Posted 02 May 2008 - 12:19 AM
The new game would have to wrap "backwards" to match up consistently and coherently with the older game it's taking from (which is what a lot of Zelda games fail at--particularly OoT and FSA). The release dates are important because in LttP, there is no importance placed on the trident so if the developers created an "origins story" to it, then it has to match up to the previous game, at least to a certain agreeable extent.
The whole, "Back then it wasn't important, but now it is!" applies only to the actual "evolution" of Zelda as gaming series that is continually expanding it's own little universe. The "back then" part is "stuck" like that--the lack of importance is still in that game per se (unless there was a remake that retcons it) but was revitalized, renewed, or redone in a later installment. Keep in mind that the developers don't hold the timeline very high on their priority list, so their creative licensing may very well buttress against our analytical and pragmatic approaches.
I'm also a bit iffy on the how newer games shed light on previous "riddles". I do agree with that statement in general, but the trident itself wasn't really a riddle, and neither is/was the skull necklace (of course, we could just chalk THAT up to the moblins in WW wearing skull necklaces all the time?) In any case, newer Zelda games should help fill in the gaps and make smoother ties rather than fraying ends; if that means resolving some "riddles", then yes by all means! At the same time, however, we have to distinguish between the periods of intent and whether or not the developers still have that intent and if they meant it to be just for that particular Zelda game or if it was meant to be an overarching timeline thing. The latter case becomes easier to perceive (that is, the overarching timeline thing) if the intent was progressing from an older game to a newer one (like the Master Sword), but "backwards wrapping" intent like the trident (FSA to[?] LttP) makes it all the more hard.
The thing is, we have to remember not to overstep the limits of the evidence. Based on what we have now, it isn't sufficient enough to say whether or not the trident has overarching intent or just the small-scale intent for FSA. We need better linkage to the past (dang pun) 2-D games if we are to gain higher ground. I believe that some of us, perhaps at one time or another, have carried some "baggage" and overstepped the boundaries of what we have and "eaten more than what's on our plate". We may have spread the evidence over to places and contexts that weren't meant to be, and I believe it is that mass spreading that's creating a lot of conflict.
I wonder if I made myself clear...