81 replies to this topic

[Showsni]

The spin off timeline in your sig is wrong; the Zelda cartoon comes before AoL, and the comic comes after AoL. For completeness you should add the Game & Watch game and the Game Watch too.

[ganonlord6000]

The spin off timeline in your sig is wrong; the Zelda cartoon comes before AoL, and the comic comes after AoL. For completeness you should add the Game & Watch game and the Game Watch too.

I will include the game and watch game (game watch is the same thing) soon. I just realized that the cartoon works better before LOZ actually even though it doesn't fit anywhere. I hope my possible explanation for Ganon's return in the comics made sense.
I just added the other spin off material t omy signature.

Edited by ganonlord6000, 05 September 2009 - 06:39 PM.

[ganonlord6000]

No. It was a debate I had over at ZU. Anyway, that satire timeline is a few months old now. Nothing to do with the DK thread.

What's your name on ZU? (those guys need some sense talked into them)

[Egann]

I have my own timeline theory: Nintendo is confused.

The only time I stop to think about the timeline is when I'm writing a fanfiction and I MUST reference history. Otherwise, I think it's better to just treat each game as a stand-alone and not to think about that too much.

Frankly, my greatest hope for the new Zelda that Nintendo promises will be "completely different" is that it will be a re-doing of the entire Zelda series that Nintendo can START to make a coherent timeline from about like the new Star Trek was. Controversial with fans, but I think that Zelda needs the kick in the pants, and if Nintendo wants to get new blood into the Zelda series' fans, it is what MUST be done.

[Masamune]

I partly agree with this. I never believed that TRR is canon in the Zelda universe and it wasn't made by Nintendo. Oh. Was Nintendo involved with TRR at all? Oh. I think I put a timeline with the old non-canon stuff in my signature. I might make a better one in time.

It was published by Nintendo, just like the Oracle games and The Minish Cap.

[Nerushi]

It was published by Nintendo, just like the Oracle games and The Minish Cap.

Published, yes. Developed? Well, in that regard I just have to be biased and say that Capcom ( Flagship ) > Vanpool.
At least the Capcom games tries to make sense and fit into the main series. Can't say the same for the Tingles games.

[Masamune]

And you know this because you've played Tingle's Rosy Rupeeland, right?

Because I played it and it fits into the main series a lot better than the Capcom games do.

[ganonlord6000]

It was published by Nintendo, just like the Oracle games and The Minish Cap.

Published, yes. Developed? Well, in that regard I just have to be biased and say that Capcom ( Flagship ) > Vanpool.
At least the Capcom games tries to make sense and fit into the main series. Can't say the same for the Tingles games.

I agree with this. From what I heard about TRR it doesn't even try to connect to the 14 main games. Capcom did try to connect to the Nintendo games. Please note that the Four Swords and TMC were originally designed by Capcom and Nintendo made FSA without Capcom.
Also, Vanpool only made games about Tingle and Tingle has only been in FIVE (maybe 6) games. It has no effect on the main games anyways as it it about Tingle. Funny how Masamune is one of the only people I have seen that is trying to argue the canon value of TRR. This game falls into the spin-off catagory which also includes LCT (this is definatly non canon as it has no story).

[Nerushi]

And you know this because you've played Tingle's Rosy Rupeeland, right?

Because I played it and it fits into the main series a lot better than the Capcom games do.

No, to be honest with you, I didn't play it. I think Tingle in the main series is kooky enough as it is. From what I've seen from the game it doesn't seem to entice me...
But you'd do well explaining what in TRR makes it fit better in the main series, in comparison to the Capcom games. From my understanding, the Capcom games tries to reference the main series, but those reference are rather confusing to put into context with the timeline. Don't tell me TRR fits into the main series because it doesn't interfer with the main series by not making references...

Edited by Nerushi, 06 September 2009 - 02:13 PM.

[Masamune]

I haven't played AST, which is why I don't talk about it. I also don't dismiss it out of hand. Personally? I think the idea of some kid from another world going through the same places from ALttP is pretty far out there and silly. I do not, however, dismiss it from canon. If I did play it, I suspect I still wouldn't dismiss it from canon. And there's a really good reason why that is, if you can follow the logic. Here we go. I'm not Nintendo.

Now that I've established that I don't call the shots, let's talk about Rosy Rupeeland. This is a game that builds rather well on the Zelda mythos. It provides an origin story for Tingle (or at least this particular Tingle) and possibly a backstory for the rest of the other Tingles. It very clearly establishes it's place in the timeline (anytime after The Wind Waker) thanks to the presence of the Great Deku Tree (seen to be the one from TWW). The world is fragmented into scattered islands, which seems to suggest the "Reunited Hyrule" theory has some merit. The game features the enemies known as Oinkers, which are basically just Moblins. Also present are Stalfos Pirates (similar to the Oracle of Ages ones, though not conclusively the same), the Fairy Queen (and her daughter), and various other fairies. Although not seen in the game, there are suggestions of a nearby kingdom from which a traveling young boy and his butler hail from. All in all, the world itself has its humorous touches and some people do silly things, but the world is not so ridiculous that it stretches plausibility to take place in the world of Zelda.

It doesn't have as MANY references as the Capcom games do, but that's probably because Vanpool was creative enough to come up with their own characters and not recycle previous Zelda characters for no real reason. Whereas the references that TRR contains (a volcanic mountain that echoes of Death Mountain, the kingdom that would suggest Hyrule, the Great Deku Tree, and the Stalfos Pirates) are actually useful because they provide excellent criteria for timeline placement, even if its impact on the timeline is negligible.

Edited by Masamune, 06 September 2009 - 05:48 PM.

[Pinecove]

........../TWW/PH-LoZ/AoL-OoS/OoA
TMC-OoT
..........\MM-TP-FS/FSA-ALttP/LA

Open to change. I might consider moving LoZ/AoL and OoS/OoA to the Child side or putting TMC-FS/FSA-ALttP/LA on the adult side after OoS/OoA.

[Jarsh]

Another reason for FPTRR to be canon:

Kensuke Tanabe, the scriptwriter for ALttP, LA, and OoT produced it.

[Impossible]

Uh, that means absolutely nothing... Kensuke Tanabe actually produces a lot of outsourced Nintendo games. He has similar credits for Punch-Out (Wii), Battalion Wars 1/2, Super Mario Strikers, and Geist, to name a few. It has absolutely nothing to do with his previous role as a Zelda storywriter, and he didn't have anything to do with the story of the game. The producer is just the person who acts as a connection between the developer and the publisher, basically to make sure development goes smoothly and in line with what Nintendo expects. In some cases, they can do more, but there's nothing that would make that the case here. Not a single person on the development side of FPTRR has any connection to the Zelda series. Tanabe's job wasn't to write the story, it was to make sure they made the game they were being paid to make.

Having people from Nintendo approve of a game doesn't automatically make it a part of the Zelda series storyline. It's still not a Zelda game, just as Super Smash Bros isn't one. Why is it ONLY in the Zelda fanbase that people fail to understand the idea of spinoffs and other forms of media not being canon? I mean, aside from desperation to support one's own preconceptions, like treating an audio drama or manga as canon... Look at, say, any anime series with filler, or non-canon movies. In that case, it's not even a change in medium - it's just that the story was written by someone completely different, and most of the time, with no intention of having any impact on the author's work. Nobody would argue that these are canon. An unrelated company called Vanpool does not determine anything about the Zelda timeline - and sure as hell not, for example, what happens after TWW. Nor were they trying to, as there's nothing that would even require FPTRR to take place in the same continuity or world as the Zelda series. It has some references, but then, so do many spin-offs.

Honestly, it's bad enough to have people actually within Nintendo fucking around with the intended story of others (I can easily see some of them ignoring the TWW ending on the basis that it's been 6 years and they don't care and just want to make new games for teh moneyz, and also because there are two Zelda teams now...), we don't need anyone who can make a spinoff doing it. If it's not a Legend of Zelda game, it's not a Legend of Zelda game. What's hard to understand about that?

Comparison with the Capcom/Flagship games is also a joke. They are Zelda games, with "The Legend of Zelda" in the title, as well as Link and actual elements of the Zelda world and mythos existing there. They were also co-developed by Nintendo, with direct involvement in the actual game.

Edited by Impossible, 09 September 2009 - 09:15 AM.

[Masamune]

Having people from Nintendo approve of a game doesn't automatically make it a part of the Zelda series storyline. It's still not a Zelda game, just as Super Smash Bros isn't one. Why is it ONLY in the Zelda fanbase that people fail to understand the idea of spinoffs and other forms of media not being canon?

I find it more ludicrous that there is this idea that spinoffs are not canon. I find it harder to think of examples where spinoffs are NOT canon than finding examples where they are. Zelda's sister series, Mario Brothers, is rife with spinoffs and even spinoffs of spinoffs - yet still exist in the same universe. You have spinoffs from the Star Wars, Star Trek, Stargate universes that are still canon. You might argue that they have the name "Star Wars" or whatever in the title still, so how does that work when Batman character Nightwing gets his own series that doesn't use the same franchise name? Is Torchwood not canon to Doctor Who? Why is it ONLY in the Zelda fanbase that people fail to understand the idea of spinoffs actually being canon?

It's such a simple concept.

Honestly, it's bad enough to have people actually within Nintendo fucking around with the intended story of others (I can easily see some of them ignoring the TWW ending on the basis that it's been 6 years and they don't care and just want to make new games for teh moneyz, and also because there are two Zelda teams now...), we don't need anyone who can make a spinoff doing it. If it's not a Legend of Zelda game, it's not a Legend of Zelda game. What's hard to understand about that?

So, to sum this up, because the Zelda team doesn't give a shit about the timeline, it means that spinoffs are not going to be canon, because they don't give a shit either?

[MikePetersSucks]

I find it more ludicrous that there is this idea that spinoffs are not canon. I find it harder to think of examples where spinoffs are NOT canon than finding examples where they are.

Maybe it's just a western thing, but I can list loads and loads of manga and anime and video games with non-canonical, or atleast alternate-canonical, spinoffs.

A nice, big, easy example: The vast majority of Digimon movies and video games are non-canonical, even if they use some of the same characters. All of the bullshit extras the Evangelion franchise churns out are non-canonical. The Silent Hill movie, the cell phone games, the arcade game, and due to plotholes the Origins game are non-canonical. The .hack//Tasogare no Densetsu anime, along with some of the minor manga such as .hack//GnU, are non-canonical. The Star Fox comic books are non-canonical. The Super Smash Bros. games are pretty much non-canonical to all involved parties. The Vienda expansion packs for F.E.A.R. are non-canonical. The Higurashi no Naku Koro ni manga, and the Daybreak spin-off game are non-canonical. The Persona -trinity soul- anime sequel to Persona 3 is non-canonical. The Ju-on: The Grudge Wii game is non-canonical. Most of the shitty comic books and video games and shit for Buffy the Vampire Slayer and Angel are non-canonical. the Shin Megami Tensei anime, manga, and MMORPG are non-canonical. Pretty much anything anime that CLAMP is involved in is non-canonical. The Sailor Moon musical productions are non-canonical.

To use fucking Mario, which pretty much has no fucking canon, as a justification is pretty goddamn weak.

[Masamune]

I dunno, I'd say the Mario games tend to be more consistent than the Zelda series. Besides, I consider it relevant not due to strength of canon, but because they share a common creator. So I would not consider it a weak argument, since it's far more relevant than any other example we could bring up.

Anyways, you're confusing spinoffs with adaptions. A retelling of the series core story, reinterpretation of events, or "what if?" stories aren't the same thing as a spinoff. What I'm talking about is taking part of an original work (like, say, the TV show Cheers) and isolating a story around a character from that universe (like Frasier) or taking an established universe (Star Trek) and setting it in a different location (Deep Space Nine). You can list all your numerous examples, but I'm inclined to think that in most of them have a good reason not for being canon, because they directly conflict canon (like the Dragon Ball Z movies do to the anime), are adaptions of the core story (like all of the comic book movies), or feature an alternate "what if?" type reality (like Superman's "Red Son" story). There are no such contradictions when connecting the Zelda series to Rupeeland. There's more weight to the idea that the Zelda series contains multiple unconnected timelines, has no canon, or are retellings of the same story than there is to simply dismiss a spinoff.

[Jarsh]

The Persona -trinity soul- anime sequel to Persona 3 is non-canonical. the Shin Megami Tensei anime, manga, and MMORPG are non-canonical.

-trinity soul- is indeed non-canonical, as well as the SMT anime and manga, but I have to say that the MMORPG is most certainly canonical. It takes place in between SMT I and SMT II; it even says in the game it "takes place after the Hero's (SMT I's hero's) journey". Plus, it gives us the origin for Arcadia in SMT II.

A spin-off that's NOT canon would be SMT NINE.

Sorry for diverting the topic furthermore, and I do understand your overall point.

Also, it's much easier to debate SMT since Atlus actually HAS released an official timeline for the series.

Edited by Jarsh, 10 September 2009 - 12:04 AM.

[Impossible]

I find it more ludicrous that there is this idea that spinoffs are not canon. I find it harder to think of examples where spinoffs are NOT canon than finding examples where they are. Zelda's sister series, Mario Brothers, is rife with spinoffs and even spinoffs of spinoffs - yet still exist in the same universe.

I can't believe I'm even responding to a prompt for a discussion this ridiculous, but: Are you saying Mario Kart, Tennis, Golf, Party, etc. are canon to the Super Mario Bros/World/64/Sunshine/Galaxy world's "story"? They don't exactly go together. Many Mario games are no more canon (if Mario even has a canon) than SSB.

Is Torchwood not canon to Doctor Who?

TV show spinoffs of that kind are COMPLETELY unlike video game spinoffs, and this has been discussed before. Don't act like FPTRR is in some equivalent position here.

Why is it ONLY in the Zelda fanbase that people fail to understand the idea of spinoffs actually being canon?

Well, Zelda, and basically all video games, and anime/manga, sometimes books... MPS listed some of the examples I was thinking of. (Although technically Digimon is a bad example, because the first movie at least is canon, and the second movie fits in the canon - though all the later movies follow the typical "could not possibly happen in the same world as the TV show" formula. One Piece is another good one, to the extent that there's a movie with a specific combination of main cast members that never existed in the manga/anime.) Not only that, but we're talking about spinoffs, both canon and non-canon, that explicitly feature the same world and some of the same characters, and usually have officially stated canonical links (like TV show spinoffs, Torchwood, Angel and the like). FPTRR has no stated connections to the Zelda series, in the title or anywhere else, it merely features Tingle, who is implied in the story to not be any specific person anyway.

God, you'd have a better argument if you said Link's Crossbow Training (made by Nintendo, stars Link, set in the same world as TP) was canon than FPTRR, and even that's a joke.

[Masamune]

I find it more ludicrous that there is this idea that spinoffs are not canon. I find it harder to think of examples where spinoffs are NOT canon than finding examples where they are. Zelda's sister series, Mario Brothers, is rife with spinoffs and even spinoffs of spinoffs - yet still exist in the same universe.

I can't believe I'm even responding to a prompt for a discussion this ridiculous, but: Are you saying Mario Kart, Tennis, Golf, Party, etc. are canon to the Super Mario Bros/World/64/Sunshine/Galaxy world's "story"? They don't exactly go together. Many Mario games are no more canon (if Mario even has a canon) than SSB.

Did I even mention those games? At all? Even once? Those games are an entirely different discussion. I was discussing the connections between a game like Super Mario Bros. and a game like Wario Land. Something like Wario Land is the best example you're going to find when it comes to video game spinoffs, because Wario Land has even LESS in common with the Mario series than Rupeeland has with Zelda.

And give Mario more credit than that. How many timelines does it have? How many Marios does it have? If you answered once to both, then congratulations, it has more continuity than the Zelda series. Hurrah, it's relevant.

I'm going to say this about Super Smash Bros, since other people have been trying to use this as an example. It's not the same kind of example. SSB is a crossover game where Zelda characters make cameos. Soul Calibur II is a game where Link cameos. Tingle does not cameo in a game with his own name in it.

Is Torchwood not canon to Doctor Who?

TV show spinoffs of that kind are COMPLETELY unlike video game spinoffs, and this has been discussed before. Don't act like FPTRR is in some equivalent position here.

Because it's convenient to say so.

Why is it ONLY in the Zelda fanbase that people fail to understand the idea of spinoffs actually being canon?

Well, Zelda, and basically all video games, and anime/manga, sometimes books... MPS listed some of the examples I was thinking of. (Although technically Digimon is a bad example, because the first movie at least is canon, and the second movie fits in the canon - though all the later movies follow the typical "could not possibly happen in the same world as the TV show" formula. One Piece is another good one, to the extent that there's a movie with a specific combination of main cast members that never existed in the manga/anime.)

I think you missed the part where I dismissed adaptions, what if stories, and the "couldn't possibly happen due to timefuck" sort of things that you mentioned about Digimon and One Piece.

Not only that, but we're talking about spinoffs, both canon and non-canon, that explicitly feature the same world and some of the same characters, and usually have officially stated canonical links (like TV show spinoffs, Torchwood, Angel and the like). FPTRR has no stated connections to the Zelda series, in the title or anywhere else, it merely features Tingle, who is implied in the story to not be any specific person anyway.

We're talking about the Legend of Zelda series, here. A game where you have multiple Links, Ganons, Zelda, Malons, Impas, Ingos, Talons, and you name it. We already KNOW there's multiple Tingles. Yes, I realize it's confusing, but the Zelda series is about as disjointed and ridiculous as you get. If Zelda was going to make a spinoff game with ANY Zelda character, there's no doubt in my mind that they'd just invent a new incarnation of a character. It's how they operate. It's a stupid system, but that's how they do it.

Raien has demonstrated that if you take each individual Zelda game, that it will only reference one previous game. This is not a series that thrives on any stated connections, other than sequential rehashes. So if Zelda's own personal Wario Land can't be considered canon, then can any of the Zelda series be considered canon? You'll probably call this a weak argument, but that's only because I'm making one about a series with a very weak canon.

[MikePetersSucks]

-trinity soul- is indeed non-canonical, as well as the SMT anime and manga, but I have to say that the MMORPG is most certainly canonical. It takes place in between SMT I and SMT II; it even says in the game it "takes place after the Hero's (SMT I's hero's) journey". Plus, it gives us the origin for Arcadia in SMT II.

Although Developers have confirmed that, yes, the MMO goes in the 1000 year interim, the events that happen in it are not the actual depiction of how things went down.

Anyways, you're confusing spinoffs with adaptions. A retelling of the series core story, reinterpretation of events, or "what if?" stories aren't the same thing as a spinoff. What I'm talking about is taking part of an original work (like, say, the TV show Cheers) and isolating a story around a character from that universe (like Frasier) or taking an established universe (Star Trek) and setting it in a different location (Deep Space Nine). You can list all your numerous examples, but I'm inclined to think that in most of them have a good reason not for being canon, because they directly conflict canon (like the Dragon Ball Z movies do to the anime), are adaptions of the core story (like all of the comic book movies), or feature an alternate "what if?" type reality (like Superman's "Red Son" story). There are no such contradictions when connecting the Zelda series to Rupeeland. There's more weight to the idea that the Zelda series contains multiple unconnected timelines, has no canon, or are retellings of the same story than there is to simply dismiss a spinoff.

All the examples I listed were "legitimate" spin-offs, sequels, and side stories with the purported purpose of taking place within the same universe, but really don't. But nice try at trying to back out of your bumfuck into a corner. My point was that the idea of spin-offs being considered non-canonical is HIGHLY HIGHLY COMMON and that you were arguing on the false premise that the opposite was somehow the super standard.

Did I even mention those games? At all? Even once? Those games are an entirely different discussion. I was discussing the connections between a game like Super Mario Bros. and a game like Wario Land. Something like Wario Land is the best example you're going to find when it comes to video game spinoffs, because Wario Land has even LESS in common with the Mario series than Rupeeland has with Zelda.

You didn't specify, and games like Mario Kart ARE, by definition, spin-offs. Quit backpedaling, we already know you didn't think through this terrible argument.

[Masamune]

All the examples I listed were "legitimate" spin-offs, sequels, and side stories with the purported purpose of taking place within the same universe, but really don't. But nice try at trying to back out of your bumfuck into a corner. My point was that the idea of spin-offs being considered non-canonical is HIGHLY HIGHLY COMMON and that you were arguing on the false premise that the opposite was somehow the super standard.

Fair enough. My original point however was just to prove that spin-offs being considered canonical is also HIGHLY HIGHLY common, as opposed to the notion that non-canonical spinoffs are the super standard. Don't accuse me of doing something I'm not, because I was doing the exact thing you're doing now, but from the other side. The only conclusive thing is that there is no standard. Which is exactly why I felt it was prudent to make a comparison to the closest thing to the Zelda series, rather than just constantly pulling out completely unrelated examples out of thin air, which is pointless and tells us nothing.

You didn't specify, and games like Mario Kart ARE, by definition, spin-offs. Quit backpedaling, we already know you didn't think through this terrible argument.

No, I didn't specify. But the two of you think that the best way to respond to anything is to assume I'm a blithering moron. Is having a different idea of how canon works really so terrible that the only response is insults? Over video games? I mean, really?

Edited by Masamune, 10 September 2009 - 10:53 AM.

[Raien]

I don't think the nature of canon is always the best way to discuss the timeline whichever side of the aisle you stand, because it's possible for a game to be canon and yet completely irrelevant to every other game in a timeline. I mean, does anyone here believe that Link's Awakening has any significant impact on other games in the timeline? I don't know anyone who does, yet most people still believe LA is canon and has a place in the timeline.

So instead of debating what is canon, instead ask yourself whether a developer would have realistically added important timeline developments to a game. When you answer that question, all debates about canon become irrelevant.

Edited by Raien, 10 September 2009 - 12:48 PM.

[Pinecove]

So instead of debating what is canon, instead ask yourself whether a developer would have realistically added important timeline developments to a game. When you answer that question, all debates about canon become irrelevant.

I disagree. Some stuff can be used in a theory, but we have no idea about what stuff can be considered Canon or not. If that's the case then we're picking and choosing, and that's the worst aproach we can go to.

[MikePetersSucks]

Fair enough. My original point however was just to prove that spin-offs being considered canonical is also HIGHLY HIGHLY common, as opposed to the notion that non-canonical spinoffs are the super standard. Don't accuse me of doing something I'm not, because I was doing the exact thing you're doing now, but from the other side. The only conclusive thing is that there is no standard. Which is exactly why I felt it was prudent to make a comparison to the closest thing to the Zelda series, rather than just constantly pulling out completely unrelated examples out of thin air, which is pointless and tells us nothing.

Cool thing no one was actually arguing that, huh?

[Masamune]

Fair enough. My original point however was just to prove that spin-offs being considered canonical is also HIGHLY HIGHLY common, as opposed to the notion that non-canonical spinoffs are the super standard. Don't accuse me of doing something I'm not, because I was doing the exact thing you're doing now, but from the other side. The only conclusive thing is that there is no standard. Which is exactly why I felt it was prudent to make a comparison to the closest thing to the Zelda series, rather than just constantly pulling out completely unrelated examples out of thin air, which is pointless and tells us nothing.

Cool thing no one was actually arguing that, huh?

Why is it ONLY in the Zelda fanbase that people fail to understand the idea of spinoffs and other forms of media not being canon?

[SteveT]

I love when arguments turn into arguments about what you're arguing.

[Pinecove]

(game watch is the same thing as game and watch)

No it isn't.

[MikePetersSucks]

Fair enough. My original point however was just to prove that spin-offs being considered canonical is also HIGHLY HIGHLY common, as opposed to the notion that non-canonical spinoffs are the super standard. Don't accuse me of doing something I'm not, because I was doing the exact thing you're doing now, but from the other side. The only conclusive thing is that there is no standard. Which is exactly why I felt it was prudent to make a comparison to the closest thing to the Zelda series, rather than just constantly pulling out completely unrelated examples out of thin air, which is pointless and tells us nothing.

Cool thing no one was actually arguing that, huh?

Why is it ONLY in the Zelda fanbase that people fail to understand the idea of spinoffs and other forms of media not being canon?

Yay for taking things completely out of context. He was criticizing the idea of spin-offs and such being taken as 100% canon, 100% of the time, no matter what, just for having the series name. "Well it's a __ game so it's canon lol who cares about plot holes or lack of continuity?"

[bjamez7573]

Aren't spin-offs designed to spin off from the main story, therefore not affecting it much? If this is the case, then like Raien said, the issue of whether it is canon isn't too important. However, if we say they are canon, and there is a fact in that game that affects the main story, but contradicts facts from one or more of the main story games, should the spin-offs take priority? In some ways I agree with Masamune, as disregarding spin-offs from the zelda universe seems a bit strange (as the characters with their stories are a part of zelda, and I don't think that the developers would just want them to be deleted from the zelda universe). Therefore, if they have something to add to the zelda universe, then it should be counted. However, theories should not be based on evidence from spin-offs that contradict main story games. As long as they don't do that, no should have any problem with them being canon

[Masamune]

Yay for taking things completely out of context. He was criticizing the idea of spin-offs and such being taken as 100% canon, 100% of the time, no matter what, just for having the series name. "Well it's a __ game so it's canon lol who cares about plot holes or lack of continuity?"

And I was criticizing, in turn, the idea of spinoffs never being canon. So hooray for us all failing to take things in context???

Aren't spin-offs designed to spin off from the main story, therefore not affecting it much? If this is the case, then like Raien said, the issue of whether it is canon isn't too important. However, if we say they are canon, and there is a fact in that game that affects the main story, but contradicts facts from one or more of the main story games, should the spin-offs take priority? In some ways I agree with Masamune, as disregarding spin-offs from the zelda universe seems a bit strange (as the characters with their stories are a part of zelda, and I don't think that the developers would just want them to be deleted from the zelda universe). Therefore, if they have something to add to the zelda universe, then it should be counted. However, theories should not be based on evidence from spin-offs that contradict main story games. As long as they don't do that, no should have any problem with them being canon

I think the main games would take priority over the spin off series, or at least it would in regard to important themes and elements from the main series. If there was a Tingle game where a character casually says that the Triforce is in fact made of plaster, then the Legend of Zelda would definitely override that. On the other hand, if a Zelda game references an element from the Tingle games and says that, for instance, Uncle Rupee is actually a fish, then the spinoff series would take precedence. It's all a matter of context and what is most relevant to the other.

In any case, there are no contradictions from Main Series to Spin Off Series in this case, so it's not really a problem.

Edited by Masamune, 11 September 2009 - 11:53 PM.