123 replies to this topic

[coinilius]

Like I've mentioned before as well, the GBA version of the AoL backstory explains that the scroll was amongst the objects (the scroll and the crytals to be placed in the statues heads) given to her ancestor by the King - the one she was just talking about in the AoL backstory. The scrolls and the crystals were given to her ancestor by the same King.

[mohammedali]

I've read the re-release of AoL Bs and it doesn't stipulate that it was the same King, yet I understand that adding a King gave it to Impas family suggests it was the same thing.
The fact it there is a conflict.

If you believe the King is the same as Sleeping Zeldas father then AoL Bs comes after aLttP. It is suggested they are the same but never proven.
If you believe Sleeping Zelda is the first Zelda then AoL Bs comes before all Zelda games. This is stated as being the case, but means the above cannot be true as well.

I know that my idea doesn't seem to support what AoL Bs SUGGESTS, BUT it does support ALL of the statements unlike the idea that AoL Bs suggests. This is why I put AoL Bs before all games - it might not be what the original creators wanted, but it is the ONLY way Sleeping Zelda can be the first.

Mohammed Ali

[Chaltab]

But most of us don't consider AST canon....

[coinilius]

I can understand where you're coming from, but the way I see it, the manual story as it is written doesn't make sense in narrative or even general sentence construction terms if she is suddenly talking about another King, with no indication that she has changed tack. The manual then continues to refer to teh writer of teh scroll and hider of the toC as the King, again as if it is talking about the same entity as was previously established (the King of the AoL backstory). It seems more likely that Nintendo were trying to address the issue that it wasn't totally clear that the King from the backstory wrote the scroll in the original NES manual book, although the implication that they were the same person has been there since then.

Basically, as I see it, it does more than just SUGGEST they are the same person, as the way it is constructed clearly indicates they are the same; the King is established by Impa, refered to consistently as the King, then she goes straight into saying that the King gave her ancestor the scroll, which explains how the king hid the ToC etc.. never in the manual book does it indicate that they are actually talking about two different kings.

I don't have any problem with your theory or people taking the AoL backstory in a different way, just wanted to say that IMO, the AoL manual book story is constructed in a way that makes it very obvious that they are the same person and that you really have to shoehorn in the idea that they are seperate people. And I don't mean that in an offensive way (if it sounds that way), as shoe-horning in facts is probably always going to have to be done to make a timeline that makes sense.

[mohammedali]

snip

I actually agree with the most part of what you are saying. The fact that Nintendo redone the manuel to state King does indeed suggest it is the same person, but this leads to the obvious 'Start of a Legend' contradiction. The only reason I put the AoL Bs at the start was to propose a timeline that is correct even if NoA disagree slightly. Having said that, I might just change it though at the moment I think it is acceptable for anyone to put either down. In any case you will always have a trade off.
You either have a slight contradicion in your timeline, but NoA seems to back you up.
You have a perfect timeline, but it goes against what seems to be truth.
Either of these can be argued as being better than the other, so until more info (from the Jap version perhaps), I guess it will have to be up to the individual.

Mohammed Ali

[Zythe]

snip

What?

[Crazy Penguin]

The sleeping Zelda was intended as the first Zelda at the time, and it's possible that she was the same Zelda we saw in the very first prequel, Link to the Past, but by the time of Ocarina of Time was released it simply no longer worked. It's still possible for all of the future female Royal Family members to be named after the sleeping Zelda without her being the *VERY* first royal named Zelda, so let's just leave it at that.

[Zythe]

Maybe we can have a Zelda game without a Princess Zelda, and let's say she's a Princess Brandeen, then we'll know where we are timeline-wise.

[Chaltab]

LOL.

I think the AoL backstory pretty much has to go prior to the entire game timeline, as Zythe just parodied.

[Crazy Penguin]

LOL.  

I think the AoL backstory pretty much has to go prior to the entire game timeline, as Zythe just parodied.

In that case the earliest chronological game to feature the Triforce of Courage would either have to feature the sleeping Zelda before she was put to sleep, or be Adventure of Link itself. This does not work though, as we know LttP is set centuries before the NES games and we know that OoT is set centuries before LttP.

[Chaltab]

How so?

The Triforce of courage could have been sealed away at anypoint in history after the latest appearance. I assume for my timeline that sometime after AlttP but before the age of chaos, a King discovered the hidden North Castle that had been washed away in the flood (this is the same castle from OoT and TMC, finally unearthed) where the Sleeping Zelda was hidden. This King couln't revive her or find the Triforfce of Courage, so he cast the spell and wrote the scroll, and gave the Six crystals to final Impa's ancestor as said in the AoL manual...

Before that, but still sometime after AlttP the Triforce of Courage was sealed away in the Great Palace of the Valley of Death for reasons unknown.

[Zythe]

And HA has to go just before or after LttP. And TWW has to go after OoT and MM. FS has to go before FSA and TMC before them both. And Oracles have to go before LttP. Those are the rules. And .. I wasn't parodying anything.

[Chaltab]

And Oracles have to go before LttP

I agree here, Zythe, but I just thought I'd ask you why you think that? Obviously we list them as different generations, but... Por que?

[Crazy Penguin]

How so?

The Triforce of courage could have been sealed away at anypoint in history after the latest appearance. I assume for my timeline that sometime after AlttP but before the age of chaos, a King discovered the hidden North Castle that had been washed away in the flood (this is the same castle from OoT and TMC, finally unearthed) where the Sleeping Zelda was hidden. This King couln't revive her or find the Triforfce of Courage, so he cast the spell and wrote the scroll, and gave the Six crystals to final Impa's ancestor as said in the AoL manual...

Before that, but still sometime after AlttP the Triforce of Courage was sealed away in the Great Palace of the Valley of Death for reasons unknown.

That doesn't work. In the scroll the king says that he had hidden the Triforce of Courage.

And if the Royal Family did have the Triforce of Courage sometime after Zelda had been put asleep then why would they not wake her?

We're told that Zelda's brother did not inherit the complete Triforce from his father. The scroll says that the Triforce of Wisdom and Power were left behind to be inherited but he had hidden Courage because he had not found anyone worthy of it. That is not coincidence.

And Oracles have to go before LttP.

I wouldn't say that. The dead Ganon thing was much more important than the Master Sword appearance. When the Oracle games were made Ganon had only been killed in LoZ and LttP, so it would have to come sometime after one of those two, Master Sword or not.

[mohammedali]

That doesn't work. In the scroll the king says that he had hidden the Triforce of Courage.

Yet it still doesn't stipulate which King. As I said before, you either assume that this Zelda is not the first, which goes against the intuitive idea given in AoL Bs. OR you assume the King is not the same one that wrote the scroll, which goes against the intuitive idea in AoL Bs. Both are TECHNICALLY possible, but there is a definate trade off. It just depends which you perfer as nothing explicitly suggests one over the other.

And if the Royal Family did have the Triforce of Courage sometime after Zelda had been put asleep then why would they not wake her?

Note that having the Triforce doesn't mean they controlled the Triforce. In AST we already see that Link controlled the Triforce and no one else as Zelda says the Triforce won't obay anyone other than its master, who was away on an adventure. It is possible that he never found out about Sleeping Zelda, and/or didn't return to Hyrule. Because of this, the Triforce was left without a master to control it. Hence, the King put a spell on... (you know the rest )

We're told that Zelda's brother did not inherit the complete Triforce from his father. The scroll says that the Triforce of Wisdom and Power were left behind to be inherited but he had hidden Courage because he had not found anyone worthy of it. That is not coincidence.

I imagine that when the game was made, and the backstory created, this was supposed to be the idea. However, as we have seen from OoT, Nintendo tend to look at what they can change, whilst still making the old storylines true. Maybe someone at Nintendo decided not inheriting the whole Triforce was due to a split - afterall, the story still works.

I wouldn't say that. The dead Ganon thing was much more important than the Master Sword appearance. When the Oracle games were made Ganon had only been killed in LoZ and LttP, so it would have to come sometime after one of those two, Master Sword or not.

Also, how did they have the whole Triforce? To put OoX doesn't make much sence. Having said that, I haven't played the games yet Could anyone fill me in on the important events and notes? Please?

Mohammed Ali

[Zythe]

I agree here, Zythe, but I just thought I'd ask you why you think that? Obviously we list them as different generations, but... Por que?

"And the Master Sword sleeps... FOREVER!"

But then, AST fucks with that...

[Crazy Penguin]

Note that having the Triforce doesn't mean they controlled the Triforce. In AST we already see that Link controlled the Triforce and no one else as Zelda says the Triforce won't obay anyone other than its master, who was away on an adventure. It is possible that he never found out about Sleeping Zelda, and/or didn't return to Hyrule. Because of this, the Triforce was left without a master to control it. Hence, the King put a spell on... (you know the rest )

In the NES games simply being in possession of the Triforce meant that you could use it, that still seems to be true now. Where did you get this AST information from? It wasn't the same site that says Agahnim used the Soul Edge was it?

I imagine that when the game was made, and the backstory created, this was supposed to be the idea. However, as we have seen from OoT, Nintendo tend to look at what they can change, whilst still making the old storylines true. Maybe someone at Nintendo decided not inheriting the whole Triforce was due to a split - afterall, the story still works.

The story would not work, the whole plot with the prince searching for the rest of the Triforce would no longer have any connection to the hidden Triforce of Courage, you'd have to go with the completely fanficced assumption that the prince's father hid some of the Triforce, then the prince went crazy looking for it, then an unspecified time later it was found and returned to royal hands again for some reason, but they didn't want to awaken the sleeping Zelda with it and then it was hidden again.

Even if the sleeping princess was not the very first royal family member to ever be named Zelda in the history of the royal family the game's plot still works, as does all future royal girls being named Zelda out of formal tradition.

Also, how did they have the whole Triforce? To put OoX doesn't make much sence. Having said that, I haven't played the games yet   Could anyone fill me in on the important events and notes? Please?

Link had obtained the full Triforce both at the end of LttP and LoZ/AoL. Ganon was also dead at the end of each.

[Zythe]

Note that having the Triforce doesn't mean they controlled the Triforce. In AST we already see that Link controlled the Triforce and no one else as Zelda says the Triforce won't obay anyone other than its master, who was away on an adventure. It is possible that he never found out about Sleeping Zelda, and/or didn't return to Hyrule. Because of this, the Triforce was left without a master to control it. Hence, the King put a spell on... (you know the rest

Sort of OT, but maybe Link has the Triforce during LA and the only way for Ganon to beat Link was in his dreams, meanwhile he used the AST to try and conquer Hyrule again.

[mohammedali]

In the NES games simply being in possession of the Triforce meant that you could use it, that still seems to be true now. Where did you get this AST information from? It wasn't the same site that says Agahnim used the Soul Edge was it?

In the AST thread it said the reason the Triforce wasn't used to fight Ganon was because it's master was on a journey (I can't remember if Link took it with him or not). Not sure about the site talking about the Soul Edge and Agahnim.

The story would not work, the whole plot with the prince searching for the rest of the Triforce would no longer have any connection to the hidden Triforce of Courage, you'd have to go with the completely fanficced assumption that the prince's father hid some of the Triforce, then the prince went crazy looking for it, then an unspecified time later it was found and returned to royal hands again for some reason, but they didn't want to awaken the sleeping Zelda with it and then it was hidden again.

No. You are making many assumptions when reading the story that aren't necesserally true. My point is below so read it carefully.

1) It is IMPLIED that the King who wrote the scroll is Sleeping Zeldas father but NOT stated as definate. IF true, then Sleeping Zelda CAN'T be the first.
2) It is IMPLIED that Sleeping Zelda is the first but NOT stated as definate. IF true, then the King who wrote the scroll CAN'T be Sleeping Zeldas father.

NEITHER are proven true, though I agree that #1 seems more intuitive in certain respects. However, as we have NO proof that either is definate, I suggest each person uses the one they perfer. If you STILL don't believe me, go find a quote which proves one of the above as either definate or impossible.

Even if the sleeping princess was not the very first royal family member to ever be named Zelda in the history of the royal family the game's plot still works, as does all future royal girls being named Zelda out of formal tradition.

I agree. However, it goes against what is IMPLIED in the book.
To you it seems obvious that they are talking about the same King in the Bs. To many other people it seems obvious that they are talking about the first Zelda in the Bs. Neither can be proven to be right, hence the difference in opinioin.

Link had obtained the full Triforce both at the end of LttP and LoZ/AoL. Ganon was also dead at the end of each.

So why do people put OoX before aLttP? I'm confused...

Mohammed Ali

[Zythe]

Because of the Old Zora with a broken Master Sword (Ganon's head under the sea) puts it right after TWW and the "Master Sword Sleeps Forever" Line.

[mohammedali]

Because of the Old Zora with a broken Master Sword (Ganon's head under the sea) puts it right after TWW and the "Master Sword Sleeps Forever" Line.

Huh??? I'm not sure what this was in reference to (not Sleeping Zelda I take it lol).

Mohammed Ali

[Zythe]

No, the LttP ending.

[mohammedali]

No, the LttP ending.

I don't remember there being a Zora head with the Master Sword in aLttP (or WW for that matter). Am I missing something?

Also, is the Four Swords temple anything to do with Vaati because from what I have read, there is no link between it other than the picori sword being reforged. Someone please fill me in on these games.

Mohammed Ali

[Chaltab]

The Zora with the Master Sword is in Oracle... He gives you an ancient sword and you can get it repaired. It becomes the Blade of Pwnage, Aka, the Master Sword.

Therefore, if the final line of AlttP is to be trusted, Oracle must come before AlttP. That is what Zyth is saying.

I've allways considered the Master Sword another Easter egg, though.

[mohammedali]

The Zora with the Master Sword is in Oracle... He gives you an ancient sword and you can get it repaired. It becomes the Blade of Pwnage, Aka, the Master Sword.  

Therefore, if the final line of AlttP is to be trusted, Oracle must come before AlttP. That is what Zyth is saying.

I've allways considered the Master Sword another Easter egg, though.

So you actually get the MS in Oracles? Damn. Then that must mean that this is after WW or another game because that is too big to be an easter egg.

Mohammed Ali

[Zythe]

Plus, it's turned from powerless (a la TWW) to full-strength by a Zora King, so yeah. And it's also in Holodrum's Lost Woods... but... it was put there by magic. One strong connection and one enroneous placement is better than nothing.

[MikePetersSucks]

But then there's the whole Ganon's ressurection thing you have to take care of. And New Hyrule. And the Triforce placement. All of this undeniable plot stuff versus....a game item in a side quest. WOOOOOOOW

[Crazy Penguin]

In the AST thread it said the reason the Triforce wasn't used to fight Ganon was because it's master was on a journey (I can't remember if Link took it with him or not). Not sure about the site talking about the Soul Edge and Agahnim.

All of the "story information" from that thread came from here: http://www.bszelda.z...storymain.shtml

It's fan written, and the author throws in a lot of his/her own fanfiction "explanations" for things too, as seen in the Soul Calibur II summary: http://www.bszelda.z...s.net/cos.shtml

No. You are making many assumptions when reading the story that aren't necesserally true. My point is below so read it carefully.  

1) It is IMPLIED that the King who wrote the scroll is Sleeping Zeldas father but NOT stated as definate. IF true, then Sleeping Zelda CAN'T be the first.
2) It is IMPLIED that Sleeping Zelda is the first but NOT stated as definate. IF true, then the King who wrote the scroll CAN'T be Sleeping Zeldas father.

NEITHER are proven true, though I agree that #1 seems more intuitive in certain respects. However, as we have NO proof that either is definate, I suggest each person uses the one they perfer. If you STILL don't believe me, go find a quote which proves one of the above as either definate or impossible.

The scroll was written by the sleeping Zelda's father. That's how the story was meant to be read. Nintendo haven't retroactively changed or contradicted this so nor should the fans try to. Changing that destroys Adventure of Link as a story unto itself. Adding the fact that there were actually a few princesses named Zelda thousands of years before the sleeping Zelda was born does not destroy Adventure of Link as a story unto itself.

I agree. However, it goes against what is IMPLIED in the book.
To you it seems obvious that they are talking about the same King in the Bs. To many other people it seems obvious that they are talking about the first Zelda in the Bs. Neither can be proven to be right, hence the difference in opinioin.

Changing around what happened to the Triforce of Courage and when destroys all coherency in Adventure of Link's plot. Saying that there were a few other princess Zeldas hundreds or thousands of years before the sleeping Zelda was born does not affect the coherency Adventure of Link's plot.

Because of the Old Zora with a broken Master Sword (Ganon's head under the sea) puts it right after TWW and the "Master Sword Sleeps Forever" Line.

That only works if you think that Wind Waker's ending was an intentional reference to the Master Sword thing in the Oracles, and I very much doubt that. Also, as you later noted, it doesn't explain all of the options in the Oracle games because it's also possible to obtain the Master Sword simply resting in Holodrum's Lost Woods.

[mohammedali]

The scroll was written by the sleeping Zelda's father. That's how the story was meant to be read. Nintendo haven't retroactively changed or contradicted this so nor should the fans try to. Changing that destroys Adventure of Link as a story unto itself. Adding the fact that there were actually a few princesses named Zelda thousands of years before the sleeping Zelda was born does not destroy Adventure of Link as a story unto itself.

No. It ISN'T stated that it was her father that wrote the scroll. I know it seems more likely but then saying Zelda was the first of her generation IS destroyed by saying there were Zelda's before her. How can she be the first ever Zelda if there was one before her? Fact is that part of what is intuitive is contradicted by either possibility. Also, thinking that there are 2 Kings, one that is Zeldas father, the other that gives the scroll, doesn't mess up the story at all. It just leaves a lot of wholes which the other games now fill. Read my next responce to see why I think this is...

Changing around what happened to the Triforce of Courage and when destroys all coherency in Adventure of Link's plot. Saying that there were a few other princess Zeldas hundreds or thousands of years before the sleeping Zelda was born does not affect the coherency Adventure of Link's plot.

Once again, although I agree that your idea was most likely what Nintendo originally planned, when planning new games that worked with the existing canon, I recon they thought 'aaah, it still works if we do this'. Hence, even if it doesn't seem as intuitive a story as it did by placing sleeping Zelda afterwards, it does allow for a more perfect canon which is better IMHO.
What I am saying is that the original story was most likely what you are saying, but after Nintendo released new games, the story is more likely to be what I am saying. The reason they didn't change anything is because they don't want to retroactively change things that dramatically, and in all fairness, don't need to, providing they remember what assumptions they made.

That only works if you think that Wind Waker's ending was an intentional reference to the Master Sword thing in the Oracles, and I very much doubt that. Also, as you later noted, it doesn't explain all of the options in the Oracle games because it's also possible to obtain the Master Sword simply resting in Holodrum's Lost Woods.

Man, these Oracle games cause a lot of problems...

So, as it stands, I am proposing the following timeline...

Sleeping Zelda | OoT ┬ MM = IW | aLttP → KnS = LA | LoZ → AoL
······································ └ | TMC | TWW → Reborn | OoX | FS → FSA

Sleeping Zelda is first because of the above reasoning, though I am sympothetic to it going after aLttP. Then OoT where the timeline splits.
I'm still unconvinced with the placing of OoX as I recon it should go near aLttP though there are inconsistancies.
Now, I know the placement of FS and FSA seems a bit odd but hear me out. I'm begining to think that the GBA version of aLttP/FS has the events of the 2 different timelines being shown. i.e. in WWU, Vaati had been captured (ala TMC) and hence there was a shrine where the 4 Swords was placed, then FSA happens after that. In MMU however, it doesn't talk about Vaati at all. Instead it shows how the Four Swords was reforged. As TMC didn't happen in this timeline, then maybe this game shows how it was reformed. This may also explain the very similar landscapes, as both events could have happened at the same time. I haven't played the games so I don't know if this is possible, but is there any quotes that make this impossble? Let me know... Also, is it impossible for Ganon to be resurected before WW (i.e. FSA before WW), and does FS Link HAVE to be the same as FSA Link?

Mohammed Ali

[Crazy Penguin]

No. It ISN'T stated that it was her father that wrote the scroll.

It didn't need to be outright said, although it may as well have been because that was the intention of the writer.

I know it seems more likely but then saying Zelda was the first of her generation IS destroyed by saying there were Zelda's before her. How can she be the first ever Zelda if there was one before her? Fact is that part of what is intuitive is contradicted by either possibility.

http://www.zeldalege...nual_story.html

"Shodai" means "first generation" or "founder."

That still works. The sleeping Zelda can still be the founder of the rule that all future girls born in the royal family must be named Zelda.

Before that the royals named Zelda could just be coincidence, or informal tradition. In Adventure of Link's backstory it became a RULE that all future girls in the royal family would be named Zelda. So if the Zelda in the original LoZ game had any sisters or female cousins then they'd all be called Zelda too.

Also, thinking that there are 2 Kings, one that is Zeldas father, the other that gives the scroll, doesn't mess up the story at all. It just leaves a lot of wholes which the other games now fill. Read my next responce to see why I think this is...

Nothing fill the holes of "Where was the rest of the Triforce that the prince couldn't find?" or "Why didn't the royal family ever wake up the sleeping Zelda when they had the chance?"

Once again, although I agree that your idea was most likely what Nintendo originally planned, when planning new games that worked with the existing canon, I recon they thought 'aaah, it still works if we do this'. Hence, even if it doesn't seem as intuitive a story as it did by placing sleeping Zelda afterwards, it does allow for a more perfect canon which is better IMHO.  
What I am saying is that the original story was most likely what you are saying, but after Nintendo released new games, the story is more likely to be what I am saying. The reason they didn't change anything is because they don't want to retroactively change things that dramatically, and in all fairness, don't need to, providing they remember what assumptions they made.

Again, the simplest explanation is usually correct. One could look at it and think "Oh, so I guess she wasn't the very first Zelda after all, just the founder of the naming rule that followed." or, as you've suggested "Well I guess that the rest of the Triforce that the prince was searching for had absolutely no relevance to the rest of the story and it was found somewhere inbetween but then the royal family chose to hide it rather than awaken the sleeping Zelda like they had hoped to do even though centuries later Impa the royal house maid who had the story passed down to her through generations practically begged Link to bring back the Triforce of Courage to awaken the sleeping Zelda".

I'm still unconvinced with the placing of OoX as I recon it should go near aLttP though there are inconsistancies.

As I mentioned before, the plot of the Oracle games revolves around the resurrection of Ganon. At that time Ganon had only died at the end LttP and LoZ, so it has to go sometime after either of those.