Jump to content

IPBoard Styles©Fisana

Photo

I'm working on my first timeline!


  • Please log in to reply
506 replies to this topic

#91 MikePetersSucks

MikePetersSucks

    Actual Japanese Person

  • ZL Staff
  • 4,174 posts
  • Gender:Male

Posted 09 September 2008 - 08:47 AM

And, without a doubt, the maidens should know who Ganondorf is, if the IW has happened... Especially given that FSA has ALttP's Ganon.


I personally don't think FSA happens on the same TIMELINE as the IW. I see it as parallel. More thematic that way.

On the Adult Timeline, his role in 7 years of Hylian history is so incredibly prevalent that it's one of the ONLY things that was still remembered after the flood. It was never forgotten.


Yea, but then they killed him, and a new land was found, and then there was the Vaati problem, and among all that a new Ganondorf was born, and for a while he was a model citizen.

#92 wring

wring

    Scout

  • Members
  • 168 posts
  • Gender:Male

Posted 09 September 2008 - 03:32 PM

Ok I just had the best idea ever!

Adult Timeline:
OoT-WW/PH
Child Timeline:
OoT/MM-TP
Termina destroyed Timeline:
OoT/MM-FS/FSA-ALttP/LA-OoA/S-LoZ/AoL

#93 Impossible

Impossible

    Mage

  • Members
  • 586 posts

Posted 09 September 2008 - 11:17 PM

Yea, but then they killed him, and a new land was found, and then there was the Vaati problem, and among all that a new Ganondorf was born, and for a while he was a model citizen.


A new land was found? Why is it identical to the old one? And in FSA, there's clear knowledge of older Hylian history. Ganon is DEFINITELY present in that. If OoT is the IW of ALttP, what you're saying is irrelevant, because FSA would still then be after the IW. Which it can't be, because the maidens don't know who Ganon is, while ALttP suggests that they should. And because the Knights of Hyrule are still alive. FSA obviously can't be on the same timeline as the IW.

And model citizen? Not exactly. I believe he was described as a "twisted" child.

Having three timelines is a cool idea and all, but Aonuma never indicated it, so I doubt it's official.

#94 Impossible

Impossible

    Mage

  • Members
  • 586 posts

Posted 10 September 2008 - 05:23 AM

Has anyone besides me noticed how much the attitude towards creator evidence has changed in the past couple of years? Seriously, it's like back when the split vs single debate was raging on, certain people insisted that developer comments took a back seat to the actual games, because real people and their opinions don't matter, hence the refusal to accept the "two endings" quote (or the "oldest tale", but that's a whole different story). I mean, pretty much anyone generally accepted that creator quotes should be accepted to a certain extent, but NOT if evidence arose in the games to contradict them. What the hell changed? Oh wait, I know. The same people who used to deny creator quotes are now desperately clinging to them as the only remaining evidence for their timeline, and ignoring the previous "rules" where everyone knew damn well that things changed, and that later games contradicting the old quotes take precedence. Here's something I wrote a little while before we found out about Aonuma confirming the split timeline:

Creator intent and quotes are vital to the timeline, as Aonuma and Miyamoto and occasionally others are the people making the games and they supersede previous evidence. However, quotes should not be taken as fact if contradictory evidence comes into play AFTER their comments, as that suggests that something has changed since then. Previous quotes can be overridden by more recent evidence or quotes, especially if the original quote was said before the game’s release. FS-FSA is a good example of how it’s possible to question Aonuma, given a contradiction in the games themselves. Creator intent in general (i.e. the suggestion that FSA was intended to be a prequel to LttP) is one of the most important aspects of the timeline, and it requires more than one piece of evidence, more than one little mistake on their part (which could be accidental), to confirm that anything someone from Nintendo has said is now wrong. I find the suggestion that creator evidence should be outright dismissed laughable... Who do you think is responsible for the in-game evidence? However, placements usually can’t be made based solely on these quotes, and a strong argument based on in-game evidence is necessary for any timeline.


After all, anything that's part of creator intent will be reflected in in-game evidence. That still matters, far more than outdated and since-contradicted quotes. And people used to actually talk about this, but now nobody seems to care.

Edited by Impossible, 10 September 2008 - 05:24 AM.


#95 Lexxi Aileron

Lexxi Aileron

    Monk

  • Members
  • 362 posts
  • Location:California
  • Gender:Male

Posted 10 September 2008 - 10:26 AM

A new land was found? Why is it identical to the old one?


Is it? TP's Hyrule is the same as OoT's and it is much different, IMO.

And in FSA, there's clear knowledge of older Hylian history. Ganon is DEFINITELY present in that. If OoT is the IW of ALttP, what you're saying is irrelevant, because FSA would still then be after the IW. Which it can't be, because the maidens don't know who Ganon is, while ALttP suggests that they should. And because the Knights of Hyrule are still alive.


1) Ganon is present. Okay? The IW is the first invasion of the Sacred Realm, the time when Ganon was "born", etc. This ain't the case at any point in the timeline after TP or TWW, so when else could it be besides OoT?
2) The maidens don't know who Ganon is. Yes? Very few people know who he is in TWW, too, because of the hundreds of years that have passed. Vaati is the last threat to have terrorized Hyrule. And if FSA is before ALttP, doesn't that fill in where they get the missing knowledge of Ganon that they have in ALttP?
3) The Knights of Hyrule are alive. Well, yes, they are; they're a military group that apparently reforms constantly (they're wiped out three separate times, at least twice in one timeline, even- the IW/OoT, TWW, FSA).

#96 Impossible

Impossible

    Mage

  • Members
  • 586 posts

Posted 11 September 2008 - 12:59 AM

Is it? TP's Hyrule is the same as OoT's and it is much different, IMO.


Wow, nice gaping fallacy there. There's a fucking big difference between a Hyrule that is explicitly the same looking different, and a Hyrule that is implicitly the same looking IDENTICAL. Nobody needs to prove that TP's Hyrule is OoT. And the fact that it looks different is completely irrelevant. Don't act like you've actually countered my point using a complete non-sequitur. There's just no way whatsoever in which the differences between OoT and TP's maps prove that the deliberate sameness of maps between OoT, FSA and ALttP is irrelevant. It's obviously not. Everyone knows that Hyrule having a very different map doesn't mean that it's different, so you're arguing against a stupid idea nobody ever claimed. But you'd be a fool to argue the inverse. We're talking about games supposedly (but not) on the Adult Timeline, that through some sheer coincidence, have a new Hyrule that looks exactly the same as the old one and has all the same places and history. Except for Ganondorf, who was magically forgotten for exactly five minutes during FSA.

1) Ganon is present. Okay? The IW is the first invasion of the Sacred Realm, the time when Ganon was "born", etc. This ain't the case at any point in the timeline after TP or TWW, so when else could it be besides OoT?


Funny how you care about when Ganon is born, but not when he dies, or any possible difference that makes.

2) The maidens don't know who Ganon is. Yes? Very few people know who he is in TWW, too, because of the hundreds of years that have passed. Vaati is the last threat to have terrorized Hyrule. And if FSA is before ALttP, doesn't that fill in where they get the missing knowledge of Ganon that they have in ALttP?


1. No, actually, many people in TWW know who he is. And his actions have been passed down even after the flood as a legend. Besides, it's completely irrelevant if the average person knows who Ganon is - these are the SAGES. On the Adult Timeline, it would be their duty to be aware of Ganon's seal, considering their relationship to it, and that of their predecessors. That's why the maidens know in ALttP. And according to you, the seal in question is from OoT, so absolutely nothing changes between FSA and ALttP.

2. No, because it's a different Ganon, and the events that they talk about in ALttP are the events of the IW, not the events of FSA. The two don't even resemble each other vaguely, so they sure as hell didn't get anything from there. Why do you find the fact that there are two Ganons so damn hard to get your head around, anyway? You've just magically merged the two in your head, in a way that only makes sense to you.

3) The Knights of Hyrule are alive. Well, yes, they are; they're a military group that apparently reforms constantly (they're wiped out three separate times, at least twice in one timeline, even- the IW/OoT, TWW, FSA).


They die out in FSA? I only recall meeting four of them. And how the hell does TWW connect to it? No, the only time is the IW, placing the IW after any other games that include them. Regardless of the baseless possibility of them coming back, ALttP says that they were gone for good since the IW, and hence in the intervening period.

And they're actually not just generic knights. According to the Japanese text, they're a specific clan of knights, not that you ever seem to care about Jumbie's translations (see: ALttP's box). They're dead as of the IW.

Edited by Impossible, 11 September 2008 - 01:27 AM.


#97 Lexxi Aileron

Lexxi Aileron

    Monk

  • Members
  • 362 posts
  • Location:California
  • Gender:Male

Posted 11 September 2008 - 02:06 AM

There's a fucking big difference between a Hyrule that is explicitly the same looking different, and a Hyrule that is implicitly the same looking IDENTICAL.


The Hyrule that is explicitly the same looks different than the one that is implicitly the same.

Nobody needs to prove that TP's Hyrule is OoT. And the fact that it looks different is completely irrelevant.


Unless they happen to have retconned Old Hyrule's geography so as to make it different from that of the 2D games.

Funny how you care about when Ganon is born, but not when he dies, or any possible difference that makes.


He comes back, doesn't he? In FSA? Or is there no timeline?

1. No, actually, many people in TWW know who he is.


Name them. Just as many people know who he is in TP, probably more.

And according to you, the seal in question is from OoT, so absolutely nothing changes between FSA and ALttP.


Name something that changes between FSA and ALttP.

Why do you find the fact that there are two Ganons so damn hard to get your head around, anyway? You've just magically merged the two in your head, in a way that only makes sense to you.


There are two Ganons, which is why we have to separate one from the IW anyway (either OoT or ALttP).

They die out in FSA? I only recall meeting four of them. And how the hell does TWW connect to it?


TWW also references the knights of Hyrule.

ALttP says that they were gone for good since the IW, and hence in the intervening period.


ALttP references a "family of Knights."

And they're actually not just generic knights. According to the Japanese text, they're a specific clan of knights, not that you ever seem to care about Jumbie's translations (see: ALttP's box). They're dead as of the IW.


Yes, that's what allows there to be other Knights of Hyrule after the specific clan of knights dies out.

Edited by Lexxi Aileron, 11 September 2008 - 02:07 AM.


#98 Raien

Raien

    Famicom

  • Members
  • 4,833 posts
  • Location:Luton
  • Gender:Male
  • United Kingdom

Posted 11 September 2008 - 05:39 AM

Name them. Just as many people know who he is in TP, probably more.


He is the very same Ganon... The emperor of the dark realm the ancient legends speak of...


So Ganon was a legend on the Great Sea. Your move.

#99 Lexxi Aileron

Lexxi Aileron

    Monk

  • Members
  • 362 posts
  • Location:California
  • Gender:Male

Posted 11 September 2008 - 12:20 PM

He is the very same Ganon... The emperor of the dark realm the ancient legends speak of...


So Ganon was a legend on the Great Sea. Your move.


The fact that legends are referenced does not mean they are still in circulation, especially since the source happens to be from the time period from which they originate.

When I argue that "few people know of him" I mean that among all the characters in the game only a few people who happen to be privileged (in this case, the King of Red Lions, the sages, the Deku Tree, and Jabun; later Zelda, the pirates, and a handful of Rito) know of him at all, as opposed to OoT and TP in which you can talk to certain random townspeople and many of them have a somewhat solid knowledge about the history of what is going on. In ALttP only the elite seem to know anything (all characters who are descendants of sages- which happens to be the majority of the appearing cast in this case); in FSA no one seems to know of Ganon or the trident except for Zelda (not even the Zuna/Gerudo), although the Mirror seems to be better known.

I think the fact that Ganon (and especially Ganondorf) is a relative unknown in FSA is the best indication that his role in OoT has been all but forgotten.

Rather than thinking that the connections between OoT and the IW have been severed by TWW, I rather prefer to think that the introduction of TWW changes our understanding of ALttP's history (although the Miyamoto timeline should have done this already). Unless TWW says he broke the seal (which I think is unlikely, as the Hylian text in the intro says explicitly that he was "revived with no reason"), the simplest solution would be to assume only the one change: that ALttP cannot feature the same Ganon as OoT, not that OoT is also therefore not the IW. The idea that the Imprisoning War was disconnected from ALttP and moved somewhere else besides its originally intended place requires more assumption and more assumed changes in developer intent.

“Same Seal” Assumptions
1) Ganon escaped the sages’ seal in The Wind Waker without breaking it (supported by game text; he was "revived without reason");
2) The Four Sword is sealed in the Sacred Realm by the maidens in Four Swords Adventures (supported, although you disagree, by the seal cast around it at the end of FSA);
3) The Triforce returns to the Sacred Realm after either The Wind Waker, The Legend of Zelda, or the Oracles saga (necessary for there to be a timeline at all);
4) Developer intent regarding the Ganons from the Imprisoning War and A Link to the Past being the same incarnation have changed (although if we take Miyamoto's timeline into account this is not in fact an assumption at all)

“Different War” Assumptions
1) Ganon escaped the sages’ seal in The Wind Waker by breaking it (an obvious guess, but unsupported by any specific text);
2) The Triforce returns to the Sacred Realm after either The Wind Waker, The Legend of Zelda, Twilight Princess, or the Oracles saga (necessary for there to be a timeline at all);
3) Developer intent regarding Ocarina of Time’s designation as the Imprisoning War has changed (completely unnecessary and actually contradicted by TP providing even more evidence for such a desgnation);
4) Developer intent regarding the Imprisoning War’s placement as the first time the Triforce leaves the Sacred Realm has changed (directly refuted by the ALttP GBA manual);
5) Developer intent regarding the Imprisoning War as being the first appearance of Ganon has changed (plausible but unnecessary and unevidenced);
6) Developer intent regarding the Ganons from the Imprisoning War and Ocarina of Time being the same incarnation have changed;
7) There are two sages’ seals cast on the Sacred Realm after a war in which Ganon takes the Triforce (completely unfounded)

Both theories of course have more assumptions outside of them that create a working order that can include ALttP.

Edited by Lexxi Aileron, 11 September 2008 - 12:26 PM.


#100 MikePetersSucks

MikePetersSucks

    Actual Japanese Person

  • ZL Staff
  • 4,174 posts
  • Gender:Male

Posted 11 September 2008 - 01:00 PM

The fact that legends are referenced does not mean they are still in circulation, especially since the source happens to be from the time period from which they originate.


Yea....bollocks. The legends are clearly known and circulated, as they're referenced by characters on Outset Island.

Unless TWW says he broke the seal (which I think is unlikely, as the Hylian text in the intro says explicitly that he was "revived with no reason"),


It says no such thing.

the simplest solution would be to assume only the one change: that ALttP cannot feature the same Ganon as OoT, not that OoT is also therefore not the IW.


It's really the same thing, because the Ganon in the IW and LTTP are the same entity. If LTTP doesn't feature OOT Ganon, then OOT cannot be the IW.

The idea that the Imprisoning War was disconnected from ALttP and moved somewhere else besides its originally intended place requires more assumption and more assumed changes in developer intent.


Developer intent aside, it's much messier and convulted trying to make any of the current existing games into a depiction of the IW.

2) The Four Sword is sealed in the Sacred Realm by the maidens in Four Swords Adventures (supported, although you disagree, by the seal cast around it at the end of FSA);


We already told you this wasn't the case. Otherwise we could argue that the Light Force is the Triforce of Wisdom by the same logic.

3) Developer intent regarding Ocarina of Time’s designation as the Imprisoning War has changed (completely unnecessary and actually contradicted by TP providing even more evidence for such a desgnation);


Completely unnecessary? Both TWW and TP make it impossible. TP works directly against an OOT/LTTP connection.

#101 Raien

Raien

    Famicom

  • Members
  • 4,833 posts
  • Location:Luton
  • Gender:Male
  • United Kingdom

Posted 11 September 2008 - 01:48 PM

The fact that legends are referenced does not mean they are still in circulation, especially since the source happens to be from the time period from which they originate.


Except the quote says "He is the very same Ganon.", which tells us that Link was expected to know who Ganon was, and therefore that the legends were in circulation at that time.

Also, you say that random townspeople in TP know about Ganondorf, yet from what I remember, there was just one townsperson who refers to the Dark Tribe who were sealed away. Ganondorf was hardly a legend.

Edited by Raian, 11 September 2008 - 01:52 PM.


#102 Lexxi Aileron

Lexxi Aileron

    Monk

  • Members
  • 362 posts
  • Location:California
  • Gender:Male

Posted 11 September 2008 - 02:41 PM

Yea....bollocks. The legends are clearly known and circulated, as they're referenced by characters on Outset Island.


And none of them refer to Ganon.

It says no such thing.


"The one who held the evil power, who had been thought to have been sealed forever by the efforts of the hero, revived with no reason."

http://www.adventure...trocomment.html

Is denying/ignoring evidence the norm around here?

It's really the same thing, because the Ganon in the IW and LTTP are the same entity. If LTTP doesn't feature OOT Ganon, then OOT cannot be the IW.


Or vice-versa; Ganon in the IW and OoT are the same entity (as confirmed in a developer quote), and if ALttP doesn't feature OoT Ganon then ALttP Ganon cannot be the IW Ganon.

Developer intent aside, it's much messier and convulted trying to make any of the current existing games into a depiction of the IW.


As opposed to there being two IWs?

We already told you this wasn't the case.


Using your interpretation; mine is clearly different.

There is no fact on this matter.

Completely unnecessary? Both TWW and TP make it impossible.


For OoT Ganon to be ALttP Ganon.

There are two solutions: disconnect the IW Ganon from ALttP or disconnect him from OoT. I see from the GBA rerelease that the former has happened.

Except the quote says "He is the very same Ganon.", which tells us that Link was expected to know who Ganon was, and therefore that the legends were in circulation at that time.


Or it's just a matter of clarifying: this is the same guy who stole the golden power in the legends.

Also, you say that random townspeople in TP know about Ganondorf


I did not. My reference to TP was broader than that and was never meant to refer to Ganondorf at all.

#103 Showsni

Showsni

    The Fallen

  • Members
  • 13,386 posts
  • Location:Gloucester
  • Gender:Male
  • England

Posted 11 September 2008 - 02:56 PM

There's nothing wrong with two IWs. We already have at least two - look at FSA. Trying to claim that the Ganondorf in ALttP's backstory isn't the Ganondorf in ALttP, though, is just mind boggling. How did you come to that conclusion?

There are two solutions: disconnect the IW Ganon from ALttP or disconnect him from OoT. I see from the GBA rerelease that the former has happened.


No it hasn't. IW Ganondorf has never been connected to OoT Ganondorf except circumstantially and by (in my view, spurious) developer quotes. But to say IW Ganondorf isn't ALttP Ganondorf is completely oxymoronic. The game says he's been sealed since he entered the SR. Why on earth would the manual include the story at all if it's no longer anything to do with ALttP? Why would the game include references to it?


#104 Raien

Raien

    Famicom

  • Members
  • 4,833 posts
  • Location:Luton
  • Gender:Male
  • United Kingdom

Posted 11 September 2008 - 03:04 PM

Or it's just a matter of clarifying: this is the same guy who stole the golden power in the legends.


That doesn't make much sense. If Link wasn't expected to recognise the name "Ganon", then it wouldn't need to be said that it is the "very same Ganon" who stole the golden power in the legends. It's the word "same" that indicates Link is expected to know the name, and add the fact that the word is in a different sentence to the reference to the legends, and it's just obvious that Link was aware of the legend.

I did not. My reference to TP was broader than that and was never meant to refer to Ganondorf at all.


Your original point was, and I quote, "Name them. Just as many people know who he is in TP, probably more." So now we've established that he appears in TWW legends and not in TP legends, we can establish this point to be refuted.

Edited by Raian, 11 September 2008 - 03:04 PM.


#105 Lexxi Aileron

Lexxi Aileron

    Monk

  • Members
  • 362 posts
  • Location:California
  • Gender:Male

Posted 11 September 2008 - 05:40 PM

Trying to claim that the Ganondorf in ALttP's backstory isn't the Ganondorf in ALttP, though, is just mind boggling. How did you come to that conclusion?


As of the GBA version, Ganondorf is no longer mentioned as part of the IW backstory.

IW Ganondorf has never been connected to OoT Ganondorf except circumstantially and by (in my view, spurious) developer quotes.


Objectively, how can they be spurious?

The game says he's been sealed since he entered the SR. Why on earth would the manual include the story at all if it's no longer anything to do with ALttP? Why would the game include references to it?

Because it provides a backdrop for:

1) the seal
2) Agahnim's aggression towards the maidens

both of which are central to Ganon's objectives in-game.

Same reason why the magic users' aggression is referenced even though none of the original magic users are directly involved in the plot of TP.

If Link wasn't expected to recognise the name "Ganon", then it wouldn't need to be said that it is the "very same Ganon" who stole the golden power in the legends.


If Link was expected to recognize the name "Ganon," there would be no need to clarify at all.

Your original point was, and I quote, "Name them. Just as many people know who he is in TP, probably more." So now we've established that he appears in TWW legends and not in TP legends, we can establish this point to be refuted.


"He was renowned as a demon thief"
Zelda, the sages, Midna, and Auru all have and indicate knowledge of his prior doings (that's eight characters versus TWW's six).

Edited by Lexxi Aileron, 11 September 2008 - 05:42 PM.


#106 Raien

Raien

    Famicom

  • Members
  • 4,833 posts
  • Location:Luton
  • Gender:Male
  • United Kingdom

Posted 11 September 2008 - 05:55 PM

If Link was expected to recognize the name "Ganon," there would be no need to clarify at all.


If someone told you that Elvis Presley was at your doorstep, would you instinctively believe it to be the legend of rock and roll? Sometimes you need a little clarification with legends, even if you know the name.

"He was renowned as a demon thief"
Zelda, the sages, Midna, and Auru all have and indicate knowledge of his prior doings (that's eight characters versus TWW's six).


The Sages were alive during Ganondorf's execution, Zelda was taught by the Sages and Auru sought information from the Sages (and he only knew Ganondorf as a "big criminal"), but Midna? Where does she show recognition of Ganondorf as a demon thief (and lol if you provide a quote after the Sages reveal who Ganondorf is)? But anyway, the Sages passing information on to two individuals is not the same as an entire legend passed to an island (and potentially between islands, considering two sisters/cousins live on Outset and Windfall).

Edited by Raian, 11 September 2008 - 06:20 PM.


#107 wring

wring

    Scout

  • Members
  • 168 posts
  • Gender:Male

Posted 11 September 2008 - 06:33 PM

I changed my mind (Again) about placing Link to the Past after Wind Waker for one reason. Lake Hylia, and Death mountain. If the Great Deku Tree pulled together all the islands and made a new Hyrule, or if Link and Zelda went off and found a different land and named it Hyrule, how did Death Mountain and Lake Hylia get there?
It fits better after Twilight Princess. As for the imprisoning war, its Ocarina of Time. Either Link told people about his adventures, or Link didn't go back in time far enough to completely erase the events, so that some of the early adventures still happened, or something.

Infact, that explains it very well, Ganondorf isn't sealed away because the IW never happened, but he ends up sealed away in A Link to the Past because of the events of Four Sword Adventures.

#108 Lexxi Aileron

Lexxi Aileron

    Monk

  • Members
  • 362 posts
  • Location:California
  • Gender:Male

Posted 11 September 2008 - 07:33 PM

I changed my mind (Again) about placing Link to the Past after Wind Waker for one reason. Lake Hylia, and Death mountain. If the Great Deku Tree pulled together all the islands and made a new Hyrule, or if Link and Zelda went off and found a different land and named it Hyrule, how did Death Mountain and Lake Hylia get there?


1) Death Mountain is a mountain, and mountains would have survived the flood.
2) As for Lake Hylia, look at the Four Sword series. Lake Hylia restarts at the foot of Veil Falls and moves south by the time of ALttP.

If someone told you that Elvis Presley was at your doorstep, would you instinctively believe it to be the legend of rock and roll? Sometimes you need a little clarification with legends, even if you know the name.


I don't see what your point is, aside from grasping for straws. If Link knows the name, there should be no need for introduction.

But anyway, the Sages passing information on to two individuals is not the same as an entire legend passed to an island (and potentially between islands, considering two sisters/cousins live on Outset and Windfall).


There is no evidence that the Outset islanders know anything about Ganon; just that they pass down the tradition of the hero's garb.

Edited by Lexxi Aileron, 11 September 2008 - 07:37 PM.


#109 CID Farwin

CID Farwin

    Disciple

  • Members
  • 2,935 posts
  • Location:At the threshold
  • Gender:Male

Posted 11 September 2008 - 07:57 PM

I changed my mind (Again) about placing Link to the Past after Wind Waker for one reason. Lake Hylia, and Death mountain. If the Great Deku Tree pulled together all the islands and made a new Hyrule, or if Link and Zelda went off and found a different land and named it Hyrule, how did Death Mountain and Lake Hylia get there?


1) Death Mountain is a mountain, and mountains would have survived the flood.
2) As for Lake Hylia, look at the Four Sword series. Lake Hylia restarts at the foot of Veil Falls and moves south by the time of ALttP.

If someone told you that Elvis Presley was at your doorstep, would you instinctively believe it to be the legend of rock and roll? Sometimes you need a little clarification with legends, even if you know the name.


I don't see what your point is, aside from grasping for straws. If Link knows the name, there should be no need for introduction.

But anyway, the Sages passing information on to two individuals is not the same as an entire legend passed to an island (and potentially between islands, considering two sisters/cousins live on Outset and Windfall).


There is no evidence that the Outset islanders know anything about Ganon; just that they pass down the tradition of the hero's garb.


We have new translations!

いにしえの伝説にある魔界の帝王 それが、あのガノンドロフなのだ
The emperor of the Makai in the ancient legend is that Ganondorf.

He is the very same Ganon... The emperor of the dark realm the ancient legends speak of...

Make of that what you will.

#110 Raien

Raien

    Famicom

  • Members
  • 4,833 posts
  • Location:Luton
  • Gender:Male
  • United Kingdom

Posted 11 September 2008 - 08:06 PM

I don't see what your point is, aside from grasping for straws. If Link knows the name, there should be no need for introduction.


The point is that there is always going to be momentary disbelief at the discovery of someone you thought only existed in a story. The King of Red Lions is confirming that this Ganon is the same character from the legends and not just someone else who has taken the character's namesake (which is much more believable given the circumstances).

PS: Regarding the new translation (you need to read the whole translation in the original post to understand this), the fact that the King of Red Lions explains exactly who Ganondorf is and what he did before referring to the ancient legend shows that the legend must have relevance to Link. Otherwise the reference to the legend is redundant.

Edited by Raian, 11 September 2008 - 08:14 PM.


#111 Lexxi Aileron

Lexxi Aileron

    Monk

  • Members
  • 362 posts
  • Location:California
  • Gender:Male

Posted 11 September 2008 - 08:54 PM

The point is that there is always going to be momentary disbelief at the discovery of someone you thought only existed in a story. The King of Red Lions is confirming that this Ganon is the same character from the legends and not just someone else who has taken the character's namesake (which is much more believable given the circumstances).


The King of Red Lions also, however, outlines the legend being described. It may or may not be the same legend Link is already familiar with.

Regarding the new translation (you need to read the whole translation in the original post to understand this), the fact that the King of Red Lions explains exactly who Ganondorf is and what he did before referring to the ancient legend shows that the legend must have relevance to Link.


Does it? Or does it simply mean that Ganondorf has relevance to the legend (which the king just explained)?

Random: Did you find it funny that the seal is referenced as "broken" when Ganondorf later reveals that it was intact the entire time and we learn later that he escaped via a portal?

Edited by Lexxi Aileron, 11 September 2008 - 08:55 PM.


#112 MikePetersSucks

MikePetersSucks

    Actual Japanese Person

  • ZL Staff
  • 4,174 posts
  • Gender:Male

Posted 12 September 2008 - 01:35 AM

And none of them refer to Ganon.


LOL PROLOGUE LOL

"The one who held the evil power, who had been thought to have been sealed forever by the efforts of the hero, revived with no reason."

http://www.adventure...trocomment.html

Is denying/ignoring evidence the norm around here?


Oh yes, I'm sorry. Excuse me for not considering the fan translation of a fictional, inconsistent language by a backwater, obscure fansite.

Or vice-versa; Ganon in the IW and OoT are the same entity (as confirmed in a developer quote), and if ALttP doesn't feature OoT Ganon then ALttP Ganon cannot be the IW Ganon.


LTTP and IW Ganon not being the same is impossible, and you're the only person who contests it for your own personal interpretations.

As of the GBA version, Ganondorf is no longer mentioned as part of the IW backstory.


Yea, the entire manual is also like a third as long and about half as tall. So what? It's a remake, if the story was changed, it'd have been more blatant.

God, you're like the idiots who think LTTP Link is the same as OOT because of the voice clips in the GBA version.

#113 Impossible

Impossible

    Mage

  • Members
  • 586 posts

Posted 12 September 2008 - 02:02 AM

Unless they happen to have retconned Old Hyrule's geography so as to make it different from that of the 2D games.


LOL, this is a good one. How picky you seem to be with what constitutes an acceptable retcon clearly shows your biases. Despite your garbage list, we're arguing for a single retcon, one that has been CLEARLY evident in the games ever since TWW came out and replaced ALttP's previous position. And there are a shitload more assumptions in your theory that you've completely forgotten. I believe I listed them in my document, but I'll make a brief summary of some you missed here. I know I'm missing a couple, but I can't be bothered just repeating myself over your insistence on ignoring points relating to FSA, at least.

- Everything surrounding the Master Sword is pure conjecture.
- Anything to try to manipulate Nintendo's obvious INTENT regarding Ganon's seal (which there was no need to state more explicitly than they did) to baseless speculation that is pretty clearly NOT what Nintendo meant for us to understand happened. The point is never to nitpick at semantics the way you do CONSTANTLY, we're looking for the whole spirit and intended meaning of the story.
- Everything surrounding Hyrule's return is pure conjecture that directly contradicts the whole point of TWW, and despite your beliefs, is NOT supported in-game because the emphasised point is that Hyrule will not return - the possibility of a land existing being somewhat irrelevant to that fact.
- Everything about the return of Hyrule's history is not only baseless fan fiction and assumptions, but directly contradicts ITSELF, as well as other evidence. Especially with TMC thrown in to make things even worse. And the contradictions arising from the transition between each game. Speaking of which:

Name something that changes between FSA and ALttP.


The knowledge of Ganon in the Imprisoning War possessed by the descendants of the sages who sealed him.

There is no evidence that the Outset islanders know anything about Ganon; just that they pass down the tradition of the hero's garb.


Except you're ignoring the goddamn obvious implication because you refuse to apply logic to this situation, out of fear for how it affects your theory. The legend of the Hero of Time is known to people on Outset Island (and to Tetra, by the way). This legend is recounted to the player at the start of the game. It's the SAME LEGEND. That's why the KoRL talks as though Link should know the legend - the intro is giving us assumed knowledge that Link also possesses, as it is passed down on Outset Island. It's a single legend about the Hero of Time and the evil he defeated. This legend, as the KoRL says, speaks of an evil named Ganon. And I believe the fishmen know about him, and later on, the kidnapped girls, the Rito and the sages are obviously all well aware of him. Definitely common knowledge after TWW. I don't think Ganon is ever mentioned by an NPC in TP, other than the sages and Zant, nor does he have contact with any of them. Only a few people (the guys from the bar) are aware of what Link does, and even then, we don't know that they know about Ganon.

Random: Did you find it funny that the seal is referenced as "broken" when Ganondorf later reveals that it was intact the entire time and we learn later that he escaped via a portal?


I think it's about time you played TWW again, because you seem to have no idea what you're saying. It's a completely different seal. The sages' seal was broken hundreds of years earlier when Ganon returned. And we now know that there was not still a seal on Ganon during TWW, anyway. There was a seal on Hyrule (intact through to the end of the game), and a seal on Ganon's monsters (intact until Link draws the MS). The seal on the Sacred Realm has no relevance to either, and as such, none of your supposed evidence is relevant to the seal on the Sacred Realm.

4) Developer intent regarding the Imprisoning War’s placement as the first time the Triforce leaves the Sacred Realm has changed (directly refuted by the ALttP GBA manual);


I like how Lex just outright lies, and ignores the fact that Jumbie translated the ALttP GBA manual, and that the bullshit ONE WORD, a pure semantic point and nothing else, that his theory was resting on, was not present in that translation. And he STILL brings it up, even though there's nothing in his favour here. He seems to have this recurring habit of ignoring all evidence and points from any other topic, with that incredible short term memory.

5) Developer intent regarding the Imprisoning War as being the first appearance of Ganon has changed (plausible but unnecessary and unevidenced);


You assume that developer intent regarding ALttP's backstory/the story told by the sages, being the IW/the first appearance of Ganon, has changed. See, I can play stupid games, too. Like pretending that the manual story of a game, and the in-game backstory, refer to completely different events. Oh yeah, that's developer intent right there.

7) There are two sages’ seals cast on the Sacred Realm after a war in which Ganon takes the Triforce (completely unfounded)


Straw men are fun. Actually, no, there's only one Imprisoning War and one sage's seal on the SR, it just occurs on both timelines, at different points. TP seems to imply that many things of that nature are ultimately fated (look at Ganon's removed ending dialogue).

I can't really think of ANYTHING Lex argues anymore that isn't based entirely on semantics. Which are so insanely irrelevant, considering the many possible translations of the text, and the fact that the games have an actual MEANING and intent. They don't hand-craft every word just to hide references to the timeline in there, or add the subtle suggestions that only you seem to see, which are usually based on an omission of a detail, not any actual facts or real evidence.

Edited by Impossible, 12 September 2008 - 02:09 AM.


#114 Raien

Raien

    Famicom

  • Members
  • 4,833 posts
  • Location:Luton
  • Gender:Male
  • United Kingdom

Posted 12 September 2008 - 06:54 AM

Does it? Or does it simply mean that Ganondorf has relevance to the legend (which the king just explained)?


The KoRL first provided Ganondorfs name, then described the evils he committed in Hyrule, then clarified he was the man spoken of in the ancient legends. Had Link not known the ancient legends, there would be absolutely no need to refer to it.

Random: Did you find it funny that the seal is referenced as "broken" when Ganondorf later reveals that it was intact the entire time and we learn later that he escaped via a portal?


It's even funnier that the new translation shows that the Master Sword's seal was not on Ganondorf, but on the Demon Tribe.

#115 wring

wring

    Scout

  • Members
  • 168 posts
  • Gender:Male

Posted 12 September 2008 - 09:48 AM

I changed my mind (Again) about placing Link to the Past after Wind Waker for one reason. Lake Hylia, and Death mountain. If the Great Deku Tree pulled together all the islands and made a new Hyrule, or if Link and Zelda went off and found a different land and named it Hyrule, how did Death Mountain and Lake Hylia get there?


1) Death Mountain is a mountain, and mountains would have survived the flood.
2) As for Lake Hylia, look at the Four Sword series. Lake Hylia restarts at the foot of Veil Falls and moves south by the time of ALttP.

1 Yeah, I know it survived, but wouldn't it have turned into an island. It would be level with the other islands on the Great Sea.
2 That's just gameplay, the maps are constinately changing between games. I don't rely on maps for my timeline. It probably doesn't mean anything other then it looks better there.

#116 Lexxi Aileron

Lexxi Aileron

    Monk

  • Members
  • 362 posts
  • Location:California
  • Gender:Male

Posted 12 September 2008 - 11:10 AM

LOL PROLOGUE LOL


He doesn't appear in the prologue as of 2003

Oh yes, I'm sorry. Excuse me for not considering the fan translation of a fictional, inconsistent language by a backwater, obscure fansite.


It's by the same guy who did the translation for the ALttP SNES manual and Hylian has been officially announced by the creators as a cipher.

LTTP and IW Ganon not being the same is impossible, and you're the only person who contests it for your own personal interpretations.


Not true. Others have come to the same conclusion based on creator quotes. Everyone else just contests the Miyamoto quotes for their own personal interpretations.

As for the changes, it doesn't get more blatant as getting rid of the one detail that makes it impossible for OoT to be the IW (Ganon) while leaving the one detail that makes it impossible for OoT NOT to be the IW (Triforce still in the Sacred Realm from creation) while at the same time relocalizing the game to fit OoT lingo (wise men was a perfectly acceptable translation).

LOL, this is a good one. How picky you seem to be with what constitutes an acceptable retcon clearly shows your biases. Despite your garbage list, we're arguing for a single retcon, one that has been CLEARLY evident in the games ever since TWW came out and replaced ALttP's previous position.


Your single retcon contradicts the most recent version of ALttP which was released after TWW in Japan.

Japan's TWW release: 12/13/2002
Japan's ALttP GBA release: 3/14/2003

The GBA version cites the creation as the reference point for the ALttP IW, saying that the people went for the "place that held the gold"; if they intended to replace ALttP's previous position, this is an error, as the creation is no longer the reference point and has nothing to do with the position of the Triforce.

Anything to try to manipulate Nintendo's obvious INTENT regarding Ganon's seal (which there was no need to state more explicitly than they did) to baseless speculation that is pretty clearly NOT what Nintendo meant for us to understand happened. The point is never to nitpick at semantics the way you do CONSTANTLY, we're looking for the whole spirit and intended meaning of the story.


Here is their most recent intent regarding Ganon's seal:

1) It was cast when the Sacred Realm was first invaded by the seven sages after the Knights' sacrifice
2) It cannot be broken except by use of the sages' power
3) Ganon in ALttP couldn't figure out how to return to the world of light (although inevitably does via Agahnim)

The Deku Tree tells us that he plans to turn all the islands into one big island--this would include the islands of the Great Sea which are over the original land of Hyrule. That the people would name the land "Hyrule" in no way contradicts whether or not that land would or would not be Daphnes's "Hyrule."

The knowledge of Ganon in the Imprisoning War possessed by the descendants of the sages who sealed him.


There is no evidence of this in ALttP. None of the references to Ganon in ALttP explicitly line out his connection to the IW; just how he got into the Sacred Realm in ALttP and what he plans to do now. Whether they actually are references to the IW is up for debate certainly, but none of them are explicit ones.

Except you're ignoring the goddamn obvious implication because you refuse to apply logic to this situation, out of fear for how it affects your theory.


It doesn't really matter. If the islanders know of Ganon it doesn't affect my theory. All I'm saying is that I see no evidence that they do. The legends we hear do not mention Ganon by name in any case.

The legend of the Hero of Time is known to people on Outset Island (and to Tetra, by the way). This legend is recounted to the player at the start of the game. It's the SAME LEGEND.


We don't know precisely what the legend is. It may be the legend at the start of the game. It may be parts of it. That legend might have surfaced posthumously and is being told by a narrator. I don't know. I won't presume to know.

This legend, as the KoRL says, speaks of an evil named Ganon.


The evil is rather nameless.

The fishmen don't mention him; they do mention his monsters. The kidnapped girls may never even encounter him, and even if they did, why recognize him? I'll give you the Rito point; in fact, I cited them myself. As for NPCs in TP, see: Auru, Zelda, Midna.

Also, the seal of the gods does not refer to the sages' seal. It could not, not in reference to the current threat. Ganon was supposed to be sealed below the sea, but he was not. The King of Red Lions does not know why he was able to "break" the seal of the gods. This is revealed later-- he stole the Master Sword's power and so its power over him is null. The seal itself still seems to be intact, however.

And we now know that there was not still a seal on Ganon during TWW, anyway. There was a seal on Hyrule (intact through to the end of the game), and a seal on Ganon's monsters (intact until Link draws the MS).


Of course not; he stole the Master Sword's power and himself muses that it is powerless against him. I always wondered about the confusion in the NoA text; now I understand that it was a mistranslation and the Master Sword's power could never have affected him.

I like how Lex just outright lies, and ignores the fact that Jumbie translated the ALttP GBA manual, and that the bullshit ONE WORD, a pure semantic point and nothing else, that his theory was resting on, was not present in that translation.


It wasn't the same word, but they're still flocking to the "place that hid the gold" in the creation, so it's not as though the point doesn't apply.

You assume that developer intent regarding ALttP's backstory/the story told by the sages, being the IW/the first appearance of Ganon, has changed.


The IW backstory is exactly the same. It is still ALttP's backstory; just not its immediate backstory. It takes a role similar to the Shadow Clan wars in TP.
The story by the sages is exactly the same, except where it involves the appearance of Ganon in ALttP (I noted that I made this assumption in my list of assumptions).

Like pretending that the manual story of a game, and the in-game backstory, refer to completely different events.


The "two backstory" thing has been done at least three times:

1) TWW- sages' seal is referenced in the manual and immediate backstory; flood seal (unrelated to sages' seal) plays a direct role in the story
2) FSA- Vaati is referenced as Hyrule's threat; Ganon is later revealed to be behind everything (unrelated to Vaati's seal)
3) TP- Shadow Clan is referenced as the cause of the calamities; Ganon is later revealed to be behind everything (unrelated to Shadow Clan)

Why not ALttP?

4) ALttP- Sacred Realm is sealed by the sages in the Imprisoning War, while Agahnim tries to kidnap the maidens to break the seal; Ganon is later revealed to be behind everything (unrelated to Imprisoning War)

Actually, no, there's only one Imprisoning War and one sage's seal on the SR, it just occurs on both timelines, at different points. TP seems to imply that many things of that nature are ultimately fated (look at Ganon's removed ending dialogue).


Removed ending dialogue, yes. You rely on outdated creator intent rather than the most recent quotes.

The KoRL first provided Ganondorfs name, then described the evils he committed in Hyrule, then clarified he was the man spoken of in the ancient legends. Had Link not known the ancient legends, there would be absolutely no need to refer to it.


The ancient legends are the evils the King describes.

It's even funnier that the new translation shows that the Master Sword's seal was not on Ganondorf, but on the Demon Tribe.


Of course it wasn't. The Master Sword seal couldn't hold him, at least, not for long, because it lacked the power. The translation clarified a long-standing confusion of mine as to how Ganondorf was able to cite imprisonment by a seal cast by an object with no long-standing power over him.

#117 MikePetersSucks

MikePetersSucks

    Actual Japanese Person

  • ZL Staff
  • 4,174 posts
  • Gender:Male

Posted 12 September 2008 - 01:33 PM

He doesn't appear in the prologue as of 2003


Yea.......except he does.

It's by the same guy who did the translation for the ALttP SNES manual and Hylian has been officially announced by the creators as a cipher.


I still don't trust it. Especially if YOU'RE trying to pass it off as evidence. Besides, it's been officially confirmed in the Translation thread that Ganondorf's seal was BROKEN.

Not true. Others have come to the same conclusion based on creator quotes. Everyone else just contests the Miyamoto quotes for their own personal interpretations.


Who? Your buddies? GameFAQs? Besides, Impossible already showed that Miyamoto doesn't really matter. If Aonuma makes a similar statement, come find me.

As for the changes, it doesn't get more blatant as getting rid of the one detail that makes it impossible for OoT to be the IW (Ganon) while leaving the one detail that makes it impossible for OoT NOT to be the IW (Triforce still in the Sacred Realm from creation) while at the same time relocalizing the game to fit OoT lingo (wise men was a perfectly acceptable translation).


Or it could be the game just cutting extrapolous details. We don't need to know how Hyrule was formed to enjoy the story, or if there was another attack on the Triforce before the backstory. Also, to be nitpicky, "Sage" is the direct translation of the word. "Wise Men" was a Woosleyism.

We don't know precisely what the legend is. It may be the legend at the start of the game. It may be parts of it. That legend might have surfaced posthumously and is being told by a narrator. I don't know. I won't presume to know.


Oh please, that'd just be bad storytelling. It's clearly the same legend of Outset's Tradition. You expect the game to basically be saying, "Hey, that whole prologue we just gave you? Ignore like half of it, you don't need to know yet."

Of course not; he stole the Master Sword's power and himself muses that it is powerless against him. I always wondered about the confusion in the NoA text; now I understand that it was a mistranslation and the Master Sword's power could never have affected him.


Excuse me?

4) ALttP- Sacred Realm is sealed by the sages in the Imprisoning War, while Agahnim tries to kidnap the maidens to break the seal; Ganon is later revealed to be behind everything (unrelated to Imprisoning War)


And how is Ganon involved if he's not the same guy that was sealed away?

#118 Raien

Raien

    Famicom

  • Members
  • 4,833 posts
  • Location:Luton
  • Gender:Male
  • United Kingdom

Posted 12 September 2008 - 03:58 PM

I just want to point out that according to South Park, one quarter of Americans believe that 9/11 was a government conspiracy. If that is true, it honestly wouldn't surprise me to hear that a few people believe Lex's theory (especially on any forum in which Lex is the most knowledgeable of the current posters. Anyone who has the means to post facts without context can get decent support regardless of how true the argument actually is. I wonder if these posters would still believe if they got to read Impossible's post in the other topic, which actually provides that context to some extent).

Edited by Raian, 12 September 2008 - 04:05 PM.


#119 Lexxi Aileron

Lexxi Aileron

    Monk

  • Members
  • 362 posts
  • Location:California
  • Gender:Male

Posted 12 September 2008 - 04:11 PM

The context is as follows:

Just after releasing a game that kills off the incarnation of Ganon that appears in the game made to represent the IW, ALttP's backstory, Nintendo releases a version of ALttP that removes all reference to Ganon's involvement in the IW backstory.

I think that's substantial enough.

Yea.......except he does.


Quote?

Besides, it's been officially confirmed in the Translation thread that Ganondorf's seal was BROKEN.


Wrong; it's been confirmed that Ganon was "revived" through a portal, just like in the English version. Ganondorf himself still muses that the seal was intact, but according to the Japanese version it never properly held him to begin with.

Or it could be the game just cutting extrapolous details.


Only the details that would be relevant to OoT's placement are left and only those that would contradict it after TWW's release are gone.

And how is Ganon involved if he's not the same guy that was sealed away?


He rediscovered the Sacred Realm and took the Triforce like the game itself indicates? And when he couldn't figure out how to get out, he tried to break the seal?

#120 Raien

Raien

    Famicom

  • Members
  • 4,833 posts
  • Location:Luton
  • Gender:Male
  • United Kingdom

Posted 12 September 2008 - 04:33 PM

The context is as follows:

Just after releasing a game that kills off the incarnation of Ganon that appears in the game made to represent the IW, ALttP's backstory, Nintendo releases a version of ALttP that removes all reference to Ganon's involvement in the IW backstory.

I think that's substantial enough.


No.

This is a fact: "British Intelligence have learned that Iraq can launch weapons of mass destruction at the United States within forty-five minutes."
This is the context: The statement was a lie.

This is a fact: "Miyamoto has said ALTTP is a sequel to LoZ."
This is the context: Miyamoto was referring to gameplay, not story.

This is a fact: "Nintendo released a version of ALTTP in which Ganon was not overtly stated to have participated in the IW back story."
This is the context: The products of the IW back story (namely the Dark World and the Demon Tribe) were still attributed to Ganon, thus cementing his participation in the IW back story. Even if the quote format has changed from one game to another, people judge the context of information by source. All storyline information is determined to be relevant to the source in which it appears; that is a constant which affects all forms of narrative media.

Edited by Raian, 12 September 2008 - 04:59 PM.





Copyright © 2021 Your Company Name