47 replies to this topic

[Snow]

I bases a theory around something I deemed irrelevant because I know that you didn't agree with me.

I'm honestly not sure what you're trying to say here. Are you saying that you think it's okay to base an entire theory on something you consider irrelevant, or what?

Also, I already told you how Zelda and The Simpson's continuities are similar. If you didn't read it, don't be embarrassed to admit it. I mean, clearly you didn't read it, or absorb it's message.

I did read it, and I disagreed with it. Hence why I said I did.

You also didn't pay attention to the fact that I said that the official Japanese website was updated in 1998, nearly 4 years before the Oracles came out, so of course the website is going to agree.

You've never said that, and even if you had it wouldn't be true. The Japanese website was last updated in 2008, seven years after the Oracles came out.

I would bother to argue other points, but I'm not going to waste my time on people like you who ignore my points, and then restate them as if I have never addressed them. No offense to you or anything, but I debate for fun, and when people act ignorant like that, the debate turns from fun to irritating, and I just won't stand for that. I will still acknowledge you in other debates. Don't get me wrong. As far as this debate is concerned, however, I will ignore all future post from you, just as you did from me, just to see how you like it. Goodbye, Snow.

Classy.

As for the first part, we will just have to agree to disagree. If you truly want to believe that Zelda has a continuity similar to Lost in which every single detail matters, despite the evidence I have given you for the contrary, then that is just your opinion.

Literally no one here has claimed that Zelda's continuity is like Lost's. And no, saying that it isn't similar to The Simpsons' is not the same as saying it's like Lost's.

[Fin]

I really don't see why it has to be a choice between minute-details-matter continuity and Simpsonesque elastic universe continuity (I think that's the term the Simpson's writers use). I see Zelda occupying a space somewhere in between, probably closer to the Simpson's end of the scale, but not close enough that the two should really be compared.

Anyway, I see the end of the Oracles storyline as just a stereotypical hero's departure moment. It's hardly uncommon in fiction, and Zelda uses it quite a lot.

My big problem with placing Link's Awakening after the Oracles is that it doesn't get you anything. I prefer to look at my continuity backwards, since whatever games were released prior to Game X actually have some influence on its writing, whereas games that come later obviously cannot. I'd rather look to A Link to the Past when I'm playing Link's Awakening, since that game actually existed in the real world when LA came out, so it's more relevant.

Putting LA next to the Oracles doesn't add anything to the stories of either Link's Awakening or the Oracles as far as I can see. Hell, if anything it weakens LA's storyline a little. One of the themes of that game was Link's preoccupation with his fears, which is why I think the presence of Agahnim and Ganon's shadows among the last boss' ranks is pretty damn important. Besides which, I don't think Link's demeanour during his departure at the end of the Oracles gels with this theme.

[MikePetersSucks]

Everything Finbarr just said.

[Aiden]

For those who are still complaining about the Triforce mark on the back of Link's hand as if it were a big deal, look at this:

http://www.zeldalegends.net/gallery/thumbnails.php?album=112

OMFGROFL NONE OF THESE PICS FROM THE ORACLES DOES LINK HAVE A TRIFORCE MARK ON THE BACK OF EITHER HAND!!!!!!! LOLOLOLOLOLOL EPIC FAIL 4 U!!!!!!!

Douchery aside, I would just like to say that since the mark isn't on the back of his hand, it is more than possible that the mark is on LA Link's hand, just not in the official art, either? Yes, I believe that could be the case.

Why would I go out of my way to prove a point about something I don't think is a big deal. I'm doing it to speak your language. See, any normal person would get my point if I said, "Chill out! It's just a video game, and it's not a big deal!" You all, on the other hand, seem to make mountains out of molehills, and think that a minor retconnect about a mark on the back of Link's hand that has little to no impact on the overall timeline, or even the Oracles for that matter, just to take away the fun of debating for people like me who don't take it as seriously as you all do. Well, I won't allow you to do that. Despite some minor setbacks, I still enjoy debating on this forum, and will continue to do so in the future. If that ruins Zelda for you, then maybe you should leave and go somewhere where everyone takes Zelda as seriously as Lost.

I want to thank you all, however, because if it weren't for your constant whining about the Triforce mark on the back of Link's hand, I wouldn't have looked at the official art and came up with such a genious counter arguement to show other people who take the Zelda canon WAY too seriously such as yourselves.

BTW, you are all misquoting me. I never said that Zelda continuity was EXACTLY like The Simpson's. I said it was similar. The Simpson's writers place story (and sometimes individual jokes) before continuity, while Lost writers try to write the story around continuity. In that aspect, The Simpson's and Zelda have similar continuities. It was just the first show I thought of that was similar in those terms stated above. I could have said Family Guy, Everybody Loves Raymond, or Scrubs. It is interesting to note, however, that even though you all claim that you don't believe that Zelda has a Lost-style continuity, you sure aren't helping your arguement by complaining about small details like the Triforce mark or making sure Link fights every single enemy that is a Nightmare.

Edited by Aiden, 22 October 2010 - 06:36 PM.

[Fin]

I... okay?


EDIT: Okay, I should probably say something here. Since you asked us a question about continuity, I hope you'll indulge me while I ask a question in turn. What do you think placing LA after the Oracles games adds to either of those stories?

Edited by Finbarr, 23 October 2010 - 12:22 AM.

[Person]

Other official art from the Oracles games does show that Link has a Triforce mark on his left hand, however. Considering that the mark is brought up in-game and is in official art besides the ones you linked to, it still stands as something that the game makers intended to be there. LA Link is supposed to be the same as ALttP Link, who had no such mark on his hand.

[MikePetersSucks]

OMFGROFL NONE OF THESE PICS FROM THE ORACLES DOES LINK HAVE A TRIFORCE MARK ON THE BACK OF EITHER HAND!!!!!!! LOLOLOLOLOLOL EPIC FAIL 4 U!!!!!!!

Concept art is prone to getting shit balls-ass wrong. All the in-game art, however, does portray this. The in-game art for LA, however, does not...

In other words, you lose, stop being an asshole.

Douchery aside, I would just like to say that since the mark isn't on the back of his hand, it is more than possible that the mark is on LA Link's hand, just not in the official art, either? Yes, I believe that could be the case.

Do you realize, at all, that the images you posted were in circulation before Oracles was even released? Hell, before Oracles was even finalized? They don't necessarily reflect the final product anyway.

Why would I go out of my way to prove a point about something I don't think is a big deal. I'm doing it to speak your language. See, any normal person would get my point if I said, "Chill out! It's just a video game, and it's not a big deal!" You all, on the other hand, seem to make mountains out of molehills, and think that a minor retconnect about a mark on the back of Link's hand that has little to no impact on the overall timeline, or even the Oracles for that matter, just to take away the fun of debating for people like me who don't take it as seriously as you all do. Well, I won't allow you to do that. Despite some minor setbacks, I still enjoy debating on this forum, and will continue to do so in the future. If that ruins Zelda for you, then maybe you should leave and go somewhere where everyone takes Zelda as seriously as Lost.

You know, for someone who doesn't seem to care all that much, you sure do protest a bit much, and keep losing your top, shouting, and insulting people like an asshole. We're treating things "seriously" because it's a game to us; a game where we pretend there's an objective timeline hidden somewhere and it's our job to figure it out like Historians of a fictional country. If you don't want to play that game, fine, but get off your high horse.

I want to thank you all, however, because if it weren't for your constant whining about the Triforce mark on the back of Link's hand, I wouldn't have looked at the official art and came up with such a genious counter arguement to show other people who take the Zelda canon WAY too seriously such as yourselves.

Except it doesn't mean jack shit, because when I and others brought up the point, we were talking about the in-game art, not the concept art. You can't take the statement "X isn't present in A" and counter with "Well it's not present in B either!"

BTW, you are all misquoting me. I never said that Zelda continuity was EXACTLY like The Simpson's. I said it was similar. The Simpson's writers place story (and sometimes individual jokes) before continuity, while Lost writers try to write the story around continuity. In that aspect, The Simpson's and Zelda have similar continuities. It was just the first show I thought of that was similar in those terms stated above. I could have said Family Guy, Everybody Loves Raymond, or Scrubs. It is interesting to note, however, that even though you all claim that you don't believe that Zelda has a Lost-style continuity, you sure aren't helping your arguement by complaining about small details like the Triforce mark or making sure Link fights every single enemy that is a Nightmare.

See above. The purpose of the "Zelda timeline" hobby is to entertain the idea that the games are connected. You're not playing that game, making a half-enthused effort to combine things in a way you like rather than what you think is likely, and when you get called on it, you get defensive, rude, and insulting, then cover yourself with "well it's just a game, there's no real continuity." Well, no fucking shit, do you think no one here knows that? You must be the kind of person who logs into games like I Love Bees and say "It's not real, you guys, wtf are you doing?!"

[Jarsh]

It is interesting to note, however, that even though you all claim that you don't believe that Zelda has a Lost-style continuity, you sure aren't helping your arguement by complaining about small details like the Triforce mark or making sure Link fights every single enemy that is a Nightmare.

Why are these small details? I've always thought stuff like the Legend of the Fairy were "small details".

[Aiden]

I'm now ignoring people who claim they don't take Zelda seriously and then cuss a lot about it because they think that if they use "adult" words maybe their messages will get through to me. I stopped reading after the first "shit" not because I don't like profanity. I'll cuss like a sailor when I hang out with my friends and lose at video games, so I know exactly where you are coming from. However, I know that when people cuss it's because they are angry and have nothing intelligent to say. Seriously, I was just sending back the attitude that I got back your way. When you can apologize and grow up, maybe I'll address you again. Pissed? Maybe you should cuss about it a little more. If a Zelda theorist says, "Fuck you!" in the middle of a forest and no one is around to hear it, does anybody care? I know I sure don't.

Anyway, mentioning apologies, I owe you an apology, Snow. You are correct that I didn't address the official LA Japanese website. However, that is a hurdle that the OoX/LA connection can easily jump. First of all, even though the website was updated in 2008, what part of the website was updated then? Has the part that says that LA is ALttP's direct sequel been untouched since before the Oracles came out? Second, who wrote that it was LA's direct sequel? Do we know that it's a credible source because it's official? I mean, by that logic, the magnas are canon because they are indorsed by Nintendo. NoA's Zelda site is official but sure inaccurate. Japanese people can make mistakes, too. Third, where is it written that all official Japanese websites are 100% accurate with timeline information? There are three (or more, I was kind of lazy with the counting lol) reasons why the Japanese website shouldn't be trusted. Sorry about being mean to you for a mistake that I made, Snow. I really can't apologize enough to you. I made a mistake.

Edited by Aiden, 24 October 2010 - 11:40 PM.

[Fin]

Stop focussing on our writing styles and actually discuss the substance of our arguments. At the very least you could acknowledge that my posts exist, since they don't seem to fit your ignore button criteria.

[Snow]

First of all, even though the website was updated in 2008, what part of the website was updated then? Has the part that says that LA is ALttP's direct sequel been untouched since before the Oracles came out?

Does it matter what part of it was updated? The fact that it was shows that the site was relevant even in 2008. There's no need to alter the part about LA being a sequel to ALttP if it still holds true.

Second, who wrote that it was LA's direct sequel? Do we know that it's a credible source because it's official? I mean, by that logic, the magnas are canon because they are indorsed by Nintendo. NoA's Zelda site is official but sure inaccurate. Japanese people can make mistakes, too.

Well, unlike NoA's Zelda site, this site is actually made by Nintendo of Japan, who don't have to deal with translational errors. And the mangas (as well as games like LCT and TRR) are made to be non-canon, unlike LA's official website.

Third, where is it written that all official Japanese websites are 100% accurate with timeline information? There are three (or more, I was kind of lazy with the counting lol) reasons why the Japanese website shouldn't be trusted.

The website is endorsed by the very people who made the game, so they'll obviously make sure that its contents are accurate. After all, NoA have had to remove non-canon information from their official website at the request of Miyamoto, so there's clearly some sort of quality control regarding this kind of information. What are your reasons for calling this site untrustworthy?

[MikePetersSucks]

I'm now ignoring people who claim they don't take Zelda seriously and then cuss a lot about it because they think that if they use "adult" words maybe their messages will get through to me. I stopped reading after the first "shit" not because I don't like profanity. I'll cuss like a sailor when I hang out with my friends and lose at video games, so I know exactly where you are coming from. However, I know that when people cuss it's because they are angry and have nothing intelligent to say. Seriously, I was just sending back the attitude that I got back your way. When you can apologize and grow up, maybe I'll address you again. Pissed? Maybe you should cuss about it a little more. If a Zelda theorist says, "Fuck you!" in the middle of a forest and no one is around to hear it, does anybody care? I know I sure don't.

You don't know anything about me, so I'll clear something up for you. I'm a Japanese person, English is my second language. I love English a lot, especially the cussing. I like to swear my ass off, especially because I think people need to grow up and stop being bothered over harmless words. So I swear a lot, especially when I'm in a good mood. My swearing is not indicative of me being angry at all.

By the way, this only proves my point that you're an arrogant, weak debater who can't feel good about his side of the debate unless he insults and demeans his opponent. As long as you behave with this sort of attitude, you're showing everyone here that you don't actually care about sharing ideas so much as you want to be RIGHT.

[Jarsh]

Actually, there is one matter that I think is important: LA's JP website. Was it really updated recently? It looks the same as ever. Web Archive shows backups that date to 2008, but I don't see any changes at all between the various pages; which leads me to think Web Archive is just archiving the same old page every now and again.

[Person]

Actually, there is one matter that I think is important: LA's JP website. Was it really updated recently? It looks the same as ever. Web Archive shows backups that date to 2008, but I don't see any changes at all between the various pages; which leads me to think Web Archive is just archiving the same old page every now and again.

Considering that there has been no change to it whatsoever, we have no reason to believe that information or intent has changed.

[Aiden]

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...

Considering that there has been no change to it whatsoever, we have no reason to believe that information or intent has changed.

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.

(Definition of Pendant of Virtue on zelda.com)The Pendant of Courage, the Pendant of Power and the Pendant of Wisdom are collectively known as the Pendants of Virtue. When Link returned from his adventure in Termina, hundreds of years had passed in Hyrule and the Master Sword was hidden within the Lost Woods. To re-prove himself and demonstrate that he was worthy of the Master Sword, Link had to collect all three Pendants of Virtue.

Say whaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaat?!?! That's part of the crazy theory that used to be on Nintendo's site. If everything that is left on the website is true, then the defintion of Pedants of Virtue are canon and can be used in debate. Point is websites cannot always be trusted when it comes to timeline information.

Besides, the information in the games is what's important. The in-game evidence, in my opinion, suggest a retconnect of OoX/LA.

Concept art is prone to getting shit balls-ass wrong. All the in-game art, however, does portray this. The in-game art for LA, however, does not...

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.

Stop focussing on our writing styles and actually discuss the substance of our arguments. At the very least you could acknowledge that my posts exist, since they don't seem to fit your ignore button criteria.

Okay, I agree. Let's look at what you've written.

I... okay?

Not a good start. (J/K )

EDIT: Okay, I should probably say something here. Since you asked us a question about continuity, I hope you'll indulge me while I ask a question in turn. What do you think placing LA after the Oracles games adds to either of those stories?

I think that OoX fits LA's backstory better than ALttP. That's what I believe is added to LA's story.

Edited by Aiden, 26 October 2010 - 10:44 PM.

[Snow]

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.

Of course they do, but that doesn't mean that the backstory on LA's website is inaccurate. After all, it's pretty much exactly the same as the one in the game itself. You can't discredit the Japanese website on the sole basis that it might be inaccurate. By that logic, I could just as well say that any evidence of an OoX-LA connection were merely errors as well. I mean, people are capable of making mistakes when developing games too.

I'm not saying that Nintendo of Japan is unable to make mistakes, I just that you need some substantial evidence to back you up before asserting that the website is being incorrect.

If everything that is left on the website is true, then the defintion of Pedants of Virtue are canon and can be used in debate. Point is websites cannot always be trusted when it comes to timeline information.

That error is from NoA's official site. Given their track record of mistranslations and nonsensical amendments to the manuals and game scripts, I barely trust anything they say about the Zelda series. Your example seems to be just another one of their crazy ideas. To my knowledge, NoJ's official websites don't make mistakes like that.

Besides, the information in the games is what's important. The in-game evidence, in my opinion, suggest a retconnect of OoX/LA.

Well, I can't say I agree with you on that. As far as I know, there's no evidence that explicitly hints that OoX happens before LA. There's only the boat in the ending, which is only a connection if you want to view it as one. I don't think Nintendo wants to break up their own continuity unless they find it absolutely necessary to do so, and even when they do they tend to be fairly explicit about it. Since an OoX-LA connection creates numerous errors which the games don't even try to explain, I find it highly implausible that Nintendo intended a retcon. Also, I personally think there's more evidence to suggest that OoX happens after AoL than before LA.

[MikePetersSucks]

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.

[Aiden]

I'm done. Not because I'm upset but because I know that neither of us is going to budge on this one. It's a pointless debate. You have your belief, and I have mine. We will never know the answer for sure until a game of Link's seabound conquest before LA is made, or until the official timeline is released. If you want to see this as a win for you, then whatever. I had fun debating with you all though. P.S. I mean it this time lol.