I forgot about that. You are right that it doesn't affect my arguement, though.
False. Link and Zelda never wanted the Master Sword - they never even knew it was there. Their plan was simply to get the triforce before Ganon could, to keep it safe. (Sure, it doesn't change the gist of your argument, but I'm pedantic).
I see no reason to disregard his comment. He directed the game. He went into great detail. He should know what he is talking about. If I were Aonuma, and I directed a game and went into great detail about its timeline placement, only to have people disregard my comment, I would be offended. If we don't ever trust creators' comments, how will we ever know creator's intent? Keep in mind that sometimes evidence accidentally gets into the game that contradicts creator's intent, so "the in-game evidence" isn't the answer to that question. The day that the man who directed the game is dead wrong about timeline details is the day that there is no Zelda timeline.
You are arguing from the "Aonuma speaks truth, split timeline is right" perspective, though. From a single timeline, then when you say that since Ganon is being given the ToP as before nothing will change, they can say exactly. OoT happens in it's entirety.
If you choose to disregard the in-depth comments that the director of Twilight Princess made about, well, Twilight Princess, then I cannot stop you. If I have to prove that he, again the director, is not lying, then I guess I lose this debate. If people will stop and think for a moment, though, and stop assuming that the director's comment is wrong just because a few comments have been wrong before (but they weren't anywhere near as elaborate or confident), then we wouldn't have to debate about what Aonuma, the director of Twilight Princess, has said.
Yes, I had to repeat the fact that he was the director to emphasize my point.
Are you going to believe what you see or what is said, as far as a fictional universe is concerned? If you play OoT, Impa clearly says, "...they surrendered a short time after..." in referring to HC. That isn't word play, either. I just can't remember the entire quote, and I don't want to misquote Impa. Also, in A Link to the Past, guards are still at HC, even though Agahnim has taken over. One could interpret Impa's quote and the guards' unwillingness to let Link into the castle to mean that Ganondorf has them under a similar spell.
Zelda being in Hyrule Castle isn't too much of a difficulty. The castle clearly hasn;t surrendered after Zelda left - their are still soldiers there. Security's tightened, in fact, making it even safer to return once Ganon's gone. And as for Link getting in, that's just a gameplay mechanic.
Also, gameplay mechanic or not, it is canon. Link's in-game inability to reach the courtyard is still a plothole that needs to be explained if Link arrives after the Triforce split. What would make that time any different than another time in the game?
The guards are there to prevent Link from getting as far as he did in the castle before. I have used 73h h@x before, and if you jump the guards inside the castle, Zelda is still in the courtyard. She says the same dialogue that she says pre-HC escape, though. I really don't think that is canon. Anyway, as you have said, the gaurds are a gameplay mechanic to prevent Link from getting to the courtyard later in the game.
I could, however, just as easily say the same about the Door of Time. I could say that it is a gameplay mechanic that exists to prevent the player from getting to the Master Sword too early. I could, too, in that way, make that plothole "excusable."
That is why, if the Door of Time being open counts against the "before meeting Zelda" theory, then the guards in Hyrule Castle blocking the way to the courtyard counts agains the "after the Triforce split" theory. It is only fair.
Edited by Vertiboy, 02 May 2007 - 08:50 PM.