16 replies to this topic

[Person]

The only links I can find are in Japanese. Anyone have a link to the translated version? If I can get the link, I'll update the info on the Zelda Wiki page with a citation.

[Jarsh]

A translator on ZI translated it here. But Pinecove on ZU in this thread made another translation that would seem to be more correct:

Miyamoto: (Oca(rina of time) → Triforce of (the) Gods) Then comes the first and Adventure of Link.

The reason it would seem to be more correct is that MJJ's quote doesn't mention LoZ and AoL, but if run through even a mediocre online translator it's obvious that it mentions the first two games by name rather than 'link's adventures', as per MJJ.

Edited by Jarsh, 20 April 2010 - 04:00 PM.

[Nerushi]

Yes, cause shodai is obviously what they call the first Zelda game. Not its creator, and AoL is obviously mentioned there.

I thought of putting it up on ZeldaWiki, but I dunno how well received it would be considering the shady sourcing.

[Pinecove]

ZW is full of idiots. TO put it there would be....just....to put it simply, a waste of time.

[Person]

ZW is full of idiots. TO put it there would be....just....to put it simply, a waste of time.

I'm not trying to convince anyone or anything. The "Timeline placement" sections of the LoZ and ALttP articles just had "The back of the box said it was a prequel, Miyamoto said it was a sequel." I just added "And then he said it was a prequel again later."

[Impossible]

I've been gone for a while, can anyone fill me in on this? Where did it come from, and when was it found?

If anyone bothered to read what I wrote about the Miyamoto timeline ages ago, though, this should have been damn obvious. On the off chance that it wasn't a mistranslation or Miyamoto misspeaking (given that it made no sense with the order of events at the time - i.e. surrounding Ganon and the Triforce between games, and OoT being the IW leading to ALttP - and it also contradicted other forms of stated canon at the time), there was the whole fact that Miyamoto had nothing to do with the story of those games anyway, and had stated elsewhere around the same time that he didn't know what the timeline was. Suggesting that he was put on the spot by a question he wasn't really sure about, and that it might not be reliable.

Or, you know, there is the ancient standard that's as old as timeline debate is, that developer quotes are trusted to the extent that they don't contradict the games (especially if they are older than many games that change things). In any case, I trust something translated directly from Japanese by far over something we never saw the source of in a period where Nintendo's translation standards sucked.

I guess we can just add this to the ever-growing list of things that the fallacy-based crowd fucked up with their confirmation bias, though. Like the numerous things confirmed by the retranslations or other newer evidence.

Edited by Impossible, 29 April 2010 - 01:08 AM.

[Jarsh]

I've been gone for a while, can anyone fill me in on this? Where did it come from, and when was it found?

The quote was discovered on this site initially, but also cross-referenced on a few other Japanese Zelda fansites, such as this one. I found it around late March or so and Pinecove of ZU made the first understandable translation of it. The quote originates from a Japanese magazine called 'Dengeki 64', specifically, the January 1999 issue.

I guess we can just add this to the ever-growing list of things that the fallacy-based crowd fucked up with their confirmation bias, though. Like the numerous things confirmed by the retranslations or other newer evidence.

Now if only we could find the 'FS earliest tale' quote to be false...

[Impossible]

It still amazes me that people could argue that to be false while arguing that the Miyamoto timeline is true. People see what they want to see.

Can we get anyone here to do a decent, non-machine translation for the record?

[Nerushi]

Now if only we could find the 'FS earliest tale' quote to be false...

That would make a lot of people happy now it wouldn't it?

It still amazes me that people could argue that to be false while arguing that the Miyamoto timeline is true. People see what they want to see.

In reverse, I did feel bad for questioning the 'old/mistranslated' Miyamoto timeline, while vigourously defending the oldest tale. Yet now I can proudly say I follow both the real Miyamoto order( box order... or perhaps we should call it the 99 order? ), Aonuma OT statement and Aonumas two ending/parallel quotes.

[Jarsh]

That would make a lot of people happy now it wouldn't it?

You wouldn't be happy to find out that FSA directly precedes ALttP in some interview? I know I would be.

Can we get anyone here to do a decent, non-machine translation for the record?

Of the Miyamoto quote? I posted one earlier and it's really as good a translation as it gets.

Miyamoto: (Ocarina of time → Triforce of the Gods). Then comes the first and Adventure of Link.

For the record, he also confirmed it a second time in the same interview.

Mr. Miyamoto: (Ocarina of Time) and next is the Super Famicom one.

[Nerushi]

You wouldn't be happy to find out that FSA directly precedes ALttP in some interview? I know I would be.

Oh, I would. Any theorist should be happy with if a game gets a canon/developer confirmed place in the timeline, or next to another game. However, what you was asking for was strictly for the oldest tale to be false, probably since it does not statisfy how you would like FSA to be placed. Not exactly the same thing y'know? Kinda reverse of that actually.

Edited by Nerushi, 29 April 2010 - 12:06 PM.

[Duke Serkol]

True reliable developer intent insight would be a good thing, whether it narrowed down a game's placement or it opened up more/different possibilities, because either way we get a better understanding of what the authors really had in mind for that particular story.

[Person]

With these developer quotes, the only real question remains as to whether or not this order goes on the Child or Adult timeline. If we get any sort of confirmation for that, then we have a complete Zelda timeline with little room for speculation. Given that the developers have been handing us the timeline placement of each of the recently-released games, I doubt Zelda Wii is going to have any controversy over its placement.

[Jarsh]

Oh, I would. Any theorist should be happy with if a game gets a canon/developer confirmed place in the timeline, or next to another game. However, what you was asking for was strictly for the oldest tale to be false, probably since it does not statisfy how you would like FSA to be placed. Not exactly the same thing y'know? Kinda reverse of that actually.

Fair enough, I know I'm just trying to ignore a developer statement. But if the 'earliest tale' statement is indeed correct, then yours (and Person's) timeline is probably the 'true' Zelda timeline.

Edited by Jarsh, 29 April 2010 - 08:28 PM.

[Pinecove]

Impossible: Can we get anyone here to do a decent, non-machine translation for the record?

Jarsh: Pinecove of ZU made the first understandable translation of it.

Me: Miyamoto: (Oca(rina of time) → Triforce of (the) Gods) Then comes the first and Adventure of Link.

Thankyou for paying attention.

Edited by Destiny, 29 April 2010 - 07:15 PM.

[Impossible]

I wasn't aware that Pinecove even knew Japanese. I meant a proper translation in context.

It's pretty obvious, also, that any statement made about particular games AFTER they came out is going to be more accurate. We have considerable precedent to say that virtually anything Miyamoto has ever said relating to the story/timeline of a Zelda game pre-release has been wrong, or was changed afterwards. But yet again, people just pick and choose the evidence however they like it.

[Pinecove]

I wasn't aware that Pinecove even knew Japanese.

I'm not as good as say Jumbie, but I've been learning.

I meant a proper translation in context.

You mean with the question?
The question was literally: "order of the series?"