79 replies to this topic

[Erimgard]

How could the Imprisoning War be OoT and yet have ALttP take place in the Child timeline? OoT was the IW in 1998, that much is for certain. The split timeline wasn't really thought of until TWW, maybe MM at the earliest.

Note that LoZ makes no mention of Ganon breaking out of the Dark World or whatnot. Those were added by NoA on their website and the VC descriptions.

That's true. It doesn't.
But if you believe the developers working under Miyamoto that OoT=Seal War in 1998, then how can you disbelieve Miyamoto himself in stating OoT-LoZ in the same year?

We don't always get a full explanation of backstories.
Wind Waker doesn't fully explain how Ganon escaped the Seal.
The MC-FS/FSA continuity isn't perfect, what with Vaati being dead in MC, and only sealed in FS.

[ganonlord6000]

Here's a way to solve this problem: try placing LOZ/AOL on a seperate timeline from ALTTP (I once argued this on ZD. Ermigard might remember). I might actually argue this theory again.

[bjamez7573]

[Again, how does it make sense in 1998 that Alttp can follow OoT's adult events? Ganon is sealed with the ToP, but at the outset of Alttp Ganon is sealed with the whole Triforce. Alttp must have been meant at that point to follow the Child ending, and LoZ the Adult.

Its possible that perhaps they weren't concerned that much with consistency. Don't forget Miyamoto was in charge during this time, and he set the "direction" for how Zelda games are made. I don't believe the timeline was of any importance at all to him. In a sense though, he still does that, but really has given Anouma the responsibility when he became producer. He obviously cares much more about the timeline, but gameplay and the games story still take precedence over the timeline.

[KJ Contrarian]

How could the Imprisoning War be OoT and yet have ALttP take place in the Child timeline? OoT was the IW in 1998, that much is for certain. The split timeline wasn't really thought of until TWW, maybe MM at the earliest.

Note that LoZ makes no mention of Ganon breaking out of the Dark World or whatnot. Those were added by NoA on their website and the VC descriptions.

Oh, I do agree with that - OoT's adult events were the IW in 1998, per Osawa. My only contention in the earlier post was that the OoT child ending as left by the writers would not make it difficult for Alttp to come on the CT side. I only raise the possibility that yes, OoT's adult events were the IW, but the IW was no longer the "set-up" event for Ganon being trapped in the SR with the full triforce for Alttp. The "set-up" event was later explained via FSA. The evidence for that is the highly condensed Alttp GBA manual.

In theory, with the Triforce still intact in the SR on the Child side, Alttp could be next if Ganondorf simply finds some other way into the SR. To me, this is more plausible than having Alttp on the Adult side, where again the problem is Ganon sealed with only the ToP, not the full triforce as required by Alttp.

On your second point, yes only NoA and the VC mention the DW for LoZ, and while I understand the canonicity of that is debatable, I find it interesting that NoA should out of the blue decide to do that. Why would they unless maybe they knew something?

Edited by KJ Contrarian, 02 October 2009 - 07:45 PM.

[Person]

How could the Imprisoning War be OoT and yet have ALttP take place in the Child timeline? OoT was the IW in 1998, that much is for certain. The split timeline wasn't really thought of until TWW, maybe MM at the earliest.

Note that LoZ makes no mention of Ganon breaking out of the Dark World or whatnot. Those were added by NoA on their website and the VC descriptions.

Oh, I do agree with that - OoT's adult events were the IW in 1998, per Osawa. My only contention in the earlier post was that the OoT child ending as left by the writers would not make it difficult for Alttp to come on the CT side. I only raise the possibility that yes, OoT's adult events were the IW, but the IW was no longer the "set-up" event for Ganon being trapped in the SR with the full triforce for Alttp. The "set-up" event was later explained via FSA. The evidence for that is the highly condensed Alttp GBA manual.

In theory, with the Triforce still intact in the SR on the Child side, Alttp could be next if Ganondorf simply finds some other way into the SR. To me, this is more plausible than having Alttp on the Adult side, where again the problem is Ganon sealed with only the ToP, not the full triforce as required by Alttp.

On your second point, yes only NoA and the VC mention the DW for LoZ, and while I understand the canonicity of that is debatable, I find it interesting that NoA should out of the blue decide to do that. Why would they unless maybe they knew something?

They didn't out of the blue decide that. It's a vestige of their old "one Link" theories from back around 2000 or so. Their rule was that Ganon never died, he just got sealed and broke out of the Dark World each time. Note that their VC descriptions also state that OoT is the first Zelda game, something that most people don't believe anymore.

And while I understand that FSA preceding ALttP on the Child timeline makes sense now, it wasn't even on the table back in '98. The singular timeline they were working with would still need OoT to directly precede ALttP for the plot of ALttP to make any sense. With no games on the child timeline between OoT and ALttP, the events of the ALttP backstory could never happen.

This is one of the main problems with trying to argue about older games. It's apparent that the timeline was just a nebulous idea until Aonuma came in. Miyamoto worked in "broad strokes" and didn't really care what order the games went in. Aonuma was the one to split the timeline and created the relatively cohesive storyline links between all of the 3D games.

[ganonlord6000]

How could the Imprisoning War be OoT and yet have ALttP take place in the Child timeline? OoT was the IW in 1998, that much is for certain. The split timeline wasn't really thought of until TWW, maybe MM at the earliest.

Note that LoZ makes no mention of Ganon breaking out of the Dark World or whatnot. Those were added by NoA on their website and the VC descriptions.

Oh, I do agree with that - OoT's adult events were the IW in 1998, per Osawa. My only contention in the earlier post was that the OoT child ending as left by the writers would not make it difficult for Alttp to come on the CT side. I only raise the possibility that yes, OoT's adult events were the IW, but the IW was no longer the "set-up" event for Ganon being trapped in the SR with the full triforce for Alttp. The "set-up" event was later explained via FSA. The evidence for that is the highly condensed Alttp GBA manual.

In theory, with the Triforce still intact in the SR on the Child side, Alttp could be next if Ganondorf simply finds some other way into the SR. To me, this is more plausible than having Alttp on the Adult side, where again the problem is Ganon sealed with only the ToP, not the full triforce as required by Alttp.

On your second point, yes only NoA and the VC mention the DW for LoZ, and while I understand the canonicity of that is debatable, I find it interesting that NoA should out of the blue decide to do that. Why would they unless maybe they knew something?

lol NOA

[KJ Contrarian]

And while I understand that FSA preceding ALttP on the Child timeline makes sense now, it wasn't even on the table back in '98. The singular timeline they were working with would still need OoT to directly precede ALttP for the plot of ALttP to make any sense. With no games on the child timeline between OoT and ALttP, the events of the ALttP backstory could never happen.

This is one of the main problems with trying to argue about older games. It's apparent that the timeline was just a nebulous idea until Aonuma came in. Miyamoto worked in "broad strokes" and didn't really care what order the games went in. Aonuma was the one to split the timeline and created the relatively cohesive storyline links between all of the 3D games.

I hear what you are saying, and I agree - It's very apparent that Miyamoto/Aonuma were working with a singular timeline (Or even NO timeline) until at least TWW. However, I am not at all convinced that the writers of OoT, Osawa/Tanabe, were also.

My point is just this: Osawa/Tanabe created a "split" ending for OoT. they created a Child ending, and an Adult ending. They must have had a reason. No doubt they did have one. If you believe it was just so MM could happen, I might buy that, but again was MM conceived as far back as when OoT was being written?

I only theorize that there may have been another reason that they (Again, the writers - Osawa/Tanabe) crafted a "split" ending - And that it could have been so the other Zelda games (LoZ, ALttP) could fit together, in some logical way, and make sense. I see LoZ in the Adult and ALttP in the Child making the most sense.

If I am dead wrong, then why did the writers create the "split" ending to the OoT story? What was the purpose of a non-linear ending?

Edited by KJ Contrarian, 03 October 2009 - 07:46 AM.

[MikePetersSucks]

The point is that the man who supervised the creation of the two BS games is the man who wrote the plot for all the old games, and continues to direct/produce/script write/supervise just as much, if not more, than Eiji Aonuma, and he saw it fit to make changes to the LoZ story to make it take place after the Seal War, and to only involve the ToP in the Seal War, not the whole Triforce.

You're going to need to provide evidence, because I saw absolutely nothing like that in the script when I was helping with translation.

I hear what you are saying, and I agree - It's very apparent that Miyamoto/Aonuma were working with a singular timeline (Or even NO timeline) until at least TWW. However, I am not at all convinced that the writers of OoT, Osawa/Tanabe, were also.

My point is just this: Osawa/Tanabe created a "split" ending for OoT. they created a Child ending, and an Adult ending. They must have had a reason. No doubt they did have one. If you believe it was just so MM could happen, I might buy that, but again was MM conceived as far back as when OoT was being written?

I only theorize that there may have been another reason that they (Again, the writers - Osawa/Tanabe) crafted a "split" ending - And that it could have been so the other Zelda games (LoZ, ALttP) could fit together, in some logical way, and make sense. I see LoZ in the Adult and ALttP in the Child making the most sense.

If I am dead wrong, then why did the writers create the "split" ending to the OoT story? What was the purpose of a non-linear ending?

In fairness, if you take OOT just by itself, you can work things out to be a timeloop. Even with MM, you can just say that Link left so his past self could come to the future and deal with things. A "split" only became a fact, or even much of a theory at all, when TWW showed up and made it clear that time wasn't looped and/or rewritten.

[Erimgard]

You're going to need to provide evidence, because I saw absolutely nothing like that in the script when I was helping with translation.

BS-LoZ replaces the usual "The Great Demon King Ganon invaded Hyrule with an army corps and snatched the Triforce of Power" story with the Seal War story.

The game's intro, after you go through the skull-door of the wizard, is a retelling of the Seal War. It ends. Zelda calls out to you for help. The game begins.

The implication here is that BS-LoZ takes place sometime after the Seal War. Ganon only has one Triforce piece in the game's opening, and thus, it's implied that he only got one in the Seal War.

If BS-LoZ wasn't related to the Seal War, why did Tezuka remove the usual LoZ backstory, insert the Seal War, and insert Hylian artifacts into the game in replace of the original LoZ artifacts?

[Jarsh]

Yeah, I've looked around on the BS Zelda Legends website and that "Hylian Shield" and "Master Sword" are part of a fan-made patch called the "Triforce Tile Set patch" by Cons. In the original BS LoZ they are still very much known as the "Magic Sword" and "Magic Shield".

You can find it on here.

Edited by Jarsh, 03 October 2009 - 03:48 PM.

[ganonlord6000]

You're going to need to provide evidence, because I saw absolutely nothing like that in the script when I was helping with translation.

BS-LoZ replaces the usual "The Great Demon King Ganon invaded Hyrule with an army corps and snatched the Triforce of Power" story with the Seal War story.

The game's intro, after you go through the skull-door of the wizard, is a retelling of the Seal War. It ends. Zelda calls out to you for help. The game begins.

The implication here is that BS-LoZ takes place sometime after the Seal War. Ganon only has one Triforce piece in the game's opening, and thus, it's implied that he only got one in the Seal War.

If BS-LoZ wasn't related to the Seal War, why did Tezuka remove the usual LoZ backstory, insert the Seal War, and insert Hylian artifacts into the game in replace of the original LoZ artifacts?

It only said that that Ganon was born in the IW/SW. Also, BS-LOZ isn't entirely canon (funny how the guy that ignores evidence that LOZ's Ganon has the trident is using BS-LOZ against us).

Yeah, I've looked around on the BS Zelda Legends website and that "Hylian Shield" and "Master Sword" are part of a fan-made patch called the "Triforce Tile Set patch" by Cons. In the original BS LoZ they are still very much known as the "Magic Sword" and "Magic Shield".

I know this. The patch and the game is still good though (I have it on my flash drive somewhere).

[MikePetersSucks]

You're going to need to provide evidence, because I saw absolutely nothing like that in the script when I was helping with translation.

BS-LoZ replaces the usual "The Great Demon King Ganon invaded Hyrule with an army corps and snatched the Triforce of Power" story with the Seal War story.

The game's intro, after you go through the skull-door of the wizard, is a retelling of the Seal War. It ends. Zelda calls out to you for help. The game begins.

The implication here is that BS-LoZ takes place sometime after the Seal War. Ganon only has one Triforce piece in the game's opening, and thus, it's implied that he only got one in the Seal War.

If BS-LoZ wasn't related to the Seal War, why did Tezuka remove the usual LoZ backstory, insert the Seal War, and insert Hylian artifacts into the game in replace of the original LoZ artifacts?

BS-LOZ doesn't take place in Hyrule, nor in the timeline as we really know it. So what?

[Erimgard]

I retract the OoT-relation statements, as based on what Jarsh has said, I was obviously fed false information. My apologies.

However, I still hold that BS-LoZ shows Tezuka's intent for LoZ to happen after the Seal War. Whether the game itself actually happened, or was just a set-up for AST, the point remains that Tezuka set the stage for the game by telling the Seal War story. There would be no point in doing such if the game wasn't supposed to relate to the Seal War.

Why remove the real story and replace it with a completely unrelated one?

[ganonlord6000]

I retract the OoT-relation statements, as based on what Jarsh has said, I was obviously fed false information. My apologies.

However, I still hold that BS-LoZ shows Tezuka's intent for LoZ to happen after the Seal War. Whether the game itself actually happened, or was just a set-up for AST, the point remains that Tezuka set the stage for the game by telling the Seal War story. There would be no point in doing such if the game wasn't supposed to relate to the Seal War.

Why remove the real story and replace it with a completely unrelated one?

Last time I checked, it only said that that Ganon was born in the IW. It didn't say that LOZ happens immediatly after that. Especially considering that many other sources around that time repeatedly said that ALTTP was a prequel to LOZ. Besides, BS-LOZ isn't entirely canon. The only part of it that I view as canon was Ganon having the trident (something you have to stop ignoring). I don't want to start a trident arguement on another site.

[MikePetersSucks]

However, I still hold that BS-LoZ shows Tezuka's intent for LoZ to happen after the Seal War. Whether the game itself actually happened, or was just a set-up for AST, the point remains that Tezuka set the stage for the game by telling the Seal War story. There would be no point in doing such if the game wasn't supposed to relate to the Seal War.

BS-LOZ is not LOZ. It's not a retcon or a sequel or a prequel. It's pretty much named purely for the gameplay, really.

[Erimgard]

I understand that.
But no one has offered an explanation to me yet why a scenario clearly based off of the stories and principles of the Legend of Zelda is given the backstory of the Seal War.

[bjamez7573]

Even if that were true (specifically that the mentioned Seal War means that Miyamoto's timeline is true), the ending of BS LOZ and the story of ALTTP don't match. ALTTP he is trapped in the Sacred Realm, while after BS LOZ Ganon is dead. Since they both mention the Seal War, they must be talking about the same Ganon. The only intent I could see coming from this is that BS LOZ replaces ALTTP as the story that tells of what happened after the Seal War. This we know isn't true, since the BS remake of ALTTP is very much the same as the original and the GBA version still has the same story.

BS-LOZ doesn't take place in Hyrule, nor in the timeline as we really know it. So what?

Where do you get that the hero isn't in Hyrule? When I looked at the Week 1 translation, it seemed like he was in Hyrule. Maybe there is something in Week 2-4 that explains this? Or did I overlook something?

Narrator: (voice):
Everyone waited for the hero who would be able to handle the holy sword, the Master Sword. But as they waited for the hero, Ganon's evil power reached the royal palace where an grand battle unfolded. After the fight in which there were many sacrifices and the sages were successful in their seal, it came to be called the Seal War. Once again, Hyrule was visited by peace.

Zelda: (Voice)
My name is Princess Zelda. I have been trapped in the dungeon by evil power. Hero, hurry and rise! Hyrule! Hyrule is in danger!

Narrator: (Voice)
The peace of the moment is destroyed by the mysterious message. Hurry, hero! You must bring peace back to Hyrule once again!

[MikePetersSucks]

But no one has offered an explanation to me yet why a scenario clearly based off of the stories and principles of the Legend of Zelda is given the backstory of the Seal War.

Because it's a SNES game.

here do you get that the hero isn't in Hyrule? When I looked at the Week 1 translation, it seemed like he was in Hyrule. Maybe there is something in Week 2-4 that explains this? Or did I overlook something?

He's specifically mentioned of going to an illusionary world, which will "vanish if he runs out of time."

[Erimgard]

Because it's a SNES game.

How is that relevant?
When LoZ/AoL were ported to the GBA they didn't replace their backstories with the story of the Four Sword.

Porting it to a different system has no bearing on the storyline at all.

[ganonlord6000]

Because it's a SNES game.

How is that relevant?
When LoZ/AoL were ported to the GBA they didn't replace their backstories with the story of the Four Sword.

Porting it to a different system has no bearing on the storyline at all.

How many times do I have to tell you that the classic NES series were cheep ports and there is no point to alter content in those? Seriously. I already told you this on ZI. So did a few others there. Besides, the classic NES series was made in honor of the 20th aniversery of the famicom. Every game in that collection were cheep ports and content wasn't altered in any of them. The only thing changed in LOZ was the mispelling of Ganon's name and that was already done on the collectors edition. I shouldn't have to bring this up again on any site and argue many other things with you.

[MikePetersSucks]

How is that relevant?
When LoZ/AoL were ported to the GBA they didn't replace their backstories with the story of the Four Sword.

Porting it to a different system has no bearing on the storyline at all.

Back when BS-LOZ came out, LTTP was the newest game otherwise. So "Hey...you know this Ganon guy? Here are his ultimate origins. Some stuff happened inbetween, but it doesn't matter."

[Erimgard]

@Ganonlord

Dude, it was an example. Point being, you don't change a game's backstory just because you give it new graphics.

How is that relevant?
When LoZ/AoL were ported to the GBA they didn't replace their backstories with the story of the Four Sword.

Porting it to a different system has no bearing on the storyline at all.

Back when BS-LOZ came out, LTTP was the newest game otherwise. So "Hey...you know this Ganon guy? Here are his ultimate origins. Some stuff happened inbetween, but it doesn't matter."

So the plot of the game doesn't matter to the game. Yeah, sorry MPS, but I just don't buy that.
The LoZ BS takes like 5 seconds to tell. If they wanted it included, they would have included it, instead of an "unrelated" story.

[Average Gamer]

So the plot of the game doesn't matter to the game. Yeah, sorry MPS, but I just don't buy that.
The LoZ BS takes like 5 seconds to tell. If they wanted it included, they would have included it, instead of an "unrelated" story.

It depends on if you think BS LoZ actually happened or not. If you believe that it's an illusion, the hero was basically informed about his enemy's backstory and was then sent through a "training session" before he was deemed ready to actually fight Ganon in AST.

[Jarsh]

It depends on if you think BS LoZ actually happened or not. If you believe that it's an illusion, the hero was basically informed about his enemy's backstory and was then sent through a "training session" before he was deemed ready to actually fight Ganon in AST.

This is exactly how I view it. So BS LoZ can take place before ALttP/AST, but that doesn't necessarily mean that LoZ takes place before ALttP/AST. It didn't even seem like Hyrule was the real Hyrule considering the world would disappear or whatever happens.

[MikePetersSucks]

So the plot of the game doesn't matter to the game. Yeah, sorry MPS, but I just don't buy that.
The LoZ BS takes like 5 seconds to tell. If they wanted it included, they would have included it, instead of an "unrelated" story.

The BS-LOZ antagonist doesn't need to be informed of the events of LTTP.

[bjamez7573]

It didn't even seem like Hyrule was the real Hyrule considering the world would disappear or whatever happens.

He's specifically mentioned of going to an illusionary world, which will "vanish if he runs out of time."

Don't you think that the "world vanishing" was only mentioned not because it was part of the story but because of the gameplay? Everything was timed, after all, so it would make sense to tell the player that in some way. Everything else seems to indicate that it was Hyrule.

MPS, I need your opinion on something.

ハイラルをおびやかした邪悪の王ガノンは、まさにこの時、誕生したのです。
Indeed, the King of Evil Ganon, the one who has threatened Hyrule so, was born at this time.

According to Zether the way this is written implies that the reader should already knows who Ganon is, obviously meaning that this Ganon is LOZ's Ganon. Would you come to the same conclusion? I just want a second opinion.

[MikePetersSucks]

Don't you think that the "world vanishing" was only mentioned not because it was part of the story but because of the gameplay? Everything was timed, after all, so it would make sense to tell the player that in some way. Everything else seems to indicate that it was Hyrule.

It's still called an illusion. It's not like the protagonist goes to the real Hyrule and then is informed "I can only keep you here for a short time."

According to Zether the way this is written implies that the reader should already knows who Ganon is, obviously meaning that this Ganon is LOZ's Ganon. Would you come to the same conclusion? I just want a second opinion.

Eh. Back then, there was no reason to assume there was more than one Ganon, so sure, why the hell not? It doesn't really matter.

[Erimgard]

It matters because the entire manual is written as a historical telling of the events of Hyrule, starting with Creation, and ending with Aganhim's mysterious rituals. If the reader is already supposed to know who LoZ Ganon is, and if this is a historical document ending prior to aLttP, then logic would dictate that LoZ precedes aLttP.

[MikePetersSucks]

Logic fail. No it does not.

[Erimgard]

Logic fail. No it does not.

Please explain how.
The manual is written to the player, under the assumption that the player is Link (example: it says "you are awakened"). It is a telling of historical events, some of them taken directly from ancient Hylian writings. It is written under the assumption that Link already knows of the time when Ganon "threatened Hyrule so", that time being the original Legend of Zelda.

How is it a logical fail?