53 replies to this topic

[SOAP]

Ironically, Skyward Sword actually messes up the chances for any games (besides SS of course) to take place before OoT. You can put LoZ before OoT if you want to go against the grain or whatever, but but you have to put LttP before LoZ, but LttP can't be before OoT because of the MS and SS is the only game that can contain the MS before OoT.

The Four Sword games might still stand a chance though. Maybe OoX too. In fact I'm counting it, seeing as SS has the same director as TMC and there's speculation that it uses some discarded plot elements from TMC.

[Beno]

SS definitely doesn't allow for any Master Sword stories before it. So if LttP and LoZ/AoL definitely have to be in that order than I would have to agree. I still think I would put the FS series before OoT.

I'm still just not sure what to do about LoZ/AoL. I feel torn between the Sleeping Zelda story being more canon or the developer quote/box being more canon.

Does anyone ever place FS/FSA after LttP but before LoZ/AoL?

[SOAP]

Well obviously the sleeping Zelda story isn't important anymore. You could do as some do and reinterpret the naming tradition to keep the memory of that Zelda alive. Since Zelda has been cursed to eternal slumber she can't be reincarnted because technically she's still alive. Since no new princesses after her will be the next true Zelda, they're given her name in her honor so the people wouldn't forget. Which would be ironic because that'd make the first Zelda we're introduvced to, LoZ Zelda, Zelda in name only.

Or you can do what I do and just treat all the pre-OoT games as they're own seperate but equally important canon. I have three basic timelines: Old Games, OoT Split Timline, and Four Sword Games, just to keep it simple. If I had a gun forced to my head and HAD to put the timelines into one big ugly looking monster, I'd put the Four Sword games first, then the OoT Split, and finally I'd put the Old Games in the Child Timeline.

[MikePetersSucks]

The Sleeping Zelda story makes it mandatory that every princess, not just those of Destiny, must be named Zelda.

And the Zelda from the first game? I'm betting she's not a Princess of Destiny. I mean, what the hell did she even do?

[Beno]

The Sleeping Zelda story makes it mandatory that every princess, not just those of Destiny, must be named Zelda.

And the Zelda from the first game? I'm betting she's not a Princess of Destiny. I mean, what the hell did she even do?

All right. I can definitely buy this reasoning. Quite clever. Can I ask why you put FSS where you do, MPS? Do you consider FSA the Seal War or do you just do it because of the similarities between FSA and LttP? And what kind of contradictions would it create if I did the child timeline as so:

MM-TP-LttP/LA-FS/FSA-LoZ/AoL

Does that fuck with anything too much? The only thing that comes to mind to me is the quote about Ganon in the LttP manual, but that still is rather vague.

[Average Gamer]

And the Zelda from the first game? I'm betting she's not a Princess of Destiny. I mean, what the hell did she even do?

She split the Triforce of Wisdom to prevent Ganon from obtaining it then sent Impa to search for a hero. Really, I don't think that Zeldas after the sleeping Zelda aren't "true" Zeldas.

Speaking of the sleeping Zelda, while it was obvious that she was originally intended to be the first Zelda in the series, that has long since been retconned.

[MikePetersSucks]

All right. I can definitely buy this reasoning. Quite clever. Can I ask why you put FSS where you do, MPS? Do you consider FSA the Seal War or do you just do it because of the similarities between FSA and LttP? And what kind of contradictions would it create if I did the child timeline as so:

MM-TP-LttP/LA-FS/FSA-LoZ/AoL

Does that fuck with anything too much? The only thing that comes to mind to me is the quote about Ganon in the LttP manual, but that still is rather vague.

I put the Four Sword Trilogy where it is because FSA and LTTP have enough similarities and segue opportunities to justify it. Also, the LTTP Four Sword dungeon in the remake makes for a nice hint if you consider it canon. The only other place I can feel is right to put it is AFTER LTTP, but I prefer to keep the three games together and the world of TMC is much too different to go LTTP-TMC-FSA. It's just bleh.

Removing TMC from the picture works just fine; FSA's sealed Ganon is never resolved and LOZ's Ganon's origin doesn't really exist, so that all sort of works out pretty nice, but then you have things like the Knights of Hyrule and some magical maidens and stuff and...well, yea...That, and if we consider that dungeon canon, the Four Sword fuses with the Master Sword, so it's existence can't persist for post-LTTP Four Sword games.

Also, it's confirmed that FSA was intended to be the Seal War before getting changed in production, so that helps a Pre-FSA alignment.

She split the Triforce of Wisdom to prevent Ganon from obtaining it then sent Impa to search for a hero. Really, I don't think that Zeldas after the sleeping Zelda aren't "true" Zeldas.

So what? It was an artifact of the royal family, so anyone who could physically walk up to it could order it to split up and scatter. It's not like the Triforce piece was IN her or anything.

[SOAP]

And the Zelda from the first game? I'm betting she's not a Princess of Destiny. I mean, what the hell did she even do?

She split the Triforce of Wisdom to prevent Ganon from obtaining it then sent Impa to search for a hero. Really, I don't think that Zeldas after the sleeping Zelda aren't "true" Zeldas.

Well King Daphnes was able to split the ToW in TWW so maybe that's an ability that anyone in the royal family can have. By "true zelda" I mean those Princesses of Destiny that are chosen to weild the ToW. LoZ Zelda did not. It was a physical item that rested within the castle walls, not within her. It's hard to say though because a lot these rules about the mechanics of the Triforce weren't really cemented until OoT and the first inklings of them did come out until ALttP. Which is kinda why I seperate LoZ/AoL into their own distinct canon. ALttP and OoT are the only two games that seem to bridge the old and new games and ALttP's connection with LoZ is tenuous at best. All we have to go on is that ALttP must go before LoZ and that's it. Everything else in LoZ and AoL has been retconed to the point of being completely moot.

[Average Gamer]

So what? It was an artifact of the royal family, so anyone who could physically walk up to it could order it to split up and scatter. It's not like the Triforce piece was IN her or anything.

The point is that she was capable of splitting a piece of the Triforce and tried to find a hero, which puts her on even footing with other Zeldas in the series. Also, if bearing a Triforce piece inside one's body is a requirement, you might as well say that LoZ Link and Ganon weren't a real Link or Ganon. The sleeping Zelda doesn't appear to have had the ToW inside her either, so you might as well say that she too wasn't a real Zelda.

Edited by Average Gamer, 31 March 2011 - 06:41 PM.

[MikePetersSucks]

The point is that she was capable of splitting a piece of the Triforce and tried to find a hero, which puts her on even footing with other Zeldas in the series.

No, it really doesn't. She doesn't display any other attributes that are specific to ZELDA as an archetypal character by this point. She did actions anyone in her position would've taken. Was she psychically warned of danger through prophetic dreams, for instance? Apparently not.

Also, if bearing a Triforce piece inside one's body is a requirement, you might as well say that LoZ Link and Ganon weren't a real Link or Ganon. The sleeping Zelda doesn't appear to have had the ToW inside her either, so you might as well say that she too wasn't a real Zelda.

I didn't say it was a requirement, don't put words in my mouth. I brought up the Triforce piece thing because LOZ Zelda did not have ownership over it. It was the family's and anyone, including someone stealing a piece (ahem, Ganon) could have done the same thing she did. Besides, your example is false to begin with, because the three characters don't exist under the same conditions. Link and Ganon apparently have their names the same way they always fucking do; they were just named this way. But this woman who received Zelda's name, WHETHER OR NOT she's the real deal, is forced to be given this name by the royal decree of a mortal government, not the whimsies of divine ordaining.

What if there were twins? Do they BOTH act as Princesses of Destiny? Would they have to share the Triforce of Wisdom? What about a queen and princess sharing the same name? Obviously this doesn't work; the orders of one man aren't going to change the will of the gods, and it's not the NAME that makes Zelda who she is; it's only a title to appropriate the person who is already such, and this title is being abused to memorialize the grief of a prince.

[Average Gamer]

No, it really doesn't. She doesn't display any other attributes that are specific to ZELDA as an archetypal character by this point.

She displayed wisdom in making the ToW difficult to obtain and searching for a hero rather than hoping one would appear.

Was she psychically warned of danger through prophetic dreams, for instance?

Possibly, since the manual mentioned that she feared an invasion from Ganon, though it's more likely that he was just relatively well-known. Regardless, certain Zeldas aren't warned of danger either (ALttP Zelda, TP Zelda, etc.), so that's not a good way to determine who is a "true" Zelda.

I didn't say it was a requirement, don't put words in my mouth.

Sorry, I was writing that in a rush.

I brought up the Triforce piece thing because LOZ Zelda did not have ownership over it. It was the family's and anyone, including someone stealing a piece (ahem, Ganon) could have done the same thing she did.

It may have belonged to the family, but that doesn't change the fact that she was part of said family. It may have even been a scenario similar to TP where Zelda was (apparently) the only royal family member alive before the invasion, though that can't really be backed up. Also, while Ganon was able to take the ToP, that doesn't necessarily mean that just anyone would be able to split a piece, and Ganon was a demon king anyway.

Besides, your example is false to begin with, because the three characters don't exist under the same conditions. Link and Ganon apparently have their names the same way they always fucking do; they were just named this way. But this woman who received Zelda's name, WHETHER OR NOT she's the real deal, is forced to be given this name by the royal decree of a mortal government, not the whimsies of divine ordaining.

However, LoZ/AoL Link doesn't appear to be chosen by the gods, featured in a prophecy, paired up with someone, etc. He just comes out of nowhere. Anyway, the comment about a "real" Link and Ganon was more of a response to the idea of someone needing to be fused with a Triforce piece to be "real." Hell, I'll probably see that pop up as a theory on ZU in about a week.

What if there were twins? Do they BOTH act as Princesses of Destiny? Would they have to share the Triforce of Wisdom? What about a queen and princess sharing the same name?

It's not like there's some kind of Highlander-style rule saying that there can only be one (semi) competent female member of the royal family.

Honestly, I don't see any point in claiming that someone isn't a "real" (insert name here), especially when the so-called fakes are just as or more effective than some of the "real" ones.

[SOAP]

Oh. My. Gods. PEOPLE!

This whole thing is my fault because I was the one who brought up LoZ Zelda being a "fake" Zelda. Which isn't what I meant since if someone's named Zelda, that's their name, no real or fake about it. What I meant is that there's a whole lot of rules and stuff concerning the Triforce and the three chosen ones that weren't around when LoZ and AoL were created, so trying to fit the two within the rest of the series sometimes doesn't mesh well with the overall scheme of things. In a way, LoZ?AoL follows it's own rules. Well before more concrete ones emerged later on in the series after the creators got a better knack of what they wanted to do. I offered the "fake" Zelda theory as a way to justify tying the Sleeping Zelda story at the end of the series while still giving it some importance of it's own. Borrowing from the commonly accepted theory that everyone in Hyrule (or at least the important players) all reincarnate, then it follows if one iteration of Zelda becomes incapacitated but never dies, her soul remains stuck to her body and she can't reincarnate into a new one. Knowing this, or perhaps not knowing this, her brother decrees all girls born into the royal family to be named Zelda, to keep her memory alive. If he knew that his sister could not reincarnate perhaps he also hoped keeping the memory alive would keep the knowledge of what happened in tact until a person with the right qualities (Link) could come and undo the spell, not only to awaken that Zelda but so that she may die naturally and be reborn again, thus restoring the balance.

THAT of course is all just my baseless speculation. At the time, the Sleeping Zelda was just a sleeping princess and Link needed to wake her from her centuries-long slumber. She presumably was te first Zelda, but at the time there were only one other Zelda, so it made sense. That was the extent of it as far as creator intent goes. But the series marched forward and more and more prequels were made and more and more Zeldas started showing up so the whole Sleeping Zelda thing just took the backseat. All you can do really is assume it no longer matters, or make some convoluted theory lik I just did.

Edited by SOAP, 02 April 2011 - 01:29 AM.

[RWB]

Borrowing from the commonly accepted theory that everyone in Hyrule (or at least the important players) all reincarnate

Why is the reincarnation theory so accepted, though? There's little implying that it's happening, and quite some implying it isn't.

In favor of reincarnation:
- Tingle's claim
- the rumor of Kaepora Gaebora being a reincarnated sage.
- Physical likenesses between characters

Rather weak case...

Ganondorf's comment about "the hero of time reborn" is more likely to refer to Link's skill, and I believe that was confirmed by translators?


Against:
- WW Link: Confirmed not to be related to the Hero of Time. Which makes sense seeing how the Hero of Time left that entire timeline completely. There's no soul to reincarnate.
- Two Zeldas: I hope I don't have to explain this

[MikePetersSucks]

The reason it's accepted is because otherwise we have all these random people being born with the exact same name, appearance, personalities, and destinies as some other asshole who may or may not be an ancestor. Zelda has the excuse of the Prince's Mandate decreeing that everyone be named in honor of his sister's memory and crap, but everyone else?

Also, you forget that in Spirit Tracks, it is confirmed that the Lokomos are going to reincarnate in another form. So, you know, there's that. Your two "Against" points are sort of self-defeating, as reincarnation wouldn't of been an option anyway.

[Pinecove]

and Dengeki64 quote in 1999

Yes. The quote in the 1999 January issue of the Dengeki64 magazine (page 17) states that the timeline was OoT-ALttP-LoZ/AoL. This kinda disproves LoZ coming before OoT. As for the Four Sword games, it is my belief that flagship and Nintendo had different intents for the two games. Nintendo wanted it later, while flagship wanted it earlier (hell, this can even somewhat be seen with TMC's beta intent where it had the Master Sword, almost like SS now). I believe Nintendo won out, and the FSS turned out to go after MM or TWW (not sure which one yet).

[SOAP]

Borrowing from the commonly accepted theory that everyone in Hyrule (or at least the important players) all reincarnate

Why is the reincarnation theory so accepted, though? There's little implying that it's happening, and quite some implying it isn't.

In favor of reincarnation:
- Tingle's claim
- the rumor of Kaepora Gaebora being a reincarnated sage.
- Physical likenesses between characters

Rather weak case...

Ganondorf's comment about "the hero of time reborn" is more likely to refer to Link's skill, and I believe that was confirmed by translators?


Against:
- WW Link: Confirmed not to be related to the Hero of Time. Which makes sense seeing how the Hero of Time left that entire timeline completely. There's no soul to reincarnate.
- Two Zeldas: I hope I don't have to explain this

Well it's commonly accepted as theory but not as a fact. It's just an easy way of explaining away the things MPS mentioned and in absence of any better alternatives, fans readily accept it and move on, rather than everyone wasting their time arguing over something that's never going to be answered definitely one way or another. We know at least the Lokomo reincarnate and of course there's Kaepora Gaebora. It would make sense if reincarnation is mostly a Sage thing. Maybe it is. We also see in game examples of ghosts in the Zeldaverse, like King Gustuf from TMC as well King Mutoh and the Knights of the Cobble Kingdom. That might seem to count against reincarnation but it at least shows that in the Zeldaverse, spirits seem to linger on in the physical world well after death. What doesn't seem to be discussed is if they have a concept of Heaven and Hell or do people just turn into ghosts when they die or reincarnate into new bodies? The latter two seem plausible even though they may only apply to certian circumstances.

And welcome to LA.

Edited by SOAP, 29 April 2011 - 11:37 PM.

[Snow]

Eh, I don't really think it's that necessary to come up with an explanation for all the recurring characters throughout the history of Hyrule. Since we've been shown that there are at least two people who have the exact names, clothes, physical appearances and destinies without being different incarnations of the same person, I doubt that the creators consider it an issue. If it can happen once or twice, I assume that they're perfectly fine with it happening more times than that, making reincarnation explanation fairly redundant in my opinion.

[MikePetersSucks]

For the ghost thing, I'll mention that even in reincarnation cosmologies, spirits can exist as ghosts if they don't want to move on. In Buddhist and Shinto modes of thought, specifically, the memories of one lifetime can "split off" as a ghost while the rest of the person goes on to the next life.

[SOAP]

Eh, I don't really think it's that necessary to come up with an explanation for all the recurring characters throughout the history of Hyrule. Since we've been shown that there are at least two people who have the exact names, clothes, physical appearances and destinies without being different incarnations of the same person, I doubt that the creators consider it an issue. If it can happen once or twice, I assume that they're perfectly fine with it happening more times than that, making reincarnation explanation fairly redundant in my opinion.

It's not really redundant. It's just an explanation what happens in-universe that doesn't really contradict what's really happening in real life (i.e. the creators just reusing the same characters and names hundreds of years apart for the hell of it). Since there's at least one game, Spirit Tracks, that reveals that reincarnation does happen, it's not that much of a stretch to say reincarnation happens elsewhere in the series.

[Showsni]

Let's play devil's advocate!

The reason it's accepted is because otherwise we have all these random people being born with the exact same name,

Zelda's name is explained in game, Link is named by the player and could be called anything, Impa comes from a long family of Impas, presumably with Impa as a family name...

appearance,

personalities,

and destinies as some other asshole who may or may not be an ancestor.

Well, the destinies are pretty different too, but I don't feel like typing them all out.
(Compare "Sleep for hundreds of years until some kid wakes you up" with "Run a pirate crew, aid Link in finally sealing away an ancient evil, and help discover a new land," for instance.)

No, I think the real reason we cling to the reincarnation idea so much is because we want these people to, at least in some respect, be the same characters from game to game. It's important to people that they're plaing as Link; the Link, the legendary hero, collector of the triforce, yada yada. If this is just some random new kid who shares his name, well, that's kind of not really the same. That's why the single Link theory, ridiculous as it is, stayed around for so long; people grew attached to some idea of Link, and didn't want him to be split amongst a load of random people. The reincarnation theory is a more workable extension of the idea that we're still playing with the same characters.

[MikePetersSucks]

In reincarnation, even gender and species can be swapped around. Tetra is actually the spunky spirit of OOT Malon. Your arguments mean nothing.

[SOAP]

In reincarnation, even gender and species can be swapped around. Tetra is actually the spunky spirit of OOT Malon. Your arguments mean nothing.

Isn't OoT Malon based off Marin who is in turn based off ALttP Zelda?

I wonder who ST is supposed to be a reincarnation of? She's an exact double of TWW Zelda but her personality is a polar opposite of Tetra. Heck even TWW Zelda has a different personality from Tetra and they're the same person.

That said, Tetra still reminded me of OoT Zelda even before I realized she was supposed to be Zelda. If anyone is supposed to be a reincarnation of Malon, it's Aryll, who has the spunk of child Malon/Romani with a little sweet kindness of Marin thrown in. Then again, she did kinda remind me of kid Zelda from OoT. You know what!? Let's make it easier. Every girl in the Zeldaverse is either demure Zelda or spunky Malon. And since Malon is indirectly another incarnation of Zelda, every girl ever is Zelda. She's just that fucking omnipotent.

Except Anju. She's too submissive and quiet. She doesn't have the balls to deserve to be a Zelda. She's a reincarntion of Emma Pillsbury at best.

Edited by SOAP, 05 May 2011 - 02:08 AM.

[MikePetersSucks]

That post was mostly a joke, you know.

[SOAP]

That post was mostly a joke, you know.

So was mine. I thought the Emma Pillsbury reference would give that away.