105 replies to this topic

[Hero of Legend]

I don't understand people's obsession with a timeline. Zelda already doesn't have very original stories. Do you really want the stories to be restricted further by some kind of timeline that dictates where games should go?

People who don't like the timeline tend to use this argument a lot, but I don't see any real basis for it. As it is, Nintendo would never let the timeline limit their games in any way. If they did, Hyrule wouldn't have been flooded in TWW and TP wouldn't exist at all. What they do however, is that they use the timeline to build onto the stories of the games, like in TWW and TMC. And I don't see anything bad about that at all, really...

Edited by Hero of Legend, 06 September 2006 - 06:17 AM.

[Wolf O'Donnell]

Yes, except the timeline looks ridiculous with so many Links doing the exact same thing to defeat Ganon.

Master Sword Story Arc:
OoT = Gather three spiritual stones. Free Master Sword. Travel between two "dimensions" (in this case, present and future). Awaken sages to enter Ganon's lair and defeat him.
ALttp = Gather three spiritual pendants. Free Master Sword. Travel between two "dimensions" (in this case, Light and Dark). Awaken sages to enter Ganon's lair and defeat him.
WW = Gather three spiritual pearls. Free Master Sword. Awaken Sages to gain the power to defeat Ganon.

Anything that reduces the plot redundacy would make for a more sensible, believable timeline.

Oracles -> LA does that.
ALttP -> LA does not.

[Fyxe]

Huh, what's with this? That's hardly a homage either, but part of Oracles' plot.

EXACTLY. You're missing my point.

It's really a circular argument through and through - I say Capcom did indeed retcon the game order with Nintendo not caring about it, you say the order of ALttP+LA cannot possibly be retconned. We really lack strong evidence for either opinion.

At the time of release, LA was clearly a sequel to ALttP. There was little doubt. Nothing has changed - there is no need for a retcon. I don't say they couldn't retcon it, I'm just saying there's little need to change the order so lets just stick with the original intention.

Even I could make a different one if I wanted to. Think about it, you have the option to give it one mast or three masts, if you do it short or long, or what the rear end looks like.. It really would've been possible if the designers had wanted it to be a different ship.

It's a one man ship. Three masts? Are you crazy? Any different design of a ship would be illogical.

Whoa, that's quite a big assumption to hear from you.

No it isn't. Look how big the waves are and how close the clouds are and how big the lightening bolt is, and look how big the seagulls are in the Oracles ending. The camera is at least closer in the Oracle's ending, that's fairly clear.

Okay. So I simply forgot that it wasn't an animated scene. But that doesn't have any bearing on what the.. thing (may I go on calling it a sprite?) looks like.

No, it is indeed a similar shape and possibly a similar size, but that doesn't mean it's the same ship at all.

Right again, only horse or boat. We see Oracles begin with Link on a horse, so logically it would end similar with Link riding through the fields again. But it doesn't, instead Link steps on board of a ship. That's quite a big decision for the developers to make, I think.

Not really, they probably just wanted to do something *different* since we saw him riding a horse away at the end of MM. A ship emphasises a much larger, wider journey than simply travelling by horse. If we saw him on his horse we might just imagine he's going back to his house or something.

Actually not. I've come to acknowledge KnS as canon, but I'll stick with thinking it's only canon where it doesn't contradict anything. Does it contradict that the Dark World vanished after ALttP? Not really, it explains. Does it contradict that LA happens after Oracles?

Of course it doesn't, nothing is *stopping* LA occuring after the Oracle games. But KnS just lends much more credance to the original intention. It's pretty much clear that LA was a sequel to ALttP.

If a game doesn't contain Link, why should I care about where he is. If a game shows Link starting a journey, I do very much care where he'll end up.

If he's far away from Hyrule then he's on a journey. Stop trying to see things just from your own viewpoint. KnS gave the designers a basis for the story of LA. They used this basis to use the game.

There are more problems with LA being after ALttP, mainly the references to ALttP's items and locations and monsters, like Turtle Rock, the Moldorm and the final Nightmares taking on the forms of Agahnim and Ganon.

What I want to say, it may be that Nintendo gave Capcom somewhat of a free hand what to do with Oracles.

Well, they did, and Capcom may of indeed been referencing LA, but that doesn't mean it's a definite retcon. I'm going to stick with the original intentions because unless a retcon comes right out and says 'this is a retcon' then I'd rather stick with the original *intentions* because the games just work better that way. LA is a nice sequel to ALttP and was intended to be so. It borrows so much in game design and just meshes nicely, as well as the art style being identical. It explains why Link is possessive about his sword and shield, for one thing, because they are likely the same sword and shield given to him by his uncle.

Anything that reduces the plot redundacy would make for a more sensible, believable timeline.

Oracles -> LA does that.
ALttP -> LA does not.

Wolf, I fail to see how LA halts ANY plotline redundancy. At all. So Link goes on a boat somewhere twice. Big deal. According to KnS, Link has left Hyrule after ALttP *anyway*. Like you said, the Zelda timeline is FULL of repetition. You can't just try and ignore that or pretend it's not there. If anything, the repetion is more evidence that the ending of the Oracle games is a homage more than anything else. Like many, many other things in the game.

Edited by Fyxe, 06 September 2006 - 08:18 AM.

[Jumbie]

Nothing has changed - there is no need for a retcon. I don't say they couldn't retcon it, I'm just saying there's little need to change the order so lets just stick with the original intention.

Wolf ODonnell has countered this as clear as possible: Capcom just don't care if they mess up the timelines of series which are normally done by first parties.

Stop trying to see things just from your own viewpoint.

Um.. no. I cannot possibly judge beforehand to what extend my own viewpoint differs from everyone else's thinking.

There are more problems with LA being after ALttP, mainly the references to ALttP's items and locations and monsters, like Turtle Rock, the Moldorm and the final Nightmares taking on the forms of Agahnim and Ganon.

Pff, no problems at all. I've explained this away so many times before. The dream of the Wind Fish is put together from the summed up memories of all incarnations of Link that have ever lived. That's why the owl appears (I will always be calling it Kaepora even if it has no actual name) and why Marin appears. Both of them, along with many others, inspired things in OoT but can retroactively be seen as elements of the dream stemming from the memory of OoT Link.
..I know what comes now: It's nothing but fanfic? So what, it doesn't contradict anything and is only an additional explanation to things that need no explaining, therefore it's allowed.

It explains why Link is possessive about his sword and shield, for one thing, because they are likely the same sword and shield given to him by his uncle.

He better be possessive, as swords are pretty rare on Koholint.. I wouldn't say his shield is so special only because he wrote his name on it. Or Marin noticing a name on the shield may just as well be part of the dream?

If anything, the repetion is more evidence that the ending of the Oracle games is a homage more than anything else. Like many, many other things in the game.

Taking a great deal of Oracles as mere homages to other games will only reduce the games' canonicity. Ah btw, why can't the Master Sword in Oracles be just a homage as well? (I never had any doubt about it being so, but to you this one seems to be just as 'holy' as to me the ship scene is...)

[Alastair]

Taking a great deal of Oracles as mere homages to other games will only reduce the games' canonicity. Ah btw, why can't the Master Sword in Oracles be just a homage as well? (I never had any doubt about it being so, but to you this one seems to be just as 'holy' as to me the ship scene is...)

The Master Sword is not merely an unnamed sword that looks identical to the Master Sword in another game - it is specifically called the Master Sword. There is a far stronger case for the Master Sword Sword being the Master Sword than there is for a ship being the ship.

It seems illogical to assume an unnamed ship must be the same ship because of it's appearence (though it may well be, the timeline is not greatly affected by a OoX to LA placement) whilst discounting the Master Swords pressence as a homage.

[Fyxe]

Wolf ODonnell has countered this as clear as possible: Capcom just don't care if they mess up the timelines of series which are normally done by first parties.

You overemphasise how much control Capcom has over the games and the series as a whole. Whatever they intended isn't as important as what Nintendo intended. They both made the game, anyway.

Um.. no. I cannot possibly judge beforehand to what extend my own viewpoint differs from everyone else's thinking.

It's called empathy and opening your mind, it's really not that difficult...

retroactively be seen as elements of the dream stemming from the memory of OoT Link.

You can only claim retcon when you have some solid idea that the creators intended such a thing. Otherwise people can throw 'retcon' all around the place whenever they want. You have no evidence that the creators ever thought or cared about this sort of backward thinking rather than going 'hey, lets have another owl, that was a neat idea and the fans might like the reference'.

..I know what comes now: It's nothing but fanfic? So what, it doesn't contradict anything and is only an additional explanation to things that need no explaining, therefore it's allowed.

Allowed, sure, you're breaking no 'rules', but that doesn't make it relevant or true.

He better be possessive, as swords are pretty rare on Koholint.. I wouldn't say his shield is so special only because he wrote his name on it. Or Marin noticing a name on the shield may just as well be part of the dream?

Ugh, you're starting to use 'but it's a dream' a bit too much. You might as well say 'a wizard did it'. It has absolutely no relevance to the intentions of the designers. And for your information, Link's sword has his name engraved on it as well.

Taking a great deal of Oracles as mere homages to other games will only reduce the games' canonicity. Ah btw, why can't the Master Sword in Oracles be just a homage as well? (I never had any doubt about it being so, but to you this one seems to be just as 'holy' as to me the ship scene is...)

I think you fail to understand the concept of 'homage'.

The Master Sword in the Oracle games is a homage. Of course it is. That doesn't mean it's uncanon. Otherwise any back-reference to an old Zelda game would be uncanon. That's just stupid.

[Jumbie]

It's called empathy and opening your mind, it's really not that difficult...

But still I can't foretell *if* people and *which* people will disagree with me before they say so.

You can only claim retcon when you have some solid idea that the creators intended such a thing.

I haven't ever claimed retcon in regards of Koholint's inhabitants, you misunderstood me. I just said "can be retroactively seen as", which refers to the fans and not to the creator's intention.

You have no evidence that the creators ever thought or cared about this sort of backward thinking rather than going 'hey, lets have another owl, that was a neat idea and the fans might like the reference'.

Of course they must have thought like you put it! I never argued against that. The creators don't care about what stuff was used in LA and reappeared in other games, but for fans it's possible to give explanations to that (which don't interfere with the placement of LA at all, but serve to knock out the argument of "Agahnim's and Ganon's shadows in LA connect the game with ALttP").

Allowed, sure, you're breaking no 'rules', but that doesn't make it relevant or true.

And I never claimed it's "true". No one needs to know why the Wind Fish's dream looked like that, it has no relevance for the timeline, but I'm able to explain the reasons for it nevertheless. Now, whether you like what I think about it or rather prefer to have it completely unexplained isn't important for me.

Ugh, you're starting to use 'but it's a dream' a bit too much. You might as well say 'a wizard did it'.

Firstly, it's canon fact that it was half a dream and half reality. Secondly, I've used this explanation only once recently. You cannot prove that Link's name was written on his belongings also in reality. Consider, even when we dream ourselves, our 'dreamed' selves sometimes take things in the dream for granted as if they were like that also in our waking life.

It has absolutely no relevance to the intentions of the designers. And for your information, Link's sword has his name engraved on it as well.

So what? All I tried to show is that also this argument for ALttP+LA is not a valid argument.

I think you fail to understand the concept of 'homage'.
The Master Sword in the Oracle games is a homage. Of course it is. That doesn't mean it's uncanon.
Otherwise any back-reference to an old Zelda game would be uncanon. That's just stupid.

Don't start again with calling me stupid!! I did NOT misunderstand what a homage is. You can't tell me that a homage can't be an Easter Egg at the same time. Actually, most of the time this is the case: Mario pictures are a homage to the Mario series, don't you think, and still they're not canon and don't really hang on the wall inside Hyrule Castle. Therefore it's very possible that the OoX Master Sword is just an Easter Egg that's a homage to ALttP. That much about failing to understand..!

[Fyxe]

But still I can't foretell *if* people and *which* people will disagree with me before they say so.
I haven't ever claimed retcon in regards of Koholint's inhabitants, you misunderstood me. I just said "can be retroactively seen as", which refers to the fans and not to the creator's intention.

I don't really care what the fans think, though, it doesn't make them right. Not everything needs an explaination.

(which don't interfere with the placement of LA at all, but serve to knock out the argument of "Agahnim's and Ganon's shadows in LA connect the game with ALttP").

That's just not true. The Nightmares are meant to represent fears and stuff like that - who else would appear in Link's nightmares other than Ganon and Agahnim? Their appearances are clear references to the two biggest foes in the previous game in the series, the two biggest foes Link has previously fought. This was almost certainly intentional.

And I never claimed it's "true". No one needs to know why the Wind Fish's dream looked like that, it has no relevance for the timeline, but I'm able to explain the reasons for it nevertheless. Now, whether you like what I think about it or rather prefer to have it completely unexplained isn't important for me.

The owl has nothing to do with OoT. Why can't the owl just be a unique character? The owl is the Wind Fish's guardian spirit, it has nothing to do with Link's 'collective memories' or whatever.
Explain where the unique LA enemies came from. There's no need. Not everything in LA has to be part of a collective memory.

Firstly, it's canon fact that it was half a dream and half reality. Secondly, I've used this explanation only once recently. You cannot prove that Link's name was written on his belongings also in reality. Consider, even when we dream ourselves, our 'dreamed' selves sometimes take things in the dream for granted as if they were like that also in our waking life.

It doesn't do anything to my point, which is that it's a clear reference to the Link from ALttP having his own family sword and shield that he keeps with him.

So what? All I tried to show is that also this argument for ALttP+LA is not a valid argument.

How, exactly, have you done that?

Don't start again with calling me stupid!! I did NOT misunderstand what a homage is. You can't tell me that a homage can't be an Easter Egg at the same time. Actually, most of the time this is the case: Mario pictures are a homage to the Mario series, don't you think, and still they're not canon and don't really hang on the wall inside Hyrule Castle. Therefore it's very possible that the OoX Master Sword is just an Easter Egg that's a homage to ALttP. That much about failing to understand..!

Read Alastair's post. You can't seriously compare the Master Sword to pictures of Mario. You just can't. What about the Boomerang in LA? Uncanon because it's a homage? Easter Egg because you don't have to get it? You can't just call an item as uncanon because you want it to be. You need a *reason* for why a homage is 'uncanon'.

[Jumbie]

That's just not true. The Nightmares are meant to represent fears and stuff like that - who else would appear in Link's nightmares other than Ganon and Agahnim? Their appearances are clear references to the two biggest foes in the previous game in the series, the two biggest foes Link has previously fought. This was almost certainly intentional.

Still this doesn't prove whether they came from LA Link's memory or from a collective memory.

Why can't the owl just be a unique character? The owl is the Wind Fish's guardian spirit, it has nothing to do with Link's 'collective memories' or whatever.

Because the owl doesn't *need* to be a unique character. Technically speaking, it is a unique one alone from the fact that it's the memory of a chara combined with thoughts of the Wind Fish. But again, that's just my personal imagination, that's what I take from Zelda.

Explain where the unique LA enemies came from. There's no need. Not everything in LA has to be part of a collective memory.

Even after years, there are still unique LA enemies being taken and reused in new games. The DethI - Vaati similarity for example. And as long as TMC happens before LA.. you know the drill

It doesn't do anything to my point, which is that it's a clear reference to the Link from ALttP having his own family sword and shield that he keeps with him.
How, exactly, have you done that?

With this:

He better be possessive, as swords are pretty rare on Koholint.. I wouldn't say his shield is so special only because he wrote his name on it.

You need a *reason* for why a homage is 'uncanon'.

The Master Sword isn't supposed to appear in Holodrum. It isn't supposed to be upgraded from another sword. It isn't supposed to be available via a multitude of ways.

Edited by Jumbie, 07 September 2006 - 08:26 PM.

[Hero of Slime]

And it isn't supposed to be found twice.

[Fyxe]

Still this doesn't prove whether they came from LA Link's memory or from a collective memory.

Well bollocks, if you just pretend a 'collective memory' exists it's going to be like me trying to disprove god.

Because the owl doesn't *need* to be a unique character. Technically speaking, it is a unique one alone from the fact that it's the memory of a chara combined with thoughts of the Wind Fish. But again, that's just my personal imagination, that's what I take from Zelda.

You mean, fanfic? Cha.

Even after years, there are still unique LA enemies being taken and reused in new games. The DethI - Vaati similarity for example. And as long as TMC happens before LA.. you know the drill

Oh, for the sake of the goddess... Spare me.

With this:

That doesn't 'disprove' anything.

The Master Sword isn't supposed to appear in Holodrum. It isn't supposed to be upgraded from another sword.

Who are YOU to say that? Stop it. Just because you say so doesn't mean you're writing the canon yourself. The White Sword is a name for a sword that is later powered up and revealed to be the Master Sword? So what. Big sodding deal. The Master Sword possibly MOVES across the course of history? For gods sake, of course it would. It's only a sword. You have no right to claim these things can't happen.

It isn't supposed to be available via a multitude of ways.

Oh for the sake of spunk, I've gone over this before, repeatedly, YOU CAN'T GET IT IN A MULTITUDE OF WAYS IN A SINGLE RUN THROUGH. So your point is MOOT. Similar things happen in different ways depending on which game you play first. Who *cares*. That's how the games work.

Edited by Fyxe, 07 September 2006 - 09:03 PM.

[Jumbie]

Well overall, I think that was a nice conclusion to our debate once more. It just makes no sense, cause everything can be taken this way or that way, too little or too much. Why don't we try to stick to issues that can be debated relying on evidence? It would be a lot nicer. So, I think I'll keep out of this thread now.

[spunky-monkey]

Who are YOU to say that? Stop it. Just because you say so doesn't mean you're writing the canon yourself. The White Sword is a name for a sword that is later powered up and revealed to be the Master Sword? So what. Big sodding deal. The Master Sword possibly MOVES across the course of history? For gods sake, of course it would. It's only a sword. You have no right to claim these things can't happen.

Correct.

And Jumbie, who's to say that there isn't more than one Master Sword anyway? In the event that the dark forces/Ganon could have destroyed the blade then its creators could have easily just constructed a dozen more or so, as a backup.

That could also explain why that WW version was so conveniently weak and could be used by young Link. >>

[MikePetersSucks]

Actually, the TWW version was able to be weilded by TWW Link because he already proved himself AND the sword had lost some of it's power.

[Fyxe]

Actually, it has nothing to do with the sword being weak or strong. Link was a hero. Thereby he could use the sword. That's the only requirement.

[HeroOfTime5]

The point is, that Capcom intended for Oracles to be the prequel to LA. The Oracles series fits just as well before LA as ALttP does, because let's face it, Capcom does a lot of screwing around with other people's timelines... Take the Megaman series for example; they screwed up the original creator's timeline, then screwed it up again more recently with a book that contradicts a lot of in-game material.

Let's not forget how Capcom screwed up the Resident Evil story by bringing back a character that had his lungs torn out of his body. They then had to create some stupidly long-winded and pointlessly strange backstory to explain how he came back. As if that wasn't enough, they then ret-conned the story completely but in the process, added another character that ret-conned yet another part of the game's backstory.

Judging from how Capcom screws up timelines in general, is it any wonder that Oracles fits equally as well before LA as ALttP?

If Oracles doesn't go before LA, then you've got a timeline in which two Links, set out from Hyrule on a boat on a quest of discovery. Place Oracles before LA, and you do away with all that. The ending cutscene suggests he leaves Hyrule on a boat. It may not be exactly the same as the one in LA's backstory, but then again, something could have happened to it on the way back.

There is as much evidence supporting Oracles > LA as ALttP > LA, and I like it that way.

I don't understand people's obsession with a timeline. Zelda already doesn't have very original stories. Do you really want the stories to be restricted further by some kind of timeline that dictates where games should go?

But obviously changed of plans it turn out to be so. You use that as evidence or an excuse. And who knows maybe there will be a sequel to the ending of the oracle series, but I doubt it. And you are right you don't have enough evidence to prove anything.