Okay, I apologize to everyone I have offended by being a douche. I am far from a perfect person, and I am far from a perfect debater. Besides, MPS is right. Cussing is fun. I'm going to do it now. Poop. Now that's out of the way, I'm done ignoring people, etc. I just want to discuss things with all of you because that's what I enjoy. Now, then...
All is forgiven. We all have douche moments sometimes. <3 Lemme return your popp with a Fuckshitfuckdamn.
Again, there is nothing saying that timeline information on websites must be accurate. People make mistakes. MPS, you probably know other Japanese people. You know that they make mistakes as well. Just because NoA had to take down inaccurate timeline information, that doesn't mean that all inaccurate timeline information on every official Nintendo Zelda website ever has to be taken down. In fact, take a look at some of the definitions on NoAs Zelda site.
Point taken, but unlike the NOA examples, there is nothing within the actual games that warrants us to consider the Japanese site to be in error, here. It is your personal, biased interpretation of the games calling the site's information into question. Unlike the NOA incident, which held information that was objectively, observably wrong even by fans who didn't care about the timeline.
Besides, the information in the games is what's important. The in-game evidence, in my opinion, suggest a retconnect of OoX/LA.
And the connection between LTTP/LA remains stronger.
You are right. Concept art is prone to screwing up. Even though those images were at once concept art, they are now official art. That means that they are canon. If Capcom had intended for the mark to be present on Link's hand all of the time, then they would have changed it in the final product. Seriously, how hard would it have been for them to take all of those images and place a Triforce mark on the back of the appropriate hand? Given how easily Capcom could have placed a Triforce mark on the back of Link's hand in the official, canon art, it is obvious that they intended for the Triforce mark to not always be present.
Bear in mind the people who created that official artwork and the people who made the game are two different teams, and that there's bound to be communication fallouts, and that the Triforce mark is always present in the actual games, and is continuously commented on by plot-sensitive characters, and we're never given any sort of rules for triggering why the mark would sometimes not be there.
I can find loads of different games, also done by Capcom, with even bigger errors in the official art. Characters with totally wrong hair color or weapons, for example. The art isn't at all reliable if it contradicts the games whatsoever; it's barely even supplemental, it's just visual aids.
I find it a bit hypocritical and telling of a bias that you'll call into question any official documentation that contradicts your beliefs, but strongly support any flimsy thing that goes along with your ideas.
I think that OoX fits LA's backstory better than ALttP. That's what I believe is added to LA's story.
Would you kindly explain why? I mean, for one thing, atleast one other game in the series has corraborated with the LTTP/LA connection, LA's manual directly references Link's adventure in HYRULE, etcetera.
Also, I personally think there's more evidence to suggest that OoX happens after AoL than before LA.
Ditto, and as evidence that is just as strong as anything Aiden's presented, if not stronger, when we see the Triforce, it exists in parts as it has since LOZ-onward, just floating as three physical objects instead of it's iconic, unified form. Secondly, it gives Link a mark of the hero; a dull symbol that has all the Triforce pieces as an equal glow, that bestows Link with special destiny, status, and at times abilities that correlate only with AOL Link's sign and no other precedented time.