105 replies to this topic

[Jumbie]

Fyxe: You deride mohammedali for doing the exact same thing?

Nonsense, I didn't mock him at all As you say, I do a similar thing with the ship. The point is, this Zelda/Marin sprite similarity doesn't mean anything, for we can't tell if Marin is meant to look like OoX Zelda or ALttP Zelda! That's why I said, not even I would take that as evidence.

[FDL]

No offense to anyone but each side's "evidence" is weak.

[Hero of Slime]

Are you trying to say that LA is not a sequel to either game? Do you think that LA stands by it self in the Timeline?

[FDL]

Naw, I'm only saying that it could work either way. All the supposed hard, 100% truth is pretty ambiguous.

[Jumbie]

Well, if something is ambiguous, I usually listen to what common sense says. Let's hear... LA was once the sequel to ALttP, but OoX changed that. Sounds logical, makes sense for the ship to appear, and is by all means feasible. They have often corrected the game order by putting additional games between two titles, so why not here!

[Hero of Slime]

It could also be that the creators have changed nothing, and the ship at the end of Oracles is just another ship.

[Jumbie]

It could also be that the creators have changed nothing, and the ship at the end of Oracles is just another ship.

We will never know...
As I always go with the policy to match up everything which can possibly be matched up, I also match up both ships, and actually I'm really surprised that not one person on this board thinks alike (taking into consideration the wild speculations that some people draw with other issues)...

[Fyxe]

Surely common sense states that LA was released after ALttP, appears to be a direct sequel from the storyline and presentation, along with promotional material, so therefore it is a sequel.

End. Bored now.

[HeroOfTime5]

No offense to anyone but each side's "evidence" is weak.

and what makes you think that?

[Wolf O'Donnell]

Quite a lot of the enemies that appear in LA also appear in Oracles. If we assume, Reflectionist's position of the entire adventure was a dream is correct, then quite a lot of the monsters that appear in LA shouldn't have if LA is a direct sequel to ALttP.

However, if we position it after Oracles, then that changes.

After all, the Nightmare from the Face Shrine is identical to the one in one of the Oracle games, but not to any that appear in ALttP. In fact, many of the "new monsters" in LA appear in Oracles. So if we state that the dreams are based on Link's experience, Oracles makes the best prequel candidate.

Therefore, we can assume these two scenarios:

1. LA was meant to be a direct sequel to ALttP, based on many of the reasons given by those proponents.
2. However, Oracles seems to be a direct attempt to recton the position of LA.

From this, I can assume one thing. Oracles was deliberately meant to disrupt the solidity of the timeline, making it far more flexible and less rigid than it was before. This would thus allow Miyamoto to insert whatever game he liked wherever he liked in the timeline.

All your arguing does nothing but prove my contention. There is no timeline.

[Hero of Legend]

From this, I can assume one thing. Oracles was deliberately meant to disrupt the solidity of the timeline, making it far more flexible and less rigid than it was before. This would thus allow Miyamoto to insert whatever game he liked wherever he liked in the timeline.

It’s more like Capcom wanted to make a connection between their games and a "real" Zelda game, even though Nintendo didn't care about it (Or at least they haven't announced anything that would imply they do). At any rate, Miyamoto had little to do with the Oracles, so I seriously doubt this is some big scheme of his to prove the timeline doesn't exist.

Edited by Hero of Legend, 25 July 2006 - 05:22 PM.

[Jumbie]

Aaah, there he finally is - the someone I hoped for who also realizes that OoX indeed destroyed the previous ALttP+LA connection

1. LA was meant to be a direct sequel to ALttP, based on many of the reasons given by those proponents.
2. However, Oracles seems to be a direct attempt to recton the position of LA.

From this, I can assume one thing. Oracles was deliberately meant to disrupt the solidity of the timeline, making it far more flexible and less rigid than it was before. This would thus allow Miyamoto to insert whatever game he liked wherever he liked in the timeline.

Miyamoto is the wrong name here, isn't he? He never had in mind to put Zelda games at any specific place. AoL was just a normal sequel after the first LoZ; ALttP was a completely independent story; OoT picked back up that neatly pre-designed Sealing War story. LA has, according to Shigeru, never been a sequel to any specific game.
After those games, it was Aonuma's and Capcom's turn. It was them who made the timeline flexible.

All your arguing does nothing but prove my contention. There is no timeline.

Well no, there's not one at present time. And in spite of Eiji's promises to work out a real timeline with future games, we're still far from having it. I seriously doubt that they will ever go back to making games that fit in between the old games, but rather than that they are now concentrating on the Adult Timeline, seeing as TP and PH happen before and after TWW respectively.

[Fyxe]

Quite a lot of the enemies that appear in LA also appear in Oracles. If we assume, Reflectionist's position of the entire adventure was a dream is correct, then quite a lot of the monsters that appear in LA shouldn't have if LA is a direct sequel to ALttP.

However, if we position it after Oracles, then that changes.

After all, the Nightmare from the Face Shrine is identical to the one in one of the Oracle games, but not to any that appear in ALttP. In fact, many of the "new monsters" in LA appear in Oracles. So if we state that the dreams are based on Link's experience, Oracles makes the best prequel candidate.

It uses the same game engine. Game design issue, not timeline issue. End of discussion.

Besides, LA uses an engine that is almost identical to ALttP, just modified for the Game Boy. So feh.

OH, and countering the Facade thing, what about Moldorm? Moldorm appears in ALttP and LA but not in the Oracle games. And Lanmola. And Turtle Rock. And Agahnim. All far more important than Facade.

Edited by Fyxe, 25 July 2006 - 06:43 PM.

[Arturo]

OH, and countering the Facade thing, what about Moldorm? Moldorm appears in ALttP and LA but not in the Oracle games. And Lanmola. And Turtle Rock. And Agahnim. All far more important than Facade.

Let's play devil's advocate. Agahnim appears in OoS, as a mini-boss of the fourth dungeon:

Attached Files

•  Agahnim_OoS.gif   1.02K   0 downloads

[Wolf O'Donnell]

It’s more like Capcom wanted to make a connection between their games and a "real" Zelda game, even though Nintendo didn't care about it (Or at least they haven't announced anything that would imply they do). At any rate, Miyamoto had little to do with the Oracles, so I seriously doubt this is some big scheme of his to prove the timeline doesn't exist.

I didn't intend to suggest that. What I intended to suggest was Miyamoto didn't want a rigid timeline, as it would restrict the number of games he could create. A flexible timeline was to his advantage.

It uses the same game engine. Game design issue, not timeline issue. End of discussion.

Irrelevant. In this debate, we must ignore such issues for everything can thus be dismissed that way.

OH, and countering the Facade thing, what about Moldorm? Moldorm appears in ALttP and LA but not in the Oracle games. And Lanmola. And Turtle Rock. And Agahnim. All far more important than Facade.

Agahnim appears in Oracles. He's that miniboss in... I think... the Crescent Moon Dungeon in Oracle of Ages.

No matter what you state, my contention still stands.

LA meant to be direct sequel to ALttP
Oracle attempts to make itself direct prequel to LA.

[Hero of Legend]

I didn't intend to suggest that. What I intended to suggest was Miyamoto didn't want a rigid timeline, as it would restrict the number of games he could create. A flexible timeline was to his advantage.

Then what you suggest is wrong. As I said, the connection between LA and the Oracles was most likely an idea that Capcom came up with. Miyamoto, and likely Nintendo as a whole, had nothing to do with it. And if they did, then if anything, the Oracles prove that they were prepared to go out of their way to make an even stronger connection between the games than that which existed before. That is a change made in retrospect, and it has no bearing on whether the timeline as a whole exists or not.

Edited by Hero of Legend, 26 July 2006 - 10:17 AM.

[Fyxe]

Let's play devil's advocate. Agahnim appears in OoS, as a mini-boss of the fourth dungeon:

NOT AGAHNIM. That wizard has NO official name. I have checked.

Irrelevant. In this debate, we must ignore such issues for everything can thus be dismissed that way.

It is most relevant. To judge a game's place in the series you need to take into account and seperate timeline issues and game design issues. If you get them mixed up, you make assumptions based on an issue of design rather than plot.

Agahnim appears in Oracles. He's that miniboss in... I think... the Crescent Moon Dungeon in Oracle of Ages.

Again, I emphasise that that wizard is no more Agahnim than the wizard boss in AoL. It's irrelevant, anyway, as I already provided a reason against the 'Facade is evidence of sequality' idea. You ignored Moldorm, Turtle Rock, Lanmola and other creatures that appear in ALttP and not the Oracle games. Facade appeared because they're reusing a boss idea. They do it throughout the game. Aquamentus, Dodongo, Gohma, blah blah blah... And it was easy to do for Facade because it was using the same game engine.

Oracle attempts to make itself direct prequel to LA.

...Because it has Link on a boat? I mean, honestly, that's like, the only piece of evidence. It doesn't mean anything. It's merely a homage to LA, rather than an actual connection. It's quite apt when you consider than the Oracle games are FULL of constant homages to other Zelda games.

...And a homage to Donkey Kong, oddly.

[Jumbie]

NOT AGAHNIM. That wizard has NO official name. I have checked.

Where can you check that, in-game? But, you do know that the names of many charas/enemies are not told in a lot of games, don't you? Even if the name Agahnim shouldn't appear in OoS, this enemy may still be called like that in the official.. whatever.

...Because it has Link on a boat? I mean, honestly, that's like, the only piece of evidence. It doesn't mean anything. It's merely a homage to LA, rather than an actual connection. It's quite apt when you consider than the Oracle games are FULL of constant homages to other Zelda games.

Imagine for a second that ALttP had never existed at all - would you still deny that LA is Oracles' sequel?

I'm not sure if everyone is aware of this, but OoX Link does actually embark onto the sea from Hyrule's coast, not from Labrynna's or Holodrum's. We get to see a castle in the background (Hyrule Castle, since there is none in the other two lands). So, there is no need at all for OoX Link to leave his homeland, unless he does so for a personal journey of enlightenment, which connects to LA happening after it.
Another thing, Link got kissed by OoX Zelda, while ALttP Zelda didn't. Now, which person would you dream of as your lover while you are caught inside a dream, the one that actually showed a sign of love or the one that didn't?
And no, the kiss was not just a hero's reward. If so, then ALttP Zelda should've done the same. Or OoT Zelda! But OoX Zelda actually tried to make Link stay, thus she wanted to have him around - either because she loved him, or because of the doubts about Ganon's destruction, which LA's manual tells about.

...And a homage to Donkey Kong, oddly.

May I ask which one is that?

Edited by Jumbie, 26 July 2006 - 06:41 PM.

[Fyxe]

Where can you check that, in-game? But, you do know that the names of many charas/enemies are not told in a lot of games, don't you? Even if the name Agahnim shouldn't appear in OoS, this enemy may still be called like that in the official.. whatever.

In the official guide. It isn't. It's an unnamed boss. Most bosses are named, but a few aren't, and the wizard is one of them. It would make about zero sense if it was Agahnim, anyway. It's clearly inspired by Agahnim, but Agahnim was inspired by the wizard boss in AoL, so it all means nothing.

Imagine for a second that ALttP had never existed at all - would you still deny that LA is Oracles' sequel?

If ALttP hadn't existed, LA would of probably been intended as a sequel to AoL. So yes. It's an irrelevant question, anyway, cos ALttP does exist and LA was made as a sequel and the only reason people think it's a sequel to the Oracle games is because it pays homage to LA.

I'm not sure if everyone is aware of this, but OoX Link does actually embark onto the sea from Hyrule's coast, not from Labrynna's or Holodrum's. We get to see a castle in the background (Hyrule Castle, since there is none in the other two lands). So, there is no need at all for OoX Link to leave his homeland, unless he does so for a personal journey of enlightenment, which connects to LA happening after it.

But LA's backstory talks about him saving Hyrule. There is no mention of Holodrum or Labrynna. Also, the Link in LA does not have the Triforce mark on his hand.

Another thing, Link got kissed by OoX Zelda, while ALttP Zelda didn't. Now, which person would you dream of as your lover

...They're not lovers. Link is practically oblivious thoughout the game, anyway, as always.

And no, the kiss was not just a hero's reward. If so, then ALttP Zelda should've done the same. Or OoT Zelda! But OoX Zelda actually tried to make Link stay, thus she wanted to have him around - either because she loved him, or because of the doubts about Ganon's destruction, which LA's manual tells about.

Okaaaay, that's a big load of fanfic right there... Zelda barely spoke a word to Link throughout the game, and suddenly one kiss means all that? Uh, noooo...

May I ask which one is that?

If you play OoS first, you need to save Zelda from Vire in the tower in OoA in a section that is clearly influenced by Donkey Kong.

[Jumbie]

But LA's backstory talks about him saving Hyrule. There is no mention of Holodrum or Labrynna. Also, the Link in LA does not have the Triforce mark on his hand.

Saving Labrynna & Holodrum = saving Hyrule from trouble that would have come there after Ganon's resurrection.
Probably the Triforce mark disappeared from OoX Link after he has fulfilled the prohecy of the hero, that's why he hasn't got it in LA. Or mabye LA Link actually has the mark, only we don't see it.

...They're not lovers. Link is practically oblivious thoughout the game, anyway, as always.

...Until the end of a linked game.

Okaaaay, that's a big load of fanfic right there... Zelda barely spoke a word to Link throughout the game, and suddenly one kiss means all that? Uh, noooo...

Well, it doesn't need to mean big love, but Zelda wants OoX Link to stay in Hyrule in any case. That's not fanfic but canon, IIRC. Even if you like to think she kissed him just for the thrill of it, my explanation with the doubts about Ganon's death is still working.

If you play OoS first, you need to save Zelda from Vire in the tower in OoA in a section that is clearly influenced by Donkey Kong.

Ah yes, now that you say..

[Fyxe]

...Until the end of a linked game.

I was talking about Marin.

And again, one kiss. On the cheek, no less.

Well, it doesn't need to mean big love, but Zelda wants OoX Link to stay in Hyrule in any case. That's not fanfic but canon, IIRC. Even if you like to think she kissed him just for the thrill of it, my explanation with the doubts about Ganon's death is still working.

Well, sure, it'll work if you want it to work, but it's still a major assumption and not something I thought was at all implied. I didn't get much impression of Zelda being desperate for Link to stay.

[Hero of Winds]

Just to play devil's advocate a bit, remember that Link mistakes Marin for Zelda when he first sees her?

Based on Oracles in game sprite, that's hardly surprising...

That's because Capcom just reused the game sprites from Link's Awakening. I don't think it's meant to insinuate a storyline connection.

[lord-of-shadow]

Ok, people need to back off a bit and look at the whole picture. Quote wars, when all you do it quote little pieces of people's posts and nit-pick everyone to death, prove nothing except that the people involved are stubborn and willing to fight over every little piece of arcane detail, and distract from the issue.

And that issue is: LA. Does it come after LttP or after the Oracles?

LA, being a dreamscape with very few direct connections to other games, has very little in the way of strong evidence either way. The only pieces of strong evidence that there really are are..:

-Oracles end with Link leaving Labrynna on a ship similar to LA's ship.

-The references to past events in the backstory of LA.




"Though you fulfilled the Hyrulean Prophecy of the Legendary Hero and destroyed the Evil Tyrant Ganon, the land of Hyrule enjoyed only a precarious peace."

The Hyrulean Prophecy of the Legendary hero. No "prophecy of the legendary hero" is ever mentioned in either LA or LttP. However, there is a stronger connection to the Prophecy of the Great Cataclysm in LttP then to anything in OoX, by virtue of the fact that the Prophecy of hte Great Cataclysm actually plays an important role in LttP's story. No prophecy in either Oracle game is ever really mentioned at all, certainly not as something important o the story.

On top of that, the term "Legendary Hero" is not used, not even once, in the Oracles. Search the text dumps if you don't believe me. It IS used twice in LttP:

I appreciate your coming so far
to rescue me. As I thought,
you are the legendary Hero.

After all, the legendary Hero
cannot defeat us, the tribe of
evil, when we are armed with

the Power of Gold.

The "Evil Tyrant Ganon".... This isn't very strong evidence, since it could just be a figure of speech, but... in the Oracles, Ganon is defeated before he even has a chance to become a tyrant. In LttP, he has been a tyrant ruling over the Golden Land for years.

Ganon's ashes are not mentioned in either LttP OR OoX, so that phrase cannot be used for either game.


"Ever vigilant, you decided to journey away from Hyrule on a quest for enlightenment, in search of wisdom that would make you better able to withstand the next threat to your homeland."

Jumbie has given us reasoning that this quote could support the Oracles, but his reasoning required some stretching. Whereas if you apply this to LttP->LA, you can take it at face value without any extra thought or stretching at all.


Marin looks like Zelda... This can't really be used as evidence either way. Looking at the official art of the three games, Marin does not look anything like either Zelda. You could look at the sprites, but in this case, where the in-game graphics were limited by the capabilities of the hardware, I would trust the official art as the truer representation of the characters.





If you look at this piece of official Marin art from the German player's guide, it shows a rendition of Marin which looks similar to Zelda, but it contradicts the other official Marin art, which takes precedence:



At the time of LA's release, it was clearly the intent of the developers that LA comes directly after LttP.

At the time of the Oracles release, there was a little - very little - evidence that LA might come after the Oracles. Namely, the ship at the end.

Personally, I think clear intent from EAD and Nintendo takes precedence over muddied, iffy probably-nonexistent intent from Flagship. Even taking into account that the Oracles were released later.


So:

Substantial evidence for LttP:
-Clear intent from EAD.
-Strong evidence from backstory.
-Timing of release

Substantial evidence for Oracles:
-Link leaves in a boat at the end. Whoop-de-doo.


I should think the answer is obvious. And yes, I know, the evidence from the backstory could, with a little stretching, apply to the Oracles as well, but it supports LttP more easily and readily then it supports the Oracles.

[Hero of Legend]

The Hyrulean Prophecy of the Legendary hero. No "prophecy of the legendary hero" is ever mentioned in either LA or LttP. However, there is a stronger connection to the Prophecy of the Great Cataclysm in LttP then to anything in OoX, by virtue of the fact that the Prophecy of hte Great Cataclysm actually plays an important role in LttP's story. No prophecy in either Oracle game is ever really mentioned at all, certainly not as something important o the story.

Let's play the Devil's advocate and examine that, shall we?

ALttP:

This must be an omen of the Great Cataclysm foretold by the people of Hylian blood...
... ... ...
The prophecy says, "The Hero will stand in the desert holding the Book of Mudora."

Meaning, there was a Hylian prophesy about Link.

The Hero's triumph on Cataclysm's Eve wins three symbols of virtue.
The Master Sword he then retrieves, keeping the Knight's line true.

A continuation of that prophesy...

...Do you know the prophecy of the Great Cataclysm? This is the way I heard it...
If a person with an evil heart gets the Triforce, a Hero is destined to appear...

...and he alone must face the person who unleashed the Great Cataclysm.

So: Prophesy of the Great Cataclysm = Hylian Prophesy of the Hero.

As I thought, you are the legendary Hero.

Thus: Prophesy of the Great Cataclysm = Prophesy of the Legendary Hero.

Conclusion: The Prophesy of the Legendary Hero was mentioned in ALttP.

Oracles:

Remember that. Ancient Hylian legends say the hero destined to overthrow evil has a (piece of Triforce symbol) on his left hand. Perhaps you are this hero.

Ancient Hylian Legend (Prophesy)? Check.

Link... The three (Triforce) on your left hand symbolize power, wisdom and courage-- these are the mark of the hero who is fated to appear when peace crumbles in Hyrule. With the Essences of Nature and Time and the courage you possess, you have fought back the powers of evil! The guidance of the Triforce has made you into this legendary hero!

Legendary Hero? Check.

Conclusion: The Prophesy of the Legendary Hero was mentioned in the Oracles as well.

On top of that, the term "Legendary Hero" is not used, not even once, in the Oracles. Search the text dumps if you don't believe me.

You can't search it for some reason... But it's there.

Personally, I think clear intent from EAD and Nintendo takes precedence over muddied, iffy probably-nonexistent intent from Flagship. Even taking into account that the Oracles were released later.

This is what comes down to: While I think it is obvious that the Oracles were designed to connect to LA, it is by far not certain this was Nintendo's intentions, and if not, it simply isn't canon.

Until Nintendo issues an official statement about this, I don't think anyone can say for certain which game precedes LA. However, if it was up to me, I'd say ALttP, because that was undisputably the original intention.

Edited by Hero of Legend, 09 August 2006 - 03:55 PM.

[lord-of-shadow]

What..? Damn. I searched the Oracles text dumps for "legendary hero." Guess my faith in the search function actually working was misplaced.

Either way, my original stance - that the prophecy mentioned in LA's backstory links to LttP more strongly then to OoX - remains.

And it seems to me that we CAN say for certain that it comes after LttP. Most of the evidence points there, and that is the clear intent. Unless Nintendo publishes another Zelda game that negates that just as clearly, I won't even consider this a subject that's open to debate.

Granted, that depends on one's view of the hierarchy of what's canonical and what isn't... but that means that any argument is really about what we should view as canon, not about LA. And that's a muddled mess if I ever saw one.

[Jumbie]

It's surprising to see that this thread has been dug out again, and by lord-of-shadow, of all members...
While I like the way how in-depth you provided all the quotes and evidence, you couldn't bring something that hadn't already been used to convince me (and one or two others) of that LA must follow ALttP.

As I said, LA was not designed to be a sequel to any previous game, in the first place (that's at least what Miyamoto, the director of LA, said, and I refuse to think he was oblivious to his own works!). So, after all those years that people have assumed it would take place after ALttP, Capcom made Oracles and sort of "changed" the timeline. Hmm...

For my view, one single piece of evidence suffices, as it's an irrefutable one.
Yes, it's still possible to imagine LA happening after either game. Which way you choose doesn't affect the overall timeline too badly. It's a sidestory after all, so what? As long as my choice can't be disproven by canon, it's a correct choice.

[Fyxe]

It's surprising to see that this thread has been dug out again, and by lord-of-shadow, of all members...
While I like the way how in-depth you provided all the quotes and evidence, you couldn't bring something that hadn't already been used to convince me (and one or two others) of that LA must follow ALttP.

Weeeell... No more evidence is required. I mean, LA was intended as a sequel to ALttP. You can deny it all you like but that doesn't change the fact, when it was released it was an obvious sequel, and it still is.

As I said, LA was not designed to be a sequel to any previous game, in the first place (that's at least what Miyamoto, the director of LA, said, and I refuse to think he was oblivious to his own works!).

Cha. Don't you remember when he apparently said that? When he gave that bonkers 'Miyamoto timeline'. He really doesn't care about the storyline barely at all. Seriously. It's not his job.

So, after all those years that people have assumed it would take place after ALttP, Capcom made Oracles and sort of "changed" the timeline. Hmm...

Noooooooo~... You SAY they changed it, that doesn't make it so. They made two new games. It's possible to put LA after it. Aaaand? It was still *intended* to be a sequel to ALttP.

As long as my choice can't be disproven by canon, it's a correct choice.

A common misconception in the timeline community. There's more to the placement of a game than in-game canon information. There's also the creator's initial intentions, the release date, the stylistic connections...

Edited by Fyxe, 10 August 2006 - 06:56 AM.

[lord-of-shadow]

For my view, one single piece of evidence suffices, as it's an irrefutable one.

I fail to see how it is irrefutable. Link leaves on a boat. That is hardly strong evidence for LA happening after the Oracles, especially considering all the evidence for it happening after LttP.

The boat is... a boat. More then likely it's a tribute to LA, a nod of some sort towards the game that the Oracles borrowed so much from. Hardly strong evidence for anything. And even if it was strong evidence, there is more evidence, just as strong or stronger, for LttP.

It's surprising to see that this thread has been dug out again, and by lord-of-shadow, of all members...

Heh. I underestimated how dead this section has become in recent years. This was the second or third topic on the list, so I assumed it was still active.

[Jumbie]

Weeeell... No more evidence is required. I mean, LA was intended as a sequel to ALttP. You can deny it all you like but that doesn't change the fact, when it was released it was an obvious sequel, and it still is.
Cha. Don't you remember when he apparently said that? When he gave that bonkers 'Miyamoto timeline'. He really doesn't care about the storyline barely at all. Seriously. It's not his job.
Noooooooo~... You SAY they changed it, that doesn't make it so. They made two new games. It's possible to put LA after it. Aaaand? It was still *intended* to be a sequel to ALttP.
A common misconception in the timeline community. There's more to the placement of a game than in-game canon information. There's also the creator's initial intentions, the release date, the stylistic connections...

Bravo Fyxe, that reply I call a load of hot air - entirely devoid of any arguments, just throwing around your conservative convictions of LA being the sequel to everybody's darling ALttP, without reasoning. Your last line I find a little suspect, since pseudo-evidence like that isn't usually heard from you...

I fail to see how it is irrefutable. Link leaves on a boat. That is hardly strong evidence for LA happening after the Oracles, especially considering all the evidence for it happening after LttP.

The boat is... a boat. More then likely it's a tribute to LA, a nod of some sort towards the game that the Oracles borrowed so much from. Hardly strong evidence for anything. And even if it was strong evidence, there is more evidence, just as strong or stronger, for LttP.

OoX borrowed much from LA, that's exactly the point. All three games are playable on GameBoy color, and OoX' ending perfectly interludes to LA's beginning, so they essentially form one trilogy (like the three FS games). Thus, I don't see what's the sense in still clinging to the conservative order of ALttP>LA which was never intended by the developers anyway.
If you're worried that ALttP would look weird if it is the only Zelda game that doesn't come in the usual prequel+sequel package, I can say that KnS is a better sequel to ALttP than LA. Also, TMC is another game that virtually stands alone, although it has of course got the two FS games as sequels. So if we have the FS trilogy, why can't we have the GBC trilogy?!

Heh. I underestimated how dead this section has become in recent years. This was the second or third topic on the list, so I assumed it was still active.

You're right, alas. I myself can definitely not be counted to those that are to blame for that deadness though. Zelda storyline was the ony reason I joined these boards, and it will always be my main section. It's really disturbing how many people switched to other sections permanently or entirely left the boards since last month.

[Fyxe]

Jumbie, we've gone over the arguments five billion times. Wake up and smell the apples and stop trying to act as if you're a better person just because you repeat the same argument over and over.

And it's not 'pseudo-evidence', Mr. Holier-than-thou-because-I-use-reduntant-'canon'-evidence.

Edited by Fyxe, 10 August 2006 - 02:15 PM.