OOT, TP and ALTTP all reference a time when there was fighting over the Sacred Realm. OOT claims that the King ended the fighting, TP claims the Light Spirits ended the fighting and ALTTP claims that…the fighting never really ended until someone actually found the entrance. For instance, Ganondorf had discovered the Sacred Realm during a time of struggle according to ALTTP. Therefore, its possible OOT and TP reference the same war, but I believe that the fighting described in ALTTP was another time of searching for the entrance.
Ah, this can be reconciled easily. We know in OoT there were merely 9 years between the fierce war and Ganondorf entering the Sacred Realm. The Seal War legend being centuries old, such a short timespan is not likely to be correctly remembered, and therefore appears in the legend like no time at all. So, centuries later in ALttP, people assume Ganondorf entered the SR during the war, because there were only nine years between the two events.
This may have happened after TP, and it is predicted in the cut-scene which shows good turning evil in search of it.
Eh, actually that cutscene is not a prediction but a review. While I agree that the imagery with Link and Ilia refers to what ALttP's manual says, these events are told by Lanayru as having occurred in the past. That means that ALttP's manual refers to the fierce war.
So it looks like this:
Wars - OOT - MM - TP - Wars - Imprisoning War - ALTTP
I don't like to have so many repetitive wars if it may as well have been just one.
As for the 2D games being a side-story series, I am not too hot about. We might as well just have...
That's not far from my timeline actually... Just that I have TMC occurring before both of them, but otherwise it's completely the same.^^
The Hyrulian civil wars referenced in ALTTP, OoT and TP are all simplified to a general meaning; the people got greedy and fought for power. So of course, they're all going to sound similar. It's not like there were any specific circumstances under which the wars can be specified to any period of Hyrulian history. This is just another repeated element to the Zelda mythology, like Link fighting Ganon.
But I wanna know, where's the need to say they are NOT one and the same war?
Also, Link fighting Ganon is a different matter. This we always witness in form of games, not just as a backstory.
Therefore the origin of the garb is established before TMC.
No, therefore the garb in TMC just does not have any origin, how about that? TMC Link wears it as his normal clothing, it's not a family treasure nor passed to him by a spirit. It's not of Kokiri origin either - it's simply a common green medieval jacket. OoT explains nothing more but the origin of OoT Link's tunic. And btw, the tunic in TP is obviously not that same one, because a sixteen-year old cannot possibly wear what a nine-year old wore.
It actually establishes Tingle's Rupee-craze as part of a self-preservation mechanism inflicted upon him by Uncle Rupee. He needs lots of Rupees, otherwise he dies. His interest in fairies is explained as well, as it has to do with part of Uncle Rupee's promise of immortality and an entrance to Rupeeland (as far as I know). So Tingle is not crazy, by any means.
Regardless of all, mistaking Link's clothes for those that a fairy wears is
crazy. Fairies typically wear dresses, or ivy foliage in OoT.
As for the remainder of the game, it features a clearly post-flood world, a Deku Tree who is clearly spreading forests across the islands of the world, which in FPTRR are the size of continents, and this world features a number of place names from Hyrule. And yes, it clearly is Hyrule, since Death Mountain (or rather, the mountain formerly known as Death Mountain) appears, too.
It's now surrounded by forest - kind of like in ALttP, no?
We don't even know if FPTRRL is part of the Zelda timeline. And if it explains Tingle's origins, it should rather happen before all the Zelda games.
Capcom says there's no intention to connect the FS games to the Ganon story, but look what happened to that. TMC is clearly the first adventure of Link - in the FS side series, which Capcom always and only ever intended to be a side series.
Rofl! I must acknowledge, this argumentation is new to me.
Ah, and while you're at it - why not follow your own advice and take TMC, FS and FSA out of your timeline?
TMC attaches a symbolic meaning to the hat by showing a game in which the hat serves both as the key item of the game and as the main sidekick. However, does this mean it has to be first?
I'm not talking about Ezlo, but about the new hat Ezlo gives to Link in the end. That one is not a key item - it's the pure symbolism.
Bill Trinen's statements are irrelevant, as we know from his translations. In fact, Bill Trinen supervised the translation that removes the "first" wording altogether. Should we take his revisions as creator-intended? Possibly.
You say in the same sentence that Trinen's word is irrelevant but reflects creator intent?!
...Instead of debating with you, I might as well discuss the theory of relativity with a four-year old.
Edited by Jumbie, 27 May 2008 - 02:24 AM.