeline evidence and easily refutable in debate. The only definite timeline connections are those that I labelled in my previous post, and that's why I'm content to build a timeline just from those connections.

Disagreed. But I don't wanna discuss that here...

The second BS Zelda game, despite being non-canon in my opinion, established the developer intent that LA should be placed after ALttP. Given that Nintendo have not done anything to contradict that placement, I don't see why we can't still consider it official.

Edited by Raien, 03 September 2009 - 01:41 PM.

[Nerushi]

Wasn't it creator intent to create plot points that make a FSA-ALttP progression virtually impossible?

Uh, now how would you ever a conclusion like that? Why would it be creator intent to make FSA-ALTTP impossible when FSA suggest that it's connected to ALTTP? I would rather think that old connection have been retconed ( hence why I don't follow an AT ), and that a progression between a game with another should go according to what the newer game suggest.

It says he's a thief, which is enough to tell you he's human. Ganon the Demon King is not a thief, and don't play semantic "Ganondorf/Ganon have interchangeable identities" arguments because they are simply untrue.

Ganon can't be a thief because he is already the Demon King? You know, being a thief is more than just a title, and they're still the same person. I feel they didn't call him a thief anymore because they didn't want to underestimate him by belittling him as an thief, and instead call him a Demon King.

The point is that it is another problem with which you are forced to speculate a solution. And the more problems put in front of you, the sillier it sounds to assert the connection.

And you completely has the high ground as you aren't even arguing for any specific timeline other than the already accepted connection, so you can just spit on everyone that tries to argue for a timeline, by saying speculation is silly, which every timeline is built upon. Is that it?

It's not enough to create a full timeline, but then we don't have enough evidence full stop. As long as Nintendo constantly and regularly place random recurring themes in their Zelda games, then such recurrences are unreliable as timeline evidence and easily refutable.

Either that, or when Aonuma confirms what the timeline is. And when that time comes it'll be fun to see what the timelines speculated are. And if someone guessed the right then they will have the biggest balls in the universe.

The second BS Zelda game, despite being non-canon in my opinion, established the developer intent that LA should be placed after ALttP. Given that Nintendo have not done anything to contradict that placement, I don't see why we can't still consider it official.

I agree that ALTTP-LA was once offical. However, I feel that OoX shows some rather obvious connections to LA. Therefore I think that's the newer intent.
OoT was called the IW, officialy by the creator, yet so many people go against it because of what newer games shows. Same logic applies here.

Edited by Nerushi, 03 September 2009 - 01:59 PM.

[Raien]

Uh, now how would you ever a conclusion like that? Why would it be creator intent to make FSA-ALTTP impossible when FSA suggest that it's connected to ALTTP? I would rather think that old connection have been retconed ( hence why I don't follow an AT ), and that a progression between a game with another should go according to what the newer game suggest.

Why would FSA end with Ganon sealed in the Four Sword if the creators intended for him to be sealed within the Sacred Realm? It looks like you're being selective with the evidence; choosing whatever details suit your theory and ignoring all the inconsistencies. And given that your evidence is comprised of refutable recurring themes, you're not doing a good job of convincing me that your theory is a valid one.

Ganon can't be a thief because he is already the Demon King? You know, being a thief is more than just a title, and they're still the same person. I feel they didn't call him a thief anymore because they didn't want to underestimate him by belittling him as an thief, and instead call him a Demon King.

Ganon is no more a thief than the Dark Lord Sauron is an "elf-friend". When Ganon completely transformed his mind, body and identity, he gave up the identity that he possessed as a human. This is made very clear in FSA's ending, and it applies in general to mythological characters who have underwent such transformation.

And you completely has the high ground as you aren't even arguing for any specific timeline other than the already accepted connection, so you can just spit on everyone that tries to argue for a timeline, by saying speculation is silly, which every timeline is built upon. Is that it?

I have the high ground because:

a) I don't ignore or speculate around evidence that I don't like.
b) I don't hinge my theories on unreliable/refutable evidence.

If that just leaves me with the established connections, then what's wrong with that? I'd rather have an accurate timeline than one that hinges on fanfiction.

Btw, "spit on everyone that tries to argue for a timeline"? All I'm doing is refuting your arguments with the evidence, as is what should happen in any debate. It's not my fault if your speculative theory can't hold up to criticism.

Edited by Raien, 03 September 2009 - 02:58 PM.

[Nerushi]

Why would FSA end with Ganon sealed in the Four Sword if the creators intended for him to be sealed within the Sacred Realm? It looks like you're being selective with the evidence; choosing whatever details suit your theory and ignoring all the inconsistencies. And given that your evidence is comprised of refutable recurring themes, you're not doing a good job of convincing me that your theory is a valid one.

That's why I place FSA before OoT, as OOT involves the SR. If Ganon had ended up in the SR in FSA then it's placement next to ALTTP would have been definitive, probably. But he doesn't. Instead he gets sealed in the Four Sword, sort of going into hiatus. Just like Vaati, he is bound to return later.

Ganon is no more a thief than the Dark Lord Sauron is an "elf-friend". When Ganon completely transformed his mind, body and identity, he gave up the identity that he possessed as a human. This is made very clear in FSA's ending, and it applies in general to mythological characters who have underwent such transformation.

You're a thief as long as you steal something. Demon King or not.

I have the high ground because:

a) I don't ignore or speculate around evidence that I don't like.
b) I don't hinge my theories on unreliable/refutable evidence.

1. I don't ignore or speculate around evidence that I don't like. I follow a certain idea that is needed in order to have a consistent timeline. For example, if a new gamer have connection to an older game, but also some inconsistency around it, then I'd consider it a retcon. The conclusion for OoT not being IW anymore, or LA not following ALTTP anymore, came from that.

2. I don't hinge my theories on unreliable/refutable evidence anymore than anyone else who has a timeline.

If that just leaves me with the established connections, then what's wrong with that? I'd rather have an accurate timeline than one that hinges on fanfiction.

Nothing wrong with that. Thing is, you don't have an timeline. Almost everyone has the established connections. It's connecting the unestablished one that truly creates a chronology.

Btw, "spit on everyone that tries to argue for a timeline"? All I'm doing is refuting your arguments with the evidence, as is what should happen in any debate. It's not my fault if your speculative theory can't hold up to criticism.

I speculated. So, your 'criticism' to me was that speculating is silly. Everyone who has a timeline is forced to speculate. Hence, I assume you're not just refuting my timeline, but everyone else too, as it's built on silly speculating.

I think I can hold up to your criticism.

Edited by Nerushi, 03 September 2009 - 03:36 PM.

[Raien]

I'm honestly too bored of this debate to continue, but to be quite frank, yes you do ignore and speculate around evidence you don't like, and yes, you do rely on unreliable evidence to support your theory, and no, the act of stealing is not what the Maiden is referring to in her use of "thief" (I'm honestly surprised that you're still missing this point after I explained it in the bluntest possible manner). But since you've made it perfectly clear that you're happy with speculation, then I honestly don't see what any further comments would achieve.

[Nerushi]

I'm honestly too bored of this debate to continue, but to be quite frank, yes you do ignore and speculate around evidence you don't like, and yes, you do rely on unreliable evidence to support your theory, and no, the act of stealing is not what the Maiden is referring to in her use of "thief" (I'm honestly surprised that you're still missing this point after I explained it in the bluntest possible manner). But since you've made it perfectly clear that you're happy with speculation, then I honestly don't see what any further comments would achieve.

Thing is, we have different opinion on what the maiden was refearing to. Just because you consider your opinion as definitive as you can use your mythological bull and some crappy Lord of the Ring reference to support it, doesn't mean it is. I consider the maidens change of wording as not wanting to underestimate Ganon. Also, your main argument was built upon that ALLTP Ganon was a man when he entered the SR. This, completely lack any evidence as Ganondorf could still be an leader of a band of thieves even in his transformed state. Your only counterargument to this was that he couldn't be a thief and a Demon King at the same time, which isn't true. The maiden only change her mind to call him a demon king on a quick whim.

[Raien]

Thing is, we have different opinion on what the maiden was refearing to. Just because you consider your opinion as definitive as you can use your mythological bull and some crappy Lord of the Ring reference to support it, doesn't mean it is. I consider the maidens change of wording as not wanting to underestimate Ganon.

The difference being that I've researched the subject and spoken to people who know what they're talking about. I've been debating for three years and written comprehensive articles on both Zelda's magic and mythology (both of which are in my signature); do you really think this topic has never been debated before? Believe what you want, but I doubt you got any informed perspective before you came up with your excuse for calling Ganon a thief when that title was knowingly integral to his human identity.

[Nerushi]

The difference being that I've researched the subject and spoken to people who know what they're talking about. I've been debating for three years and written comprehensive articles on both Zelda's magic and mythology (both of which are in my signature); do you really think this topic has never been debated before? Believe what you want, but I doubt you got any informed perspective before you came up with your excuse for calling Ganon a thief when that title was knowingly integral to his human identity.

I belive I don't need to have any other perspective on this subject other than what's presented to us from the games.

Him being called a thief to describe his human identity, is something that only first could be concluded in FSA. In ALTTP, he could have been a chicken for all we know. Arguing that ALTTP Ganon can't be FSA Ganon because he was a man when he entered the SR is rather bizarre. Because it was FSA which confirmed that his human identity was a thief, and that he then became King of Darkness, as a seperate entirety from the human thief Ganondorf. Trying to apply FSA's logic onto ALTTP when your infact trying to seperate the game is well.. just obscure. If anything, FSA retcons the ALTTP story. But then again, I don't think that's neccesary.

Also consider the wish ALTTP Ganon made on the Triforce. It turned the SR into the DW, just the way we see the DW in FSA. This wouldn't be a coincidence if the two are the same.

Edited by Nerushi, 03 September 2009 - 05:01 PM.

[Raien]

I belive I don't need to have any other perspective on this subject other than what's presented to us from the games.

Not even the knowledge of Japanese culture and mythology that provides a background to what's presented to us in the games? I once had a very interesting discussion about all the things that Westerners miss in the Zelda series because they don't understand the Japanese references, and what you're talking about is essentially one of them.

[Nerushi]

Not even the knowledge of Japanese culture and mythology that provides a background to what's presented to us in the games? I once had a very interesting discussion about all the things that Westerners miss in the Zelda series because they don't understand the Japanese references, and what you're talking about is essentially one of them.

That's an opinion. Thing is that your only mean to prove anything right now is using outside factors. That's hardly conclusive as you can just pull any number of mythological/LoTR reference and say that their meaning are definitive even in Zelda, yet they might only make sense to you.