79 replies to this topic

[ganonlord6000]

@Ganonlord

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

So was what I said on ZU regarding Ganon's swords in comparison to the trident providing all of those games have the same trident.

[Jarsh]

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?

I would say because BS LoZ doesn't replace, and never has replaced, LoZ. If it is a retelling of the adventure, then Zelda II could not happen because there is no Link. In short:

BS LoZ-(LoZ/AoL) - ALttP/AST - (LoZ/AoL)

If it indeed did happen, it would not replace LoZ at all. It may not even take place in the "real Hyrule" since the world can disappear. One could argue that is just a gameplay mechanic, but it's not like the world disappears in AST (meaning it does take place in the real Hyrule). The only way I can see it correlating with the actual LoZ is developer intent (trident, for example).

[bjamez7573]

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."

Why does that matter? My point was that if the game was a normal game (and not in real time), those lines would not have been said, and we would have no reason to think that it was someplace other than Hyrule.

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.

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.

As you know, though, it does matter for my timeline. And that is the whole reason why I brought this thread up, was so that I could reevaluate all of the evidence for ALTTP's prequel status. I understand your point about only one Ganon, but people also didn't think of the games back then as being in a "timeline" and pay attention to consistency (which is exactly how Miyamoto saw it). They saw a villian who looked the same (relatively speaking), and had the same name. In both ALTTP and LOZ, Ganon is defeated in exactly the same way - making it more sense for there to be two, rather than one Ganon (since it is obvious in AOL that Ganon is actually dead). Yes, I know that AST shows Ganon resurrecting himself, making it more likely that he revived somehow and continued on in LOZ, but the only reason that may have been put in there is to reuse the villian (Like Bowser), rather than to show a link to LOZ (just a possibility, given Miyamoto's disinterest in the timeline, and even though he wasn't in charge of the story, he still would have to be the one to make the games cohesive, since different teams did different games).

So if you could please just objectively look at it, and see if you come to the same conclusion, I would appreciate it.

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.

Well, the comment by Zether may not mean that the event comes before, just that the reader recognize that it is Ganon from LOZ they were talking about. It could still mean that they were talking about Ganon's past event.

[MikePetersSucks]

Why does that matter? My point was that if the game was a normal game (and not in real time), those lines would not have been said, and we would have no reason to think that it was someplace other than Hyrule.

So you ASSUME. The fact that they made the line part of the story and not an out-of-character tutorial line suggests otherwise. Especially since, in the BS game canon, the Hero of Light, after BS-LOZ, was sent to post-LTTP KNS, which does not possess the line. The suggestion is that he stayed in some illusionary world with a similar quest, probably as some sort of training, I'd wager.

In both ALTTP and LOZ, Ganon is defeated in exactly the same way - making it more sense for there to be two, rather than one Ganon (since it is obvious in AOL that Ganon is actually dead).

Nice jump in logic, there.

[bjamez7573]

Why does that matter? My point was that if the game was a normal game (and not in real time), those lines would not have been said, and we would have no reason to think that it was someplace other than Hyrule.

So you ASSUME. The fact that they made the line part of the story and not an out-of-character tutorial line suggests otherwise. Especially since, in the BS game canon, the Hero of Light, after BS-LOZ, was sent to post-LTTP KNS, which does not possess the line. The suggestion is that he stayed in some illusionary world with a similar quest, probably as some sort of training, I'd wager.

Fine, I did assume that. But you're also assuming that it is story related. Its possible that it wasn't said in KNS because there was no need, since the first BS game came out and people were already familiar with the system. I quess it could go either way.

In both ALTTP and LOZ, Ganon is defeated in exactly the same way - making it more sense for there to be two, rather than one Ganon (since it is obvious in AOL that Ganon is actually dead).

Nice jump in logic, there.

Your point?

Edited by bjamez7573, 16 October 2009 - 06:57 PM.

[MikePetersSucks]

Fine, I did assume that. But you're also assuming that it is story related. Its possible that it wasn't said in KNS because there was no need, since the first BS game came out and people were already familiar with the system. I quess it could go either way.

Oh, yea, Nintendo would just neglect to mention a gameplay element. You're kidding, right?

[ganonlord6000]

In both ALTTP and LOZ, Ganon is defeated in exactly the same way - making it more sense for there to be two, rather than one Ganon (since it is obvious in AOL that Ganon is actually dead).

Maybe ALTTP and LOZ occur on seperate timelines with different Ganons.

[bjamez7573]

Oh, yea, Nintendo would just neglect to mention a gameplay element. You're kidding, right?

It certainly seems feasible to me, since the first BS legend of Zelda was broadcasted only months after the Satellaview release, so probably weren't used to how the system operated yet, so that is why they put that line in there. On the other hand, KNS was released 2 years after the Satellaview, when people were probably already used to the system and how it operated, so the developer's probably thought no line about the game's time limit would be needed.

[Jarsh]

Oh, yea, Nintendo would just neglect to mention a gameplay element. You're kidding, right?

It certainly seems feasible to me, since the first BS legend of Zelda was broadcasted only months after the Satellaview release, so probably weren't used to how the system operated yet, so that is why they put that line in there. On the other hand, KNS was released 2 years after the Satellaview, when people were probably already used to the system and how it operated, so the developer's probably thought no line about the game's time limit would be needed.

I don't really see how that explains the line at all. Even so, it is still said in-game that BS LoZ's Hyrule will disappear within a time. And it certainly does.

[MikePetersSucks]

...Also, this is Nintendo, who makes sure in every game to make sure you don't need a manual. "Press A to jump! "

[bjamez7573]

^ Ok, I can see that both ways are possible. There certainly isn't enough evidence to see that it absolutely was meant to be a different land than LOZ's Hyrule. But we could debate that for hours and probably not get anywhere. It really doesn't matter much anyway, since the story is so messed up with the rest of the series it can't possibly retcon LOZ's original story.

In both ALTTP and LOZ, Ganon is defeated in exactly the same way - making it more sense for there to be two, rather than one Ganon (since it is obvious in AOL that Ganon is actually dead).

Nice jump in logic, there.

If you could tell me how or why it was an "jump" in logic, I would appreciate it, as it can help me to know where you're coming from. But I'll try to explain it another way. In LOZ, Ganon is killed with the Silver arrows and died as a result of it, and this is verified in AOL with him needing to be resurrected and his minions are devising a plot to do so. In ALTTP, he is killed exactly the same way (except you're using the Master Sword), and the scene shows him blowing up. This strongly indicates that he is dead, and not in the almost dead state. That is why I said two Ganons would make more sense. The only issue is KNS. In it Zelda talks about Ganon being sealed, but then he was shown as being resurrected. To me, the word sealed in that context seems to mean his body died (since they talk about him being revived/resurrected). They never say how Ganon was resurrected, so it could have been any number of methods.

This reasoning is precisely why I would like to get a second opinion on that quote. So could you please objectively look at it (without thinking about how we only needed to assume one Ganon at the time) and tell me if you agree with Zether's conclusion.

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 Zethar, the way this is written implies that the reader already knows who Ganon is. This is a reference to how ALttP is internally connected to LoZ and AoL.

Edited by bjamez7573, 21 October 2009 - 12:49 AM.

[MikePetersSucks]

If you could tell me how or why it was an "jump" in logic, I would appreciate it, as it can help me to know where you're coming from. But I'll try to explain it another way. In LOZ, Ganon is killed with the Silver arrows and died as a result of it, and this is verified in AOL with him needing to be resurrected and his minions are devising a plot to do so. In ALTTP, he is killed exactly the same way (except you're using the Master Sword), and the scene shows him blowing up. This strongly indicates that he is dead, and not in the almost dead state. That is why I said two Ganons would make more sense. The only issue is KNS. In it Zelda talks about Ganon being sealed, but then he was shown as being resurrected. To me, the word sealed in that context seems to mean his body died (since they talk about him being revived/resurrected). They never say how Ganon was resurrected, so it could have been any number of methods.

LTTP Ganon being successfully revived prerequisites a need to have two Ganons, and we know there's more than one way to bring him back. :3

[bjamez7573]

so by the very fact that he is revived, that means that we can assume that takes inbetween ALTTP-LOZ? Even when the end of KNS shows that he is slain again (in the same way as the other two, of course). Its funny, in OOX, even though he is revived, we don't assume that he is coming back after the game, but in fact we know he is dead in the end (perhaps it doesn't matter much, since he is placed after ALTTP or AOL anyway). Granted, both Ganons (ALTTP and LOZ) have the Trident, so that probably means their intent back then was for the two Ganons to be the same. Still, that is the only piece of evidence that links the two games to necessitate the ALTTP-LOZ order.

So what evidence do you side with?
1) Keeping Ganon the same in LOZ and ALTTP as intended. This requires the old order: ALTTP-LOZ/AOL

OR

2) Keeping The Sleeping Zelda story as intended. This requires LOZ/AOL-OOT

Personally, I have a hard time deciding, but I would go with option 2) because, In my opinion, the sleeping zelda story carries more weight as evidence than keeping Ganon the same in LOZ and ALTTP.

Maybe ALTTP and LOZ occur on seperate timelines with different Ganons.

Well, I don't think they would occur on separate timelines, as the only reason to separate them is because of the sleeping zelda story (the only way to keep it as intended is to place LOZ/AOL before OOT). If that wasn't a part of the equation, ALTTP-LOZ would be the best choice.

Edited by bjamez7573, 21 October 2009 - 09:04 PM.

[CID Farwin]

This is kind of my random two cents, but to me the Sleeping Zelda story as the first Zelda was invalidated by ALttP when it released. In my eyes, ALttP takes precedence as the newer game.

[Jarsh]

^
I agree with this. I don't give much heed to the Sleeping Zelda story anymore.

[Erimgard]

1) Keeping Ganon the same in LOZ and ALTTP as intended. This requires the old order: ALTTP-LOZ/AOL

How, exactly?
In either order, he has to be resurrected.

[bjamez7573]

but to me the Sleeping Zelda story as the first Zelda was invalidated by ALttP when it released. In my eyes, ALttP takes precedence as the newer game.

I disagree. The way I see it, when ALTTP came out, the sleeping zelda story could still work as intended, since ALTTP Zelda could have been the first generation zelda. I think what screwed things up is when OOT came out. What gets me is the implied reference in Wind Waker when Tetra is named Zelda by the King Daphnes that seems to indicate that story is still relevent. There isn't anything else that explains all the Zelda names after all.

1) Keeping Ganon the same in LOZ and ALTTP as intended. This requires the old order: ALTTP-LOZ/AOL

How, exactly?
In either order, he has to be resurrected.

LOZ before ALTTP doesn't make as much sense if they have the same Ganon. It is implied that Ganon is at his starting point in the Seal War, and is sealed all the way up to ALTTP. That was certainly a stronger implication back then, as they show that Ganon, the evil king was born (as it says in the ALTTP manual). With FSA as a strong indicator of a prequel to ALTTP with the same Ganon, it makes even less sense for LOZ to come before both FSA and ALTTP.

Edited by bjamez7573, 22 October 2009 - 09:52 PM.

[MikePetersSucks]

I disagree. The way I see it, when ALTTP came out, the sleeping zelda story could still work as intended, since ALTTP Zelda could have been the first generation zelda. I think what screwed things up is when OOT came out. What gets me is the implied reference in Wind Waker when Tetra is named Zelda by the King Daphnes that seems to indicate that story is still relevent. There isn't anything else that explains all the Zelda names after all.

Keep in mind that Daphnes is OBSESSIVELY clinging to the past to the point that it might be approaching mental illness, and Tetra's mother didn't seem to care about upholding Tetra's heritage (yea, I know, Ganon was after them, but still). IMO, I think Daphnes is just calling her Zelda because that was the name of the Princess, probably his daughter. The same way Ganondorf is certain TWW Link is the Hero of Time, perhaps Daphnes thinks his daughter's returned to him?

[bjamez7573]

^If he was really so obsessed, then why did he revert at the end? To me that shows that although he was attached, he didn't let it get the better of him. Sure, he made a mistake by staying attached, but IMO, his behavior doesn't scream, "wow, he's so messed up"

[MikePetersSucks]

^If he was really so obsessed, then why did he revert at the end?

Character Development.