A ZD Timeline Project

[Caleb, Of Asui]

The "a ZD Timeline Project", this thread, an attempt to come up with something of a "community timeline", so to speak. The current discussion is about whichever game is labeled below as Current Discussion. Please try to refrain from using evidence from Zelda games released after the one in question. (Some games will be skipped, since some placements need not be discussed. Reasons will be given.) Below is the list of Zelda games already existing in the current discussion. When a general consensus is reached, I will update this post and make a note of the change of discussion within the thread.





1. The Legend of Zelda
- Skipped -
Reason: Being the first game, there are no other games to compare it to.
Order so Far: LoZ

2. The Adventure of Link
- Skipped -
Reason: It is obviously a direct sequel to The Legend of Zelda.
Order so Far: LoZ/AoL


3. A Link to the Past
- Discussion Closed -
Conclusion: It was meant to explain the backstory before The Legend of Zelda.
Order so Far: ALttP--LoZ/AoL

4. Link's Awakening
- Skipped -
Reason: It is obviously a direct sequel to A Link to the Past. There is some small debate over whether or not it actually is, but it doesn't effect much to be worth adressing.
Order so Far: ALttP/LA--LoZ/AoL

5. Ocarina of Time
- Skipped -
Reason: It is obviously before everything so far. Nobody's about to say otherwise.
Order so Far: OoT--ALttP/LA--LoZ/AoL

5.1 Miyamoto Order
- Discussion Closed -
Details: We hit a snag when the creator came out with an order contradicting what we already have. He says OoT--LoZ/AoL--ALttP, with LA going anywhere.
Conclusion: Ocarina of Time was originally meant as the Seal War, with The Legend of Zelda as a lesser part of it, explaining what happens to the Triforce. At least, this was true at the time.
Order so Far: OoT--LoZ/AoL--ALttP/LA

6. Majora's Mask
- Skipped -
Reason: It is obviously a direct sequel to Ocarina of Time.
Order so Far: OoT/MM--LoZ/AoL--ALttP/LA

7-8. Oracle of Seasons and Ages
- Current Discussion -
First Possibility: OoT/MM--OoS/OoA--LoZ/AoL--ALttP/LA
Second Possibility: OoT/MM--LoZ/AoL--OoS/OoA--ALttP/LA
Third Possibility: OoT/MM--LoZ/AoL--ALttP/LA--OoS/OoA

[Erimgard]

At the time of 1993, I'd say it was still debatable, but in favor of aLttP-LoZ-AoL.

This timeline was marketed in America (although the NoA localization head at the time, Dan Owsen, claimed there was no timeline) and the Japanese may have implied it as well.

The Japanese box for aLttP (called Triforce of the Gods in Japan) stated that "This time the stage is set long before Link accomplished a feat, the epoch when Hyrule was one country".

Thus, one must define "the stage is set". Does this mean that the game itself takes place "before Link accomplished a feat"? Or does this mean that the backstory for the game (the very first thing we read when we open the manual or start the game) is "the stage" that is set long ago?

I was also once told (though I don't know how reliable the source) that the line could be translated "this time the stage is set before Link will accomplish a feat"...again open to the interpretation of whether this means "aLttP takes place when Hyrule was one country, before LoZ" or "the backstory for this game takes place long ago when Hyrule was one country"

I'm conflicted on the issue.
The manual seems to read like a mixture of the "omniscient narrator" and his point of view, coupled with ancient Hylian writings. The nature of the manual, it's implied that he's telling this during the start of aLttP.

The manual ends with him saying "but recently " and leading into the events of Aganhim's silent takeover. This implies that everything he's mentioned in the manual thus far takes place before aLttP.

At one point in the manual, however, he states (of Ganon) "at that time the king of evil Ganon was born, the one who has threatened Hyrule". The only existing games to this point (the only times where Ganon could have threatened Hyrule) are LoZ/AoL.

Thus we have a game with a strangely worded timeline indication on its original box, a definitive timeline indication on its localized box by a man who claims there is no timeline, and a manual that tells from the present tense, yet references supposedly future events as having occurred in the past.

In short...original intent is quite confusing on aLttP.
Though, all in all, the game has a feel of "origin" to it...most of these origins are references as ancient events. So again...every indication leads to a contradiction.

[Zemen125]

You also seem to forgot to mention that the original American Box for ALTTP specifically says that it's Link and Zelda's predecessors and since there were only 2 games made before ALTTP, it's obvious this would mean it goes before those 2 games. If this is a correct translation then it's impossible to confuse the placement of the game. The newest (and now canon) version of ALTTP does not refer to them as being predecessors of Link and Zelda from LoZ/AoL. This could be for a number of reasons.

1. It could have been removed because it was a mistranslation, but if it was a mistranslation then it most likely would have been corrected with a new word instead of being taken out with nothing to replace it.

2. I find this the most likely of the 2 possibilities. They took it out because it should already be clearly established as being a prequel to LoZ/AoL so there is no need to add it in since it has already been stated long before. They were trying to add new stuff to the game so there was no need to add some old information that should already be common knowledge.

Also, the game is called A Link To The Past. It makes sense that the game deals with past events. Since there are 2 obviously connected games created before this one (LoZ/AoL), then the game could only be connected with the past of those 2 games. This also would place ALTTP before those 2 games.

I strongly believe the order is ALTTP-LoZ/AoL up to this point of the discussion.

[Erimgard]

You also seem to forgot to mention that the original American Box for ALTTP specifically says that it's Link and Zelda's predecessors and since there were only 2 games made before ALTTP, it's obvious this would mean it goes before those 2 games.
I didn't forget it. Didn't you read the part where I said "it was marketed as a prequel in America" ? o.0



If this is a correct translation
It's not.
I told you what the correct one was. Would you like a link?



2. I find this the most likely of the 2 possibilities. They took it out because it should already be clearly established as being a prequel to LoZ/AoL so there is no need to add it in since it has already been stated long before. They were trying to add new stuff to the game so there was no need to add some old information that should already be common knowledge.
Why would a Japanese quote by common knowledge in America if the game hadn't been released yet?



Also, the game is called A Link To The Past. It makes sense that the game deals with past events.
Again, American marketing. Again, does that refer to the fact that the backstory of the game tells of the creation of the world, or the fact that the game itself was meant to be a prequel?

[Zemen125]

I didn't forget it. Didn't you read the part where I said "it was marketed as a prequel in America" ? o.0

Guess so.


It's not.
I told you what the correct one was. Would you like a link?

Hmmm I don't seem to recall you every saying that it was a false translation, only that it could have been a false translation, which is just a copout of actually arguing real points.


Why would a Japanese quote by common knowledge in America if the game hadn't been released yet?


I don't understand what this means. Did you read my post correctly? The original box for America called them predecessors and the newer one left it out. What does your post have to do with any of that. The original box has been around for years so for people who actually pay attention to the series, it is common knowledge what the back of that box says (about them being predecessors). I have no idea what your post is supposed to prove because it has nothing to do with my post.

[Erimgard]

G
Hmmm I don't seem to recall you every saying that it was a false translation, only that it could have been a false translation, which is just a copout of actually arguing real points.
The original Japanese box says:
"This time the stage is set a long time before the time when Link accomplished a feat, the epoch when Hyrule was one Kingdom"

NoA changed that to the line about you being the predecessor Link/Zelda.

[Zemen125]

The original Japanese box says:
"This time the stage is set a long time before the time when Link accomplished a feat, the epoch when Hyrule was one Kingdom"

NoA changed that to the line about you being the predecessor Link/Zelda.

You do realize that they both say pretty much the exact same thing....

Who cares if it's not an exact translation as long as both boxes indicate where the game goes? I read what you posted about that but it doesn't matter because they both have different ways of saying "this game goes before LoZ/AoL." You're arguing someone who believes the same positioning of the game you believe. Kinda dumb if you ask me.

[Erimgard]

Because the Japanese box defines the "before Link accomplished a feat" era as "the time when the stage is set". Thus, does "the stage is set" refer to the game's backstory (which is the very first thing you read in both the manual and the game itself, effectively setting the stage) or the game itself?

[Zemen125]

Moving on...

I don't think I have ever come across a person who has put ALTTP after LoZ/AoL.

[Erimgard]

Never met Shigeru Miyamoto I guess.
We'll get into that after Caleb adds OoT into the mix I'm sure ;)

[MrMosley]

Never met Shigeru Miyamoto I guess.
We'll get into that after Caleb adds OoT into the mix I'm sure ;)

I've never met him either, lolz.

I'll put my two cents in and agree that ALttP is a prequel of LoZ/AoL. The first two games had little backstory, and only really told what was going on at that particular point in time. There was no history of the Triforce, no history of Ganon, and really no history of Hyrule at all. ALttP is a game that is filled with tales taking place even before it, when it talks about Ganondorf as a man, who then became Ganon, and also gives the history of the Triforce. But during the game, we also see a history of how things apparently came to be in LoZ.

ALttP tells about Ganondorf going to the Sacred Realm to obtain the Triforce. There, he made his wish, and was sealed within the SR. I have heard and agree that his wish was to "rule the world". He did not specify Hyrule, but the World. The world which he was in was the SR, so it became the world in which he ruled. However, he had Hyrule in mind, so the SR became a mirrored image of Hyrule, then transformed into the Dark World, along with all of its inhabitants, as well as Ganondorf. This is the backstory covered in ALttP that tells how Ganondorf officially, and permanently, became the pig-beast known as Ganon.

In that case, it would only make sense to come before LoZ. Ganondorf was sealed in the SR the entire time, from the moment he touched the Triforce, to the moment Link defeated him in ALttP. Ganon is present in LoZ, with his base in Death Mountain. If LoZ was to come before ALttP, the main boss would have been Ganondorf, the man, not the beast. And I know some people will try and argue that he can transform at will into Ganon. That is a failed arguement. He doesn't stay transformed at any point in which he becomes his beast form during the games that he uses that power. After ALttP, he became stuck in his new form.

[angelkid]

Though I may not be a great Time-line theorist, seeing as i've been a member of this site for a while now, I have gained some experience and knowledge of the timeline. I would also agree that ALttP comes before LoZ/AoL. For the reason being that ALttP tells us how Ganon comes to be and suggests there is no way he could have been around before so I think ALttP would have to be a prequel.

Another reason being that the words 'past' and 'Link' are in the mix. I think this is deffinately hinting that the game focuses on, what would be considered a past Link as the only other Link we had seen was the LoZ/AoL. This is therefore more evidence that it must be a prequel.

[Skull_Kid]

As I am sure that someone mentioned above, the SNES ALttP manual is NO LONGER canon, and is completely and fully retconned.
Thus, now the name "A Link to the Past" is just that: a name, without any other meaning.

Still, I still think that LoZ and AoL are on the same timeline side as ALttP just with LA in between, and maybe OoX, even thouhg OoX also fit after AoL

[Erimgard]

As I am sure that someone mentioned above, the SNES ALttP manual is NO LONGER canon, and is completely and fully retconned.
Thus, now the name "A Link to the Past" is just that: a name, without any other meaning.

Still, I still think that LoZ and AoL are on the same timeline side as ALttP just with LA in between, and maybe OoX, even thouhg OoX also fit after AoL

Well remember we're only supposed to be discussing the material at hand. Thus, we're discussing where aLttP was supposed to be in 1993, when all we had was LoZ, AoL, and SNES aLttP.

[Hayzer]

I'm still in favor of the order they were released. Having not actually played the game, my comments can be easily faulted, but I still put ALttP AFTER LoZ and AoL.

[Zemen125]

I'm still in favor of the order they were released. Having not actually played the game, my comments can be easily faulted, but I still put ALttP AFTER LoZ and AoL.

If you've never played the game then you should probably get some info on it before you start theorizing its placement on the timeline...

Both the Japanese manual and the American manual HIGHLY suggest that it is a prequel to LoZ/AoL.

According to Erimgard, the Japanese manual says "This time the stage is set a long time before the time when Link accomplished a feat..."

That obviously means that the game is set long before the time that Link accomplished something great. There were only two, directly connected games created before ALTTP which means that ALTTP must be talking about the Link from LoZ/AoL which means ALTTP would come before LoZ/AoL.

Also, the American manual calls Link and Zelda in ALTTP the predecessors of a previous Link and Zelda. Once again, there were only 2 games that are directly connected that were made before ALTTP which means that Link and Zelda could only be predecessors for Link and Zelda from LoZ/AoL which would, once again, put ALTTP before LoZ/AoL.

Go play the game.

[Hayzer]

If you've never played the game then you should probably get some info on it before you start theorizing its placement on the timeline...

Both the Japanese manual and the American manual HIGHLY suggest that it is a prequel to LoZ/AoL.

According to Erimgard, the Japanese manual says "This time the stage is set a long time before the time when Link accomplished a feat..."

That obviously means that the game is set long before the time that Link accomplished something great. There were only two, directly connected games created before ALTTP which means that ALTTP must be talking about the Link from LoZ/AoL which means ALTTP would come before LoZ/AoL.

Also, the American manual calls Link and Zelda in ALTTP the predecessors of a previous Link and Zelda. Once again, there were only 2 games that are directly connected that were made before ALTTP which means that Link and Zelda could only be predecessors for Link and Zelda from LoZ/AoL which would, once again, put ALTTP before LoZ/AoL.

Go play the game.

I would. Except that it takes money, which is something I don't have XD

But what's the status of the triforce in ALttP? Isn't it all together? That clearly contradicts the other two games, unless it splits in ALttP.

[MrMosley]

I would. Except that it takes money, which is something I don't have XD

But what's the status of the triforce in ALttP? Isn't it all together? That clearly contradicts the other two games, unless it splits in ALttP.

In ALttP, the Triforce is in the Sacred Realm, which is where its original home is. The BS of ALttP talks about Ganon going in there and wishing upon the Triforce. It doesn't split though, which I guess because during the Seal War there was no hero (or so I have heard). The Triforce grants his wish, turns the SR into the Dark World, and stays in there. Its held within the Pyramid at the end of the game. It stays in one piece, connected, through this entire backstory and game.

[Hayzer]

In ALttP, the Triforce is in the Sacred Realm, which is where its original home is. The BS of ALttP talks about Ganon going in there and wishing upon the Triforce. It doesn't split though, which I guess because during the Seal War there was no hero (or so I have heard). The Triforce grants his wish, turns the SR into the Dark World, and stays in there. Its held within the Pyramid at the end of the game. It stays in one piece, connected, through this entire backstory and game.

Well, if it stays together, it contradicts the other two Zeldas at the time, where the Triforce is broken, so it would have to take place after LoZ/AoL.

[MrMosley]

Well, if it stays together, it contradicts the other two Zeldas at the time, where the Triforce is broken, so it would have to take place after LoZ/AoL.

Not necessarily. At the time, the backstory told of the Triforce being created and how it rested in the Sacred Realm. All the way from that tale to the time of ALttP, the Triforce never left the Sacred Realm. In LoZ/AoL, it is in Hyrule. At that time, games that now come before ALttP like OoT and TP didn't exist, so the Triforce never left its home. Even after ALttP, the Triforce apparently was still there as order had been restored to the SR after Ganon's defeat.

So when you think about it, the Triforce had to move from the SR to Hyrule somehow, back then. As I said, it never left the SR before or during ALttP. In LoZ, it isn't in the SR anymore. Another reason ALttP is obviously a prequel.

[Erimgard]

The Seal War story doesn't mention a Hero, nor does it say there was no Hero. We'll get more into director intent when we start talking about OoT ;)

Nothing about aLttP's ending implies that the Triforce left the purified Dark World/Sacred Realm.

In order for the AoL backstory to play out, Link would have to take the Triforce out of the Sacred Realm (seems like a dumb thing to do seeing as he knows that if it falls into the wrong hands all hell will break loose again). Then he would either have to die, and leave the Triforce in the hands of the Great King from AoL's backstory, or he would have to be the Great King.

Also, aLttP's Zelda would have to be the first Zelda, as the Japanese text describes the AoL Sleeping Zelda as "the first generation/founder" Zelda.

I would also still like to see my point addressed about the manual. The ending of it shows that it is meant to be told in present time "recently there have been strange occurrences blah blah blah". Yet, the game references LoZ in it.

If the whole manual is being told in the present, and about events in the future, then why does it say "at that time the King of Evil Ganon was born, the one who has threatened Hyrule"

The manual is not talking about the Seal War as the time when he "threatened Hyrule", because the Seal War hasn't been mentioned yet in the story. It's referring to an event that the reader should already know about: the original LoZ.

Thoughts?

[MrMosley]

One big thing I would like to point out is that Nintendo said once (Miyamoto actually), that they have a document that details how all of the games fit together. A lot of people think that this document only shows what is currently known about the series. However, the document could very well have information that makes the games connect and makes sense, yet we do not know of that information yet. Which brings me to your quote, Erimgard.


In order for the AoL backstory to play out, Link would have to take the Triforce out of the Sacred Realm (seems like a dumb thing to do seeing as he knows that if it falls into the wrong hands all hell will break loose again). Then he would either have to die, and leave the Triforce in the hands of the Great King from AoL's backstory, or he would have to be the Great King.

What I'm thinking is that we know that Ganondorf once tried to steal the Triforce from the SR (OoT). He did so, and it split. It seems to me that this same event would make sense to occur between the events of ALttP and LoZ. We do not know how Ganon came back in LoZ, nor do we know why the Triforce is not one unit. What can be suggested is that Ganon found it and it split again. It would make sense, considering the Triforce of Wisdom is withing Zelda (which she split and hid), and Ganon has the Triforce of Power. We do not know why the Triforce of Courage did not go in a hero, or even if it did. We find out though, that it was loose from the other two, and safely kept in the Great Palace in AoL. That is my theory of what occured before LoZ.


If the whole manual is being told in the present, and about events in the future, then why does it say "at that time the King of Evil Ganon was born, the one who has threatened Hyrule"

That whole quote still seems to be talking in present terms. Correct me if I'm wrong about how you are presenting that quote, but it says "the one who has threatened Hyrule" which specifies a past event, but does not say whether it means distant or recent past. It can be talking about an event taking place at that very point in time, which is what I believe it implies. The rest of the quote from the manual might help for me to figure out where your going with that one, but Ganon was surely threatening Hyrule from the beginning of ALttP.

[Erimgard]

What I'm thinking is that we know that Ganondorf once tried to steal the Triforce from the SR (OoT).

Caleb requested that we only talk about the games at hand as he mentions them. Thus, you cannot reference OoT yet.



He did so, and it split. It seems to me that this same event would make sense to occur between the events of ALttP and LoZ. We do not know how Ganon came back in LoZ, nor do we know why the Triforce is not one unit. What can be suggested is that Ganon found it and it split again. It would make sense, considering the Triforce of Wisdom is withing Zelda (which she split and hid), and Ganon has the Triforce of Power. We do not know why the Triforce of Courage did not go in a hero, or even if it did. We find out though, that it was loose from the other two, and safely kept in the Great Palace in AoL. That is my theory of what occured before LoZ.

Except the manual doesn't say it was just split up like that. The manual says it was in the possession of a Great King who used it to maintain the peace in Hyrule. Kinda hard for the King to maintain peace with the Triforce when he doesn't have it.



That whole quote still seems to be talking in present terms. Correct me if I'm wrong about how you are presenting that quote, but it says "the one who has threatened Hyrule" which specifies a past event, but does not say whether it means distant or recent past. It can be talking about an event taking place at that very point in time, which is what I believe it implies. The rest of the quote from the manual might help for me to figure out where your going with that one, but Ganon was surely threatening Hyrule from the beginning of ALttP.[/QUOTE]

[MrMosley]

Except the manual doesn't say it was just split up like that. The manual says it was in the possession of a Great King who used it to maintain the peace in Hyrule. Kinda hard for the King to maintain peace with the Triforce when he doesn't have it.

In that case, I'll go with my original theory and say that after ALttP, the Triforce was mysteriously brought out of the SR. There are other games which imply this, which we will come to later on in the thread. But I just want to note that my original theory was that it was brought out of the SR some time after ALttP as a single unit. In my opinion, this would have been done as a precaution. It doesn't make a whole lot of sense considering its a lot harder to get to the SR than to just break into Hyrule Castle or whenever and steal it if one wanted to, but perhaps they had more security in Hyrule itself.

[Erimgard]

Lol, which explains why, according to the Japanese manual, Ganon was able to "snatch the Triforce of Power" with "a small army corps"

Gotta love Hylian security :P

[angelkid]

Hey dont diss Hylian security, the bank owner in MM seems alright :P.
It seems that we there is a DEFFINATE majority saying ALttP comes first.
Oh and Skull_Kid, every other Name of a Zelda game (accept arguable The Legend of Zelda) has been a big clue as to some main part of the storyline. There is evidence enough to say that A Link to the Past certainly suggests it was in the past, and correct me if I am wrong but I have heard that some game members say that the tittle was meant to hint that the game was a prequeal.

[Kazumi]

I don't post here much but.. I believe we can say that ALttP comes before LoZ/AoL. If we look at the original box. It clearly states that the Link and Zelda in ALttP come before the Link and Zelda in LoZ/AoL. The North American box says that the game comes before LoZ/AoL. But since the GBA ALttP is now Canon, we need to consider the possibility of ALttP coming AFTER LoZ/AoL. The NA Box says that Link and Zelda come before the Link and Zelda in ALttP. But that was completely removed for the GBA Box.

I don't think that ALttP was intended to come before LoZ/AoL. But Nintendo of America ran away with the idea and called it A Link to the Past and said the things on the back of the box. But for the GBA release they changed this. So I'm going to have to go with Erimgard and say that it comes after LoZ/AoL.

[Hayzer]

Screw the dang box.

Things are retconned in series' many times. Miyamoto retconned the original box of ALttP when he made his infamous quote. What the maker says goes.

How many times have certain comic or game characters been killed yet, their deaths are retconned and they become alive again. The first four issues of StH are retconned by issues printed 10 years later.

If Miyamoto would've stated his quote before the box was released, then I would believe the box. But since he said it after, he automatically screwed the box.

Plus, A Link to the Past wasn't the original title, so don't use that as the excuse. Triforce of the Gods was the original, and says nothing about the game's placement.

[MrMosley]

Screw the dang box. Things are retconned in series' many times. Miyamoto retconned the original box of ALttP when he made his infamous quote. What the maker says goes.

Miyamoto has been wrong before about the timeline. If you asked him now what it was he likely wouldn't be able to tell you. Miyamoto has stated himself that he is more into the gameplay aspect rather than the storyline or timeline. That is what Aonuma is in charge of these days. And Miyamoto making that quote, even though it is a developer quote, still doesn't make sense in many ways which have been mentioned above. Its just like if Miyamoto came out and randomly said WW was the first Zelda game in the series. No one in their right mind would believe something like that "just because Miyamoto said so". 99% of the time, you have to take examples in the game and from the game into consideration or you will get no where.



Plus, A Link to the Past wasn't the original title, so don't use that as the excuse. Triforce of the Gods was the original, and says nothing about the game's placement.

Triforce of the Gods does too help in placing the game. The biggest known thing about ALttP is that it gives a backstory of Ganon and the Triforce. Triforce of the Gods was its title because that is what the game revolves around. Just like Ocarina of Time revolved around that item, and just as Twilight Princess was named so because of Midna, ALttP (or Triforce of the Gods in this case), was named so because it told the history of and revolved primarily around the Triforce and how Ganon had used it to transform the Sacred Realm into the Dark World.

[Raven]

it's so obvious Alttp goes before the other two, i'll try and explain my thinking. The original title triforce of the gods gives us our first hint, it was supposed to reveal the story of the triforce (through the game itself) and it's importance in the series. I know we haven't gotten around to OoT yet in this dicussion but triforce of the gods was supposed to do what they later achived with OoT... explain the story of what happened to the triforce originally, however there was backstory in Alttp and this created room for even older legends of zelda.

[sign of table]

You do realize that they both say pretty much the exact same thing.... Kinda. I agree that the box implies that it goes LttP-LoZ, but the American box is very blunt on the position of the game, whereas the Japanese box 'could' be referring to something else, as shown by Erimgard on ZI (or was it ZU...?) (even though I disagree with his conclusions).
I don't think I have ever come across a person who has put ALTTP after LoZ/AoL. As Erimgard said, Shigeru Miyamoto.

Oh and Erimgard's timeline is the one I used to follow, with games on the AT and LoZ/AoL being way before LttP.
If you've never played the game then you should probably get some info on it before you start theorizing its placement on the timeline... You can be a good theorist and have never played or beaten all the games. For example, IIRC, last year when Erimgard won best theorist on ZU, he'd only beaten like 6 Zeldas.
I would. Except that it takes money, which is something I don't have XD I'm unsure if I'm allowed to mention emulation or not (if I'm not supposed to you a mod could just PM me or edit out the part about emulation in my post), but you could always do that.

Or just read the text dump translations and manuals.
Also, the American manual calls Link and Zelda in ALTTP the predecessors of a previous Link and Zelda. LOLNoA
It doesn't split though, which I guess because during the Seal War there was no hero (or so I have heard). There was no hero mentioned, but nothing about there being no hero is linked to the Triforce's status is ever mentioned.
Well, if it stays together, it contradicts the other two Zeldas at the time, where the Triforce is broken, so it would have to take place after LoZ/AoL. What? Either that's a non-sequiter, or I missed where that implies LoZ/AoL-LttP (back in '91).
Miyamoto has been wrong before about the timeline. When was he wrong about the timeline? And even if he has been wrong before, why does it matter? Using that same logic, the split timeline confirmation quote is irrelevant.

[Erimgard]

I would like to second the "when has Miyamoto been wrong".
Kinda hard to be wrong about something you created...

[Zemen125]

Screw the dang box.

Things are retconned in series' many times. Miyamoto retconned the original box of ALttP when he made his infamous quote. What the maker says goes.

How many times have certain comic or game characters been killed yet, their deaths are retconned and they become alive again. The first four issues of StH are retconned by issues printed 10 years later.

If Miyamoto would've stated his quote before the box was released, then I would believe the box. But since he said it after, he automatically screwed the box.

Plus, A Link to the Past wasn't the original title, so don't use that as the excuse. Triforce of the Gods was the original, and says nothing about the game's placement.

I would definitely say that what the game says is much stronger than what a developer says. Based on what you just said, if Miyamoto came out tomorrow and told us that the main character in the series is named Ralphy and not Link, you would believe him and instantly the entire series staple character would become Ralphy to you with no questions asked. Miyamoto has been wrong before. Sometimes you have to trust your own detective work and what the games say, not what the creators say. At the end of the day the creators can change their words, but unless a remake is made, the games will always stay the same.

[Erimgard]

Why does everyone assume that Miyamoto is a sadistic and or mentally handicapped person? He invented the games. He's not just dicking with us. What he says should be taken seriously.

[knowlee]

Well, I think that ALttP comes before LoZ/AoL. My reasons why would be those that people have peviously stated. It would make more sense with ALttP occuring before those two games (at least now anyways).

But looking at it with just those three games, it would seem that ALttP would occur after LoZ/AoL. One reason would be the title of both versions of this game: "A Link to the Past" and "Triforce of the Gods".


That whole quote still seems to be talking in present terms. Correct me if I'm wrong about how you are presenting that quote, but it says "the one who has threatened Hyrule" which specifies a past event, but does not say whether it means distant or recent past. It can be talking about an event taking place at that very point in time, which is what I believe it implies. The rest of the quote from the manual might help for me to figure out where your going with that one, but Ganon was surely threatening Hyrule from the beginning of ALttP.

Which manual are we talking about here? The Japanese one or the American version? Because if it's the American version, I have the original copy of it and can possibly find the quote that you guys are talking about.

[sign of table]

I would definitely say that what the game says is much stronger than what a developer says. Based on what you just said, if Miyamoto came out tomorrow and told us that the main character in the series is named Ralphy and not Link, you would believe him and instantly the entire series staple character would become Ralphy to you with no questions asked. A couple things. 1) Way to make a completely over-the-top explanation that would never happen. Ever. Seriously with that logic I could say:

What if the games said that every single hero ever was actually named Ralphy and no longer Link and Miyamoto said that the hero's name was still Link, you would instantly think that the hero's name is Ralphy.

Seriously that is one of the worst arguments I've ever heard. I can make a completely unrelated example of something ridiculous to show that something doesn't make sense if the former instance is true.
Miyamoto has been wrong before. Both Erimgard and I just asked you about that... when has he been wrong?
Sometimes you have to trust your own detective work and what the games say, not what the creators say. Ok so if the developers are wrong and the Legend of the Fairy in TMC means that MM and TWW happen on the same timeline, then you must believe in a linear timeline, right? Hey, look! I can make completely ridiculous, over-the-top, stupid, and wrong examples too!!

Just so you know, the most important part of this post is when I asked "When has Miyamoto been wrong". Make sure to respond to that and not some stupid strawman that isn't nearly as relevant.

[Midna666]

I believe that ALTTP comes before LOZ and AOL.
In the Adventure of Link's backstory we learn of a king who had control of the whole Triforce.

Now the only time that the kingdom of Hyrule would have the whole Triforce would be after Link gets the Triforce at the end of ALTTP.
We can assume that Link gives the Triforce to Zelda for safekeeping after his quest.
And at some point in the future, a king comes along who can use the whole Triforce.

Well that's my idea anyway.

[angelkid]

Miyamoto was wrong with pretty much EVERYTHING he said before the split was announced, because with the split announced, EVERYTHING changed.

I think ALttP deffinitely comes first. In ALttP Link, gains the triforce after destroying Ganon who pull the Triforce out of the Spirit Realm. As people have stated, AoL's back story tells us of a King who held the triforce. It is obvious that that King was either Link (making him Zelda's father so no) or that Link gave the Triforce to the King. Ganondorf then broke in and stole the ToP, then having split thwe Triforce, the ToW found Zelda. However, the ToC never found Link as at the time, he was not yet the hero. At least that's how I percieve it.

If LoZ was first, the Triforce would never have left the Spirit Realm meaning that Ganon could never have got his hands on it.

ALttP also explains why we are facing Ganon instead of Ganondorf, he goes to get the Trident and there he becomes Ganon. Straight after this, is ALttP. If LoZ were to come before ALttP then you would either have to face Ganondorf as he would not yet be the weird pig thing. Or, someone completely different as Ganon would still be in the Spirit Realm/ Dark World.

[Hayzer]

Miyamoto was wrong with pretty much EVERYTHING he said before the split was announced, because with the split announced, EVERYTHING changed.

I think ALttP deffinitely comes first. In ALttP Link, gains the triforce after destroying Ganon who pull the Triforce out of the Spirit Realm. As people have stated, AoL's back story tells us of a King who held the triforce. It is obvious that that King was either Link (making him Zelda's father so no) or that Link gave the Triforce to the King. Ganondorf then broke in and stole the ToP, then having split thwe Triforce, the ToW found Zelda. However, the ToC never found Link as at the time, he was not yet the hero. At least that's how I percieve it.

If LoZ was first, the Triforce would never have left the Spirit Realm meaning that Ganon could never have got his hands on it.

ALttP also explains why we are facing Ganon instead of Ganondorf, he goes to get the Trident and there he becomes Ganon. Straight after this, is ALttP. If LoZ were to come before ALttP then you would either have to face Ganondorf as he would not yet be the weird pig thing. Or, someone completely different as Ganon would still be in the Spirit Realm/ Dark World.


There's nothing saying that the Triforce splits at the end of ALttP, so that part is nixed already.

As for Ganondorf, his turning into Ganon was in the backstory, right? What if that backstory took place right before LoZ, then it would explain how Ganondorf became Ganon in LoZ, but ALttP could still come after LoZ/AoL, due to the above...

[Erimgard]

There's a difference between being wrong and changing things.

And on the "the one who has threatened Hyrule quote":


Indeed, the King of Evil Ganon, the one who has threatened Hyrule so, was born at this time.

This is said in the aLttP manual (both languages) to have occurred when Ganon touched the Triforce. So the King of Evil Ganon was born when he touched the Triforce. He is the same one who has threatened Hyrule (threatened=past tense)

What is this "threaten"ing that he did? Is it the Seal War?

No, it can't be, because the Seal War hasn't been discussed yet. That's the next part of the story, and the player has never heard it before. The manual is written so that the reader should understand when past things are being referenced.

If you're a kid in 1993, you've played LoZ and AoL, and you just got your brand new aLttP game. You read the manual for the first time, and (before the game tells you there was a seal war) the manual says something about the time when Ganon threatened Hyrule. What is the manual obviously talking about? The events of the original LoZ.

The events of LoZ are stated to be a past event, but when the manual ends (writers uses the words "but recently") we are only in the time period just before aLttP starts.

[MrMosley]

This is said in the aLttP manual (both languages) to have occurred when Ganon touched the Triforce. So the King of Evil Ganon was born when he touched the Triforce. He is the same one who has threatened Hyrule (threatened=past tense)

It doesn't specify the exact events of LoZ though. It only says that the one who has threatened Hyrule so, which indicates a past event, but as I said before this could be recent or distant. That quote also disproves the ability for Ganon to even be in LoZ as well because he wasn't actually "born" into the form of Ganon until he touched the Triforce.

Ganondorf was a man before he touched the Triforce, wishing upon it, and having the Dark World as well as himself transformed. The quote can't mean both things. It can't say that the Evil King Ganon once threatened Hyrule in the past, but somehow he is born into that form later when he touches the Triforce. To me, it either means a distant past event, where Ganondorf as a man threatened Hyrule, or, a more recent past event, as in "Ganon has been threatening Hyrule lately" sort of thing. The entire quote definitely does not have to be speaking in past tense, only the part about him touching the Triforce and being born, which is saying he became Ganon, the beast.

In LoZ, he is in this form. Ganon cannot have threatened Hyrule in this form, especially during LoZ, if he hadn't touched the Triforce and been transformed into it yet. It is completely impossible. He also cannot be in Hyrule in this form unless he escaped the Sacred Realm. As I have stated a bunch of times, ALttP makes it clear that from the time Ganondorf touched the Triforce and became Ganon, to the time that Link beat him up in ALttP, Ganon was stuck in the SR. He can't mysteriously be out of the SR long enough for LoZ to take place, then go back without it being mentioned somewhere in the game of ALttP, which it is not mentioned.

So tell me, how can Ganon somehow be out of the Sacred Realm and be in his pig form, roaming around in Hyrule, if the BS of ALttP clearly indicates that after he found the Triforce and became Ganon, he never came out? The only way is for LoZ to take place AFTER ALttP, whereas Ganon then would have been stuck in the SR from his transformation to his defeat, then later on came back, recaptured the Triforce (of Power), and resumed his reign in Hyrule (LoZ). It is the only logical explanation.

[Erimgard]

It doesn't specify the exact events of LoZ though. It only says that the one who has threatened Hyrule so, which indicates a past event, but as I said before this could be recent or distant. That quote also disproves the ability for Ganon to even be in LoZ as well because he wasn't actually "born" into the form of Ganon until he touched the Triforce.

A: What could it be other than LoZ? Nothing else in the series has happened.

B: So? How does that change anything?



Ganondorf was a man before he touched the Triforce, wishing upon it, and having the Dark World as well as himself transformed. The quote can't mean both things. It can't say that the Evil King Ganon once threatened Hyrule in the past, but somehow he is born into that form later when he touches the Triforce. To me, it either means a distant past event, where Ganondorf as a man threatened Hyrule, or, a more recent past event, as in "Ganon has been threatening Hyrule lately" sort of thing. The entire quote definitely does not have to be speaking in past tense, only the part about him touching the Triforce and being born, which is saying he became Ganon, the beast.
"threatened" is a past tense word.
And all that means is he touched the Triforce before transforming into Ganon and setting up for LoZ.

If you want to get into the specifics of the Seal War, it's never stated that he got the whole Triforce. It may be implied, but not stated. The narrator says "I do not know what Ganon wished for". The events are clouded. We know that prior to aLttP, at some point, Ganon granted a wish, but it's never stated that he was granted one during the Seal War. You can make wish without it being granted, if the Triforce splits. More on this once Caleb introduces OoT into the mix.




In LoZ, he is in this form. Ganon cannot have threatened Hyrule in this form, especially during LoZ, if he hadn't touched the Triforce and been transformed into it yet. It is completely impossible. He also cannot be in Hyrule in this form unless he escaped the Sacred Realm. As I have stated a bunch of times, ALttP makes it clear that from the time Ganondorf touched the Triforce and became Ganon, to the time that Link beat him up in ALttP, Ganon was [B]stuck in the SR. He can't mysteriously be out of the SR long enough for LoZ to take place, then go back without it being mentioned somewhere in the game of ALttP, which it is not mentioned.
See the above



So tell me, how can Ganon somehow be out of the Sacred Realm and be in his pig form, roaming around in Hyrule, if the BS of ALttP clearly indicates that after he found the Triforce and became Ganon, he never came out? The only way is for LoZ to take place AFTER ALttP, whereas Ganon then would have been stuck in the SR from his transformation to his defeat, then later on came back, recaptured the Triforce (of Power), and resumed his reign in Hyrule (LoZ). It is the only logical explanation.
Unfortunately you have one good point. aLttP does imply that he remained sealed from the time of the Seal War to aLttP... that's the main reason why I said, in my first post, that I lean towards the "box" placement...at the time.

When future games are involved, I can get into what I believe now.

[Caleb, Of Asui]

Only one person here is going with the LoZ/AoL--LttP order, and the far more abundant arguments toward the LttP--LoZ/AoL order use a LOT more evidence, particularly from the time A Link to the Past was released. So, I'm going to officially say that this project's order will go with LttP--LoZ/AoL and close that discussion. I'll post it really big like this every time that happens so it's noticeable when skimming:

ALttP Discussion Closed

3. A Link to the Past
- Discussion Closed -
Order so Far: ALttP--LoZ/AoL

4. Link's Awakening
- Skipped -
Reason: It is obviously a direct sequel to A Link to the Past. There is some small debate over whether or not it actually is, but it doesn't effect much to be worth adressing.
Order so Far: ALttP/LA--LoZ/AoL

5. Ocarina of Time
- Skipped -
Reason: It is obviously before everything so far. Nobody's about to say otherwise.
Order so Far: OoT--ALttP/LA--LoZ/AoL

5.1 Miyamoto Order
- Current Discussion -
Details: We hit a snag when the creator came out with an order contradicting what we already have. He says OoT--LoZ/AoL--ALttP, with LA going anywhere.

First Possibility: OoT--ALttP/LA--LoZ/AoL (Keep our established order.)
Second Possibility: OoT--LoZ/AoL--ALttP/LA (Miyamoto Order)

[Erimgard]

Reasons for why the Miyamoto order was correct at the time:

If aLttP comes in between OoT and LoZ, as many here suggest, there are several issues.

1: The AoL backstory about the Sleeping Zelda no longer works. In the context of OoT-aLttP-LoZ-AoL, the Sleeping Zelda wouldn't be the first Zelda. This makes the Naming Tradition useless, and directly contradicts the Japanese which calls her the First Generation Zelda.

2: Ocarina of Time does not progress into aLttP correctly. OoT ends with Ganon holding one Triforce piece, and aLttP starts with him holding all three.

3: The Script Writer for OoT specifically stated that the Sages of OoT were given their names to show that it took place before AoL. If aLttP came in between the games, it wouldn't make any sense, as the Sage names aren't remembered in aLttP, but are in AoL.

4: As the primary director and producer of the series, as well its creator, a quote by Miyamoto is to be taken seriously. The quote was straightforward, and said after all the games which he was discussing were released.

So what are the problems with OoT-LoZ-AoL-aLttP?

There's really only one: Resolving the Seal War.

The Script Writer for Ocarina of Time also stated that the game was designed as the Seal War, and the character designer concurred. Thus, Ocarina of Time (at least in 1998) was the Seal War. So why then does Miyamoto not have the two games next to each other? I shall explain.

The Seal War was originally implied to not have a Hero. This story, of course, first appeared in the game aLttP which was directed by Takashi Tezuka.

Mr Tezuka directed, produced, or wrote the plot for all of the games we have discussed to this point. He still does these things to this day, and has actually been more influential than even Eiji Aonuma, second only to Shigeru Miyamoto.

Now, when BS: LoZ came out, Takashi Tezuka was put in charge of supervising the project. I know most of you don't consider that game canon, but here me out.

I too, don't consider the in-game facts of the game to be canon, as it's just a re-telling of the original LoZ. However, the game's intro, instead of telling the usual LoZ intro (Ganon invaded Hyrule and store the Triforce of Pwer) the game says that the stage for the original LoZ is the Seal War.

Now regardless of whether you consider the game canon or not, the man who did the most work with the game also had a major hand in inventing the Seal War story. So why would he place a remake of LoZ directly after the Seal War? The reasoning is simple: Tezuka wanted to show that, while the Seal War has to come before aLttP, it comes directly before LoZ.

This also shows that, in the mind of the man who created the Seal War, the intent had changed, and Ganon was only intended to have acquire one Triforce piece during the Seal War, as the Seal War sets the stage for LoZ, and in LoZ, Ganon only has the Triforce of Power.

Then, in 1998, Ocarina of Time is made, and again Tezuka is given the job of Supervisor. Ocarina of Time is stated by several NoJ employees to be the Seal War, but, just like BS: LoZ implies, Ganon only gets one Triforce piece.

This wasn't a mistake. This is proof of change in developer intent. Tezuka and the other writers decided to slightly change the details of the Seal War to involve Hero limiting Ganon to only one Triforce piece.

So if BS: LoZ was right in stating that Ganon only got one Triforce piece in the Seal War, then why wouldn't it be right in stating that the Seal War comes even before LoZ?

Director intent from Miyamoto and Tezuka heavily, heavily, implies that the Seal War was not meant to directly lead into LoZ.

Consider with me the LoZ Backstory:



One day, the Great Demon King Ganon, who planned to rule the world with darkness and fear, led an evil army corps and invaded the kingdom and snatched the Triforce of Power.

Believe it or not, even though we know OoT tells the story of the Seal War, because of the Seal cast in it's ending, it also tells the LoZ backstory.

In OoT, Ganon is known as the Great Demon King, just as he is in the LoZ backstory.

In OoT, Ganon leads an army in (the soldiers say they tried to fight of his men unsuccessfully, showing he was not alone) to Hyrule, just as he did in the LoZ backstory.

In OoT, he stole the Triforce of Power, just as he did in the LoZ backstory.

While obviously the Seal cast at the end of the game is the fullfillment of the Seal War, its story goes hand in hand with the LoZ backstory.

This shows that, as the aLttP manual implies, the Ganon "born" when he touched the Triforce is the very same Ganon who attacked Hyrule in LoZ, before aLttP.

Most of this is stated in my article:
Exploring the Miyamoto Timeline (http://www.zeldainformer.com/2009/06/exploring-the-miyamoto-timelin.php#more)

*awaits the angry mob*

[MrMosley]

Now, when BS: LoZ came out, Takashi Tezuka was put in charge of supervising the project. I know most of you don't consider that game canon, but here me out.

I too, don't consider the in-game facts of the game to be canon, as it's just a re-telling of the original LoZ. However, the game's intro, instead of telling the usual LoZ intro (Ganon invaded Hyrule and store the Triforce of Pwer) the game says that the stage for the original LoZ is the Seal War.

You would have to believe that BS Zelda was canon over the original to be able to use that argument, first of all. So far, the canonicity of BS Zelda has never been confirmed. If anything, the game should be considered non-canon, considering it was not available to all regions for play. If this connection was to be an important one, one that was essential to the continuity of the series and the Seal War, then I believe BS Zelda would have been made readily available to all players.


This also shows that, in the mind of the man who created the Seal War, the intent had changed, and Ganon was only intended to have acquire one Triforce piece during the Seal War, as the Seal War sets the stage for LoZ, and in LoZ, Ganon only has the Triforce of Power.

That would make sense to have OoT as the Seal War, yes. But again, if you consider BS Zelda non-canon, then anything within the game cannot be argued. Whether it be its intro or in-game text/narration, if its non-canon, its not important. However, I will address the issue.

In order for BS Zelda's into to make sense; In order for Ganon to have only acquired one piece of the Triforce during the Seal War, it would completely retcon ALttP. Keep in mind that ALttP was re-released on the GBA, yet the plot was still the same. Ganondorf still entered the SR and claimed the Triforce and wished upon it. He was still sealed within the SR, which became the Dark World, until ALttP. If Ganondorf, now Ganon, has been sealed within the SR as a result of the Seal War for all this time, how is he supposed to be roaming about Hyrule during LoZ? Again, it completely goes against ALttP's plot, not just its backstory.

The whole reason for Ganon to use a pawn, Agahnim, during ALttP was because he could not physically leave the Dark World himself because of the seal. Again, this game superceeds BS Zelda as well as Ocarina of time because it was re-released. The same plot is there, and it doesn't make sense for Ganon to be able to leave the SR for LoZ's game to take place.


This shows that, as the aLttP manual implies, the Ganon "born" when he touched the Triforce is the very same Ganon who attacked Hyrule in LoZ, before aLttP.

Ganon was "born" when he touched the Triforce because him touching it resulted in a granted wish: To rule the world. Although the manual or whatever says that it "does not know what Ganondorf's wish was", it is made pretty obvious. Ganondorf was in the SR, he wished to rule the world, he was given the world which he was in. He had Hyrule in mind, so the SR became a mirrored image of Hyrule and transformed into the Dark World as a result of Ganondorf's impure heart. It also transformed him into Ganon and, again, he was sealed there until ALttP.

[Erimgard]

You would have to believe that BS Zelda was canon over the original to be able to use that argument, first of all.

No you wouldn't. The BS LoZ bacsktory doesn't contradict the LoZ backstory. It just adds to it. That's not contradiction.



So far, the canonicity of BS Zelda has never been confirmed. If anything, the game should be considered non-canon, considering it was not available to all regions for play. If this connection was to be an important one, one that was essential to the continuity of the series and the Seal War, then I believe BS Zelda would have been made readily available to all players.

So wait, just because America didn't get it makes it non canon?
America didn't get three of the Final Fantasy games, or two of the Mother games, and I think we're missing some Mario games too.

Just because they didn't think they would sell here doesn't make them non canon.

And again, even if the game itself is completely non canon, why was it set after the Seal War? If LoZ has nothing to do with the Seal War, then why was a retelling of LoZ set after the Seal War by a man who helped write the Seal War? Tezuka's not an idiot. He's not going to just forget where he was supposed to put a game, or a story.



In order for BS Zelda's into to make sense; In order for Ganon to have only acquired one piece of the Triforce during the Seal War, it would completely retcon ALttP. Keep in mind that ALttP was re-released on the GBA, yet the plot was still the same.

Ocarina of Time already retcons aLttP as well! Because OoT was designed as the Seal War, and OoT features Ganon only getting one piece.

And for the record, the GBA aLttP doesn't even mention Ganon or the Triforce in the Seal War at all.



Ganondorf still entered the SR and claimed the Triforce and wished upon it. He was still sealed within the SR, which became the Dark World, until ALttP.

Yes and no.
Ganon is not mentioned in the Seal War story.
He is said to have touched the Triforce and turned the SR into a Dark World, but it doesn't say "and then he got sealed", it says "but he couldn't find his way back out".

That line makes perfect sense if you assume that the Seal cast in OoT was still there. It was previously in place.



If Ganondorf, now Ganon, has been sealed within the SR as a result of the Seal War for all this time,

retconned by OoT, no longer necessary.




The whole reason for Ganon to use a pawn, Agahnim, during ALttP was because he could not physically leave the Dark World himself because of the seal. Again, this game superceeds BS Zelda as well as Ocarina of time because it was re-released. The same plot is there, and it doesn't make sense for Ganon to be able to leave the SR for LoZ's game to take place.

Makes about the same amount of sense as Ganon ending OoT with one piece of the Triforce and starting aLttP with all three in your timeline.
The only difference is, my version has director intent for retcon. Yours does not.

The new aLttP versions do not change the story to say he doesn't have all three pieces in aLttP.
The new Seal War versions do say that he only got one Triforce piece during the Seal War.

The directors hath spoken.



Ganon was "born" when he touched the Triforce because him touching it resulted in a granted wish: To rule the world.

Incorrect.
The granting of a wish is not required for Ganon to be turned into the Evil King. In OoT, he was not granted a wish, but as Zelda tells us, "On that day, Ganon became a King of Evil (Japanese: Demon King) and the Sacred Realm became a world of evil (Japanese: Demon World).

A wish is not required for demonic/evil transformation.



How, in your timeline do you account for the fact that:

-"The First Generation Zelda" is not the first Zelda.
-Ganon ends OoT with one Triforce piece and starts aLttP with one

[MrMosley]

Ocarina of Time already retcons aLttP as well! Because OoT was designed as the Seal War, and OoT features Ganon only getting one piece.

And for the record, the GBA aLttP doesn't even mention Ganon or the Triforce in the Seal War at all.

The manual for GBA ALttP tells about the Triforce being created, being put into the Golden Land (Sacred Realm), and talks about people eventually finding a way to it, then evil coming out of it so the Sages had to seal it up. Thats on pages 14 and 15 of the GBA manual. It doesn't mention Ganon in particular, but neither does the SNES manual. The in-game text does though, all throughout the thing. So I'm not sure exactly how you figure GBA ALttP doesn't mention the Seal War or the Triforce or any of that at all, considering the entire game is based around it.



Ganon is not mentioned in the Seal War story.
He is said to have touched the Triforce and turned the SR into a Dark World, but it doesn't say "and then he got sealed", it says "but he couldn't find his way back out".

So what do you suppose the manual is talking about when it says people eventually found the way to the SR and evil started pouring out? What do we find when we go to the Dark World in ALttP? We find Ganon, the entire reason why the Dark World was there in the first place. It doesn't have to put every little detail in the backstory or manual when those details are clear in the game. Regardless of how different the GBA and SNES ALttP's are, they still revolve around the same exact stories.


Makes about the same amount of sense as Ganon ending OoT with one piece of the Triforce and starting aLttP with all three in your timeline.
The only difference is, my version has director intent for retcon. Yours does not.

So how exactly did Ganondorf become Ganon then for LoZ? This is still something that has not been addressed by you yet. At the end of OoT, Ganondorf was sealed away, still as a human/man. In ALttP, Ganondorf was sealed away after he made his wish, after he became pig-form Ganon. In order for him to be pig-form Ganon in LoZ, something must have happened, and it doesn't make any sense as to how he could have just changed randomly between OoT and LoZ.


The new aLttP versions do not change the story to say he doesn't have all three pieces in aLttP.
The new Seal War versions do say that he only got one Triforce piece during the Seal War.

Ganon isn't shown to have any particular piece or pieces of the Triforce in ALttP. He is only shown to have dominion over its location, in the pyramid. He could not have power over any of them, just have a base of operations where it is held. ALttP never makes reference to Ganon only having the Triforce of Power, but if one wanted to, they could technically say he had all three pieces of the Triforce.


The granting of a wish is not required for Ganon to be turned into the Evil King. In OoT, he was not granted a wish, but as Zelda tells us, "On that day, Ganon became a King of Evil (Japanese: Demon King) and the Sacred Realm became a world of evil (Japanese: Demon World).

Even if he entered the SR in OoT and turned it into a world of darkness (which I know it says that he did), and even if they called him a King of Evil afterwards, that doesn't change the possibility of ALttP coming after OoT. And I'm not talking about Ganondorf becoming an Evil King or a Demon King, I'm talking about him becoming Ganon. Not a title, but a look, a body, a form. The form he had in LoZ and ALttP is not the same as the one he had in OoT. He was not sealed away as Ganon, but Ganondorf. He cannot randomly come out of the SR and roam around as Ganon because it is inconsistent with ALttP. There would be no reason for Ganon to go back to the SR or Dark World after LoZ if he successfully escaped and brought a piece or pieces of the Triforce with him.

You say the Seal War happened just before LoZ. Then why is Ganon (beast form) roaming around Hyrule? Why is he back in the Dark World for no reason in ALttP? If he could get out for LoZ, why didn't he get out for ALttP instead of sending Agahnim to do everything? None of it adds up.

[Erimgard]

The manual for GBA ALttP tells about the Triforce being created, being put into the Golden Land (Sacred Realm), and talks about people eventually finding a way to it, then evil coming out of it so the Sages had to seal it up. Thats on pages 14 and 15 of the GBA manual. It doesn't mention Ganon in particular, but neither does the SNES manual.

Yes, the SNES manual does mention Ganon.



The in-game text does though, all throughout the thing. So I'm not sure exactly how you figure GBA ALttP doesn't mention the Seal War or the Triforce or any of that at all, considering the entire game is based around it.
The in-game references do not state he was there at the time of the Sealing.





So what do you suppose the manual is talking about when it says people eventually found the way to the SR and evil started pouring out?

It doesn't say people found it. It says no one ever returned from their attempts to find it.



What do we find when we go to the Dark World in ALttP? We find Ganon, the entire reason why the Dark World was there in the first place. It doesn't have to put every little detail in the backstory or manual when those details are clear in the game. Regardless of how different the GBA and SNES ALttP's are, they still revolve around the same exact stories.

The point is, every version of the Seal War story since the original omits any reference to Ganon obtaining the entire Triforce. Because he didn't.




So how exactly did Ganondorf become Ganon then for LoZ? This is still something that has not been addressed by you yet. At the end of OoT, Ganondorf was sealed away, still as a human/man.

What? o.0
In the game's ending he uses the ToP to turn into pig Ganon.
He's also shown as a man, but he can clearly switch back and forth between the two. (later games show this). He's not stuck like that or anything.

Ganon in OoT touches the Triforce and, according to Zelda and other people in the game, turns into the Great Demon King..the same title he has in LoZ.




In ALttP, Ganondorf was sealed away after he made his wish, after he became pig-form Ganon. In order for him to be pig-form Ganon in LoZ, something must have happened, and it doesn't make any sense as to how he could have just changed randomly between OoT and LoZ.[/

He doesn't. See above. He turned into a pig with the ToP in OoT.


[quote]
Ganon isn't shown to have any particular piece or pieces of the Triforce in ALttP. He is only shown to have dominion over its location, in the pyramid. He could not have power over any of them, just have a base of operations where it is held. ALttP never makes reference to Ganon only having the Triforce of Power, but if one wanted to, they could technically say he had all three pieces of the Triforce.

In order for aLttP to happen, he has to wish on the complete Triforce. To do that you have to successfully control all three pieces. To do that, you either need a balanced heart (which Ganon doesn't have, according to OoT) or you need to hunt down all the Triforce owners and steal their pieces.

How did Ganon managed to steal the ToW and ToC and bring them to the Sacred/Dark Realm and make a wish in between OoT and aLttP?





Even if he entered the SR in OoT and turned it into a world of darkness (which I know it says that he did), and even if they called him a King of Evil afterwards, that doesn't change the possibility of ALttP coming after OoT. And I'm not talking about Ganondorf becoming an Evil King or a Demon King, I'm talking about him becoming Ganon. Not a title, but a look, a body, a form. The form he had in LoZ and ALttP is not the same as the one he had in OoT. He was not sealed away as Ganon, but Ganondorf. He cannot randomly come out of the SR and roam around as Ganon because it is inconsistent with ALttP. There would be no reason for Ganon to go back to the SR or Dark World after LoZ if he successfully escaped and brought a piece or pieces of the Triforce with him.

He is sealed away as Ganon the pig.
While falling into the Seal, he turns back into Ganondorf the man, but OoT (and TP) shows that all he needs to transform is the Triforce of Power, which he has. There is no contradiction.



You say the Seal War happened just before LoZ. Then why did the seal fail? Why is Ganon (beast form) roaming around Hyrule? Why is he back in the Dark World for no reason in ALttP? If he could get out for LoZ, why didn't he get out for ALttP instead of sending Agahnim to do everything? None of it adds up.

Since when have seals been consistent in Zelda?

Ganon escaped a Seal in Wind Waker
Vaati escaped a Seal in FS
Bongo Bongo escaped a Seal in OoT

No matter what way you construct your timeline, there's always going to be an example of Ganon escaping a seal through unexplained means. More on that, of course, when we get into the Wind Waker section.

[ChargewithSword]

Excuse me, this may not matter in this discussion of Ganon being in the Seal War but here's some food for thought. Should we count something like FSA in this where Ganon had been sealed in the Four Sword and the FS found it's way to the SR at the time. What if Ganon had somehow escaped during the Seal War and got the Triforce first, then he was the cause of darkness pouring out of the SR.

Now some may think the Palace of FS to be insignificant but I'm really not sure, considering how well it makes sense since FS series ties with Alttp quite a lot. I'm not talking of FS as a whole but of Alttp and things that link to it.

[angelkid]

Cabel asked us to do the games in the order that he mentioned them so we cannot bring FS into the mix yet.

I believe at the end of OoT Ganon is sealed in the SR with his one piece of Triforce. THEN, as the Zelda and Link presumably die of old age, the Triforce leaves them and returns to the SR where Ganon/dorf is waiting to grab it up. This explains how he gains the Triforce before ALttP. Also, for what you say to be true Erimgard, the BS Zelda would have to be canon, which I am sure it is not. If the game isnt Canon, neither is the story involved in it. If they had wanted to make the story canonical then they would have put it in either the Zelda Collectors edition version of LoZ or the NES Classics remake. However, they did not. This shows that they decided not to go with this story rendering it not canon.

[MrMosley]

Example 1


In order for aLttP to happen, he has to wish on the complete Triforce. To do that you have to successfully control all three pieces. To do that, you either need a balanced heart (which Ganon doesn't have, according to OoT) or you need to hunt down all the Triforce owners and steal their pieces.

How did Ganon managed to steal the ToW and ToC and bring them to the Sacred/Dark Realm and make a wish in between OoT and aLttP?

He didn't have to do any of that, according to GBA ALttP. The plot is still the same. I'll get to some in-game text in just a second to prove that the plot stayed the same. Here's a quote from GBA ALttP. I can't tell you who states this, but it is a quote.

"You're new here, aren't you?
Did you come here looking for
the Power of Gold?
Well, you're too late. It will
obey only the first person who
touches it.
The man who last claimed the
Power of Gold wished for this
world. It reflects his heart.
Yes, I came here out of greed
for the Golden Power, and
look what happened to me...
To restore the Golden Land, a
person worthy of the Golden
Power must defeat the man who
created this place...
Until that time, I am stuck in
this bizarre shape.
But what a mischievous thing
to leave lying around...
The Power of Gold...
Triforce..."

Hmmm, very interesting. According to GBA ALttP, we see that Ganondorf was the last person to claim the Triforce and wish upon it. But I thought, according to you, that he couldn't do that because it required all three pieces and would split up? GBA ALttP disagrees, and that overrules OoT.
--------------------
Example 2

This is the Essence of the Triforce, speaking to Link at the end of the game:

"The Triforce will grant the
wishes in the heart and mind of
the person who touches it.
If a person with a good heart
touches it, it will make his good
wishes come true... If an evil-
hearted person touches it, it
grants his evil wishes.
The stronger the wish, the
more powerful the Triforce's
expression of that wish.
Ganon's wish was to conquer
the world. That wish changed
the Golden Land into
the Dark World.
After building up his power,
Ganon planned to go on to the
Light World to fulfill his wish.
But now that Ganon has been
destroyed, his Dark World will
surely vanish.
The Triforce is waiting for a
new master. Its Golden Power is
in your hands...
Now, touch it and think of
the wish in your heart."

This right here is the Triforce itself speaking as if the Dark World had been there since Ganon's wish. According to the Triforce (as well as the person in the first quote), once Ganon is defeated, the Dark World will vanish. This means that his wish will no longer be valid since he is dead, and that the Sacred Realm will become pure again, as it was before. So tell me, if Ganon somehow, even though I have pretty much proven that he can't, escape the Sacred Realm after he wished upon the Triforce (because of the Sage's Seal), then:

*How is he supposed to be running around Hyrule as beast Ganon. You still have yet to answer that question with an example.

*How can the Dark World still exist in ALttP if LoZ came before it, and Ganon was clearly defeated and killed because in AoL he is still dead.
-------------------------------------------------------------
Example 3


No matter what way you construct your timeline, there's always going to be an example of Ganon escaping a seal through unexplained means. More on that, of course, when we get into the Wind Waker section.

But right now we are only on these four games, and you still haven't given an example of how he escaped his seal. I disagree that OoT is even the Seal War, first of all. But at one point in time, you say that the Seal War occured before LoZ, directly before LoZ in fact. You have yet to prove how that works considering Ganon was meant to be sealed away during the Seal War. He was meant to stay there until ALttP, and no matter how many times you say that its been done before so that's why it can happen now, that doesn't work. That doesn't give a clear example. Again, ALttP was re-released on the GBA. Its plot didn't change. For example:

Taken from in-game intro text of GBA ALttP

"Long ago, in Hyrule, a beautiful
kingdom surrounded by forests
and mountains...
legends told of an omnipotent
and omniscient Golden Power
that lay hidden.
It was hidden in a sacred
realm beyond the reach of men,
but one day...
...a doorway to that realm
was suddenly opened...
Hoping to claim the Golden
Power as their own, the people
began to quarrel and fight...
Many sought to enter the
hidden Golden Land...
But none returned, and instead
evil power began to issue
forth from the dark portal..."

So what do you think would happen if Ganondorf found his way to the SR and couldn't find his way out? He wouldn't be able to return, just as the quote above implies. What would happen if he wished on the Triforce? Exactly what it says happened, evil would begin to issue from the portal to the SR, as it was becoming the Dark World.
------------------------------------------------
Example 4

Here's another quote.

So the king commanded seven
sages to seal the gate to
the land of the Golden Power.
Many brave knights were lost
in the battle to protect the
sages from the tides of evil,
but the seal was cast! Evil
flowed no more! And the seal
would remain for all time...
Or so the people hoped...
But when these events were
obscured by the mists of
time, and became legend...

A mysterious wizard known as
Agahnim appeared as from
nowhere...
and with strange magic powers
he eliminated the good king of
Hyrule...

He cast spells on the soldiers
and kidnapped young maidens
descended from the sages
in order to break the seal...

This destiny fast approaches
for the final maiden...
the princess, Zelda..."

This right here proves that no matter what OoT did, no matter who wrote or what happened in BS Zelda, that this game has the advantage over both because it was RE-RELEASED long after all of them, and the plot never changed. That intro literally says many things about the Seal War:

*The Sages were sealing a gate that had been opened to the SR, not a person within it. The Sages didn't open the gate and put Ganon in there like they did in OoT, but they sealed a portal discovered by someone else. Ganon was already in the SR at the time of the Seal War.

*MANY knights lost their lives trying to fight back the evil monsters as the Sages sealed the way to the SR. It doesn't specify one Hero fighting Ganon while the Sages made the seal. And this does not speak of the beginning to the end of the Seal War. It speaks of the event of "while the Sages were sealing the portal to the SR". As they were sealing it, many knights lost their lives because apparently evil beings were exiting the Dark World and/or, there were power crazy people wanting to leave the portal open. During OoT's seal, no one died. No knights, no heros, no one. Again, GBA ALttP overrules OoT, so this alone disproves OoT as the Seal War, at least anymore.

*The seal which was cast by the Sages remained for all time until Agahnim showed up and captured the Maidens in order to break it. Funny how that seal can remain for all time but somehow Ganon can escape and run around Hyrule during LoZ in the meantime.
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Example 5

Quotes from the Maidens in GBA ALttP:

"...The Triforce will grant the
wishes of whoever touches it,
as long as that person lives...
That is why it was hidden in
the Golden Land. Only a select
few were told of its location,
but at some point that
knowledge was lost...
The one who rediscovered
the Golden Land was
an evil thief named Ganondorf.
Luckily, he couldn't figure out
how to return to the Light
World..."

The first thing to note is that the Triforce will grant the wishes of anyone who touches it so long as they are alive. I have already proven that Ganon entered the SR and made his wish during the Seal War. Therefore, if LoZ took place after it, the Dark World would have became the Sacred Realm again and been pure IF he had been defeated in LoZ. This quote, to me, says that if LoZ had happened after the Seal War, after Ganondorf made his wish on the Triforce, that ALttP would have been impossible to ever occur.

This clearly says Ganondorf found the Golden land. It also talks about the Triforce granting wishes to whover touches it. Which leads me to....
--------------------------------------------------------------
Example 6

"Link, because of you, I've
escaped from the clutches of
the evil monsters. Thank you!
Ganon captured us because he
couldn't break the seal of the
sages with his power alone.
And then, using the wizard
Agahnim as his pawn, he drew us
to the Dark World."

See that? Ganon couldn't break the "seal of the SAGES alone". When you play the game, it doesn't give you a narrative story of everything that's going on at one particular time. What it does is give you bits and pieces, and those bits and pieces above, without a doubt, tie Ganon to entering the SR, touching the Triforce, wishing on it, being sealed within it, and not finding a way out until ALttP, when he used Agahnim to capture the Maidens.

[Erimgard]

Hmmm, very interesting. According to GBA ALttP, we see that Ganondorf was the last person to claim the Triforce and wish upon it. But I thought, according to you, that he couldn't do that because it required all three pieces and would split up? GBA ALttP disagrees, and that overrules OoT.
Simple.
The Triforce is complete at the end of Adventure of Link, which i have directly before aLttP. After being used to awaken Zelda, the Triforce returned to the Sacred Realm, where Ganon claimed it.



o what do you think would happen if Ganondorf found his way to the SR and couldn't find his way out? He wouldn't be able to return, just as the quote above implies. What would happen if he wished on the Triforce? Exactly what it says happened, evil would begin to issue from the portal to the SR, as it was becoming the Dark World.
If Ganon couldn't lave the Sacred Realm, why would his evil power be able to?
The whole point of the Seal War was to seal Ganon's evil power.




*The Sages were sealing a gate that had been opened to the SR, not a person within it. The Sages didn't open the gate and put Ganon in there like they did in OoT, but they sealed a portal discovered by someone else. Ganon was already in the SR at the time of the Seal War.

Ganon was in the Sacred Realm because he opened it...I don't see what your point is. If you're arguing that in 1998, the Seal War wasn't OoT, then you're wasting your breath, because the person who wrote the game's plot says it was.




*MANY knights lost their lives trying to fight back the evil monsters as the Sages sealed the way to the SR. It doesn't specify one Hero fighting Ganon while the Sages made the seal. And this does not speak of the beginning to the end of the Seal War. It speaks of the event of "while the Sages were sealing the portal to the SR". As they were sealing it, many knights lost their lives because apparently evil beings were exiting the Dark World and/or, there were power crazy people wanting to leave the portal open. During OoT's seal, no one died. No knights, no heros, no one. Again, GBA ALttP overrules OoT, so this alone disproves OoT as the Seal War, at least anymore.
"When these events were obscured by the mists of time and became legend" ;)



*The seal which was cast by the Sages remained for all time until Agahnim showed up and captured the Maidens in order to break it. Funny how that seal can remain for all time but somehow Ganon can escape and run around Hyrule during LoZ in the meantime.

The game says it should have lasted for all times.
Wind Waker says the exact same thing when talking about Ganon escaping a Seal. Seal's can be escaped without being broken.




The first thing to note is that the Triforce will grant the wishes of anyone who touches it so long as they are alive. I have already proven that Ganon entered the SR and made his wish during the Seal War. Therefore, if LoZ took place after it, the Dark World would have became the Sacred Realm again and been pure IF he had been defeated in LoZ. This quote, to me, says that if LoZ had happened after the Seal War, after Ganondorf made his wish on the Triforce, that ALttP would have been impossible to ever occur.

Again, the GBA game doesn't even say he was there at the time of the Seal.
The SNES manual says he was, but the reader is unsure of the status of his wish. Remember, we're supposed to be arguing with 1998 information at this point anyway, so I don't know why you keep bringing up the 2004 release of aLttP.

And anyway, that's precisely what happened.
He turned the Sacred Realm dark and was sealed away, thus, Seal War.
He escaped it by unknown means, leading to LoZ.
After his death, the Sacred Realm was purified, and the Triforce was returned after AoL, thus setting the stage for aLttP where a reborn or resurrected Ganon enters the Sacred Realm, creates the Dark World, and "can't find a way back out".

Also, note that it's implied that, just as I'm saying, he had to have entered and corrupted the Sacred Realm twice. The corruption right before aLttP was said to be a time when no one knew where the Sacred Realm was. No one. In OoT, the Royal Family knows for sure, and even the common people suspect (a gossip stone, which records what it hears from random people, says that the entrance to the Sacred Realm may be the Temple of Time, which it is).

Thus, there has to be a second entrance into the Sacred Realm.
The Seal War corrupted it and led to the Sealing.
Ganon's death and the unity of the Triforce set the stage for aLttP.
In aLttP, Ganon "rediscovers" it at a time when "all knowledge was lost".



This clearly says Ganondorf found the Golden land. It also talks about the Triforce granting wishes to whover touches it. Which leads me to....

See that? Ganon couldn't break the "seal of the SAGES alone". When you play the game, it doesn't give you a narrative story of everything that's going on at one particular time. What it does is give you bits and pieces, and those bits and pieces above, without a doubt, tie Ganon to entering the SR, touching the Triforce, wishing on it, being sealed within it, and not finding a way out until ALttP, when he used Agahnim to capture the Maidens.


Again, I'm not doubting that he was stuck in the Seven Sages seal. However, as I proposed above, I believe aLttP to be his second entrance into the Sacred Realm.

So why would Ganon be able to escape the Seal in LoZ, but not in aLttP?
WW shows the exact same thing. In WW, Ganon uses his Triforce of Power to create a portal out of the Sacred Realm and into Hyrule.

He could've done the same thing in LoZ. However, in aLttP, he didn't physically possess the Triforce. He wished on it, and was granted the mirror Dark World as a result. Dumbass shoulda wished for the Seal to disappear :P

[MrMosley]

Simple.
The Triforce is complete at the end of Adventure of Link, which i have directly before aLttP. After being used to awaken Zelda, the Triforce returned to the Sacred Realm, where Ganon claimed it.

How would Ganon have came back after AoL? Sure, he apparently dies in ALttP the same way he does in LoZ, but of the games listed thus far, there is no game coming directly after ALttP that says Ganon is dead for good. If you believe ALttP--LoZ, like I do, then him being in LoZ is reason enough to know he came back. But it doesn't make sense, as of right now, that Ganon was able to come back by any means, for the LoZ/AoL--ALttP order, considering AoL states that he is completely dead. If that were the correct order, I believe we would have had some backstory in ALttP explaining how he came back.


If Ganon couldn't lave the Sacred Realm, why would his evil power be able to?
The whole point of the Seal War was to seal Ganon's evil power.

I don't know. You tell me. Maybe that's something we need to ask the creators; But that doesn't change the fact that it happened: In ALttP. If you believe that his evil power can't leave the Dark World, then you must not believe that ALttP is even canon.


Ganon was in the Sacred Realm because he opened it...I don't see what your point is. If you're arguing that in 1998, the Seal War wasn't OoT, then you're wasting your breath, because the person who wrote the game's plot says it was.

I am saying that GBA ALttP still holds true to the same backstory as when it was released on the SNES. The Seal War still states that while the Sages were sealing the entrance to the Sacred Realm (which Ganon opened, that is correct), that MANY knights were defeated.

You still haven't answered how this is possible, considering no knights were killed during the sealing of Ganon in OoT. Also, what I was saying is that Ganon opened the portal which he was sealed in during the Seal Wars. In OoT, he did not open the portal which he was sealed in. As a matter of fact, Link did. But that's not the point. The point is Ganon was not sealed within that portal, he was sealed in a portal created by the Sages in OoT. This goes against what ALttP says, even the GBA version, released many years after OoT.


"When these events were obscured by the mists of time and became legend" ;)

That doesn't mean you can disregard what it is saying. I believe it would be nearly impossible to mistake a full scale war with one simple battle. I believe it would be nearly impossible to get a seal that Ganon opened and entered, and STAYED IN until it was sealed, with a portal the Sages opened themselves. ALttP had time to change any events thereof to match OoT if it wanted to, but it did not accurately do so.


The game says it should have lasted for all times.
Wind Waker says the exact same thing when talking about Ganon escaping a Seal. Seal's can be escaped without being broken.

It says it should have lasted for all times because the next sentence or couple of sentences mentions the fact that the seal was broken in ALttP by Agahnim, not in LoZ by Ganon or anyone else. Read the rest of the quote plz. Oh, and WW's information is not valid at this time during the discussion :)


Again, the GBA game doesn't even say he was there at the time of the Seal.
The SNES manual says he was, but the reader is unsure of the status of his wish. Remember, we're supposed to be arguing with 1998 information at this point anyway, so I don't know why you keep bringing up the 2004 release of aLttP.

ALttP is a game that has already been mentioned in the thread. The thread does not specify that we half to talk as if it were 1998; Only that we have to consider the Miyamoto Order as it is now, with the games we have available. ALttP is available, so its re-release is just fine to use. I have provided quotes that link Ganon to being in the SR during the time of the seal. The entire game implies it, and I'm not going to waste time putting any more quotes up that point to it because I already have. Whether they shortened the manual information or not, in-game quotes make up for it.


And anyway, that's precisely what happened.
He turned the Sacred Realm dark and was sealed away, thus, Seal War.
He escaped it by unknown means, leading to LoZ.
After his death, the Sacred Realm was purified, and the Triforce was returned after AoL, thus setting the stage for aLttP where a reborn or resurrected Ganon enters the Sacred Realm, creates the Dark World, and "can't find a way back out".

None of this information has ever been hinted to or released in any game. No where does it say he escaped by unknown means. It says, CLEARLY, that the seal was cast and held true until Agahnim helped him to break it by capturing Maidens, which doesn't lead to LoZ in any way, shape, or form. We have to use the information we have, no made up information. If you have any quotes or in game text that CLEARLY state that Ganon escaped the Dark World by "unknown means" for LoZ, the post it as proof. Until then, I haven't ever seen any, so that statement cannot be considered as valid. What you are trying to say is that he got put in, was sealed, somehow escaped (even though ALttP's Seal War clearly states that he is unable to), LoZ and AoL happened, then he somehow did it all over again. That doesn't work well when there is no proof of it.


Also, note that it's implied that, just as I'm saying, he had to have entered and corrupted the Sacred Realm twice. The corruption right before aLttP was said to be a time when no one knew where the Sacred Realm was. No one. In OoT, the Royal Family knows for sure, and even the common people suspect (a gossip stone, which records what it hears from random people, says that the entrance to the Sacred Realm may be the Temple of Time, which it is).

"May Be" the Temple of Time. That doesn't say that it is for sure. And I'm not disagreeing that Ganon entered the SR twice. I believe he did, for sure. Just not twice as in two Seal War type deals. And definitely not twice, one leading to LoZ and then another leading to ALttP. Twice as in the two times that we know for absolute certain that he did: In OoT and during the Seal War. Those are the two times he entered, only the second time, he was sealed within it.


Again, I'm not doubting that he was stuck in the Seven Sages seal. However, as I proposed above, I believe aLttP to be his second entrance into the Sacred Realm.

And again, there is no proof of that. The only two times he entered was during OoT and during the Seal War, which I have provided quotes and reason why those two do not work as one in the same. In OoT, he left the SR. During the Seal War, he was sealed within it.


So why would Ganon be able to escape the Seal in LoZ, but not in aLttP?
WW shows the exact same thing. In WW, Ganon uses his Triforce of Power to create a portal out of the Sacred Realm and into Hyrule.

We aren't talking about WW yet, so that information does not count towards the discussion. We'll get to that a bit later. But as for now, as I stated in my previous post, it says no where in ALttP that Ganon had the Triforce of Power during ALttP. It only says that he could not get out on his own. He had to create or take power over Agahnim to do his bidding in Hyrule. That clearly means that he cannot physically leave the Dark World at all.

[Caleb, Of Asui]

I'm not going to close to Miyamoto Order discussion yet, but I'd like to add a little bit.

I personally agree with Erimgard that they creator-intended order WAS the Miyamoto Order... at the time. That's the entire reason Miyamoto gave that order at that time.

The only thing that doesn't make sense is how Ganon escaped the Sacred Realm for The Legend of Zelda and was later revived back within the seal (maybe his death sent him back?). However, I do believe this was excusable at the time. They established this timeline with a few snags, and decided that they would explain these with future games, which has indeed been done for other plot details.

[Caleb, Of Asui]

Pardon the double post. Everyone's acting like I closed the discussion. xP Fine, if you people don't want to discuss it anymore, we'll go with what I said. (The Wind Waker will probably switch it back.) I've been putting this off a little (which isn't like me), so here it is:

Miyamoto Order Discussion Closed

5.1 Miyamoto Order
- Discussion Closed -
Details: We hit a snag when the creator came out with an order contradicting what we already have. He says OoT--LoZ/AoL--ALttP, with LA going anywhere.
Conclusion: Ocarina of Time was originally meant as the Seal War, with The Legend of Zelda as a lesser part of it, explaining what happens to the Triforce. At least, this was true at the time.
Order so Far: OoT--LoZ/AoL--ALttP/LA

6. Majora's Mask
- Skipped -
Reason: It is obviously a direct sequel to Ocarina of Time.
Order so Far: OoT/MM--LoZ/AoL--ALttP/LA

7-8. Oracle of Seasons and Ages
- Current Discussion -
First Possibility: OoT/MM--OoS/OoA--LoZ/AoL--ALttP/LA
Second Possibility: OoT/MM--LoZ/AoL--OoS/OoA--ALttP/LA
Third Possibility: OoT/MM--LoZ/AoL--ALttP/LA--OoS/OoA

Note: We'll need some basis for the Oracle games to be distant prequels/sequels to something, if we decide TWW switches invalidates the Miyamoto Order.

[Erimgard]

I choose second possiblity:
OoT/MM--LoZ/AoL--OoS/OoA--aLttP--LA

Reasoning:

The original idea for the GB/C era of Zelda was to remake/edit LoZ/AoL and release them for GBC. Along with that, there was to be three games in the "Triforce Series", and an unspecified sixth game.

This idea was dropped early on, and the Triforce Series was merged with the LoZ/AoL remakes. The plan was to remake LoZ and AoL as the first two games of the Triforce Series, with the third game telling a new plot.

Each of the three games was to prominently feature a different element:
Power: Seasons
Wisdom: Color
Courage: Time

Because of connectivity issues between the three games, the series was further shrunk into just two games.

The Power/Seasons based game stood alone as Oracle of Seasons.
Courage/Wisdom were merged, giving us the Oracle of Ages (which prominently features both color and time).

The Sixth game of this era possibly was scrapped in favor of Link's Awakening DX, but no one can say for sure.

So while OoS/OoA no longer replace LoZ/AoL as originally planned, they still very obviously connect to them. A progression of LoZ/AoL--OoS/OoA just makes perfect sense.

The NES games end with the Triforce completed, and resting in a castle in the northern part of Hyrule. OoS/OoA both begin with the complete Triforce resting in Hyrule Castle.

AoL talks about a Hero being marked with a Triforce crest. The Hero of OoS/OoA has this crest, even though he doesn't hold a Triforce piece.

In AoL Ganon's minions fail to revive him. In OoS/OoA, they also try to revive him.


The progression of LoZ/AoL--OoS/OoA works best before aLttP, as the completed Triforce randomly dissappears in OoX's ending, potentially returning to the Sacred Realm, and setting the stage for aLttP.

[MrMosley]

First Possibility: OoT/MM--OoS/OoA--LoZ/AoL--ALttP/LA
Second Possibility: OoT/MM--LoZ/AoL--OoS/OoA--ALttP/LA
Third Possibility: OoT/MM--LoZ/AoL--ALttP/LA--OoS/OoA

First of all, I still do not agree with LoZ/AoL coming before ALttP. It just doesn't make sense, no matter what Miyamoto stated. Therefore, the decision I make will not be my true opinion of the timeline, even at the particular point in time we are discussing. I will say that I would either pick the 2nd or 3rd order, based on the evidence I will give below.

Now at first glance, OoX may cause some to believe it comes after OoT/MM, as it has many things from OoT in there (Biggoron's Sword, Twinrova, Master Sword, etc.) plus, Link is shown riding "back" to Hyrule on his horse. When we last saw him on a horse, he was riding away from Termina.

So, in OoX, we see that Ganon is dead, Twinrova is attempting to resurrect him, the Triforce is in Hyrule Castle now, and apparently we have a new Link and Zelda, as Zelda must introduce herself to Link. Impa also does not know who Link is, and apparently this is a different Impa than we have seen in any other game as well. Therefore, we automatically know that these games have to come after a time when Ganon has been destroyed.

The two games so far that Ganon has been completely destroyed are LoZ and ALttP. If we place OoX after LoZ/AoL, then it makes sense because the Triforce is in Hyrule in those games, plus, Ganon is still dead in AoL. We see in AoL that his minions are trying to figure out ways to revive him. Alternatively, Ganon was also destroyed the same way in ALttP. We don't have any real sequel after ALttP to show that Ganon is still dead, other than LA. However, we do have Ganon's general design to look at. Ganon looks pretty much exactly the same in OoX as he did in ALttP, Trident and all. So there is good evidence from either side really that the game can come after LoZ/AoL, or ALttP/LA, both as a distant sequel with a new Link and Zelda. What we do know is that the game cannot come after OoT/MM, so the First Possibility is already ruled out.

But here is the biggest piece of evidence that I think solidifies OoX after LoZ/AoL as of right now in the timeline. In ALttP, at the end, we see the Triforce in the Sacred Realm. Link makes his wish on it, and it grants his wish. Now we do not see the Triforce being taken out of the SR, so we must assume that it wasn't taken out. In LoZ/AoL, we know that it was taken out at some point because it is in Hyrule. In fact, it is in three separate pieces. At the end of AoL, these pieces are joined once again. Now we also do not have any evidence that the Triforce was taken from Hyrule at the end of this game and placed back in the SR. Therefore, again, we must assume that it wasn't taken out, and is still in Hyrule.

Now what do we have at the beginning of OoX? The same thing we had at the end of AoL: Ganon is still dead and all three pieces of the Triforce are in Hyrule. So, OoT/MM--LoZ/AoL--OoX--ALttP/LA makes more sense (though again, I still disagree with LoZ/AoL coming before ALttP).

[Erimgard]

So is this gonna become the Erim vs DarkLink thread, or is someone else going to join in?

I'm probably leaving this thread soon anyway, as the Aonuma era requires intense speculation and obvious distortion of developer intent no matter what way you spin it...

[angelkid]

I don't know much about this area, but due to something I've read in an in-game quotes section (I can unfortunately not remember what game it was in though.) I would go with possibility three and put OoX after ALttP/LA. My reason is that I read soewhere that Link set sail after the events of ALttP, and he was looking for something. Then LA is the direct sequel, but I seriously seriously doubt that Link was looking for a dream world. So, after the events of LA, I believe Link continues to look and finds the island of Holodrum. That's when OoX happens. However, there is alot of evidence to support the fact that it is a new Link because of the fact that Zelda has to introduce herself (yes, I know I posted some stupid theory on another topic but I was tired :(.' So It's probably a new Link but I still think it comes after OoX.

[MrMosley]

I don't know much about this area, but due to something I've read in an in-game quotes section (I can unfortunately not remember what game it was in though.) I would go with possibility three and put OoX after ALttP/LA. My reason is that I read soewhere that Link set sail after the events of ALttP, and he was looking for something. Then LA is the direct sequel, but I seriously seriously doubt that Link was looking for a dream world. So, after the events of LA, I believe Link continues to look and finds the island of Holodrum. That's when OoX happens. However, there is alot of evidence to support the fact that it is a new Link because of the fact that Zelda has to introduce herself (yes, I know I posted some stupid theory on another topic but I was tired :(.' So It's probably a new Link but I still think it comes after OoX.

I agree it comes after ALttP/LA, but not for those reasons. OoX has its own intro, with Link riding to Hyrule Castle on a horse, then going inside Hyrule Castle, where the Triforce talks to him and sends him to Labrynna or Holodrum. So he couldn't have had both adventures in one trip sailing. Plus the whole Zelda introducing herself obviously knocks it out that OoX Link is the same as ALttP/LA Link.

[Erimgard]

Unless there is more than one Zelda at the same time.
Remember, all Royal Family ladies are named Zelda, because of the AoL Backstory.

[Raven]

No two zeldas have actually appeared in one game at the same time, this tradition has only ever been mentioned. of course carrying over to the next game in the timeline does confuse a bit, even if there is more than one royal hylian lady in that game you can't assume that Link would need introductions because he has just met the "second" zelda.

I agree with OoX coming after LoZ/AoL because of the triforces state in the intro of the GBC games. It is whole and link possesses the sacred mark on the back of his hand.

OoX for sure doesn't come after OoT and MM, the triforce mark on the back of his hand disproves that theory because at the end of OoT child link does not have that mark. His adult form "did" but hes gone now... tear..

[Caleb, Of Asui]

So, what we're down to now is pretty much either the second or third possibilities, with the Oracle games being distant sequels to either The Legend of Zelda and The Adventure of Link, or to A Link to the Past. (I did forget to include the possibility for ALttP/OoS/OoA/LA, but I think that's effectively been ruled out, too.) I'll post a little bit of information for quick (and visual!) reference:

http://www.zeldadungeon.net/gallery/albums/Zelda02/Screenshots/164.pnghttp://www.ganonstower.com/seasons_7.gif
http://www.zeldadungeon.net/gallery/albums/userpics/10130/11%7E3.PNGhttp://www.ganonstower.com/seasons_7.gif
(Sorry the Triforce is sideways - but I looked ALL OVER the internet, and this was the ONLY picture I could find of this.)

By the way, I'd rather not have people leaving the thread when we get to the later games *cougherimgardcough*. I'd like to try to rearrange the past games as little as possible. We'll only be placing the additional games, except for maybe switching LttP and LoZ back.

PLEASE realize that I am NOT closing the discussion right now, which means that you CAN and SHOULD keep discussing.

[angelkid]

Caleb's picture is more evidence to support LoZ/AoL-ALttP/LA-OoX. At the end of ALttP Link has the full triforce, or at least the triforce is whole. Whereas at the end of AoL, the triforce is still seperated. I'd say this is just more evidence to support the OoX after ALttP oprion.

[Skull_Kid]

Caleb's picture is more evidence to support LoZ/AoL-ALttP/LA-OoX. At the end of ALttP Link has the full triforce, or at least the triforce is whole. Whereas at the end of AoL, the triforce is still seperated. I'd say this is just more evidence to support the OoX after ALttP oprion.

At the end of ALttP, the Triforce stayed in the Sacred Realm.
In the beggining of OoX, it's in Hyrule Castle.
Do I need to disprove you anymore?

[angelkid]

Ha, tbh no. However, It was in one piece still. It was not in LoZ or AoL making it unlikey that the game came after them. I still think that OoX comes after ALttP/LA.

[Raven]

i was wonderin does LA Link have the triforce on the back of his hand?

and just because the triforce is in hyrule castle at the start of OoX when it wasn't before does't disprove anything. the triforce has changed locations before. besides link cant just waltz into the SR, the triforce came to him and called out to him. Sending him on his next quest.

who honestly thinks that OoX comes after LA? i mean he goes off on a dream quest and right afterwards he skips off to Holodrum and (can't remember that other place) well anyway, i just think its wierd if link had three consecutive quests in places other than hyrule. It doesn't seem to fit...

oh and does anyone know if OoX Link recieves the triforce mark on his hand after the triforce sends him out of hyrule? because that could potentially create way more debate on this subject.

[MrMosley]

Ha, tbh no. However, It was in one piece still. It was not in LoZ or AoL making it unlikey that the game came after them. I still think that OoX comes after ALttP/LA.

LoZ's backstory says that Ganon stole the Triforce with Power. In OoT, when Ganon attempted to steal the Triforce, it split into three parts, and he recieved power, which he desired most. Although there isn't a game before LoZ showing this (apparently) second occurance of Ganon obtaining the Triforce, it splitting, and only giving him the ToP, we know it happened because its in the BS. That would give plenty of reason to why the Triforce went from a full unit to in pieces by the time of LoZ/AoL, if you believed in the order of ALttP/LA--LoZ/AoL--OoX, like me.

[Erimgard]

Caleb's picture is more evidence to support LoZ/AoL-ALttP/LA-OoX. At the end of ALttP Link has the full triforce, or at least the triforce is whole. Whereas at the end of AoL, the triforce is still seperated. I'd say this is just more evidence to support the OoX after ALttP oprion.
The hell?

http://farm3.static.flickr.com/2186/2091793425_c343e3653e.jpg?v=0

Looks pretty complete to me.


LoZ's backstory says that Ganon stole the Triforce with Power. In OoT, when Ganon attempted to steal the Triforce, it split into three parts, and he recieved power, which he desired most. Although there isn't a game before LoZ showing this (apparently) second occurance of Ganon obtaining the Triforce, it splitting, and only giving him the ToP, we know it happened because its in the BS. That would give plenty of reason to why the Triforce went from a full unit to in pieces by the time of LoZ/AoL, if you believed in the order of ALttP/LA--LoZ/AoL--OoX, like me.
Except we don't have any reason to believe Link brought the Triforce out of the Sacred Realm after aLttP.

Also, if the Triforce didn't split for Ganon in aLttP when he touched it, then why would it split in LoZ?

[MrMosley]

Except we don't have any reason to believe Link brought the Triforce out of the Sacred Realm after aLttP.

Right, but he doesn't have to have brought the Triforce out of the SR in that game. Logically, if Ganon touched the Triforce again, sometime after ALttP, and it split, whether it was in the SR or not, it would go into the three people who should have it. Zelda obviously has the ToW in LoZ, as she split it up. It is unknown where the ToC went, but it is likely that there was no one courageous enough to have it so it probably went to Zelda or by some other means ended up in the Great Palace. And lastly, of course, Ganon has the ToP.


Also, if the Triforce didn't split for Ganon in aLttP when he touched it, then why would it split in LoZ?

That, is a secret to everybody. In order to study that, you would have to take a lot of SW questions and theories into account. Personally, I have no answer for why it did not split in ALttP, but I could theorize that it had something to do with either there being no one who could hold the other two pieces, or that it was based on Ganon's wish. Perhaps him wishing to rule the SR, and being locked in the SR, was okay and the Triforce did not have to split considering Ganon wasn't in Hyrule itself. For Ganon to have complete dominion over the Triforce in the real world, where Hyrule is, would be desasterous. The SR seems to be a lot smaller and is a place where Ganon can't do as much damage. His wish apparently was the reason it did not split, but again, I have no definite theory.

[Erimgard]

He didn't wish to rule the Sacred Realm. He wished to rule the world, and as a result, the Triforce gave him the Sacred Relam. He wanted Hyrule, but he didn't express it properly. The Triforce bases it's wish-granting powers on your expression of the wish.



Right, but he doesn't have to have brought the Triforce out of the SR in that game. Logically, if Ganon touched the Triforce again, sometime after ALttP, and it split, whether it was in the SR or not, it would go into the three people who should have it.
So how does the AoL backstory happen then?
For that to happen, a King has to hide the ToC, and Zelda has to be put to sleep by a Wizard wanting to know information about the Triforce.

How does this all happen if Ganon touched the Triforce and got the ToP?

[angelkid]

The hell?

http://farm3.static.flickr.com/2186/2091793425_c343e3653e.jpg?v=0

Looks pretty complete to me.

Oh crap :S. I haven't complete AoL, and in Caleb's picture there was only one piece of the triforce so I assumed that's how ot stayed. Sorry.

[MrMosley]

Oh crap :S. I haven't complete AoL, and in Caleb's picture there was only one piece of the triforce so I assumed that's how ot stayed. Sorry.

No, there were three. They are kinda hard to see where they are on each side of the red carpet, over the bricks. 8-bit colors FTW, lol. But yeah they are there in Caleb's pic.

[Erimgard]

Oh and on the OoX Triforce pic:

http://www.zeldainformer.com/images/articleimages/oracles-thumb-418x376.png

For the record, I edited it slightly to just remove the "glow" around the Triforce, because they never all glow the same color at the same time, and it makes it hard to see.

[Caleb, Of Asui]

The hell?

http://farm3.static.flickr.com/2186/2091793425_c343e3653e.jpg?v=0

Looks pretty complete to me.
Actually, it's very good that you bring that up, Erimgard. I didn't know that the Triforce actually comes together at the end of The Adventure of Link (it being the only one I haven't beaten :S). So, both Adventure of Link and A Link to the Past end with a wish on the Triforce. So, the question really is, what is the nature of the Triforce, as far as where it goes once it has been touched? We need for it to remain in Hyrule before the Oracle games start.

Edit: I hate how I can freeze this topic so easily. Please, keep talking! What happens to the Triforce when someone touches it?

[Hayzer]

Caleb's picture is more evidence to support LoZ/AoL-ALttP/LA-OoX. At the end of ALttP Link has the full triforce, or at least the triforce is whole. Whereas at the end of AoL, the triforce is still seperated. I'd say this is just more evidence to support the OoX after ALttP oprion.

Umm, what?

In AoL, the Triforce is separated in Hyrule castle. In OoX, the Triforce is separated... in Hyrule Castle. How does that support ALttP--OoX?

[MrMosley]

Umm, what?

In AoL, the Triforce is separated in Hyrule castle. In OoX, the Triforce is separated... in Hyrule Castle. How does that support ALttP--OoX?

The Triforce is NOT separate in AoL. It comes together at the end. And the fact that its not setting there as one unit at the beginning of OoX doesn't mean anything either. Its still together. And the order of ALttP--OoX doesn't make sense because there's nothing to show or say the the Triforce was brought out of the Sacred Realm after ALttP.

[Hayzer]

The Triforce is NOT separate in AoL. It comes together at the end. And the fact that its not setting there as one unit at the beginning of OoX doesn't mean anything either. Its still together.

My point being this:
It's all together at the end of AoL in three separate pieces.

It's still all together in three separate pieces at the beginning of OoX

In the end of ALttP it is together in one piece.

There's more evidence for it going LoZ/AoL--OoX, than ALttP/LA--OoX.

EDIT: Didn't realize you were against ALttP--OoX. But my post still says the same thing.

[MrMosley]

My point being this:
It's all together at the end of AoL in three separate pieces.

It's still all together in three separate pieces at the beginning of OoX

In the end of ALttP it is together in one piece.

There's more evidence for it going LoZ/AoL--OoX, than ALttP/LA--OoX.

EDIT: Didn't realize you were against ALttP--OoX. But my post still says the same thing.

I was talking about the very end of AoL. After the credits, the Triforce is shown all together. Whether that is anything important or canon or not is irrelevant. The point I'm trying to make is that it doesn't necessarily matter if the Triforce is together but separate, together and together, two inches apart, whatever, its still either together or completely separate. You either have the Triforce in the same location, within three people, or like we have seen in LoZ/AoL, strone throughout Hyrule in different locations altogether. Nitpicking the exact look of the Triforce doesn't help anything, but looking at its location from game to game can help in some instances. Location of the Triforce cannot be used as a solid, #1 piece of evidence towards a timeline, but it can be a supporting piece of evidence with larger pieces.

Which is why I have said in a few of my previous posts that I consider the true order ALttP/LA--LoZ/AoL--OoX. Aside from my evidence, the Triforce placement between those games also can make sense. But yeah seemingly we agree on the general LoZ/AoL--OoX piece. But the thing is it matters much more that the Triforce is now together, in Hyrule, than in the Sacred Realm or split up. Because now, of course, most likely case is for the Royal Family to take the Triforce and place it in Hyrule Castle, which is what we see some generations after AoL, that it is still there.

[Hayzer]

I was talking about the very end of AoL. After the credits, the Triforce is shown all together. Whether that is anything important or canon or not is irrelevant. The point I'm trying to make is that it doesn't necessarily matter if the Triforce is together but separate, together and together, two inches apart, whatever, its still either together or completely separate. You either have the Triforce in the same location, within three people, or like we have seen in LoZ/AoL, strone throughout Hyrule in different locations altogether. Nitpicking the exact look of the Triforce doesn't help anything, but looking at its location from game to game can help in some instances. Location of the Triforce cannot be used as a solid, #1 piece of evidence towards a timeline, but it can be a supporting piece of evidence with larger pieces.

Which is why I have said in a few of my previous posts that I consider the true order ALttP/LA--LoZ/AoL--OoX. Aside from my evidence, the Triforce placement between those games also can make sense.

I agree with LoZ/AoL--OoX, but not with ALttP coming before. Right now the timeline stands as OoT/MM--LoZ/AoL--(OoX)--ALttP--(OoX)--LA--(OoX) in this topic. We're not discussing the placement of ALttP anymore.

So, I know where I stand.

We gotta get more people in this discussion...

[MrMosley]

I agree with LoZ/AoL--OoX, but not with ALttP coming before. Right now the timeline stands as OoT/MM--LoZ/AoL--(OoX)--ALttP--(OoX)--LA--(OoX) in this topic. We're not discussing the placement of ALttP anymore.

So, I know where I stand.

We gotta get more people in this discussion...

Which is why I don't partake in this discussion as much as I did at first, and probably a good reason why a lot of other people don't as well. ALttP coming before LoZ/AoL is something that I consider on my timeline, so I can't argue in favor of anything else here. Hopefully it will change so the discussion can get back to more than two or three people.

By the way, if discussion on ALttP is completely closed at this point, then this entire thread is flawed. There's absolutely no way you can solidify one game in connection with only a few others, then not be able to change it later on. I sure hope that discussion is not closed on previous games because just as the series has done, things change when new games come out. OoX has reasons, for me, to make ALttP a prequel. TP has even more reasons and if we can't re-argue ALttP's placement based on these games when they crop up in the discussion, then I'm done with it. If we can't argue that because the discussion about ALttP was two topics ago, then there's no point in this thread. Its not a fair representation of ZD's core theorists beliefs because a lot of the big theorists on this site believe ALttP as a prequel and use later games as support of that.

[angelkid]

I agree with LoZ/AoL--OoX, but not with ALttP coming before. Right now the timeline stands as OoT/MM--LoZ/AoL--(OoX)--ALttP--(OoX)--LA--(OoX) in this topic. We're not discussing the placement of ALttP anymore.

So, I know where I stand.

We gotta get more people in this discussion...

No, the order is OoT/MM--(OoX)--LoZ/AoL--(OoX)--ALttP/LA--(OoX)


Which is why I don't partake in this discussion as much as I did at first, and probably a good reason why a lot of other people don't as well. ALttP coming before LoZ/AoL is something that I consider on my timeline, so I can't argue in favor of anything else here. Hopefully it will change so the discussion can get back to more than two or three people.

By the way, if discussion on ALttP is completely closed at this point, then this entire thread is flawed. There's absolutely no way you can solidify one game in connection with only a few others, then not be able to change it later on. I sure hope that discussion is not closed on previous games because just as the series has done, things change when new games come out. OoX has reasons, for me, to make ALttP a prequel. TP has even more reasons and if we can't re-argue ALttP's placement based on these games when they crop up in the discussion, then I'm done with it. If we can't argue that because the discussion about ALttP was two topics ago, then there's no point in this thread. Its not a fair representation of ZD's core theorists beliefs because a lot of the big theorists on this site believe ALttP as a prequel and use later games as support of that.

I agree. I still think it's stupid to have ever put LoZ/AoL before ALttP, I am 100% in support of the game box that stated ALttP featured a Link that was a predecessor of the LoZ/AoL Link.

To close the discussion on all the earlier games would be, very very stupid, and I too would be out of the topic.

[Erimgard]

Actually, it's very good that you bring that up, Erimgard. I didn't know that the Triforce actually comes together at the end of The Adventure of Link (it being the only one I haven't beaten :S). So, both Adventure of Link and A Link to the Past end with a wish on the Triforce. So, the question really is, what is the nature of the Triforce, as far as where it goes once it has been touched? We need for it to remain in Hyrule before the Oracle games start.

Edit: I hate how I can freeze this topic so easily. Please, keep talking! What happens to the Triforce when someone touches it?

In Adventure of Link, the curtain falls down, so we don't know.

In aLttP, Link leaves the Sacred Relam, and his wish was apparently the restoration of Hryule, as all those who perished are back. He's not shown to have taken the Triforce out of the Sacred Realm.

In Wind Waker, it flies away.

All we have in terms of in-game text is that when a wish is made on the Triforce, the Triforce will fulfill all the wish/es in the heart and mind of the one who touched it, based on the expression of their wish, at the time of them touching it. No one else can touch it until they die. Whether they can then keep it with them or not...we don't know.

Because of the Triforce disappearing in WW, some people believe that it magically returns to the Sacred Realm. This isn't stated in any text, but it's a possibility.

I see the Triforce flying away in Wind Waker as a fulfillment of the King's wish. He wished for Hyrule to be washed away, and it was. Then he wished for a hope for the future for the children, and the Triforce flew away at that point. I don't want to get too into WW at this time, since that's not part of the thread yet, but I just want to point out that the only evidence for the Triforce returning to the Sacred Realm upon a wish is that scene in WW, which I don't believe is by any means ironclad.

[Hayzer]

I am 100% in support of the game box that stated ALttP featured a Link that was a predecessor of the LoZ/AoL Link.

Yeah, even though the packaging was retconned many years later BY THE CREATOR OF THE GAMES. ;)

Food for thought. :D

[startimer]

Me? well, i have some, er, different opinions. i currently support Loz/AoL-OoX/La, but that isnt debatable here. of what we have to choose from, i'd say Second Possibility: OoT/MM--LoZ/AoL--OoS/OoA--ALttP/LA

Thats just my opinion. personnally i am always changing my opinion about the placement of the oracle games (not two long ago i had OoX-MC-OoT) and will probably change my opinion again soon so please dont rebute my theory i only half believe it myself, and i dont plan to take a major part in this debate until we get a few more games on the table

[MrMosley]

Yeah, even though the packaging was retconned many years later BY THE CREATOR OF THE GAMES. ;)

Food for thought. :D

It was taken off the box, not retconned. Would it make sense to call the Link and Zelda of ALttP "predecessors" long after all these Zelda games are made? No. Especially not when a lot of them come before or on a different timeline altogether from ALttP. They had to change it because now it doesn't make sense, but then it did because there was only one Link and Zelda prior to ALttP. Well, two if you count the sleeping Zelda and the one from LoZ.

I've played both the SNES and GBA versions of ALttP, and many things were changed. The SNES had a longer manual backstory and a different box description. I explained the box above and the manual can be contributed to the GBA usually shortening any manual story. Hell, have you seen the manual for SNES ALttP?! Its pretty thick. But none of this changed the story. No matter what they took out or replaced, the same general story is there. It still tells the history of the Triforce and Ganon, which doesn't perfectly explain the events of LoZ but give reason as to why things are the way they are in Hyrule.

[Hayzer]

It was taken off the box, not retconned. Would it make sense to call the Link and Zelda of ALttP "predecessors" long after all these Zelda games are made? No. Especially not when a lot of them come before or on a different timeline altogether from ALttP. They had to change it because now it doesn't make sense, but then it did because there was only one Link and Zelda prior to ALttP. Well, two if you count the sleeping Zelda and the one from LoZ.

I've played both the SNES and GBA versions of ALttP, and many things were changed. The SNES had a longer manual backstory and a different box description. I explained the box above and the manual can be contributed to the GBA usually shortening any manual story. Hell, have you seen the manual for SNES ALttP?! Its pretty thick. But none of this changed the story. No matter what they took out or replaced, the same general story is there. It still tells the history of the Triforce and Ganon, which doesn't perfectly explain the events of LoZ but give reason as to why things are the way they are in Hyrule.

You missed my point. It was retconned by Miyamoto's quote, not the GBA remake.

[Zemen125]

You missed my point. It was retconned by Miyamoto's quote, not the GBA remake.

I actually think you missed the point. The game was already made. The box was already made. Why would Miyamoto's quote be stronger than what the game, itself, tells us. I have always said this before, and this is my theory on the games and creator quotes.

If the game says one thing and the creator says something different, then take the games word, because at the end of the day the game can't change its mind.

If Miyamoto announced tomorrow that the hero of the series wasn't Link, but rather a boy names Fred, would you believe him just because he is the creator of the series? We have games that specifically call the hero Link. Him deciding that the hero is really Fred doesn't automatically change every game so that instead of "Link" they say "Fred"

Same thing applies here. The box says that ALTTP is supposed to be a prequel. Just because Miyamoto says it goes after LoZ/AoL doesn't change the fact that the box tells us otherwise. Part of the story of the game completely contradicts that. The only thing the retcon did was take out that bit about Link and Zelda in ALTTP being the other Link and Zelda's predescessors and it has been explained a post or 2 ago why it was taken out...because it wouldn't make sense. There are so many Links and Zeldas now that putting that word would just confuse people as to which ones they are referring to. They completely made the game and there is absolutely no evidence for it being a sequel to LoZ/AoL but we still have that evidence from back in the day (and original intent) for it to be a prequel to LoZ/AoL.

[Hayzer]

I actually think you missed the point. The game was already made. The box was already made. Why would Miyamoto's quote be stronger than what the game, itself, tells us. I have always said this before, and this is my theory on the games and creator quotes.

If the game says one thing and the creator says something different, then take the games word, because at the end of the day the game can't change its mind.

If Miyamoto announced tomorrow that the hero of the series wasn't Link, but rather a boy names Fred, would you believe him just because he is the creator of the series? We have games that specifically call the hero Link. Him deciding that the hero is really Fred doesn't automatically change every game so that instead of "Link" they say "Fred"

Same thing applies here. The box says that ALTTP is supposed to be a prequel. Just because Miyamoto says it goes after LoZ/AoL doesn't change the fact that the box tells us otherwise. Part of the story of the game completely contradicts that. The only thing the retcon did was take out that bit about Link and Zelda in ALTTP being the other Link and Zelda's predescessors and it has been explained a post or 2 ago why it was taken out...because it wouldn't make sense. There are so many Links and Zeldas now that putting that word would just confuse people as to which ones they are referring to. They completely made the game and there is absolutely no evidence for it being a sequel to LoZ/AoL but we still have that evidence from back in the day (and original intent) for it to be a prequel to LoZ/AoL.

Nintendo. That's why. What the Creator says goes. It's like saying God vs. his creation. God wins. Everytime.

[Zemen125]

Nintendo. That's why. What the Creator says goes. It's like saying God vs. his creation. God wins. Everytime.

You pretty much just said that if Miyamoto announced tomorrow that Link is really Fred, you would agree with him and Link would cease to exist to you.

[Hayzer]

You pretty much just said that if Miyamoto announced tomorrow that Link is really Fred, you would agree with him and Link would cease to exist to you.

A Creator wouldn't do that though. He wouldn't screw everything up on purpose...

[MrMosley]

A Creator wouldn't do that though. He wouldn't screw everything up on purpose...

The only reason I don't believe everything Miyamoto says is, well in this instance, there are far more things leaning towards ALttP being a prequel, while the only bit of evidence to support the Miyamoto Order is the fact that Miyamoto said it. I haven't heard one good argument from the connectivity of the games themselves that would cause ALttP to be after LoZ/AoL, while all other titles are considered, other than the fact that Miyamoto said so. And as much as I listen to developer quotes (because they are usually correct), Miyamoto stated himself once that he was more into the gameplay aspect of the series than the stories themselves.

If you want someone to give you insight into the stories of the games, which would be a much better person to consult regarding timelines, then you would look to a guy like Aonuma, who has been in charge of the storylines since either OoT, MM, or both. His specific job is to create these stories. Miyamoto just wants to create innovative gameplay. It makes sense to me that consulting Miyamoto on a timeline subject would not be the best of sources to go to considering this.

Aonuma, on the other hand, has never been wrong thus far in making a quote about the timeline. He has given us the split timeline theory confirmation, he has told us where WW and TP fall on the timeline, and I believe it was him who said FS was the oldest tale. Now that part about FS is disagreeable now, since we have FSA to prove that FS comes just before it, and that FSA comes just before ALttP. However, MC was essentially the same as FS. It had Vaati, no Ganon, and the Four Sword instead of the Master Sword. Two different stories, but both contained the same basic elements that made sense for them to be first. So regardless of the fact that now FS is not first, MC is considered first for these reasons (among others), in my opinion because Aonuma said FS was and MC is relative to FS in the same reasons that once made it the first game in the timeline. Most people can agree on this and everything Aonuma has told us so far; Very few can still agree on the Miyamoto Order.

Sorry to get off on other games there, but I wasn't necessarily using them to support any timeline idea, just to note that Aonuma's quotes are most always backed up perfectly with in-game evidence; While Miyamoto's Order's biggest piece of evidence is he said so, which is not a good piece of evidence. He said so has to come with something in the game that would make it valid or it just can't be valid.

[Hayzer]

The only reason I don't believe everything Miyamoto says is, well in this instance, there are far more things leaning towards ALttP being a prequel, while the only bit of evidence to support the Miyamoto Order is the fact that Miyamoto said it. I haven't heard one good argument from the connectivity of the games themselves that would cause ALttP to be after LoZ/AoL, while all other titles are considered, other than the fact that Miyamoto said so. And as much as I listen to developer quotes (because they are usually correct), Miyamoto stated himself once that he was more into the gameplay aspect of the series than the stories themselves.

If you want someone to give you insight into the stories of the games, which would be a much better person to consult regarding timelines, then you would look to a guy like Aonuma, who has been in charge of the storylines since either OoT, MM, or both. His specific job is to create these stories. Miyamoto just wants to create innovative gameplay. It makes sense to me that consulting Miyamoto on a timeline subject would not be the best of sources to go to considering this.

Aonuma, on the other hand, has never been wrong thus far in making a quote about the timeline. He has given us the split timeline theory confirmation, he has told us where WW and TP fall on the timeline, and I believe it was him who said FS was the oldest tale. Now that part about FS is disagreeable now, since we have FSA to prove that FS comes just before it, and that FSA comes just before ALttP. However, MC was essentially the same as FS. It had Vaati, no Ganon, and the Four Sword instead of the Master Sword. Two different stories, but both contained the same basic elements that made sense for them to be first. So regardless of the fact that now FS is not first, MC is considered first for these reasons (among others), in my opinion because Aonuma said FS was and MC is relative to FS in the same reasons that once made it the first game in the timeline. Most people can agree on this and everything Aonuma has told us so far; Very few can still agree on the Miyamoto Order.

Sorry to get off on other games there, but I wasn't necessarily using them to support any timeline idea, just to note that Aonuma's quotes are most always backed up perfectly with in-game evidence; While Miyamoto's Order's biggest piece of evidence is he said so, which is not a good piece of evidence. He said so has to come with something in the game that would make it valid or it just can't be valid.

That's a very good argument. Hmmm... I think I'll change some stuff around then. Still, even though ALttP should come before, I still can't place it because of the SW. I might have to include the SW in my timeline.

[Erimgard]

You pretty much just said that if Miyamoto announced tomorrow that Link is really Fred, you would agree with him and Link would cease to exist to you.
I despise this argument.
Miyamoto is not a mental patient. Therefore if he says something about his video game series, and never takes it back, there's no reason to assume he's wrong.

[Zemen125]

I despise this argument.
Miyamoto is not a mental patient. Therefore if he says something about his video game series, and never takes it back, there's no reason to assume he's wrong.

Unless the game completely contradicts him...which it does...

[angelkid]

I despise this argument.
Miyamoto is not a mental patient. Therefore if he says something about his video game series, and never takes it back, there's no reason to assume he's wrong.

I've seen Zemen use this argument before aswell, and I have to say. I LOVE THIS ARGUMENT. It works. 100%. Also, no one can ever contradict it. Their only response is always just something about how Miyamoto wouldn't be that stupid, but the point of the argument is that, HE ALREADY HAS. Just not to quite as higher a degree.

Seriously Zemen. That argument is just like an epic insta-win.

[sign of table]

You pretty much just said that if Miyamoto announced tomorrow that Link is really Fred, you would agree with him and Link would cease to exist to you. Because from that point on, he would be Fred. And if he said that all previous Link's were actually Fred's then canonically Link would be Fred.

You're saying that if god came and said that cats never existed and he then changed time so that cats never existed, you wouldn't believe him?

[MrMosley]

Because from that point on, he would be Fred. And if he said that all previous Link's were actually Fred's then canonically Link would be Fred.

You're saying that if god came and said that cats never existed and he then changed time so that cats never existed, you wouldn't believe him?

That's not even close to being a similar argument. That would be compared to Miyamoto searching out and destroying every single copy and piece of evidence of previous Zelda games, somehow finding a way to wipe everyone's memory of its existence, and starting over with a new Hero named Fred. That is what would be comparable to your statement, Sign.

What Zemen says is correct. You can't change whats already been done, unless you retcon it. And it sure seems to me that the Miyamoto Order has been retconned. Actually, it never really made sense in the beginning, so I don't see why so many in-depth theorists argue for it. What the developer says is correct WHEN it makes sense. And no, if Miyamoto decided to name Link, Fred, and say that Link was never a part of Zelda, that would be wrong. Just like when you look at the evidence from the games, it doesn't make a whole lot of sense for the Miyamoto Order to be correct.

Is anyone forgetting that Miyamoto has always been more into the gameplay development than the storyline? Has it not occurred to anyone that Miyamoto could have not been thinking accurately about the timeline during this interview? I mean think about it. Miyamoto knew they were creating the first story in the series with Ocarina of Time. That is the only thing he has ever stated, OUTSIDE of the obviously incorrect Miyamoto Order, that he knows about anything Timeline related. What if he didn't know the answer so he just stated what he knew, then filled the rest in chronologically? Because that's what he did. He said OoT was first, then he listed them in the order of their release. He said LA could come anywhere because he wasn't involved in its development enough to know anything about it at all. He even stated in an interview that he enjoys playing LA more than any other Zelda (interview was taken during the time of WW's release), because there is so much that he doesn't know about it and he likes to "look for that 'Zelda Feel'", which implies feeling of playing the game.

Everyone thinks just because Miyamoto created Zelda that he knows it inside and out, and that's not true. Miyamoto is interested in the elements of the game. He hires other people to make up the stories. Its that simple. Listen to Aonuma and forget the Miyamoto Order because otherwise your going to be looking for answers that have already been answered the other way around.

[Caleb, Of Asui]

Okay, seeing as we mostly agree with LoZ/AoL--OoS/OoA, and everyone's freaking out about the Miyamoto Order, we'll move on. Don't worry, DarkLink, the thread isn't flawed. We decided earlier that the Miyamoto Order was correct at the time, and we're getting close to the point where it (possibly) reverts back to normal.

OoX Discussion Closed

7-8. Oracle of Seasons and Ages
- Discussion Closed -
Conclusion: They were originally planned as remakes of the original two, with expanded story. Plans were changed and they're still no longer remakes, but it still stands that it continues after the story of The Adventure of Link, and doesn't fit quite so well anywhere else.
Order so Far: OoT/MM--LoZ/AoL--OoS/OoA--ALttP/LA

9. Four Swords
- Skipped Temporarily -
Reason: Four Swords was essentially implacable at this point, and not necessarily canon, but will be both pretty soon.

BIG NOTE: This is the complicated part where the split comes in. Even though it was only a theory at the time, we are going to go with it because it has since been confirmed by Nintendo and, after all, the theory DID exist at the time.


10. The Wind Waker
- Skipped -
Reason: The prospect of the split timeline places this game for us.

Order so Far:
....../--TWW
OoT
......\MM--LoZ/AoL--OoS/OoA--ALttP/LA



10.5 Miyamoto Order Revisited
- Current Discussion -
Details: The Legend of Zelda and The Adventure of Link were placed to coincide with the Miyamoto Order because it "bridges" the Seal War in Ocarina of Time to A Link to the Past (exact details are a little complicated); however, The Wind Waker makes it clear that Nintendo no longer intends for Ocarina of Time to be the Seal War. We no longer need the first two games to be a "bridge," so do we follow all existing evidence and move them back to where they originally belonged? (Probably yes.)

First Possibility (Stay the Same):
....../--TWW
OoT
......\MM--LoZ/AoL--OoS/OoA--ALttP/LA

Second Possibility (Original Order Applies):
....../--TWW
OoT
......\MM--ALttP/LA--LoZ/AoL--OoS/OoA

ANOTHER NOTE: I can't edit the first post to update it for some reason. I'll try looking into this, but please proceed[/continue] MO discussion. [Honestly, this one should be pretty short.]

[MrMosley]

Okay, so we can talk about games that have been covered already, correct? Or use them as leverage to support placement. That was my main concern, that because discussion was closed on one game, that mean it could not be talked about anymore. In that respect, the thread would be flawed. However, if we can talk about each and every game that comes into play, then that will work out perfectly. I'm thinking we can, therefore (obviously) I'm going to choose the second possibility.

....../--TWW
OoT
......\MM--ALttP/LA--LoZ/AoL--OoS/OoA


OoT No Longer the Seal War

Now, we know that WW broke OoT as the SW. This makes OoT's connection to ALttP pretty weak. There is now virtually no connection between OoT and ALttP, other than the fact that similar events occurred in the BS of ALttP as did in OoT. However, with WW, we know these events were NOT the same.

Having gotten that out of the way, we now also know that the Seal War had to be a separate event. When we look at ALttP's BS and in-game details, we find that the same stuff applies from SNES to GBA version (look on page 4, my post with the green highlighted portions of quotes, for details). A war broke out in Hyrule because people were frantically searching for the Triforce, or the entrance to the Sacred Realm (SR). Eventually, Ganondorf (the man, not yet the beast) found this entrance. He went in, wished on the Triforce (which did NOT split), and transformed the SR into the Dark World as well as a mirror image of Hyrule itself, all its inhabitants into evil creatures, and Ganondorf himself into the beast known as Ganon. Ganon then did not come out of the SR, as it was sealed by the Sages, and remained in there until the events of ALttP, when he ultimately died in there.

Placement of the Seal War

In order for the SW to happen at any point in time, we know at this point that it HAS to come after OoT. It also HAS to come on the CT, as Hyrule is flooded on the AT. Last, but definitely not least, we know that it HAS to occur during a time when Ganondorf was still a man. This would place it after OoT, MM, and before ALttP.

Different Events on the AT and CT

Now being that WW branches off from the events of Ganondorf's defeat and sealing, we know that on the CT, these events did not take place. Something else had to happen, which we will come to later on exactly what happened as shown in TP. How do we know that the same events did not happen? By looking at the remaining games. We know that ALttP, LoZ, AoL, and OoX all take place in Hyrule. This land was flooded and washed away forever in WW. Therefore, we know that these games have to come on the CT, and we know that Hyrule did not get flooded on this side, and ultimately that the events of the AT were not the same as the CT in the fact that Ganondorf did not succeed in taking over Hyrule on the CT.

Ganondorf's Immortality

We cannot assume that Ganondorf was able to live long enough from the events of OoT to the Seal War. He had to have some outside means of staying alive. Knowing this, and seeing that he lived for over 100 years in from OoT to WW on the AT, we can assume that he did enter the SR on the CT still, obtained the Triforce of Power, yet was not successful in taking over Hyrule. We know what happened because TP tells us, but again, at this point, we will just say he did not succeed in taking over. But my own personal theory is that he did obtain the Triforce.

My reasoning for this is Link being sent back to his time is controversial, but he was sent back while the Door of Time was open. This had to be a time when he had obtained all three stones. Keeping in mind the general beliefs of time travel, if you were looking at Child Link pull the MS out, you would see him pull the MS out, then just a short time later, you would see him return from the future. This would mean that Ganondorf would have time to enter, steal the ToP, and escape while Link was frozen in time. After he pulled the MS out, and before he returned from the future. Again, this would be the only way to explain Ganondorf being able to stay alive from OoT to the SW, since we do not know how long Gerudos live and can only assume that they live the normal length of humans (excluding Twinrova, of course).

Why LoZ/AoL Cannot Be Before ALttP

Now, there still remains the question of why LoZ can't be before ALttP. And I know people will still try to argue it. So let me give a few points to counter those arguments.

In LoZ, we see Ganon (beast mode), with possession of the ToP. Some try to say that he can change from Ganondorf to Ganon at will, as we have seen him do it in other games like OoT. However, his transformation from Ganondorf to Ganon is much different than his solid Ganon form we see in LoZ and ALttP. Nintendo themselves even knew this, as they wrote it in ALttP. ALttP clearly gave us insight into Ganondorf's history, and how he became stuck in the form of Ganon. I gave that history above, highlighted in green. Therefore, since he is in this form in LoZ, and the time that he became this form was during the SW, And the fact that he did not leave the SR from the time of the SW to ALttP, we must clearly see that ALttP is a prequel.

LoZ only states that Ganon stole the Triforce of Power. This happened in OoT for the first time. There is nothing to say that he could not have lost it, and captured it again. This is why LoZ's BS is its downfall, as it does not reference any other game in particular. The most solid piece of evidence is that Ganon is in his pig form, which I explained above why that means ALttP has to be a prequel.

In the end, you would have:

....../--TWW
OoT
......\MM--(SW)--ALttP/LA--LoZ/AoL--OoX

[sign of table]

It's one of the stupidest arguments I've ever seen, actually. Not only is it completely ridiculous, but if the ZD community wasn't so hypocritical they would all change their timeline to a singular timeline.

Guess what? Aonuma's statement about the split timeline is contradicted by the Legend of the Fairy in TWW, which is a game. Aonuma can't take back and destroy all those copies of TWW so the Legend of the Fairy must be more canon than anything he can say. So I guess you should change your timeline to a linear one, amirite? Or is that one of the most completely retarded, fallacious, stupid, ridiculous, insane, terrible, and dumb things you've ever heard? Both your argument, and this one use the exact same thought process. Both are 100% stupid.
What Zemen says is correct. You can't change whats already been done, unless you retcon it. And it sure seems to me that the Miyamoto Order has been retconned. Actually, it never really made sense in the beginning, so I don't see why so many in-depth theorists argue for it. It was true in 1998, however.
What the developer says is correct WHEN it makes sense. And no, if Miyamoto decided to name Link, Fred, and say that Link was never a part of Zelda, that would be wrong. Just like when you look at the evidence from the games, it doesn't make a whole lot of sense for the Miyamoto Order to be correct. What god says is truth, is truth. Sorry.

And how did the Miyamoto order not make sense? Remember that terrible Triforce gap between OoT and LttP?
Is anyone forgetting that Miyamoto has always been more into the gameplay development than the storyline? If god spent more time working on life on Earth, than creating the Earth itself, god would still be correct about everything pertaining to the planet Earth (I'm not religious, I'm just saying).
Everyone thinks just because Miyamoto created Zelda that he knows it inside and out, and that's not true. Doesn't matter if he knows how everything used to be before he makes his statements. Miyamoto(/Aonuma) = god of the Zelda Universe. What Miyamoto says retcons all previous statements and quotes, as he is god, and what god says is the truth is the truth. Period.
In order for the SW to happen at any point in time, we know at this point that it HAS to come after OoT. It also HAS to come on the CT, as Hyrule is flooded on the AT. Last, but definitely not least, we know that it HAS to occur during a time when Ganondorf was still a man. This would place it after OoT, MM, and before ALttP. Prove that OoT CAN'T be the SW. TWW didn't make it impossible, as in 1998 there still had to be a game between OoT and LttP.


My reasoning for this is Link being sent back to his time is controversial, but he was sent back while the Door of Time was open. This had to be a time when he had obtained all three stones. Then why does Zelda react to you the EXACT SAME WAY at the end of the game as when you first meet her (and she never reacts that way at any other part in the game)

@All you ridiculously literal theorists: How does the AoL BS work on the CT at TWWs release?

[angelkid]

Why is everything with you about god? No, what god says is not truth. If god came to me and said 'your name is David.' That does not make my name David. My name is Conor, and it never will be David. Also, what you said about if god said cats never existed ad he went back in time and erased cats, not only is this a terrible example as it is a different argument to the one that Zemen gave. However, that would not mean that cats never existed. I would still know that I had two pet cats who god just randomly decided to tell me didn't exist when I knew for a fact they did, lets not go further into that though, because that creates a paradox.

Also, your comparisons between Miyamoto and god are awful. Miyamoto is not god at all when it comes to Zelda, he is the creator, but he is FAR too human to ever be considered any kind of god. Why does being human mean he isn't god? Humans make mistakes! Just as Miyamoto has on SEVERAL ocassions. He is not interested in the timeline aspects of Zelda anyway. That's like me (to use your crappy god analogies) saying to god 'so, mars?' and let's say for arguments sake that god didn't create mars, and him being like 'yeah mars well it's blue.' Should I trust his judgement? No, because he doesn't get involved in mars, that's someone elses job and I can clearly see with my own eyes that mars is red. However, again a paradox so let's not take that further.

You cannot compare Miyamoto to god.

[MrMosley]

Guess what? Aonuma's statement about the split timeline is contradicted by the Legend of the Fairy in TWW, which is a game.

Which would be what? I don't remember this story.


And how did the Miyamoto order not make sense? Remember that terrible Triforce gap between OoT and LttP?

Pay attention to my posts. You might figure something out.


What Miyamoto says retcons all previous statements and quotes, as he is god, and what god says is the truth is the truth. Period.

No it doesn't. Sorry. Comparing Miyamoto to God is really getting you no where in this argument. He is the guy who thought up the idea of the Zelda games. Since then he's hired many, many people to write the stories and do the work for him so he doesn't have to and he has been quoted as being more involved in the gameplay. I've said this like a thousand times already and you seem to completely miss it or something.

Understand that part first, then work on the fact that Miyamoto doesn't have to know anything big about the timelines in general. Or just read my last post and figure it out. I gave reason for this and I'm not going to waste time by re-quoting my entire last post.


Prove that OoT CAN'T be the SW. TWW didn't make it impossible, as in 1998 there still had to be a game between OoT and LttP.

Once again, read my last post. It would be really helpful because that way, you wouldn't be asking questions I've already answered.


Then why does Zelda react to you the EXACT SAME WAY at the end of the game as when you first meet her (and she never reacts that way at any other part in the game)

So what? She turns around and acts surprised. Are we supposed to believe that every single small emotion that is reused is the same event? No. It doesn't have to be.


@All you ridiculously literal theorists: How does the AoL BS work on the CT at TWWs release?

How doesn't the AoL BS work? It can fit anywhere after ALttP or OoX.

[Hayzer]

Okay. Here me out on this one. It's a pretty good idea if I do say so myself.

Even thought WW split the timeline, it wasn't the first to do so. MM was. Think about it. ALttP, LoZ, and AoL all focused off the Adult ending, but MM was the only one that focused on the child ending. So, in reality, the timeline should've looked like this at MM's release:

----/--ALttP--LoZ/AoL
OoT
----\MM

And then WW split the timeline again, pushing this:

------/--WW
-----/
----/--ALttP--LoZ/AoL
OoT
----\MM

Now, personally this solves alot of plotholes. OoT can still be the SW for ALttP, and all the others still flow with their respective stories. And if you were to go further, you could say that ALttP, TP, and WW were all parallel to each other.

Is this probable? I don't know. NIntendo has stated that two timelines exist, but what if there's really three? I just thought I would bring this up for the sake of discussion.

--

But as far as the new ordering goes, I have to go with DL.

[Zemen125]

I always have fun with your posts. They give me a good chuckle.



Guess what? Aonuma's statement about the split timeline is contradicted by the Legend of the Fairy in TWW, which is a game. Aonuma can't take back and destroy all those copies of TWW so the Legend of the Fairy must be more canon than anything he can say. So I guess you should change your timeline to a linear one, amirite? Or is that one of the most completely retarded, fallacious, stupid, ridiculous, insane, terrible, and dumb things you've ever heard?

Well I can honestly say I have no idea what story you are talking about but it sounds to me like it's a side quest or add on to the game that doesn't pertain to the main story in any way. I am talking about ALTTP as a whole whereas you are trying to argue something that seems to be unknown to most people.


Both your argument, and this one use the exact same thought process. Both are 100% stupid. It was true in 1998, however. What god says is truth, is truth. Sorry.

Miyamoto is a real person. God is a theory. Let's try and use real world/existing analogies as that might actually hold some ground in this argument. God is a 3000 year old theory. Miyamoto is a (insert his age here) proven to be in existence person. Don't make analogies where half of it is something that you don't even know exists. My argument involves someone who actually exists.


What Miyamoto says retcons all previous statements and quotes, as he is god, and what god says is the truth, is the truth. Period.

Yay I get to use my argument again! You're one of those people who would start calling Link, Fred, if Miyamoto told you that Link was Fred all along. You hate this argument so much, yet everything you says just backs up the fact that you completely agree with it and that is the stance you would take. He can't go and erase every copy of the series that calls Link, Link. No matter what he says, we all know there are games where he is called Link. You can call him Fred all you want, but he WAS Link no matter what Miyamoto says. No matter what Miyamoto says, the original box for ALTTP clearly calls Link and Zelda predecessors. His words don't magically change that. The retcon doesn't make the Miyamoto timeline any more correct. He is wrong. The game has done a fantastic job of proving that.

The fact that ALTTP has been retconned, and still has more evidence for it to be a prequel is a good indication that Miyamoto was wrong.

DL has given all the evidence for ALTTP to be a prequel.

This is the evidence for it to go after LoZ/AoL. Because Miyamoto said so.

I think I'll take "game creators who don't know what they're talking about" for 500, Alex.



Then why does Zelda react to you the EXACT SAME WAY at the end of the game as when you first meet her (and she never reacts that way at any other part in the game)

This is the one thing I agree on. It appears to me that Link shows up to the time just before he meets Zelda. It looks to me like Zelda is in the spot she was when she first meets you and right before your about to see Ganondorf through the window. I don't believe that Ganondorf stole the ToP for TP. I think he got it by other means that he doesn't even know about.

[Erimgard]

Unless the game completely contradicts him...which it does...
lol
You go right ahead and think that Zemen :) Doesn't damper my day.

[Caleb, Of Asui]

Wow, you guys always surprise me in one way or another. XD Go ahead and contradict the split timeline if you want, you'll just get slammed in the face. Now, everyone who is looking at existing evidence (and agreeing with the split timeline) are going with the second order (that one was the second one, right?), so that's that. Time to get into some stickier placements.

MO Revisited Discussion Closed

10.5 Miyamoto Order Revisited
- Discussion Closed -
Details: The Legend of Zelda and The Adventure of Link were placed to coincide with the Miyamoto Order because it "bridges" the Seal War in Ocarina of Time to A Link to the Past (exact details are a little complicated); however, The Wind Waker makes it clear that Nintendo no longer intends for Ocarina of Time to be the Seal War. We no longer need the first two games to be a "bridge," so do we follow all existing evidence and move them back to where they originally belonged? (Probably yes.)
Conclusion: Yes, The Wind Waker definitely debunks the Miyamoto Order.

Order so Far:
....../--TWW
OoT
......\MM--ALttP/LA--LoZ/AoL--OoS/OoA

11. Four Swords Adventures
- Current Discussion -

First Possibility:
............../--TWW
FSA--OoT
..............\MM--ALttP/LA--LoZ/AoL--OoS/OoA

Second Possibility:
....../--TWW
OoT
......\MM--FSA--ALttP/LA--LoZ/AoL--OoS/OoA

Third Possibility:
....../--TWW
OoT
......\MM--ALttP/LA--FSA--LoZ/AoL--OoS/OoA

Fourth Possibility:
....../--TWW
OoT
......\MM--ALttP/LA--LoZ/AoL--FSA--OoS/OoA

Fifth Possibility:
....../--TWW
OoT
......\MM--ALttP/LA--LoZ/AoL--OoS/OoA--FSA

Sixth Possibility:
....../--FSA--TWW
OoT
......\MM--ALttP/LA--LoZ/AoL--OoS/OoA

Seventh Possibility:
....../--TWW--FSA
OoT
......\MM--ALttP/LA--LoZ/AoL--OoS/OoA

NOTE: These aren't necessarily all justifiable; these are just all the open slots. Rather than ridiculing the obviously ridiculous ones, tell us which one you think is right (and remember: we want to come to a general consensus).

[MrMosley]

From what I have read/seen, FSA talks a lot about Ganondorf (as a man). For some reason, he is seeking out the Trident of Power, which he must obtain from a pyramid somewhere. I relate this to the Pyramid in the Dark World of ALttP, but it could be a different one so if someone could, correct me if I'm wrong. Now even though this kinda makes the SW a bit confusing, it still might fit. Therefore, this game has to happen before Ganondorf became Ganon in the BS of ALttP. That alone tells you that it has to come before ALttP, and after OoT because OoT was the first time Ganondorf did anything at all.

Ok, so Ganondorf goes somewhere after OoT's CT. He later shows up, hunting for the Trident of Power. He gets it, transforms into Ganon, and is beaten and sealed within it. This kinda messes with how Ganondorf was said to have became Ganon by means of his wish in ALttP's BS. But anyway, back to what I was saying. So at the end, we have Ganon sealed in the Four Sword. Then, later, we could assume that he broke out. We can assume that he reverted back to his human form, then the Seal War happened some time after he broke out. So, once the Seal War happened, the same events occured as talked about in ALttP. And that's the only way I can figure out the multiple transforming of Ganondorf into Ganon.

My order now would be:

....../--WW
OoT
......\MM--FSA--(SW)--ALttP/LA--LoZ/AoL

[Caleb, Of Asui]

That is where I normally place it, too, but I usually consider Four Swords Adventures to be the Seal War itself, or at least with the Seal War happening somewhere around the same time, perhaps toward the end or possibly even afterward.

In some older topic, somebody linked to some quotes in the data for Four Swords Adventures that didn't make it into the final version. If these were in the game, it would definitely be the Seal War, beyond the shadow of a doubt. When Miyamoto "turned the table over" (or whatever it was) and got rid of these quotes, he wasn't trying to eliminate Four Swords Adventures as the Seal War - he was trying to make it less complicated.

The seal itself was probably cast after the game ended. The part at the very end where we see Zelda walk hesitantly into a room may be hinting that Ganon is about to be sealed under higher security.

The fact that Ganon is in his original (game-wise) blue beast form rather than the one from Ocarina of Time (and Twilight Princess), further supports that when he enters this form, he cannot go back. Saying he changes back at some point is a bit preposterous. So, even if the events specific to the seal happen much later, it's obvious that they intend for the bit about Ganon to be happening here.

The Four Sword Palace in Four Swords further supports that the seal is related to Four Swords Adventures. It's possible that the opening to the Sacred Realm spawned there, and the Four Sword was sealed inside, then later broken in order to release Ganon, but only into the Dark World. (I realize that some people don't like to look at that dungeon as canon, but there's really no justification there - after all, they were revising the story a little bit with the remake.)

If Ganon had to have touched the Triforce in order to enter his blue beast form, then that's what happened at the final battle of Four Swords Adventures; we just aren't told anything about the Triforce. So, if Link hadn't defeated Ganon in the final battle of that game, he would have gained control of Hyrule; but, he was sealed instead, and gained control of wherever he was sealed.

So, that's what I (personally) have to say. This does not, however, mean I am closing this discussion. We need more input to what we have before we can call the thread's decision. Whether or not Four Swords Adveuntures is the Seal War itself is slightly irrelevant, as long as we get the order down.

[MrMosley]

Are we discussing Four Swords as well right now? I know you (Caleb) mentioned it.

[sign of table]

Which would be what? I don't remember this story. It'd help if you people actually read the translations we have. You know, there's this awesome thread on ZI that LOZH made that even organizes every single translation we have. You might wanna read it, or study from the thread on LA/ZU that Impossible made which gives links to all the translations.
Understand that part first, then work on the fact that Miyamoto doesn't have to know anything big about the timelines in general. Or just read my last post and figure it out. I gave reason for this and I'm not going to waste time by re-quoting my entire last post. He doesn't need to know everything about the series to always be right. He created it, he has full control over it, therefore Miyamoto is correct. No matter what. His quotes may be retconned at a later date, but when he makes his quotes he is correct. I am going to compare him to god because him and Aonuma are essentially god in what pertains to the Zelda universe.
How doesn't the AoL BS work? It can fit anywhere after ALttP or OoX. I really wish the theorists of this place would, you know, actually read the Japanese translations. http://www.zeldalegends.net/files/text/z2translation/z2_manual_story.html The sleeping Zelda is the first generation/founder Zelda. How does that work after OoT (or TMC).
Well I can honestly say I have no idea what story you are talking about but it sounds to me like it's a side quest or add on to the game that doesn't pertain to the main story in any way. I am talking about ALTTP as a whole whereas you are trying to argue something that seems to be unknown to most people. You might know if you actually read the translations that Prime Blue/Jumbie/Jacensolo kindly make for us. Read it, now. It is in-game text that 100% contradicts the split timeline. But it doesn't freaken matter because what Aonuma/Miyamoto say goes.
Yay I get to use my argument again! You're one of those people who would start calling Link, Fred, if Miyamoto told you that Link was Fred all along. You hate this argument so much, yet everything you says just backs up the fact that you completely agree with it and that is the stance you would take. He can't go and erase every copy of the series that calls Link, Link. No matter what he says, we all know there are games where he is called Link. You can call him Fred all you want, but he WAS Link no matter what Miyamoto says. No matter what Miyamoto says, the original box for ALTTP clearly calls Link and Zelda predecessors. His words don't magically change that. The retcon doesn't make the Miyamoto timeline any more correct. He is wrong. The game has done a fantastic job of proving that. And I would; because Miyamoto would be correct. It doesn't matter if he can't erase what the previous games said. Aonuma can't erase the text of TWW that completely and utterly contradicts the split timeline, but the split timeline is still fact because he says it is. I don't personally agree with the Miyamoto timeline at this time, but in 1998 it was fact, no matter what the games said.
I think I'll take "game creators who don't know what they're talking about" for 500, Alex. You need to change your timeline before I flip out over your terrible hypocrisy.
I always have fun with your posts. They give me a good chuckle. You know, there's something I'd call you right now, but with this sites strict rules on swearing, I won't for fear of getting banned.
Miyamoto is a real person. God is a theory. Let's try and use real world/existing analogies as that might actually hold some ground in this argument. God is a 3000 year old theory. Miyamoto is a (insert his age here) proven to be in existence person. Don't make analogies where half of it is something that you don't even know exists. My argument involves someone who actually exists. Your argument that if Miyamoto turned out to be a nutcase and hypothetically rename Link to Fred is an argument that has any logical basis in fact?!?!

But if god were to exist (I personally don't think there is a god), everything he says would be inherently true. As with Miyamoto with Zelda.

[angelkid]

Bit late sign, and wrong again. Not everything Miyamoto says about Zelda is correct.

I agree with the second option. I think that it has to be that FSA comes after OoT and before ALttP. Ganondorf basically proves that. Unless it is a different Ganon/dorf there is no way that it could be any other order. He is a man in OoT he turns from man to beast in FSA and he is a beast in all the games that follow on from that (So far.)

If you would have asked me like a month ago, purely for the reason that I always thought MC, FS and FSA were a seperate trilogy in which all the games are direct sequels (meaning MC/FS/FSA) However, when you look at Ganondorf you realise this is ridiculous and it can be no other way.

[MrMosley]

It'd help if you people actually read the translations we have. You know, there's this awesome thread on ZI that LOZH made that even organizes every single translation we have. You might wanna read it, or study from the thread on LA/ZU that Impossible made which gives links to all the translations.

Translations are all well and good, Sign. But I don't care what the Japanese games say personally. Whether they contradict the Split Timeline or not, we know its there. You come in here and throw some random fairy story around for absolutely no reason because first, it doesn't help anything, and second, we know the split exists. I'm not Japanese, and I'm not going to waste my time reading the entire text of all the Zelda games, translated, to try and prove a point. Some translations are good, or more helpful, so don't get me wrong on that. But generally, I'm gonna go with what I've been given and can actually understand as I'm playing it.


And I would; because Miyamoto would be correct. It doesn't matter if he can't erase what the previous games said. Aonuma can't erase the text of TWW that completely and utterly contradicts the split timeline, but the split timeline is still fact because he says it is. I don't personally agree with the Miyamoto timeline at this time, but in 1998 it was fact, no matter what the games said.

Well have fun believing everything Miyamoto says because at the end of the day, what the game says is final. Again, read some of the reasoning in my posts. Miyamoto is not involved in much of the story part of the series. It is illogical, and ignorant, to believe him about the timeline. If he came out tomorrow and said that the timeline is the order of the games' releases, he would be right if there were no specific timeline at all. But otherwise, he would be wrong.

Now before this thread gets completely off topic and turns into another useless timeline thread, let me make something pretty clear:

The point of this thread is for all ZD timeline theorists to come up with a timeline to represent the site. If you can't do that, I suggest you go elsewhere. We don't need any input towards anything if its just going to be going against theories and not providing your own.

Next time you post, Sign, it would be helpful if you gave your theories instead of rambling on just to disagree with someone or act like your gonna call someone a name. Its a freaking forum, so calm down. Use your knowledge to try and help with the discussion.

[Caleb, Of Asui]

I would suggest making your own topic about the Fairy-thing, Sign, or at least stop rambling about it here. And one suggestion for if you do make your own topic: show exactly what part you're talking about, rather than telling people to read the game's entire text.

The placement of Four Swords will be the next discussion, after this one. You can still reference it, though, since it was released before Four Swords Adventures.

It looks like we have two people (excluding myself) going for OoT/MM--FSA--LttP/LA, and nobody going for anything else. I'd like a little bit more input first, though.

[Hayzer]

Well, you got three. It's the only placement that makes sense (even though more problems are created than sloved). I'd have to agree with a FSA--ALttP order. You guys have pretty much covered both sides of the theory for it, so I don't really need to say anything...

[Erimgard]

Quick note:

If the only reason for WW debunking the "Miyamoto Order" is that the Seal War can no longer be OoT's adult ending...then so what? Miyamoto himself never even said that was the order. His character designer and script writer did. All he did was lay out the order, not the fine details.

So if we can assume OoT-MM-Seal War-aLttP
Then there's no reason we can't still believe OoT-MM-Seal War-LoZ-AoL-aLttP

You don't have to change Miyamoto's order based on WW. You just have to change interpretation of the Seal War. Food for thought.

[MrMosley]

So if we can assume OoT-MM-Seal War-aLttP
Then there's no reason we can't still believe OoT-MM-Seal War-LoZ-AoL-aLttP

No because you follow the same rules of ALttP's Seal War, being that Ganon was sealed and did not come out. That putting LoZ directly after the SW completely contradicts this idea. The fact that the seal was not broke until ALttP is what makes WW break the idea of OoT being the SW. It also breaks the idea of LoZ being directly after the SW.

[Erimgard]

No because you follow the same rules of ALttP's Seal War, being that Ganon was sealed and did not come out. That putting LoZ directly after the SW completely contradicts this idea. The fact that the seal was not broke until ALttP is what makes WW break the idea of OoT being the SW. It also breaks the idea of LoZ being directly after the SW.

See my previous arguments, which were considered logical in the final conclusion by Caleb, which state that this is retconned by BS-LoZ stating that Ganon only got the ToP during the Seal War.

Also, I'd like to point out that this point in time (actually, just before Wind Waker) is when aLttP GBA/Four Swords was released which does not say that Ganon was present during the Seal War.

Since we're up to 2004 materials by Caleb's rules at this point, the Seal War no longer requires Ganon to have been sealed from the time of the Seal War until aLttP.

In fact, Ganon's no longer even required to be present for the Sealing. I personally believe him to be, but logic does not confine it to that one possibility.

[MrMosley]

Also, I'd like to point out that this point in time (actually, just before Wind Waker) is when aLttP GBA/Four Swords was released which does not say that Ganon was present during the Seal War.

If he wasn't present, how did he get "Sealed" in there? The point of the SW was to close the opening to the SR because Ganon had went in and wished on the Triforce, turning it into the Dark World, and causing evil creatures to pour out. I've played both games and I even gave reasons before (on pg.4) that say the SNES version and GBA follow the same story. So what if it doesn't specifically state that Ganon wasn't present. It doesn't have to for us to obviously know he was. I've read the BS Zelda stuff, and it doesn't change anything. If it did, it is re-retconned by GBA ALttP anyway. Ganon was sealed in there because he entered and wished on the Triforce. This is the Seal War.


Since we're up to 2004 materials by Caleb's rules at this point, the Seal War no longer requires Ganon to have been sealed from the time of the Seal War until aLttP.

If you can provide quotes from GBA ALttP that say otherwise, then I would believe you. But that's not gonna happen because they don't exist. The plot is the same. Unless you come to me with something that says Ganon was not sealed in the SR, then the plot stays the same. But again, that's not gonna happen, because I've given quotes from the game that say he was sealed.

[Hayzer]

I think DL's got it spot on. When I entered this discussion, I would've taken ole Erim at about anything, but after I learned all the details about the SW, ALttP cannot take place after LoZ and AoL, unless you would place the SW after AoL, and that doesn't even make much sense...

[Zemen125]

It'd help if you people actually read the translations we have. You know, there's this awesome thread on ZI that LOZH made that even organizes every single translation we have. You might wanna read it, or study from the thread on LA/ZU that Impossible made which gives links to all the translations. He doesn't need to know everything about the series to always be right. He created it, he has full control over it, therefore Miyamoto is correct. No matter what. His quotes may be retconned at a later date, but when he makes his quotes he is correct. I am going to compare him to god because him and Aonuma are essentially god in what pertains to the Zelda universe. I really wish the theorists of this place would, you know, actually read the Japanese translations. http://www.zeldalegends.net/files/text/z2translation/z2_manual_story.html The sleeping Zelda is the first generation/founder Zelda. How does that work after OoT (or TMC). You might know if you actually read the translations that Prime Blue/Jumbie/Jacensolo kindly make for us. Read it, now. It is in-game text that 100% contradicts the split timeline. But it doesn't freaken matter because what Aonuma/Miyamoto say goes. And I would; because Miyamoto would be correct. It doesn't matter if he can't erase what the previous games said. Aonuma can't erase the text of TWW that completely and utterly contradicts the split timeline, but the split timeline is still fact because he says it is. I don't personally agree with the Miyamoto timeline at this time, but in 1998 it was fact, no matter what the games said. You need to change your timeline before I flip out over your terrible hypocrisy. You know, there's something I'd call you right now, but with this sites strict rules on swearing, I won't for fear of getting banned. Your argument that if Miyamoto turned out to be a nutcase and hypothetically rename Link to Fred is an argument that has any logical basis in fact?!?!

But if god were to exist (I personally don't think there is a god), everything he says would be inherently true. As with Miyamoto with Zelda.

The discussion on the Miyamoto Order has been closed but I know you will still come back and post about it on whatever responses have been given, so let me give you a nice, clear example that fits perfectly with this.

My username is Zemen125. To my knowledge, I can't change my username. Even if I could, for argument sake, let's say that my username is permanently Zemen125. I am the creator of this username just like Miyamoto is the creator of the Zelda series. If I made a post tomorrow that said that my username was SnackWrap125, would you believe me even though my username clearly says Zemen125? No, you wouldn't. You would send me a PM saying "Are you dumb? Your username is Zemen125. Why are you telling people that it is SnackWrap125?"

There are games that call Link, Link. If Miyamoto came out tomorrow and said that Link has been Fred this whole time he would be wrong, because there are games that clearly refer to Link as Link. No matter how many times I tell you my username is SnackWrap125, it will still be Zemen125 even though I am the creator and ruler of the creation of my username. Miyamoto is the creator and ruler of the Zelda series, but even he can't destroy what the games say, just like I can't destroy what my real username says.

As for the topic on hand, I would put FSA as some sort of prequel to ALTTP with no games in between them. Nintendo obviously wanted FSA to connect to ALTTP. FSA has Ganon sealed in the Four Sword at the end of the game. ALTTP has the Palace of the Four Sword in it with a freed Ganon and a broken Four Sword. It's an obvious connection. Also, both games involve some sort of mirror and a dark world (whether or not they are the same, it is there). If anything, the inclusion of a dark world in FSA is a good indication that FSA may very well be the SW.

[Caleb, Of Asui]

I think we have enough input for FSA-is-or-is-nearby-SW theory. From the way Four Swords Adventures connects to A Link to the Past and the way that The Wind Waker connects to Ocarina of Time, thus disconnecting Ocarina of Time from A Link to the Past, you can tell that Nintendo realized at this point that they'd made a mistake, changing the order to include Ocarina of Time as the Seal War; that's why they focused two games on returning to the original, proper order, and even hinted towards it in one (though the hints can't be taken into account until FSA is released). So, there we have it.

FSA Discussion Closed

11. Four Swords Adventures
- Discussion Closed -
Conclusion: It is definitely supposed to lead up to ALttP, whether or not you consider it the SW itself.

Order so Far:
....../--TWW
OoT
......\MM--FSA--ALttP/LA--LoZ/AoL--OoS/OoA

11.09 Four Swords Placement
- Current Discussion -
Details: Four Swords Adventures tells us enough that Four Swords can be placed. The question is, is FSA a direct sequel?

First Possibility:
....../--TWW
OoT
......\MM--FS/FSA--ALttP/LA--LoZ/AoL--OoS/OoA

Second Possibility:
....../--TWW
OoT
......\MM--FS--FSA--ALttP/LA--LoZ/AoL--OoS/OoA

Third Possibility:
............/--TWW
FS--OoT
............\MM--FSA--ALttP/LA--LoZ/AoL--OoS/OoA

NOTE: Make sure you have some good evidence here, as there is not much to look at.

[Zemen125]

First Possibility:
....../--TWW
OoT
......\MM--FS/FSA--ALttP/LA--LoZ/AoL--OoS/OoA

This one.

The BS of FSA talks about 2 previous encounters with Vaati. One of those previous encounters explains the exact scenario that happened in FS AND the BS refers to Link as, well, Link. This is a clear indication that Link in FS is the same Link that is in FSA because usually the BS' of games talk about a past hero and only reference him as a hero, never by name, but the fact that the BS of FSA actually calls the past hero "Link" is huge evidence that it's the same Link that is in FSA.

[MrMosley]

Zemen pretty much took the words right outta my (keyboard) with that post above me. I just wanted to post to say that I agree with that order. FS is most confortably a direct prequel to FSA.

[Hayzer]

I can't say anything either. You guys are no fun. XD [This means I agree with Zemen and DL]

[angelkid]

I've never played FS so I don't really know much about it, but, from what I have read, it certainly sounds to me that FS is a direct prequel to FSA, so I agree with DarkLink01 and Zemen125.

[Erimgard]

If he wasn't present, how did he get "Sealed" in there? The point of the SW was to close the opening to the SR because Ganon had went in and wished on the Triforce, turning it into the Dark World, and causing evil creatures to pour out. I've played both games and I even gave reasons before (on pg.4) that say the SNES version and GBA follow the same story. So what if it doesn't specifically state that Ganon wasn't present. It doesn't have to for us to obviously know he was. I've read the BS Zelda stuff, and it doesn't change anything. If it did, it is re-retconned by GBA ALttP anyway. Ganon was sealed in there because he entered and wished on the Triforce. This is the Seal War.

The only talk of Ganon being "sealed" in the GBA version is when you free the Swamp Maiden. All she says is that Ganon entered the Sacred Realm and "couldn't find a way back out". That makes perfect sense if the Seal was pre-existing.




If you can provide quotes from GBA ALttP that say otherwise, then I would believe you. But that's not gonna happen because they don't exist. The plot is the same. Unless you come to me with something that says Ganon was not sealed in the SR, then the plot stays the same. But again, that's not gonna happen, because I've given quotes from the game that say he was sealed.



...The Triforce will grant the
wishes of whoever touches it,
as long as that person lives...
That is why it was hidden in
the Golden Land. Only a select
few were told of its location,
but at some point that
knowledge was lost...
The one who rediscovered
the Golden Land was
an evil thief named Ganondorf.
Luckily, he couldn't figure out
how to return to the Light
World...

When Ganon found the Sacred Realm pre-aLttP, it was at a point in time when no one knew where it was. It was previously known by a "select few", and then forgotten. He re-discovered it, entered, and "couldn't figure out how to return".

She does not say he was Sealed.
No one says he was Sealed.
The Seal works perfecly fine as a pre-existing condition on the Sacred Realm prior to his entry.

Only the SNES manual (which you have time and time again deemed as no longer canon) says Ganon was present in the Seal War.

[MrMosley]

She does not say he was Sealed.
No one says he was Sealed.
The Seal works perfectly fine as a pre-existing condition on the Sacred Realm prior to his entry.

Really, just let it go. That theory has no credibility at all. That's only a half-hearted excuse to try and prove the Miyamoto Order, which it does not because it doesn't make sense or help anything at all. Your using that "argument from ignorance" thing is all your doing. Your saying that because in the GBA version, no one says he's sealed, then he must not have been sealed. The same can be said about your theories of him getting out. No one ever said he got out, so there. The theory that he was sealed has WAY more credibility than something that has NEVER existed, which would be that Ganon got out. Again, and for the LAST time, I've provided game quotes that talk of him being sealed. It was about three pages ago. Read them.

O wait, you apparently did read them. And you quoted them, and responded to them. And I responded back. So why are you still going on about this? My quotes were taken directly from the GBA version of ALttP, and combined prove that Ganon entered, Ganon didn't come out. I'm not wasting pages more of text because its just as easy for you to go back to Page 4 to see my entire argument on this. Its ridiculous to still be going on, so its dropped. This is page 9, that argument was taken care of on Page 4. Let it go.

[Zemen125]

The only talk of Ganon being "sealed" in the GBA version is when you free the Swamp Maiden. All she says is that Ganon entered the Sacred Realm and "couldn't find a way back out". That makes perfect sense if the Seal was pre-existing.






When Ganon found the Sacred Realm pre-aLttP, it was at a point in time when no one knew where it was. It was previously known by a "select few", and then forgotten. He re-discovered it, entered, and "couldn't figure out how to return".

She does not say he was Sealed.
No one says he was Sealed.
The Seal works perfecly fine as a pre-existing condition on the Sacred Realm prior to his entry.

Only the SNES manual (which you have time and time again deemed as no longer canon) says Ganon was present in the Seal War.

We are long past the games you are talking about. The discussion on the placement of FSA has been closed. The point of the thread is to get a general idea of what everyone thinks the timeline is. If you don't think this is the right placement, then stop posting because the majority of us do believe this is the right placement. Stop arguing just for the sake of arguing.

[Erimgard]

Zemen, I'm not discussing FSA, I'm discussing aLtt/FS which was never discussed at any lengths.

I'm also taking acception to Caleb's presumption (without discussion) that disconneting OoT from the Seal War disconnects the Miyamoto Order. Miyamoto did not say OoT was the Seal War, so invalidating that in no way invalidates his order, which Caleb deemed to be the preferred order in 1998.

@DarkLink

I'm not "arguing from ignorance". You explicitly stated the SNES manual is no longer canon. So, show me a canon quote that says Ganon was in the Seal War.

[sign of table]

Your using that "argument from ignorance" thing is all your doing. Isn't saying that the lack of Ganondorf in TMC as proof for TMC being first an Argument from Ignorance (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Argument_from_Ignorance)? I think someone's bein' a bit of a hypocrite ;)

Anyways, since I'm sure Zemen and DarkLink won't respond if I ask questions about the AoL BS in this thread (actually I have, and they never responded. What a surprise...), I would LOVE if you guys would respond in my AoL BS thread, as it's a very important timeline matter that should have it's own discussion (which hasn't been discussed at all... except when I pointed out that AoL BS Zelda is first Zelda... then everyone stays suspicisly silent about the matter...)

[MrMosley]

Isn't saying that the lack of Ganondorf in TMC as proof for TMC being first an Argument from Ignorance (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Argument_from_Ignorance)? I think someone's bein' a bit of a hypocrite ;)

First off, this isn't the thread to be talking about that (yet). I think someone's not paying a bit of attention to the rules of the thread ;)

Second, yes, that is argument from ignorance. However, there is a big difference in this case. I have quotes that make GBA and SNES ALttP's plot the same. Erimgard does not have anything from ALttP stating otherwise. Nor does anyone else to prove that Ganon was not present at the time of the SW or escaped or whatever. I have evidence, Erimgard does not, other than his own personal theory.

When you get into the whole MC and Ganondorf deal, neither side has evidence proving one over the other. There is nothing in MC that say's Ganondorf was around, had previously existed, or was yet to exist. No one has proof of anything from the in-game text or quotes. Both sides use speculation.

So, Sign, that's a pretty big fail comparison.


Anyways, since I'm sure Zemen and DarkLink won't respond if I ask questions about the AoL BS in this thread (actually I have, and they never responded. What a surprise...), I would LOVE if you guys would respond in my AoL BS thread, as it's a very important timeline matter that should have it's own discussion (which hasn't been discussed at all... except when I pointed out that AoL BS Zelda is first Zelda... then everyone stays suspicisly silent about the matter...)

AoL was ages ago in this thread. However, I will respond in your thread since you made one specifically about the situation.
__________________________________________________ __________________________________________

If we are to follow Caleb's rules of the thread, any posts that do not pertain to the discussion at the time should be avoided. You can discuss previous games, but not previous discussions.

Now I understand not everyone is going to agree on the same order. I get that. But the thing is, if you did not voice your opinion earlier in the thread, when the discussion over a particular topic was going on, then you basically missed your chance. We'll follow the rules of this thread that Caleb has decided to put into place.

[sign of table]

I have quotes that make GBA and SNES ALttP's plot the same. The plot is similar, yes, but certain things were changed. It could easily be a retcon that retcons one quote to change the meaning of others.
When you get into the whole MC and Ganondorf deal, neither side has evidence proving one over the other. There is nothing in MC that say's Ganondorf was around, had previously existed, or was yet to exist. No one has proof of anything from the in-game text or quotes. Both sides use speculation. He doesn't NEED to exist, though...
If we are to follow Caleb's rules of the thread, any posts that do not pertain to the discussion at the time should be avoided. You can discuss previous games, but not previous discussions. Ok.

[Erimgard]

DarkLink, you can't have it both ways.

Either the SNES edition is canon, or it's not. You can't say "it's not canon for this and this, but it's still canon for this and this".

If the SNES edition is not canon, then Ganon is never stated to have been involved in the Seal War.

[MrMosley]

DarkLink, you can't have it both ways.

Either the SNES edition is canon, or it's not. You can't say "it's not canon for this and this, but it's still canon for this and this".

If the SNES edition is not canon, then Ganon is never stated to have been involved in the Seal War.

Once again, read the quotes. I never said one was canon for one thing and one was canon for the other. Your either not reading my posts, or your completely misinterpreting them. What I'm saying, is that by the quotes from GBA ALttP (on pg.4) prove to me that the plots of SNES and GBA ALttP are the same. That is what I've been saying. You have just been going around in circles, saying I said this and I said that, for no reason. What you should have been doing was using your time to post ways to counter my argument, but instead you chose to lay blame on me for random things and waste your time posting.

GBA is canon, alright? If that makes you happy. The GBA quotes imply he was involved with the Seal War in my opinion. You have absolutely no proof otherwise. All you have is absence of manual text, and that doesn't mean crap. Your trying to say that because certain things aren't there, those are more important than things that are there. Do you seriously realize how crazy that is? I'm saying "Well Erimgard, this and this and this and this all pretty well say that Ganon was there.", then you come by and say "No, none of those matters because it doesn't spell it out clear and say specifically that he was there." That is completely ridiculous, and ignorant to the games in general because Zelda has rarely been straightforward and clear.

And I'm really getting tired of this. Its become a Seal War thread when the Seal War was pages ago. I didn't want to have to do this, but anymore posts that does not pertain to the topic at the time will be removed from here on out. I'm sick of repeating myself for no reason when we have already cleared this SW business out of the way, and no one else is going to even pay attention to this thread if the same people are rambling on about by-gone discussions.

[Erimgard]

Tell me DarkLink, at what point in any of those quotes is it stated that the Seal was cast because the Triforce was wished on?

It was cast to stop evil from flowing. Evil can flow without a Triforce wish. I think you refusing to address my points in the other thread with proof is an outright act of cowardice. Saying "I don't want to debate this any more because I like my opinion better than yours", instead of looking for facts, and then informing me that anything I post about the Seal War (which was very much still a relevant matter in the thread, as Caleb had not yet addressed the possiblity of the Miyamoto Timeline and the Seal War not having to coincide with OoT) would be deleted, shows that you don't wish to think for yourself.

I'm going to ask you again, since you made a thread for it specifically:

Since the GBA version, the most recent, most canon version never says that the Seal was cast in response to a Triforce wish, but only in response to evil flowing from the Sacred Realm, and since it also never states that Ganon was involved in the Seal War, but only that when he successfully wished on the Triforce that he "couldn't figure out how to return", what prevents the Seal War from being the Seal in OoT (or any other event), cast to only stop evil, and not a wish, with Ganon's entry and successfull wish prior to aLttP from being a separate event?

ya know what? screw it. I have a right to ask a legitimate question in this thread, so I'm going to. Maybe I haven't been clear enough in my previous posts, so there it is now.

I'm not asking for an opinion, I'm asking for facts. If you can say that I'm not allowed to propose this option, then it must be completely, and irrefutibly deniable by facts. Not just your opinion trumps all so I have to be silent.

[Zemen125]

ya know what? screw it. I have a right to ask a legitimate question in this thread, so I'm going to. Maybe I haven't been clear enough in my previous posts, so there it is now.

I'm not asking for an opinion, I'm asking for facts. If you can say that I'm not allowed to propose this option, then it must be completely, and irrefutibly deniable by facts. Not just your opinion trumps all so I have to be silent.

He has given you a hell of a lot of facts. I'm quite surprised that you're still asking about it. He has posted in game story that clearly backs up his stance on the subject. If you want facts then look at every single one of his posts that addresses in game quotes.

[Erimgard]

I just looked at all his quotes ( as posted in the Seal War thread) and none of them say that:

The Triforce was wished on in the Seal War
Ganon was in the Seal War

All that is required is that evil flowed. Not that a wish was made.

[MrMosley]

I just looked at all his quotes ( as posted in the Seal War thread) and none of them say that:

The Triforce was wished on in the Seal War
Ganon was in the Seal War

All that is required is that evil flowed. Not that a wish was made.

I'm not addressing this anymore. As Zemen stated, I have already provided quotes multiple times, and I have explained how those quotes back up my ideas. You can ask about this as many times as you want, but the questions have already been answered and I am growing tired of them being asked over and over.

[Hayzer]

Wait...The current discussion has nothing to do with the Seal War...

Why are we still rambling on about it?

Alright, Caleb, I think we all agree that FS is a direct sequel to FSA. We can move on now.

[Zemen125]

Wait...The current discussion has nothing to do with the Seal War...

Why are we still rambling on about it?

Alright, Caleb, I think we all agree that FS is a direct sequel to FSA. We can move on now.

I think you meant to say direct PREQUEL. It happens to the best of us.

[Hayzer]

I think you meant to say direct PREQUEL. It happens to the best of us.

Oh... *facepalm*

Yeah, direct prequel. My bad.

[I dub this 50 characters]

[Megamannt125]

So I think i'm going to join in on this discussion and say, why don't we all move onto the current discussion regarding the community timeline, rather than those other things.
EDIT: Wait is there even a current discussion?

[Zemen125]

So I think i'm going to join in on this discussion and say, why don't we all move onto the current discussion regarding the community timeline, rather than those other things.
EDIT: Wait is there even a current discussion?

Right now it is on the placement of FS but I think everyone agrees that it is a direct prequel to FSA so we are awaiting Caleb to tell us what to discuss next as it is his thread.

[Megamannt125]

Right now it is on the placement of FS but I think everyone agrees that it is a direct prequel to FSA so we are awaiting Caleb to tell us what to discuss next as it is his thread.
Oh right, yes I agree. I hope the next one is TP, I am very excited about discussing the placement of TP.

[Zemen125]

Oh right, yes I agree. I hope the next one is TP, I am very excited about discussing the placement of TP.

We already know where TP goes, though. Aounuma has said it takes place hundreds of years after OoT so we know it has to be after MM. It has Ganondorf in it, before he is eternally Ganon so it has to go before FS/FSA and after MM.

[sign of table]

According to you, Aonuma could go insane and call Link Fred, be wrong, and all his statements would then be incorrect. So he is instantly wrong about everything.

ucwatididthar

[Hayzer]

According to you, Aonuma could go insane and call Link Fred, be wrong, and all his statements would then be incorrect. So he is instantly wrong about everything.

ucwatididthar

That was his Miyamoto argument...Not Aonuma.

[50 Characters]

[Zemen125]

ucwatididthar

Yeah, I did see what you did there. You completely changed the name of the person I was talking about in other threads. You might want to get your story right, because it was Miyamoto that I was arguing about changing Link to Fred, not Aonuma...

Aonuma is the one who told us that TP is parallel to WW with TP taking place hundreds of years after the child ending of OoT.

Aonuma is the smart one who actually deals with the timeline stuff, not Miyamoto.
lolFacePalm

[Erimgard]

Yeah, I did see what you did there. You completely changed the name of the person I was talking about in other threads. You might want to get your story right, because it was Miyamoto that I was arguing about changing Link to Fred, not Aonuma...

Aonuma is the one who told us that TP is parallel to WW with TP taking place hundreds of years after the child ending of OoT.

Aonuma is the smart one who actually deals with the timeline stuff, not Miyamoto.
lolFacePalm
Miyamoto confirmed the split timeline before Aonuma. Twice. In 2002 and 2002.

And Aonuma refers to Miyamoto as "the absolute" on all matters.

And Miyamoto has twice in the past 5 years taken over a project that Aonuma was working on because he didn't like the story and wanted to change it.

So um, how exactly is Miyamoto not the "smart one" or the one who "deal with timeline stuff" ?

[sign of table]

@Zemen: It doesn't matter. Both are god to the series and Miyamoto was all there was in 1998.

What difference does it make who could tell us that? Both could hypothetically go insane and make all their quotes mean nothing to you.

It doesn't matter who you argued, I'm arguing that Aonuma could do that, so you should disregard all quotes from Aonuma, right? Hell his quotes have even contradicted the in-game text that you place above everything (except I assume Aonuma; because you're too stubborn to change your timeline to a linear timeline even though in-game text contradicts the split timeline).

Both are extremely important to the series, and both could go insane and call Link Fred, like you say Miyamoto could (which a hypothetical fake situation that has never happened somehow makes all quotes from Miyamoto wrong. It's just stupid). Aonuma isn't exempt from the situation you talk about.

By the way, one day gravity could fail and we start soaring up, instead of down. Which means the theory of gravity would be wrong. Which means that the theory of gravity should be completely disregarded because of said hypothetical situation. (by the way, in case you can't see how stupid this last paragraph is out of pure stubborness, that whole last sentence was a non-sequiter. As is your whole Fred argument. Miyamoto could hypothetically name Link Fred, yes. So could Aonuma. But saying that either of them are untrustworthy because of the hypothetical situation is a complete non-sequiter)

The argument is so completely fallacious it's almost funny.

By the way, the most important part of this post is the one talking about how Aonuma has contradicted in-game evidence with the split timeline. Don't bother trying to defend your Fred argument, as I'm in need of a new sig, anyway. So don't post a red herring and avoid the "split timeline is wrong in your views" argument.

[Megamannt125]

Miyamoto confirmed the split timeline before Aonuma. Twice. In 2002 and 2002.

And Aonuma refers to Miyamoto as "the absolute" on all matters.

And Miyamoto has twice in the past 5 years taken over a project that Aonuma was working on because he didn't like the story and wanted to change it.

So um, how exactly is Miyamoto not the "smart one" or the one who "deal with timeline stuff" ?I think he meant Aonuma is more focused on the timeline than Miyamoto, Miyamoto cares more about individual games, Aonuma is the one that cares more about the timeline.

[sign of table]

^Still doesn't make Miyamoto wrong about the timeline.

[MrMosley]

^Still doesn't make Miyamoto wrong about the timeline.

What makes Miyamoto wrong about the timeline is the fact that he hires people to write it for him. It'd be like if a child had a step-father most his life, and this step-father raised and knew everything about the child, but someone would go to the biological father, who had little to no involvement in the child's life, to ask questions about the kid. It wouldn't make sense to do that. Aonuma has written the story since MM so that Miyamoto didn't have to deal with it. Miyamoto has written the story himself to LoZ. Since then, he's had help or let someone else do it all on their own. For most of Zelda's existance, this has been Aonuma.

Aonuma is more correct over Miyamoto about any timeline discussion. Nothing will ever change that unless Miyamoto starts writing the stories himself, which probably will never happen.

[Hayzer]

By the way, one day gravity could fail and we start soaring up, instead of down. Which means the theory of gravity would be wrong. Which means that the theory of gravity should be completely disregarded because of said hypothetical situation.

The only problem with this is that Gravity is a LAW. Inertia is a LAW. They're not theories. Theories can be disproven (*cough*evolution*cough*). Laws can't. Also. Theories can't disprove theories (which is why Evolutionists can't disprove Creationists, and vice versa). Only Laws can disprove Theories. Wait...I just lost where I was going with this...

The only things that help the Miyamoto Order would be if (note how I said if) FSA is the Seal War, and that FSA Ganondorf is not OoT Ganondorf. That's it. While I agree that FSA could indeed be the Seal War, for ALttP to come after LoZ/AoL, FSA (a game that speaks of the origins of Ganon the Beast) Ganondorf would have to be a new Ganondorf, which is a theory that doesn't hold much credibility, imo. But this also poses the problem of how OoT Ganondorf becomes LoZ Ganon.

[Megamannt125]

The only problem with this is that Gravity is a LAW. Inertia is a LAW. They're not theories. Theories can be disproven (*cough*evolution*cough*). Laws can't. Also. Theories can't disprove theories (which is why Evolutionists can't disprove Creationists, and vice versa). Only Laws can disprove Theories. Wait...I just lost where I was going with this...

The only things that help the Miyamoto Order would be if (note how I said if) FSA is the Seal War, and that FSA Ganondorf is not OoT Ganondorf. That's it. While I agree that FSA could indeed be the Seal War, for ALttP to come after LoZ/AoL, FSA (a game that speaks of the origins of Ganon the Beast) Ganondorf would have to be a new Ganondorf, which is a theory that doesn't hold much credibility, imo. But this also poses the problem of how OoT Ganondorf becomes LoZ Ganon.
Personally, I think the Miyamoto Order was just Miyamoto getting a bit confused with himself in the interview.

[Zemen125]

@Zemen: It doesn't matter. Both are god to the series and Miyamoto was all there was in 1998.

What difference does it make who could tell us that? Both could hypothetically go insane and make all their quotes mean nothing to you.

It doesn't matter who you argued, I'm arguing that Aonuma could do that, so you should disregard all quotes from Aonuma, right? Hell his quotes have even contradicted the in-game text that you place above everything (except I assume Aonuma; because you're too stubborn to change your timeline to a linear timeline even though in-game text contradicts the split timeline).

Both are extremely important to the series, and both could go insane and call Link Fred, like you say Miyamoto could (which a hypothetical fake situation that has never happened somehow makes all quotes from Miyamoto wrong. It's just stupid). Aonuma isn't exempt from the situation you talk about.

By the way, one day gravity could fail and we start soaring up, instead of down. Which means the theory of gravity would be wrong. Which means that the theory of gravity should be completely disregarded because of said hypothetical situation. (by the way, in case you can't see how stupid this last paragraph is out of pure stubborness, that whole last sentence was a non-sequiter. As is your whole Fred argument. Miyamoto could hypothetically name Link Fred, yes. So could Aonuma. But saying that either of them are untrustworthy because of the hypothetical situation is a complete non-sequiter)

The argument is so completely fallacious it's almost funny.

By the way, the most important part of this post is the one talking about how Aonuma has contradicted in-game evidence with the split timeline. Don't bother trying to defend your Fred argument, as I'm in need of a new sig, anyway. So don't post a red herring and avoid the "split timeline is wrong in your views" argument.

I'm a little confused here.

So, let me get this straight. You tried to make me look dumb but then you made yourself look dumb because you got what I said wrong and now you are arguing what I said because you messed it up to begin with? I guess that's a good way to recover from an epic failure.

I like how you guys ask all of these questions and make all of these statements that have already been answered.

As DL has said probably twenty times in this thread alone, Miyamoto has not dealt directly with any of the Zelda titles since the beginning of the series. Ever since MM, and beginning with MM, Aonuma has been the timeline man. He calls Miyamoto the absolute because it's his boss.

Think of it this way. Let's say you are a math teacher. The principal of the school you work at used to be an english teacher. The principal is the boss, or the absolute, so to speak. Just because the principal is the absolute of the school doesn't mean that you should take everything he says about math as fact.

And, honestly, you have the most fallacious argument on this entire thread. Your argument consists of calling us out on our fallacies rather than coming up with your own facts. You're not trying to come to an end or trying to find an answer to any questions. In fact, based on how you are arguing it's as if you would love to have this argument going on forever. Seeing as how DL and I have repeated ourselves a good number of times (in fact I think all of our posts are exactly the same as our last), I really think you just like to here your fingers hit the keyboard.

Oh, and I would love to see this interview, with sources, of Aonuma contradicting in game evidence. I look forward to your next, self-absorbed post.

[Caleb, Of Asui]

I really should have closed the discussion and moved on to the next thing sooner. My forum activity fluctuates a little bit, so I haven't been on much this past week. (By the way, DarkLink, your step-father analogy for the Miyamoto Order is very good.) I think we all agree that Four Swords Adventures is a direct sequel to Four Swords (thus telling us where we should put Four Swords), so...

FS Placement Discussion Closed

11.09 Four Swords Placement
- Discussion Closed -
Details: Four Swords Adventures tells us enough that Four Swords can be placed. The question is, is FSA a direct sequel?
Conclusion: Yes, it is a direct sequel.

Order so Far:
....../--TWW
OoT
......\MM--FS/FSA--ALttP/LA--LoZ/AoL--OoS/OoA

12. The Minish Cap
- Current Discussion -

First Possibility:
............../--TWW
TMC--OoT
..............\MM--FS/FSA--ALttP/LA--LoZ/AoL--OoS/OoA

Second Possibility:
....../--TWW
OoT
......\MM--TMC--FS/FSA--ALttP/LA--LoZ/AoL--OoS/OoA

[Zemen125]

I feel that we should only let the MC discussion go so long because there are multiple threads on this subject. After a couple days we should just go with what the majority believes.

Having said that, I believe MC goes before OoT, so possibility one.

MC has Link getting his hat with no one referring to a previous hero who wore the hat. In fact, the previous hero spoken of is shown without wearing a hat, as well, which is a good indication that the previous hero was not a previous Link. Since there are no legends throughout the series that speak of someone saving the world other than Link, I think that the BS of MC speaks of a time before any Link existed. Many people believe Link getting the hat is a crap reason for placing it, but I think it was too focused on to not be important. Link has no hat. One of the main characters happens to be in the form of a hat. The item that gives Vaati his powers is a hat. The title of the game is about a hat. The game focuses a lot on hats so I think it's dumb to say that the hat doesn't matter.

SoJ will call this an argument from ignorance or something like that, but I believe that the fact that Ganondorf is not mentioned is a good indication that he does not exist yet. This is my own, personal opinion and I am no way stating this as fact. I am merely saying that I think it means something. This is the only Hyrule based game to not have Ganon/dorf apart of the story. Any other Game that doesn't have Ganon/dorf in it is either a direct sequel to a game that had Ganon/dorf in it or a direct prequel to a game that has Ganon/dorf in it. This game has neither of those. It's the only standalone game with no mention/hint/easter egg to let us know that at some point in time, there was a creature named Ganon/dorf.

And many people will say that OoT Link is the one that started the green tunic and hat tradition, but I have my own theory for that. The Kokiri are the ones who many people believe to be the ones to start the green hat and green tunic. I believe that the picori transform into the kokiri somehow. With that in mind, it's not crazy that they wear what MC Link wears. The picori were saved by Link in MC who wore a green hat and a green tunic. Because he is their hero, they start to dress like him. They already wore green tunics with red hats so all they would change is their hat color. When they are transformed to their kokiri forms, they keep the fashion of green tunics and green hats which later gets passed on to OoT Link. To aid this theory, the GDT is the leader of the Kokiri. In MC, there were only 3 ways to transform into a minish. The square things in dungeons, the pots in houses and the stumps throughout the game. Stumps were magical because of the picori. The kokiri are ruled by a magical tree. With that in mind, and the knowledge that we know that the kokiri can change form (koroks in WW), it's not crazy that they could have had a previous form before being kokiri.

picoRI
kokiRI
KOrok

SoJ (I think it was him) used the argument that the more proper name for the picori is to call them minish, but I think it doesn't matter either way. The name of the sword you are given is the picori blade. If there wasn't a reason for calling them picori, then Nintendo would have just stuck with one name and called them minish if it was the true, correct name.

[MrMosley]

Well its about time! LULZ

But on with MC. First, I would like to openly say that I hate this game. Just putting it out there. But I have beaten it (literally forced myself).

Before I played it, and before I learned things about FSA particularly, and its connection to ALttP, and MC, I used to think that the Four Swords Saga was so radically different from the rest of the games that they had to come after WW. This possibility still floats around a bit, so I would consider adding it to your list, Caleb.

However, I do not agree with that decision anymore. That includes a lot of speculation, and I have slowly became a theorist who relies on the more basic ideas of the games, and most obvious of intent. That said, MC definitely works best as the first game in the entire series. Reasons?

* No mention of Ganon
* Master Sword is no where to be found/never mentioned
* Knowledge of the Triforce is little to none

Then there's also the fact that Aonuma once stated FS to be the first game. This was all well and good at the time, because FS did exactly the same things that MC does. It too had no Ganon, no Master Sword, and no mention of the Triforce. However, once FSA came out, and we learned by its intro that FS was quite obviously a direct prequel to FSA, the fact that MC still has all these examples makes it a good candidate to be first. Also, FSA's intro reference of MC talks about it as a legend, not giving Link a name, but just dubbing him a "hero". This shows, in my opinion, that MC was a tale that took place long before FS and FSA. And if FSA is right before ALttP, then MC would have to come somewhere prior to that.

Therefore, when you think about all the games that would be prior to ALttP, you find that MC has to be a distant prequel to FS. Really, the only place it can fit well is before OoT. The fact that the game doesn't reference the Triforce or Ganon is a good indication of its placement. FS doesn't mention them either, but they didn't have to by this time because Ganon or the Triforce were not topics of interest. However, we know that by understanding that FSA is a direct sequel of FS, those two sort of act as a unit. So Ganon actually does play a part in that generation, while in the MC generation, he was no where to be found/mentioned at all.

Result, the order would be:

............./--TWW
MC--OoT
.............\MM--FS/FSA--ALttP/LA--LoZ/AoL--OoX

[sign of table]

I'm too lazy to find an exact quote, but Bill Trinen (I really need to figure out if it's spelled Trinnen or Trinen...) said that TMC could be looked at as the origin of Link's cap.
picoRI
kokiRI
KOrok

SoJ (I think it was him) used the argument that the more proper name for the picori is to call them minish, but I think it doesn't matter either way. The name of the sword you are given is the picori blade. If there wasn't a reason for calling them picori, then Nintendo would have just stuck with one name and called them minish if it was the true, correct name. The game is call Minish Cap, and they call themselves the Minish so I'd say the correct name would be Minish.

Fun fact that I learned from Erimgard (like a year ago... jesus I've been theorizing a while): The lumberjacks in LttP are actually called "Kikori". Maybe Nintendo just likes names that sound like Kikori.
* Knowledge of the Triforce is little to none IIRC (I'm not completely 100% sure about this. I'm saying this on memory), there are pictures of the Triforce EVERYWHERE in castle town (or whatever it was called...).

For a summary on all of the good TMC first arguments, go to LA, look for Impossible's timeline thread, download his 200 page document (I'm not kidding. His document is 200 pages long in Word) and read his part about TMC.
SoJ will call this an argument from ignorance or something like that, but I believe that the fact that Ganondorf is not mentioned is a good indication that he does not exist yet. I really just don't see this point as evidence. A lack of evidence isn't evidence of anything at all. Although to note something that uses the same logic, but is evidence for OoT first.

TMC never, ever, ever mentions the word Hylian. It replaces every single opportunity to use the word Hylian, with the word Human. Hyrule is named after the Hylians. You'd think that maybe once in the game it would mention Hylians.

I really don't like either argument because, as I said, a lack of evidence isn't evidence of anything. It's worth thinking about, though.

@the Miyamoto argument thing: I don't really want to continue debating this, as it's not really gonna get anywhere. But Miyamoto still gets what he wants with the Zelda series. If he wants it to go OoT-LoZ/AoL-LttP, it does. That's my opinion on Miyamoto's authority anyways.

[MrMosley]

TMC never, ever, ever mentions the word Hylian. It replaces every single opportunity to use the word Hylian, with the word Human. Hyrule is named after the Hylians. You'd think that maybe once in the game it would mention Hylians.

Actually, I just did a text dump search of the word Hylian. It does come up one time in the entire text dump, right here:

"Heh heh heh...

To think things would go this well!

The Picori Blade and the Bound Chest
spoken of in Hylian lore...
This chest must hold that which I seek!
I'll relieve you of its contents now."

Now I'm no wizard on MC so I don't know who says that. But anyway, its definitely in there, referring to the people as Hylians.

It also mentions the word, "Hyrulean", here:

"Hello, Link. We are studying
Hyrulean Literature right now.
It's a very important subject!"

TP says human a lot, instead of Hylian. In fact, TP only specifies the Hylian Pike, Loach, and Shield. It never says Hylian to actually specify the people of Hyrule; Just items based on them. Another interesting thing is that when the game does specify the people of Hyrule, it calls them Hyrulians. So, TP uses all three. I don't think that what they are called matters too much.

Quote from TP:

"Oh, hello there! I came here today
to look into the Hyrulian legend of
the sky beings called the Oocca,
but..."

Weird how Hyrulean and Hyrulian are spelled different from MC to TP.

[angelkid]

"Heh heh heh...

To think things would go this well!

The Picori Blade and the Bound Chest
spoken of in Hylian lore...
This chest must hold that which I seek!
I'll relieve you of its contents now."

Now I'm no wizard on MC so I don't know who says that. But anyway, its definitely in there, referring to the people as Hylians.

That would be Vaati DL.

Anyway, I also believe that MC is first. It shows the origin of Link's hat as alot of other people have mentioned and the previous hero who looks alot like he is a Link does not wear a hat which strongly suggests that this is the first Link to wear a hat.

Another thing that makes this feel first to me is the fact that Link is called upon purely because he is a childhood friend of Link. Noone knows that he posesses any special power, but looking around town, he is the only person of a suitable age. Minish can only be seen by children and the only other children are younger then Link and would therefore not really stand much of a chance. This is why they ask Link, unlike in other games where someone either knows that he is the 'chosen one,' or he proves himself in some way, or in WW he does it for personal reasons. In MC there are no godesses or even deities/ demi gods. No one knows at all that Link is special, and this is why I think he is the first Link, he starts the legend of Links.


I'm too lazy to find an exact quote, but Bill Trinen (I really need to figure out if it's spelled Trinnen or Trinen...) said that TMC could be looked at as the origin of Link's cap. The game is call Minish Cap, and they call themselves the Minish so I'd say the correct name would be Minish.

Fun fact that I learned from Erimgard (like a year ago... jesus I've been theorizing a while): The lumberjacks in LttP are actually called "Kikori". Maybe Nintendo just likes names that sound like Kikori. IIRC (I'm not completely 100% sure about this. I'm saying this on memory), there are pictures of the Triforce EVERYWHERE in castle town (or whatever it was called...)..

The triforce is depicted around town in several places, for example above the bell there is a carving of the triforce/bird symbol. However, this is because this is the symbol of the gods, not because the townspeople know what the Triforce is. I am one of the people who believe that the Light force= the Triforce because I think it's just a bit too coincidental for Zelda to have two different magic 'forces' just swimming round inside her. If this is true and Triforce=Light force, then that means that they people do not know what the Triforce is, or else they would not be referring to it as the Light force constantly.

Also, I have to agree with Sign I think that the Minish is their real name not the Picori as they call themselves Minish not Picori.

[sign of table]

Actually, I just did a text dump search of the word Hylian. It does come up one time in the entire text dump, right here: Whoa... the text dump I'd used must suck really badly then lol. Where did you get your text dump? If you could give me a link, I would greatly appreciate it.
TP says human a lot, instead of Hylian. In fact, TP only specifies the Hylian Pike, Loach, and Shield. It never says Hylian to actually specify the people of Hyrule; Just items based on them. Another interesting thing is that when the game does specify the people of Hyrule, it calls them Hyrulians. So, TP uses all three. I don't think that what they are called matters too much. Hmm... I really need to brush up on my TP knowledge.... Although I'm gonna go check the LA translations to see.
Weird how Hyrulean and Hyrulian are spelled different from MC to TP. I assume it's just because translating a fake Japanese word might be spelled a little oddly.

Stupid inconsistent NoA :P


If this is true and Triforce=Light force, then that means that they people do not know what the Triforce is, or else they would not be referring to it as the Light force constantly. How the hell can the Triforce be the Light Force, though? You're saying that the Minish gave Zelda the Triforce?

[Hayzer]

Also, I have to agree with Sign I think that the Minish is their real name not the Picori as they call themselves Minish not Picori.

Picori Sword.

Anyway, I agree with the majority. MC must come before OoT. And again, I have no fun...

I like Zemen's theory about the Picori->Kokiri->Koroks, but I think I already stated that somewhere...

Anyway...yeah.

[Zemen125]

How the hell can the Triforce be the Light Force, though? You're saying that the Minish gave Zelda the Triforce?

I agree with this. It makes no sense for the Light Force to be the Triforce. We know, from OoT, that the Goddesses created the world and then bestowed the Triforce upon that world to rule the land. The Royal Family protected it, and that is the origins of the Triforce. The origins of the Light Force are that the picori supposedly came from the sky and brought the Light Force with them. These are 2, completely stories. They are too different for the items to be the same.

[Caleb, Of Asui]

It helps when virtually everyone agrees on the same thing (and the one person who doesn't support it also doesn't support the other). I expected a little bit more supporting the Minish-Cap-Not-First argument, but I guess not.

TMC Discussion Closed.

12. The Minish Cap
- Discussion Closed -
Conclusion: Many persuasions toward TMC as an introduction to the Zelda universe.

Order so Far:
............../--TWW
TMC--OoT
..............\MM--FS/FSA--ALttP/LA--LoZ/AoL--OoS/OoA

13. Twilight Princess
- Current Discussion -

First Possibility:
............../--TWW
TMC--OoT
..............\MM--TP--FS/FSA--ALttP/LA--LoZ/AoL--OoS/OoA

Second Possibility:
............../--TWW
TMC--OoT
..............\MM--FS/FSA--TP--ALttP/LA--LoZ/AoL--OoS/OoA

Third Possibility:
............../--TWW
TMC--OoT
..............\MM--FS/FSA--ALttP/LA--TP--LoZ/AoL--OoS/OoA

Fourth Possibility:
............../--TWW
TMC--OoT
..............\MM--FS/FSA--ALttP/LA--LoZ/AoL--TP--OoS/OoA

Fifth Possibility:
............../--TWW
TMC--OoT
..............\MM--FS/FSA--ALttP/LA--LoZ/AoL--OoS/OoA--TP

IMPORTANT: This will be the LAST DISCUSSION as part of a ZD Timeline Project (PH placement is implied). Make it a good one.

[Hayzer]

Possibility one.

Aonuma stated that TP was parallel to WW in the timeline, which would push it a hundred/hundreds of years after OoT on the CT. SInce Ganondorf appears in this game, and not Ganon, it must take place before FSA to make any sense. Thus it would be after MM but before FS (which happens right before FSA). Also, we find out what happens to Ganondorf after the events of CT OoT. He gets executed. Also note that whether or not Ganondorf still touched the Triforce on the CT, the Triforce is still split in the game. What happens to it afterward can only be speculation.

So, #1.

[MrMosley]

I'll go ahead and say my choice is #1 as well. Hayzer pretty much summed it up, from Aonuma's quote about the game, to its many references. I'll just list some of these references, like I have before.

* Ganondorf's excecution scene is shown as a backstory-type cutscene during TP. This was explained by Aonuma to have been a result of Link telling Zelda about Ganondorf's evil plans when he went back to his child time in OoT.

* The Sages have not changed their form. They all appear pretty generic, aside from each bearing an image of one of the Medallions (obviously respective to their location). In WW, we see the images of the Awakened Sages on the stained-glass windows of Hyrule Castle. This is obviously because they were awakened on the AT, and were not on the CT.

* Aonuma laid it out pretty obviously. He said TP was a parallel to WW, which we know and have been told of its placement as well.

[angelkid]

I'm also agreeing with option 1. It's kind of boring seeing as how this is the last game, but I have to agree with TP being parallel to WW, because Anouma said so. Also, this is the only place on the timeline that Ganondorf could fit in, other than between WW and OoT, however, Anouma's quote contradicts this. Also as DL01 pointed out, the sages aren't awakened which means that it has to be on the CT as the sages ARE awakened on the AT.

[Megamannt125]

I may be late in saying this, but here's something I think we should consider when placing OOX after AoL, in OOX, Link is introduced to Impa, but in LoZ and AoL, he already knows her.



I'll go ahead and say my choice is #1 as well. Hayzer pretty much summed it up, from Aonuma's quote about the game, to its many references. I'll just list some of these references, like I have before.

* Ganondorf's excecution scene is shown as a backstory-type cutscene during TP. This was explained by Aonuma to have been a result of Link telling Zelda about Ganondorf's evil plans when he went back to his child time in OoT.

* The Sages have not changed their form. They all appear pretty generic, aside from each bearing an image of one of the Medallions (obviously respective to their location). In WW, we see the images of the Awakened Sages on the stained-glass windows of Hyrule Castle. This is obviously because they were awakened on the AT, and were not on the CT.

* Aonuma laid it out pretty obviously. He said TP was a parallel to WW, which we know and have been told of its placement as well.
Actually, Aonuma said Link and Zelda just left Ganondorf alone, he did something outrageous, and was to be executed, and that the scene in TP takes place several years after OOT.

[angelkid]

Actually, Aonuma said Link and Zelda just left Ganondorf alone, he did something outrageous, and was to be executed, and that the scene in TP takes place several years after OOT.

DarkLink01 is right. However, so are you. Link goes back and tells Zelda that Ganondorf only gets his power once Link uses the spiritual stones to open the door of time. They then decide to do nothing and leave him alone. Then he goes and does something outrageous and is sentenced to death.

[Pinecove]

TMC Discussion Closed.

12. The Minish Cap
- Discussion Closed -
Conclusion: Many persuasions toward TMC as an introduction to the Zelda universe.

Order so Far:
............../--TWW
TMC--OoT
..............\MM--FS/FSA--ALttP/LA--LoZ/AoL--OoS/OoA

13. Twilight Princess
- Current Discussion -

First Possibility:
............../--TWW
TMC--OoT
..............\MM--TP--FS/FSA--ALttP/LA--LoZ/AoL--OoS/OoA

Second Possibility:
............../--TWW
TMC--OoT
..............\MM--FS/FSA--TP--ALttP/LA--LoZ/AoL--OoS/OoA

Third Possibility:
............../--TWW
TMC--OoT
..............\MM--FS/FSA--ALttP/LA--TP--LoZ/AoL--OoS/OoA

Fourth Possibility:
............../--TWW
TMC--OoT
..............\MM--FS/FSA--ALttP/LA--LoZ/AoL--TP--OoS/OoA

Fifth Possibility:
............../--TWW
TMC--OoT
..............\MM--FS/FSA--ALttP/LA--LoZ/AoL--OoS/OoA--TP

IMPORTANT: This will be the LAST DISCUSSION as part of a ZD Timeline Project (PH placement is implied). Make it a good one.

Wow that's baised.

How come some orders like:

/TWW/PH-LoZ/AoL-OoS/OoA
OoT
\MM-TP-FS/FSA-AlttP/LA

or

/TWW/PH-LoZ/AoL-OoS/OoA-TMC-FS/FSA-ALttP/LA
OoT
\MM-TP

Aren't on there?

Edit: If I had to choose though, it would definately be option 1.

[Erimgard]

Pinecove, did you read the whole thread?
Basically, he introduced the games one by one (though some out of order, and discussing old games in light of new evidence in new games wasn't apparently allowed) and after each game we debated, and Caleb decided what the general consensus was. There was no vote or anything. Just a discussion, and Caleb's seal of approval.

Not exactly a true community project, but, meh, whatever. It was okay.

[Caleb, Of Asui]

Yeah, Twilight Princess's placement can't really have such an epic final discussion. It seems that we're finding with all the discussions, especially more recent ones, that it can really only go one way. The only thing that really seems to get in the way is the Miyamoto Order. If Miyamoto had never said any of that, chances are that essentially the entire Zelda community would agree that the order we've come up with is Nintendo's official order.

TP Discussion Closed

13. Twilight Princess
- Discussion Closed -
Conclusion: The state of Ganon kind of backs this game into a corner. A very easy placement.

Order so Far:
............../--TWW
TMC--OoT
..............\MM--TP--FS/FSA--ALttP/LA--LoZ/AoL--OoS/OoA

14. Phantom Hourglass
- Skipped -
Reason: Obviously a direct sequel to The Wind Waker.

Order so Far:
............../--TWW/PH
TMC--OoT
..............\MM--TP--FS/FSA--ALttP/LA--LoZ/AoL--OoS/OoA

15. Spirit Tracks
- Pre-Release Placement -
Nintendo confirmed this as a distant sequel to TWW/PH.

Order so Far:
............../--TWW/PH--ST
TMC--OoT
..............\MM--TP--FS/FSA--ALttP/LA--LoZ/AoL--OoS/OoA

[Caleb, Of Asui]

A ZD Timeline Project - Summary

FINAL CONCLUSION:
............../--TWW/PH--ST
TMC--OoT
..............\MM--TP--FS/FSA--ALttP/LA--LoZ/AoL--OoS/OoA

All Discussions Closed.

PROCESS:
1. The Legend of Zelda
- Skipped -
Reason: Being the first game, there are no other games to compare it to.
Order so Far: LoZ

2. The Adventure of Link
- Skipped -
Reason: It is obviously a direct sequel to The Legend of Zelda.
Order so Far: LoZ/AoL

3. A Link to the Past
- Discussion Closed -
Conclusion: It was meant to explain the backstory before The Legend of Zelda.
Order so Far: ALttP--LoZ/AoL

4. Link's Awakening
- Skipped -
Reason: It is obviously a direct sequel to A Link to the Past. There is some small debate over whether or not it actually is, but it doesn't effect much to be worth adressing.
Order so Far: ALttP/LA--LoZ/AoL

5. Ocarina of Time
- Skipped -
Reason: It is obviously before everything so far. Nobody's about to say otherwise.
Order so Far: OoT--ALttP/LA--LoZ/AoL

5.1 Miyamoto Order
- Discussion Closed -
Details: We hit a snag when the creator came out with an order contradicting what we already have. He says OoT--LoZ/AoL--ALttP, with LA going anywhere.
Conclusion: Ocarina of Time was originally meant as the Seal War, with The Legend of Zelda as a lesser part of it, explaining what happens to the Triforce. At least, this was true at the time.
Order so Far: OoT--LoZ/AoL--ALttP/LA

6. Majora's Mask
- Skipped -
Reason: It is obviously a direct sequel to Ocarina of Time.
Order so Far: OoT/MM--LoZ/AoL--ALttP/LA

7-8. Oracle of Seasons and Ages
- Discussion Closed -
Conclusion: They were originally planned as remakes of the original two, with expanded story. Plans were changed and they're still no longer remakes, but it still stands that it continues after the story of The Adventure of Link, and doesn't fit quite so well anywhere else.
Order so Far: OoT/MM--LoZ/AoL--OoS/OoA--ALttP/LA

9. Four Swords
- Skipped Temporarily -
Reason: Four Swords was essentially implacable at this point, and not necessarily canon, but will be both pretty soon.

BIG NOTE: This is the complicated part where the split comes in. Even though it was only a theory at the time, we are going to go with it because it has since been confirmed by Nintendo and, after all, the theory DID exist at the time.

10. The Wind Waker
- Skipped -
Reason: The prospect of the split timeline places this game for us.

Order so Far:
....../--TWW
OoT
......\MM--LoZ/AoL--OoS/OoA--ALttP/LA

10.5 Miyamoto Order Revisited
- Discussion Closed -
Details: The Legend of Zelda and The Adventure of Link were placed to coincide with the Miyamoto Order because it "bridges" the Seal War in Ocarina of Time to A Link to the Past (exact details are a little complicated); however, The Wind Waker makes it clear that Nintendo no longer intends for Ocarina of Time to be the Seal War. We no longer need the first two games to be a "bridge," so do we follow all existing evidence and move them back to where they originally belonged? (Probably yes.)
Conclusion: Yes, The Wind Waker definitely debunks the Miyamoto Order.

Order so Far:
....../--TWW
OoT
......\MM--ALttP/LA--LoZ/AoL--OoS/OoA

11. Four Swords Adventures
- Discussion Closed -
Conclusion: It is definitely supposed to lead up to ALttP, whether or not you consider it the SW itself.

Order so Far:
....../--TWW
OoT
......\MM--FSA--ALttP/LA--LoZ/AoL--OoS/OoA

11.09 Four Swords Placement
- Discussion Closed -
Details: Four Swords Adventures tells us enough that Four Swords can be placed. The question is, is FSA a direct sequel?
Conclusion: Yes, it is a direct sequel.

Order so Far:
....../--TWW
OoT
......\MM--FS/FSA--ALttP/LA--LoZ/AoL--OoS/OoA

12. The Minish Cap
- Discussion Closed -
Conclusion: Many persuasions toward TMC as an introduction to the Zelda universe.

Order so Far:
............../--TWW
TMC--OoT
..............\MM--FS/FSA--ALttP/LA--LoZ/AoL--OoS/OoA

13. Twilight Princess
- Discussion Closed -
Conclusion: The state of Ganon kind of backs this game into a corner. A very easy placement.

Order so Far:
............../--TWW
TMC--OoT
..............\MM--TP--FS/FSA--ALttP/LA--LoZ/AoL--OoS/OoA

14. Phantom Hourglass
- Skipped -
Reason: Obviously a direct sequel to The Wind Waker.

Order so Far:
............../--TWW/PH
TMC--OoT
..............\MM--TP--FS/FSA--ALttP/LA--LoZ/AoL--OoS/OoA

15. Spirit Tracks
- Pre-Release Placement -
Nintendo confirmed this as a distant sequel to TWW/PH.

Order so Far:
............../--TWW/PH--ST
TMC--OoT
..............\MM--TP--FS/FSA--ALttP/LA--LoZ/AoL--OoS/OoA

[sign of table]

Details: The Legend of Zelda and The Adventure of Link were placed to coincide with the Miyamoto Order because it "bridges" the Seal War in Ocarina of Time to A Link to the Past (exact details are a little complicated); however, The Wind Waker makes it clear that Nintendo no longer intends for Ocarina of Time to be the Seal War. We no longer need the first two games to be a "bridge," so do we follow all existing evidence and move them back to where they originally belonged? (Probably yes.)
Conclusion: Yes, The Wind Waker definitely debunks the Miyamoto Order. That's a non-sequiter if I've ever seen one. Even if you think that OoT can't still be the SW, nothing about TWW screws up the Miyamoto order.

I also dislike how TWW discussion was skipped, and no one seemed to look at the possibility of games after TWW.

[Zemen125]

That's a non-sequiter if I've ever seen one. Even if you think that OoT can't still be the SW, nothing about TWW screws up the Miyamoto order.

I also dislike how TWW discussion was skipped, and no one seemed to look at the possibility of games after TWW.

Because we know where WW goes as it was confirmed so it didn't need to be confirmed and because the general theory was the theory that was brought out. The point of the thread was to come up with a general timeline idea and whether you agree with it or not, this is what the majority of us discussed and came up with. No one is forcing you to believe this timeline.

[sign of table]

I wasn't talking about the TWW placement itself. That's clear enough. I'm talking about the fact that I didn't see any discussion about games taking place after TWW.

It's a very similar timeline to the one I used to follow (I still think it's quite likely, I just don't place LoZ/AoL-OoX(/LA) because I'm having trouble deciding CT or AT placements). It's not at all that it's a bad timeline. It's that there didn't seem to be any attempts to look at all the different possibilities (such as games on the AT).

[Zemen125]

I wasn't talking about the TWW placement itself. That's clear enough. I'm talking about the fact that I didn't see any discussion about games taking place after TWW.

It's a very similar timeline to the one I used to follow (I still think it's quite likely, I just don't place LoZ/AoL-OoX(/LA) because I'm having trouble deciding CT or AT placements). It's not at all that it's a bad timeline. It's that there didn't seem to be any attempts to look at all the different possibilities (such as games on the AT).

Most likely because the majority don't believe any games go there. The point of the thread was to discuss what we think the timeline is on a game to game basis, not to discuss what we DON'T think the timeline is. That would be counter-productive.

[MrMosley]

I wasn't talking about the TWW placement itself. That's clear enough. I'm talking about the fact that I didn't see any discussion about games taking place after TWW.

It's a very similar timeline to the one I used to follow (I still think it's quite likely, I just don't place LoZ/AoL-OoX(/LA) because I'm having trouble deciding CT or AT placements). It's not at all that it's a bad timeline. It's that there didn't seem to be any attempts to look at all the different possibilities (such as games on the AT).

Well I mean we could open discussion on that idea. Course that's all up to Caleb of Asui. I think it would be a good idea to keep the thread going; Explore all the possibilities and that is one that hasn't been discussed yet.

However (yes there is a however), when we take a look at some of the games your mentioning (seemingly ALttP-LoZ/AoL), the only thing that could help that argument is the quote from Aonuma about the towns in AoL. Other than that, you have many, many things that connect those games to the CT instead. For instance, the geographical changes of the area around the Master Sword (ToT in OoT...ToT ruins, covered in Lost Woods in TP...Lost Woods in ALttP), which I think is a very good point in placing those games on the CT. You also have certain other geographical features that are present from game to game, such as Kakariko Village, Death Mountain, and Zora's Domain. Then there is also the idea that Spectacle Rock in WW is the same Spectacle Rock we see in LoZ, but in order for that to be possible, Hyrule would have to be un-flooded. Considering there is a lot of water in Hyrule in LoZ/AoL, some would use that as a good argument. But then there would be many that would say Hyrule couldn't be un-flooded for various reasons.

So, the question is, would it help to explore that route? Is there enough information to hold a good argument on it? Maybe. I would like to see. So I think we should open discussion on that possibility, at least so we can look at the possibilities that are there.

[sign of table]

^Just to note something ahead of time. Hyrule CANNOT be unflooded. It is one of the few things I'd say is ever impossible and completely literal as Daphnes wished in the NoJ TWW to erase Hyrule.

It's a debate that should happen, though. LoZ/AoL make sense on the AT. As much sense, or more, than on the CT.

I'd say it's a very needed debate, as I've seen none of it on here.

[Zemen125]

^Just to note something ahead of time. Hyrule CANNOT be unflooded. It is one of the few things I'd say is ever impossible and completely literal as Daphnes wished in the NoJ TWW to erase Hyrule.

It's a debate that should happen, though. LoZ/AoL make sense on the AT. As much sense, or more, than on the CT.

I'd say it's a very needed debate, as I've seen none of it on here.

Well then technically no games should go on the AT with that wish in mind. If he wished for Hyrule to be erased then there can never be another Hyrule which means any game based in Hyrule can't go on the AT and since games that aren't based in Hyrule are connected to games that are based in Hyrule, it's pretty much impossible, if you only look at what Daphnes said.

[sign of table]

^He wished for Hyrule to be erased. That in no way prevents a new Hyrule being made, it just prevents the land unflooding.

[MrMosley]

^He wished for Hyrule to be erased. That in no way prevents a new Hyrule being made, it just prevents the land unflooding.

First:
How likely is it that there would be the same exact landmarks in a "new" Hyrule as there were in the old one? Death Mountain? Zora's Domain? I mean, sure we know there are those races elsewhere, but not those same exact names for the locations. Link and Tetra knew nothing
about these locations. They knew nothing about old Hyrule. Neither did anyone above, living on the Great Sea, except for Daphnes.

Keeping that in mind, when we look to ALttP, we see many things that are similar to that of OoT. A Kakariko Village, the Lost Woods, Death Mountain, Zora's Domain, Lake Hylia... Daphnes never sat Link or Tetra down and told them the history of Hyrule. And no one above the sea knew anything about it either. So its very unlikely that most of their locations, customs, and names for areas just randomly ended up being close to exactly the same.

Second:
The Master Sword's location gives a big hint to the timleine, I believe. In ALttP, it held the MS. In TP, the MS was still where it had been back in OoT: In the ToT, but now the ToT had fallen apart over time and the "Lost Woods" had began to grow around it/within it. When you put OoT next to TP, then ALttP after, and look at the locations of the MS in each of those, you can clearly see the pattern.

Conclusion:
I don't see how it makes more sense for those games to go on the AT.

[Zemen125]

^He wished for Hyrule to be erased. That in no way prevents a new Hyrule being made, it just prevents the land unflooding.

Actually that seems to perfectly prevent there from being a new Hyrule. If he wished for old Hyrule to be erased then it's gone. There was no Hyrule left. All of the customs, traditions, artifacts, everything would be gone. Like DL01 said, Link and Tetra know NOTHING about old Hyrule, and with it being wished away they would never know anything about old Hyrule. There is no way that everything just randomly is exactly the same as old Hyrule.

[Caleb, Of Asui]

New Discussion 1:
Do Any More Games Fit on the Adult Timeline?
- Current Discussion -
Premises: During the timeline project, only The Wind Waker, Phantom Hourglass, and Spirit Tracks were placed on the Adult Timeline, even though all the later games in the timeline have never been specified to exist in the same continuities by an official source. Perhaps we can divulge some effects of certain timeline aspects (such as The Minish Cap being before the split, thus being able to affect both timelines).

----------------------------------------------------------------------------

There, are you all happy now? ;) Even though this discussion has kind of already started on its own. XP Oh, well... Other discussions like this to keep the thread going actually aren't such a bad idea. I can't guarantee the conjecture of a timeline will change at all, but it can't hurt to analyze some aspects of the timeline.

[angelkid]

Well, like DL01 and Zemen are saying, I don't think that there can be ANY games that feature Hyrule on the AT as Hyrule was flooded and none of the remaining occupants of the Great Sea knew enough about Hyrule to be able to model it With the same Land Marks. HOWEVER, there are games that could come after PH. For example, MC. I know that lots of people will argue it comes first on the timeline, and personally I agree with this, it's what I think too. It does make sense though. The only places in MC that were in the original Hyrule was Lake Hylia, Hyrule castle and Hyrule field. Lake Hylia could have just been remembered by an old scholar or someone, and Hyrule castle and Hyrule field, are, I think exactly what you would name your new castle and field in new Hyrule. There are also all the Landmarks such as Castor Wilds, Veil Falls and Mt. Crenel. I have difficulty believing that these could have just disappeared. The geography of MC seriously suggests that it is set in a different land to OoT, TP, ALttP etc.

Other games that could come on the AT would be things such as OoX and LA (though only if it is seperate from ALttP and not considered a direct sequel.) All three of these games feature Link on a boat, and though this isn't really very strong evidence I believe the only time that Link appears in Hyrule in any of these games is at the beginning of OoA I think where Link leaves Hyrule. This could again be the new Hyrule though as it is barely featured at all.

Though I think these are all relatively strong arguments, I still think MC comes first and OoX and LA come on the CT.

[Zemen125]

Well, like DL01 and Zemen are saying, I don't think that there can be ANY games that feature Hyrule on the AT as Hyrule was flooded and none of the remaining occupants of the Great Sea knew enough about Hyrule to be able to model it With the same Land Marks. HOWEVER, there are games that could come after PH. For example, MC. I know that lots of people will argue it comes first on the timeline, and personally I agree with this, it's what I think too. It does make sense though. The only places in MC that were in the original Hyrule was Lake Hylia, Hyrule castle and Hyrule field. Lake Hylia could have just been remembered by an old scholar or someone, and Hyrule castle and Hyrule field, are, I think exactly what you would name your new castle and field in new Hyrule. There are also all the Landmarks such as Castor Wilds, Veil Falls and Mt. Crenel. I have difficulty believing that these could have just disappeared. The geography of MC seriously suggests that it is set in a different land to OoT, TP, ALttP etc.

Other games that could come on the AT would be things such as OoX and LA (though only if it is seperate from ALttP and not considered a direct sequel.) All three of these games feature Link on a boat, and though this isn't really very strong evidence I believe the only time that Link appears in Hyrule in any of these games is at the beginning of OoA I think where Link leaves Hyrule. This could again be the new Hyrule though as it is barely featured at all.

Though I think these are all relatively strong arguments, I still think MC comes first and OoX and LA come on the CT.

If you were to put MC on the AT then you would also have to put FS, FSA and ALTTP which, with the addition of ALTTP, would be impossible because ALTTP gives a lot history of Hyrule (which we all pretty much agreed that the history of Hyrule is lost on the AT).

[angelkid]

Yeah, I didn't really think of that. You're right though. ALttP cannot go on the AT unless Hyrule is magically unflooded which due to Daphnes's wish is not possible.

[sign of table]

First:
How likely is it that there would be the same exact landmarks in a "new" Hyrule as there were in the old one? Death Mountain? Zora's Domain? I mean, sure we know there are those races elsewhere, but not those same exact names for the locations. Link and Tetra knew nothing
about these locations. They knew nothing about old Hyrule. Neither did anyone above, living on the Great Sea, except for Daphnes.

Keeping that in mind, when we look to ALttP, we see many things that are similar to that of OoT. A Kakariko Village, the Lost Woods, Death Mountain, Zora's Domain, Lake Hylia... Daphnes never sat Link or Tetra down and told them the history of Hyrule. And no one above the sea knew anything about it either. So its very unlikely that most of their locations, customs, and names for areas just randomly ended up being close to exactly the same.

Second:
The Master Sword's location gives a big hint to the timleine, I believe. In ALttP, it held the MS. In TP, the MS was still where it had been back in OoT: In the ToT, but now the ToT had fallen apart over time and the "Lost Woods" had began to grow around it/within it. When you put OoT next to TP, then ALttP after, and look at the locations of the MS in each of those, you can clearly see the pattern.

Conclusion: I don't see how it makes more sense for those games to go on the AT. Actually I don't place LttP on the AT for a few of those reasons (and a few more). However games like LoZ/AoL (maybe even OoX) are not affected by those points.

The AoL BS can work on the AT. The towns are named after the sages, according to Aonuma. AoL takes place "after the events of OoT" according to that Aonuma interview last year. Looking at the AoL map (lolgeography... but still) it's clearly very water based.

There really isn't anything hinting towards a CT placement of LoZ/AoL... except a 1991 box, which people from Nintendo have already said was wrong.

Just so you know my kinda stance on the timeline (it's not set at all, but this is what I think to have the most evidence/logic):
----TWW/PH-LoZ/AoL
OoT
----MM-TP-FS/FSA-LttP

With TMC either going before OoT, or after TP. LA going after LttP or OoX. And OoX going after LoZ/AoL or LttP. Mostly leaning towards OoX being after LoZ/AoL (just contemplating how important Twinrova might be). But pretty much completely neutral on LAs and TMCs placement.

[MrMosley]

The AoL BS can work on the AT. The towns are named after the sages, according to Aonuma. AoL takes place "after the events of OoT" according to that Aonuma interview last year. Looking at the AoL map (lolgeography... but still) it's clearly very water based.

I pretty much agree with this.


There really isn't anything hinting towards a CT placement of LoZ/AoL... except a 1991 box, which people from Nintendo have already said was wrong.

Well, we already addressed that issue. ALttP works very well as a prequel. Better, in my opinion, than anywhere else. Because it gives Ganon, Hyrule, and the Triforce an origin. Which is what I believe the game was obviously aiming to do.

Anyway, I can understand your logic. I see how LoZ/AoL could work on the AT. But the problem is that LoZ and AoL have very little information to them. They have very little, and confusing, backstories. AoL's in particular basically states two important things: The King of Hyrule ruled with the Triforce, and the original Zelda was put in a sleeping spell, thus every Zelda after her would be named Zelda. And we know, or at least can obviously see, how this wouldn't work taking place before the other games.

But just as much as the AoL BS an fit on the AT, it could fit on the CT just as well. No one knows of this "first-gen Zelda".

~Our Reasonings~

*You, Sign, speculate that she could be the first Zelda of a new Hyrule. I could say that she is a Zelda that was born sometime after OoX. It fits both ways.

*You have Aonuma's quote to go by, where the towns in AoL were named after Sages that ONLY existed on the AT.

*My question for that is, what about the other towns? There was Darunia, Ruto, Rauru, and Nabooru that were relative to the Sages (I don't think I left any out there). First, they completely left out Impa. Then, you had Mido and Kasuto. First, Mido was a small annoying Kokiri kid in OoT who had little to no importance, especially like that of a Sages. And Kasuto has never been mentioned as a character in Zelda before, or anyone else for that matter. So, I'm not saying that these locations were necessarily unimportant altogether, but I think they could have been named after important people from Hyrule's past. That does go against Aonuma's quote, but its an idea at least. Darunia was the leader of the Gorons. Ruto was the princess of the Zora tribe. I don't recall if Nabooru had any major importance of leadership amongst the Gerudo or not. Then Mido was a Kokiri kid. He was, or felt like, he was a leader of sorts amongst that group. Kasuto is out there for me. And Rauru, well I don't know what he did before he was a Sage, but he was the Sage of the Temple of Light, relative to the Temple of Time.

*I have the fact that OoX sets up the BS of AoL better. The Triforce is in Hyrule during and after OoX, as we can see from the intro. That gives us some information to at least know that the Triforce was there; In Hyrule Castle, in fact. That sets up the story perfectly for the king to rule with the Triforce, seeing as how its settin in a castle which he controls, in a land that he has dominion over. On your side, all this could happen sometime after WW/PH, but on my side, we actually see parts of it happening already on the CT.

*You have the fact that AoL's version of Hyrule is greatly water-based. NOT meaning that Hyrule was un-flooded, because you too believe that this cannot happen, but because it was likely that the new Hyrule was found on another island or group of islands which would, of course, be surrounded by a lot of water.

*My geographical points look to landmarks in LoZ/AoL's Hyrule, relative to landmarks present in ALttP, OoT, and TP's Hyrule. Places like Death Mountain are present, as well as Spectacle Rock, a place in Death Mountain that apparently shows up ALttP and I have heard is somewhere in OoT or TP as well. Spectacle Rock, of course, shows up in LoZ/AoL's Hyrule as well. Now I have never heard of the location in ALttP being referred to as THE Spectacle Rock, and I have never seen a location that would be Spectacle Rock in OoT or TP (I read this info on Zelda Wiki), but I do have the fact that it is very well known in LoZ.

~Then, in WW, you have Spectacle Island, which is quite obviously the tips of Spectacle Rock, which we seen in LoZ. And again, I will go back to the idea before, which was that anyone who made it to new Hyrule would have little to no information about the old Hyrule, especially the specific names of its landmarks. Thus, it is VERY unlikely that the new Hyrule would have a location called Death Mountain. It is even more unlikely that a specific spot in this location would be named Spectacle Rock in a new land. Since it is obvious that Spectacle Island is part of Spectacle Rock in old Hyrule, which is now flooded and gone, it makes it very difficult to believe the same location could show up and be named the same in a new Hyrule.

[sign of table]

Well, we already addressed that issue. ALttP works very well as a prequel. Better, in my opinion, than anywhere else. Because it gives Ganon, Hyrule, and the Triforce an origin. Which is what I believe the game was obviously aiming to do. Ganon is killed. The Hyrule thing is a point. Might need to wait for STs release to be positive on that one :P (I'm not saying that ST has any REAL place in this argument. Just noting that it shows that Nintendo isn't against the idea of a new Hyrule)

But there isn't anything preventing a new Hyrule. And the Triforce is given an origin by OoT anyway.
But just as much as the AoL BS an fit on the AT, it could fit on the CT just as well. No one knows of this "first-gen Zelda". You're saying royalty is wrong on who the Zelda is, and why everyone else is called Zelda?

There actually IS an explanation that works on the CT. It just requires a certain interpretation on the texts that I find unlikely. I wanna see if you can figure it out on your own :P
First, they completely left out Impa. It'd be pretty wierd if there was an Impa town and an alive Impa (remember, the old lady who tells you the story is called Impa).
*My question for that is, what about the other towns? There was Darunia, Ruto, Rauru, and Nabooru that were relative to the Sages (I don't think I left any out there). First, they completely left out Impa. Then, you had Mido and Kasuto. First, Mido was a small annoying Kokiri kid in OoT who had little to no importance, especially like that of a Sages. And Kasuto has never been mentioned as a character in Zelda before, or anyone else for that matter. So, I'm not saying that these locations were necessarily unimportant altogether, but I think they could have been named after important people from Hyrule's past. That does go against Aonuma's quote, but its an idea at least. Darunia was the leader of the Gorons. Ruto was the princess of the Zora tribe. I don't recall if Nabooru had any major importance of leadership amongst the Gerudo or not. Then Mido was a Kokiri kid. He was, or felt like, he was a leader of sorts amongst that group. Kasuto is out there for me. And Rauru, well I don't know what he did before he was a Sage, but he was the Sage of the Temple of Light, relative to the Temple of Time. 2 things: 1) I can understand taking what Miyamoto says with a grain of salt, I used to. But you're saying that the Aonuma quote from less than a year ago (like 10 months ago) is wrong. Trying to come up with in-game evidence against his 10 months old quote is just pointless, imo. It'd be like trying to disprove the split timeline (which, funnily enough, is only supported by developer quotes. There's actually a quote in TWW which is evidence AGAINST the split timeline).
*I have the fact that OoX sets up the BS of AoL better. The Triforce is in Hyrule during and after OoX, as we can see from the intro. That gives us some information to at least know that the Triforce was there; In Hyrule Castle, in fact. That sets up the story perfectly for the king to rule with the Triforce, seeing as how its settin in a castle which he controls, in a land that he has dominion over. On your side, all this could happen sometime after WW/PH, but on my side, we actually see parts of it happening already on the CT. The Triforce is seen flying away from Hyrule at the end of OoX, by the way. I'm actually unsure what your timeline is, so I can't really follow up on this until I know :P
*My geographical points look to landmarks in LoZ/AoL's Hyrule, relative to landmarks present in ALttP, OoT, and TP's Hyrule. Places like Death Mountain are present, as well as Spectacle Rock, a place in Death Mountain that apparently shows up ALttP and I have heard is somewhere in OoT or TP as well. Spectacle Rock, of course, shows up in LoZ/AoL's Hyrule as well. Now I have never heard of the location in ALttP being referred to as THE Spectacle Rock, and I have never seen a location that would be Spectacle Rock in OoT or TP (I read this info on Zelda Wiki), but I do have the fact that it is very well known in LoZ. It's Hebra mountain in the Japanese version. Death Mountain in the Japanese version of LttP is ONLY in the Dark World.

Meh one rock that looks similar. I could argue OoT-LttP based purely off of geography (since the maps look damn near identical). Or even OoX/LA (Holodrum is scarily similar to Koholint). I really, really dislike geography. Anyone from ZU who knows me knows I hate geography used as evidence. It's so literal, and so based off of original intent.
~Then, in WW, you have Spectacle Island, which is quite obviously the tips of Spectacle Rock, which we seen in LoZ. And again, I will go back to the idea before, which was that anyone who made it to new Hyrule would have little to no information about the old Hyrule, especially the specific names of its landmarks. Thus, it is VERY unlikely that the new Hyrule would have a location called Death Mountain. It is even more unlikely that a specific spot in this location would be named Spectacle Rock in a new land. Since it is obvious that Spectacle Island is part of Spectacle Rock in old Hyrule, which is now flooded and gone, it makes it very difficult to believe the same location could show up and be named the same in a new Hyrule. Death Mountain was only in the Dark World of LttP (and OoT, but you think it went OoT-LttP-LoZ originally. Which would've made just as little sense (Death Mountain > Hebra Mountain > Death Mountain again for utterly no reason). Geography is pointless, imo. It's one of my few opinions that has never changed.

So it's:

Spectacle Rock (lolgeography)
vs
Oceany land (lolgeography)
The AoL BS working in full
A quote from Aonuma saying that the town names are named after the sages
And in that same interview saying that AoL takes place "after the events of OoT". The only events that really happened in OoT was the AT version.

[MrMosley]

But you are completely ignoring the name deal, Sign. I'm not necessarily talking about Spectacle Rock or Death Mountain in ALttP; I'm talking about it in LoZ.

When you look at WW, Spectacle Island was obviously based off of Spectacle Rock, which is in LoZ. This was located in Death Mountain, in LoZ. The island's look, and the fact that WW's islands were said to be the "mountain" tops of the places in Hyrule, without a doubt mean that this island was the tip of that location. I personally don't like using geography either, as far as saying "well this lake is here in this game and now its here and that's impossible so...". But when your talking about two places with similar names and a reason for them being the same exact location, then you have something to go on.

So obviously, if Hyrule was flooded in WW (which it was), the top of Spectacle Rock would now be Spectacle Island (which it is). This is not necessarily a "small" thing, because Nintendo themselves named it that for a reason, an obvious one. These locations are one in the same, and LoZ cannot come after WW in a new place when you have a location that virtually couldn't exist twice, with the same name, in a new land, AND because Hyrule is flooded. Them naming that island was basically saying "Okay, lets show that this familiar location is now where this island is." And that is just as good of a piece of evidence showing Hyrule in LoZ is gone in WW as a quote from Aonuma saying that the towns were named after a few Sages, in my opinion. Because whether we actually heard Aonuma say that they named Spectacle Island after Spectacle Rock or not, we obviously know that's why it was done.

[sign of table]

^Then would you say that TWW referencing things that happened in MM is evidence enough to disprove the split timeline?

Also, I don't recall the quote in TWW saying that the islands are Hyrule's mountaintops. Can you show me the quote?

Frankly, though, I don't give a damn about geography. It's so literal, it just doesn't work. And it changes so often it's impossible to make a good geographic comparison. And it has NOTHING at all to do with the story of the game.

Also, if names of islands and such are oh-so very important, what about the Maze Island in PH? Remember, there's a maze island in AoL.

[MrMosley]

^Then would you say that TWW referencing things that happened in MM is evidence enough to disprove the split timeline?

I'm not sure. I haven't ever seen this quote. I know you keep mentioning it a bunch of times, but it would be helpful if you would actually show us the exact quote.


Also, I don't recall the quote in TWW saying that the islands are Hyrule's mountaintops. Can you show me the quote?

Daphnes (King of Hyrule)
Hyrule was turned into a world of shadows by Ganon, who sought to obtain the power of the gods for his own evil ends. My power alone could not stop the fiend, and our only choice was to leave the fate of the kingdom in the hands of the gods... When the gods heard our pleas, they chose to seal away not only Ganon, but Hyrule itself... and so, with a torrential downpour of rains from the heavens... Our fair kingdom was soon buried beneath the waves, forgotten at the bottom of the ocean. Yet all was not lost. For the gods knew that to seal away the people with the kingdom would be to grant Ganon's wish for the destruction of the land. So, before the sealing of the kingdom, the gods chose those who would build a new country and commanded them to take refuge on the mountaintops.


Frankly, though, I don't give a damn about geography. It's so literal, it just doesn't work. And it changes so often it's impossible to make a good geographic comparison. And it has NOTHING at all to do with the story of the game.

As I said, general geographical locations aren't very helpful or very important sense they vary so much. But when you take a very specific location, and name an island specifically after it because THAT island is supposed to be the top of that location, then it becomes important. The more specific geography gets in the games, the more important it is. This piece of geography is more important than say, two lakes both named Lake Hylia, or Hyrule Field in old Hyrule and a potential Hyrule Field in a new Hyrule.


Also, if names of islands and such are oh-so very important, what about the Maze Island in PH? Remember, there's a maze island in AoL.

"Maze Island" is a general name. Plus, we already know that PH isn't set in Hyrule. That holds no importance. But saying that: Here's a country, buried beneath the sea, where the people now live on the tops of its mountains, one of which is now called Spectacle Island, named after Spectacle Rock, a place in the buried country... Is much more important.

[Zemen125]

I'm not sure. I haven't ever seen this quote. I know you keep mentioning it a bunch of times, but it would be helpful if you would actually show us the exact quote.

I don't think that this is what SoJ is referring to (which I would love to see which quote he is referring to) but in WW, on Phantom Ganon's sword, there is some Hylian writing on it and if you translate the Hylian writing then you will see 2 names.

Zubora Gabora

That is what his sword says, and those are the names of the Terminian blacksmiths in MM so this suggests that those 2 blacksmiths made Phantom Ganon's sword, even though we have only ever seen their presence on the complete opposite side of the timeline.

[MrMosley]

I don't think that this is what SoJ is referring to (which I would love to see which quote he is referring to) but on Phantom Ganon's sword there is some Hylian writing on it and if you translate the Hylian writing then you will see 2 names.

Zubora Gabora

That is what his sword says, and those are the names of the Terminian blacksmiths in MM so this suggests that those 2 blacksmiths made Phantom Ganon's sword, even though we have only ever seen their presence on the complete opposite side of the timeline.

If that's the reason, then that's a dumb reason. Its not like Zelda players know how to read Hylian unless they study it, and the creators aren't going to make something as deep-rooted as that. That's like suggesting that Phantom Ganon rolled up in Termina and was like, "Hey guyz. Make me a sword."

I did find one quote in the game (WW) that was Daphnes, talking about the Hero of Time had to leave Hyrule for another adventure, which caused the Triforce of Courage to leave him. Its when he is telling how the ToC split in eight parts. Now when read, that would seem like the King is referring to Link going to Termina, which I'm sure he lost the Triforce as a kid whenever he went there too. But its not specific to say that. And Young Link wasn't really the Hero of Time. Whenever Adult Link went back in time, he obviously didn't take the ToC with him. The fact that it shows on the back of his hand as Young Link in the last scene plays in my theory that Ganondorf actually did enter the SR on the CT, but that's another discussion.

Anyway, that's the only quote I know of that would seem like it was talking about Link going to Termina. But it could just as well mean that he went back in time, which he did. That's why he wasn't around when Ganon came back.

[sign of table]

I'm not sure. I haven't ever seen this quote. I know you keep mentioning it a bunch of times, but it would be helpful if you would actually show us the exact quote. No it's not Zubora Gabora. The Legend of the Fairy. It's part of the Tingle quests. It talks about Tingle meeting Link in MM, which is impossible with a split timeline. I'm too lazy to get the quote, but you can find the translation on the ZI translation thread which lists 'em all (I made a link in my crappy translation thread here).
Daphnes (King of Hyrule) Uhm... nothing in that quote says that the mountaintops are islands now. Just that people fled to the mountains.
"Maze Island" is a general name. Plus, we already know that PH isn't set in Hyrule. That holds no importance. But saying that: Here's a country, buried beneath the sea, where the people now live on the tops of its mountains, one of which is now called Spectacle Island, named after Spectacle Rock, a place in the buried country... Is much more important. You're suggesting that if there is a new Hyrule they put it right on top of the old? The land of PH could be the land of AoL.

By the way, here's the dictionary.com definition of "spectacle":

anything presented to the sight or view, esp. something of a striking or impressive kind: The stars make a fine spectacle tonight.

Umm... Spectacle Island is just as "general" as Maze Island.

[Zemen125]

Uhm... nothing in that quote says that the mountaintops are islands now. Just that people fled to the mountains.

The Gods chose people and told them to flee to the mountain tops because the Gods were going to flood the land. Anyone with half a brain knows that the reason that the survivors chosen were told to go to the mountain tops is so they would not drown in the flood. Why wouldn't they drown in the flood? Because the mountain tops would not be covered. If all other land has been flooded other than the mountain tops, then what do you suppose the islands are? Probably those same mountain tops. That quote doesn't straight up say that the mountain tops are the islands but it's not hard to see how heavily suggested it is.

Are you suggesting that the islands just magically appeared?


You're suggesting that if there is a new Hyrule they put it right on top of the old? The land of PH could be the land of AoL.

By the way, here's the dictionary.com definition of "spectacle":

anything presented to the sight or view, esp. something of a striking or impressive kind: The stars make a fine spectacle tonight.

Umm... Spectacle Island is just as "general" as Maze Island.

If there was once a place called spectacle rock, and then the world floods and spectacle rock is covered, and there is an island over the land that once had a spectacle rock that is called spectacle island, then that's probably a good indication that spectacle island was part of spectacle rock.

[sign of table]

The Gods chose people and told them to flee to the mountain tops because the Gods were going to flood the land. Anyone with half a brain knows that the reason that the survivors chosen were told to go to the mountain tops is so they would not drown in the flood. Why wouldn't they drown in the flood? Because the mountain tops would not be covered. If all other land has been flooded other than the mountain tops, then what do you suppose the islands are? Probably those same mountain tops. That quote doesn't straight up say that the mountain tops are the islands but it's not hard to see how heavily suggested it is.

Are you suggesting that the islands just magically appeared? I was tired... sue me :P
If there was once a place called spectacle rock, and then the world floods and spectacle rock is covered, and there is an island over the land that once had a spectacle rock that is called spectacle island, then that's probably a good indication that spectacle island was part of spectacle rock. Or maybe the island is just a spectacle to see.

There's no way in freaken hell that an island with a similar generic name is more important than a quote from Aonuma saying that the towns of AoL are named after the sages (which are only awakened in the AT), and the same interview says that AoL takes place "after the events of OoT" (the only events in OoT were the AT ones), another island with a generic name (Maze Island). Oh and the only possible way the AoL BS can work in full.

Also, after the flood how would they remember what Spectacle Rock was called?

Is Spectacle Rock your only evidence?

[Zemen125]

and the same interview says that AoL takes place "after the events of OoT" (the only events in OoT were the AT ones)

I don't like how you worded this. You're making it sound like that the only important parts of OoT were the adult parts. If AoL is said to take place after the events of OoT, then that could mean either the adult or child ending. You're making it sound like it's only possible for that to mean it goes after the adult ending. You're acting like it can ONLY mean the adult ending because that's where the only events occurred, and that is not only completely false, but that is completely biased (as that is your opinion).

Link went through the GDT dungeon, Jabu Jabu dungeon, Dodongos Cavern dungeon and part of the Spirit Temple all as a kid. He also, as a kid, saved the Zora princess and saved their beloved Jabu Jabu. Sounds to me like there were a lot of events that occurred in the CT portion of the game. To say otherwise is complete disregard for the game as a whole.

[Raven]

young link also finds the lens of truth in the well and sells masks for the mask trader.


You're suggesting that if there is a new Hyrule they put it right on top of the old? The land of PH could be the land of AoL.

And no phantom hourglass is not AoL flooded, u must be comfused. in phantom hourglass we never see below the ocean so your just saying random stuff PH is somewhere on the great sea but you can't just locate it without knowing what your talking about.

also in WW there is clear evidence that the mountains of hyrule are now islands, we get to go under the water and see that hyrule is beneath the great sea. the islands above may be different from what we know but the sea has expanded beyond just hyrule so some of the islands are probably mountains from the surrounding regions.

[sign of table]

Link went through the GDT dungeon, Jabu Jabu dungeon, Dodongos Cavern dungeon and part of the Spirit Temple all as a kid. He also, as a kid, saved the Zora princess and saved their beloved Jabu Jabu. Sounds to me like there were a lot of events that occurred in the CT portion of the game. To say otherwise is complete disregard for the game as a whole. Just because he did all that as a kid doesn't mean it all happened on the CT. Explain why after Zelda sends you back, the kid Zelda makes that gasp that you ONLY see at the very end, and when you first meet her. She never makes that gasp any time except for the first time you meet her.

Considering it says that immediatly after saying that the town names of AoL are named after the sages of OoT (they are ONLY sages on the AT), I'd say that the quote is clear enough based on the context.
And no phantom hourglass is not AoL flooded, u must be comfused. in phantom hourglass we never see below the ocean so your just saying random stuff PH is somewhere on the great sea but you can't just locate it without knowing what your talking about. What? We never see below the ocean? What does that have to do with new Hyrule?

[MrMosley]

No it's not Zubora Gabora. The Legend of the Fairy. It's part of the Tingle quests. It talks about Tingle meeting Link in MM, which is impossible with a split timeline. I'm too lazy to get the quote, but you can find the translation on the ZI translation thread which lists 'em all (I made a link in my crappy translation thread here).

Well laziness doesn't quite cut it, bub. I was active enough to find a quote, so you can bring me one if you want to use it as evidence. If it was part of the Tingle quests, I don't remember it. Unless your talking about the ones that you have to have the GBA to do or something. In that case, I never even played those parts of the game.


There's no way in freaken hell that an island with a similar generic name is more important than a quote from Aonuma saying that the towns of AoL are named after the sages (which are only awakened in the AT), and the same interview says that AoL takes place "after the events of OoT" (the only events in OoT were the AT ones), another island with a generic name (Maze Island).

Actually it is just as important in my opinion, which I explained above. If Aonuma wrote the game, wrote the storyline for the game, he obviously took part in naming the islands. Thus, Aonuma himself made it so clear the Spectacle Island was the top of Spectacle Rock, just as he made the aspect of the towns being named after the Sages clear when he quoted it.

And its actually probably more important seeing as how Aonuma didn't even take part in AoL OR OoT, but he did in WW. I could see the guy who made the story of WW relating an island to a previous game, but he is saying that they made OoT's "Sages" to be named after the towns in AoL. He didn't take part in either of those games, so how does he know that they were naming them after only the Sages? Remember, Kasuto and Mido were not sages.


Also, after the flood how would they remember what Spectacle Rock was called?

They don't have to. Of course, I could say that the inhabitants that fled to that particular island named it after what it was before. But I could just as well say that the inhabitants of AoL's verison of Hyrule would have no way of remembering the Sages names, so how could they name towns after it? Its failed logic to leave things like that up to the people when its obvious that the developers done it that way.

[sign of table]

Well laziness doesn't quite cut it, bub. I was active enough to find a quote, so you can bring me one if you want to use it as evidence. If it was part of the Tingle quests, I don't remember it. Unless your talking about the ones that you have to have the GBA to do or something. In that case, I never even played those parts of the game. I didn't feel like going through that 50 page monstrosity on LA looking for the translation, and ZU was down so I couldn't get a link to the translation. But ZU's back up now... so here it is:


Well laziness doesn't quite cut it, bub. I was active enough to find a quote, so you can bring me one if you want to use it as evidence. If it was part of the Tingle quests, I don't remember it. Unless your talking about the ones that you have to have the GBA to do or something. In that case, I never even played those parts of the game.

It is said that the "Hero of Time" met this fairy in the midst of his journey. When he lost sight of the road, it gave the fairy a reason to show its figure in front of the hero. By a mysterious art it was floating in the air, it is said that the balloon burst with a sound just like with a snap, and it is said that it fell and danced.

The fairy handed a map to the lost hero and it is said that it flew away. The fairy proceeded to dangerous places earlier than the hero, created maps and handed them over. The legend goes on, the Hero of Time was saved by the courageous one, the plump figure, whenever he proceeded.

Fairies live for a time of thousands of years, but this mysterious fairy was a bit different. The mysterious fairy was born near a lake, when he met the Hero of Time he was only 35 years young. Today, people knowing such a fairy have become sparse.

Now, there are few people knowing the legend of the mysterious fairy. However, on a certain island the 35th birthday is still celebrated with green clothes and red pants. And they pray to become like the fairy of the legend, "Tincle". And, yes... his name is (or was...?) Tincle in the Japanese version lol

But that's in TWW, and it refers to MM. Only possible in a linear timeline.
Actually it is just as important in my opinion, which I explained above. If Aonuma wrote the game, wrote the storyline for the game, he obviously took part in naming the islands. Thus, Aonuma himself made it so clear the Spectacle Island was the top of Spectacle Rock, just as he made the aspect of the towns being named after the Sages clear when he quoted it.

And its actually probably more important seeing as how Aonuma didn't even take part in AoL OR OoT, but he did in WW. I could see the guy who made the story of WW relating an island to a previous game, but he is saying that they made OoT's "Sages" to be named after the towns in AoL. He didn't take part in either of those games, so how does he know that they were naming them after only the Sages? Remember, Kasuto and Mido were not sages. So what? They don't all have to be sages. It's the towns that were named after sages that matter.
They don't have to. Of course, I could say that the inhabitants that fled to that particular island named it after what it was before. But I could just as well say that the inhabitants of AoL's verison of Hyrule would have no way of remembering the Sages names, so how could they name towns after it? Its failed logic to leave things like that up to the people when its obvious that the developers done it that way. According to Aonuma, they did remember the names of the sages.

Geography vs geography, the only story in the entire game, and a developer quote

I have more evidence, clearly.

[Zemen125]

I don't think the legend of the fairy points to a linear timeline, as you suggest it could. If it was meant to be the same encounter as in MM then they wouldn't refer to Link as the hero of time. Also, no where does it say in that legend that they were in a different dimension. In fact, the only relevance this legend has with MM is that Tingle made maps and hung from a balloon, everything else has absolutely no match up with MM, so it's possible that this is just some random legend handed down that may not even be true.

Also, how would this legend be passed down after the flood? The legend contradicts itself more than it contradicts a split timeline.

Also, the split wasn't confirmed until AFTER WW was created which means that they probably didn't create the entire game with a split in mind.

[MrMosley]

I didn't feel like going through that 50 page monstrosity on LA looking for the translation, and ZU was down so I couldn't get a link to the translation. But ZU's back up now... so here it is:

And, yes... his name is (or was...?) Tincle in the Japanese version lol

But that's in TWW, and it refers to MM. Only possible in a linear timeline. So what? They don't all have to be sages. It's the towns that were named after sages that matter. According to Aonuma, they did remember the names of the sages.

Geography vs geography, the only story in the entire game, and a developer quote

I have more evidence, clearly.

Not really. You have the theory that a Hyrule could be set up in the way that it was set up in OoX (with the Triforce in Hyrule Castle). What is always beats what could be. You have a developer quote by a developer who didn't have anything to do with either game he was referencing, although he could have been told that the towns were named after the Sages, he didn't make the game. Plus, not all the towns were Sages, and that IS important. You can't just pick and choose this and that and say well this part works but the other part that makes it not work doesn't matter, when all parts are of equal value. In this case, all the towns in AoL are of equal value, and two of them do not match up to Aonuma's quote.

I have the Triforce in Hyrule Castle in OoX (clearly sets up for the AoL BS where the King would rule with the Triforce). I have a location in WW named specifically after a location in LoZ (both locations even look similar from above), which Aonuma DID take part in making (WW). And I have the fact that the towns in AoL could have just as well been named after people of importance in Hyrule, and not just the Sages. I'd say that a guess on that part has value considering Aonuma didn't write or help make OoT or AoL. I could say that the towns make more sense to have been named after various leaders of the tribes of Hyrule at a point in time, and it would work.

So you don't have more evidence. You just believe your evidence of one quote is better than all the things that would make AoL come on the CT.

[ironknuckle1]

I was just think ing that OOx could happen on either side of the timeline because even if Minish cap is on the other side it is a different Link and he doesn't know them also characters from one side of the timeline do appear on the other sides such as Tingle.

and can someone post what the Timeline actually is so far.

[sign of table]

I don't think the legend of the fairy points to a linear timeline, as you suggest it could. If it was meant to be the same encounter as in MM then they wouldn't refer to Link as the hero of time. What would they refer to the Hero of Time as (which has already been referred to many times as the Hero of Time), then?
Also, no where does it say in that legend that they were in a different dimension. In fact, the only relevance this legend has with MM is that Tingle made maps and hung from a balloon, everything else has absolutely no match up with MM, so it's possible that this is just some random legend handed down that may not even be true. Umm... I'll point out the things that match up:

"It is said that the "Hero of Time" met this fairy in the midst of his journey. When he lost sight of the road, it gave the fairy a reason to show its figure in front of the hero. By a mysterious art it was floating in the air, it is said that the balloon burst with a sound just like with a snap, and it is said that it fell and danced." Hell I shouldn't even have to explain this. All of this stuff happened in MM.

"The fairy handed a map to the lost hero and it is said that it flew away. The fairy proceeded to dangerous places earlier than the hero, created maps and handed them over. The legend goes on, the Hero of Time was saved by the courageous one, the plump figure, whenever he proceeded." The first half is exactly what happened in MM. Tingle went to the areas before the HoT and made maps for him there. The HoT being saved by him... ehhh that doesn't fit.

"Fairies live for a time of thousands of years, but this mysterious fairy was a bit different. The mysterious fairy was born near a lake, when he met the Hero of Time he was only 35 years young. Today, people knowing such a fairy have become sparse." Tingle was 35 years old in MM IIRC.

"Now, there are few people knowing the legend of the mysterious fairy. However, on a certain island the 35th birthday is still celebrated with green clothes and red pants. And they pray to become like the fairy of the legend, "Tincle"." There ya go, exactly the same. His name is (or was. I'm not completely sure. They may have only changed it to Tingle in the NoA version, but he most definitely was Tincle in the Japanese version) Tincle/Tingle.

That fits in every single way except for one. It is DEFINITELY talking about the events of MM.

You could say it may not even be true, but every single thing in that story happened in MM (except, maybe, Tingle saving Link. Which, arguably, may have happened in Tingle's eyes if he sees maps as a neccesity).
Also, how would this legend be passed down after the flood? The legend contradicts itself more than it contradicts a split timeline. How could the story of the HoT be passed down, or the other legends mentioned in TWW?
You have a developer quote by a developer who didn't have anything to do with either game he was referencing, although he could have been told that the towns were named after the Sages, Considering he's the current director for Zelda, and he's the one who actually cares about the timeline and is the only one who could release a canon official timeline, I'd say his statements to any of the games matter, as he's the one who chooses where they go.
You can't just pick and choose this and that and say well this part works but the other part that makes it not work doesn't matter, when all parts are of equal value. In this case, all the towns in AoL are of equal value, and two of them do not match up to Aonuma's quote. Does it matter when 2 of them aren't perfect when the other 5 match up and are only named because of the sages which ONLY happened on the AT, according to the only person who could release a canon timeline?
I have the Triforce in Hyrule Castle in OoX (clearly sets up for the AoL BS where the King would rule with the Triforce). So how can the sleeping Zelda be first generation, then?

And explain why you see the Triforce flying AWAY from Hyrule at the end of OoX?
I have a location in WW named specifically after a location in LoZ (both locations even look similar from above), which Aonuma DID take part in making (WW). Aonuma never said that that was significant in the slightest. Whereas he said that AoL takes place after the events of OoT (the majority, if not all, of the events in OoT happened on the AT) and that the towns were named after the sages (they were ONLY sages on the AT. Sure they could have been important people on the CT (I doubt Nabooru, however. I can't imagine that a member of a theif organisation whose leader was executed for invading Hyrule), but they were only SAGES on the AT). And I have the fact that the towns in AoL could have just as well been named after people of importance in Hyrule, and not just the Sages. I'd say that a guess on that part has value considering Aonuma didn't write or help make OoT or AoL. I could say that the towns make more sense to have been named after various leaders of the tribes of Hyrule at a point in time, and it would work. [/quote] Too bad Aonuma, the only person who could really create an official canon timeline, disagrees with you.
So you don't have more evidence. You just believe your evidence of one quote is better than all the things that would make AoL come on the CT. Aonuma disagrees with you. That's enough evidence.

[Raven]

The land of PH could be the land of AoL.
u are wrong because u dont have any hard evidence to back this up, just try and explain this. notice the words you used "COULD". I don't give a blank about new hyrule stop saying random stuff about zelda. did you make the game? NO. so stop pretending like you know something we don't and stick to what you do know which does't seem to be much.
PH is AoL flooded, get real your theories are weak and so are your replies so don't bother, u aren't convincing anyone.

Its called concrete evidence if you dont have it then stop trying.


I was tired... sue me :P
if this is your attitude about trying to cover up your own mistakes then thats just sad.

Plus you should play wind waker again and read the words this time.
If you don't know what im talking about then thats to bad...

[Hayzer]

u are wrong because u dont have any hard evidence to back this up, just try and explain this. notice the words you used "COULD". I don't give a blank about new hyrule stop saying random stuff about zelda. did you make the game? NO. so stop pretending like you know something we don't and stick to what you do know which does't seem to be much.
PH is AoL flooded, get real your theories are weak and so are your replies so don't bother, u aren't convincing anyone.

Actually, he's got some pretty strong evidence concerning the Legend of the Fairy. So not taking that into consideration is just blind ignorance.

@SoJ: You've got some good theories there, but I can also say that the Legend of the Fairy was probably just an easter egg to set off some nostalgia in the fan base. Cameo, easter egg, what have you, that's what it was.

However, you have produced some shockingly good evidence as to how the majority of the games go on the AT. In fact that's what I've been leaning towards recently.


Its called concrete evidence if you dont have it then stop trying.

I don't know how in game quotes aren't concrete.


if this is your attitude about trying to cover up your own mistakes then thats just sad.

Plus you should play wind waker again and read the words this time.
If you don't know what im talking about then thats to bad...

I'm pretty sure he's capable of reading.

[MrMosley]

@SoJ, if your going to come in and use that one specific quote to try and knock all the other evidence, then you are wasting your time. There's no means for discussion in that. I've made other reasons, yet you keep coming back to that one quote as if it is a definite. Remember the Miyamoto Order Quote? Yeah we kinda destroyed that one as well, so.

Now I will admit, the Legend of the Fairy is a very good, and interesting part of WW. But its obviously wrong. There could be many reasons why they put it in there. They could have not planned for a split timeline at the time. They could have suggested that the events of the AT still happened on the CT, sorta like how Back to the Future works. Remember how Marty could go back and forth through time and see himself driving the Delorian back in time? It would have worked something like that. And things would have been fine. That piece of info could have also just been thrown in there for nostalgic reasons, as Zemen stated. The bottom line is, we now know its wrong. And it doesn't help your argument of LoZ/AoL being on the AT at all. So its kinda irrelevant.

But anyway, it is interesting, and I'm glad you posted it here for me to finally read.

And the Triforce "flying away", as you call it at the end of OoX... I highly doubt that has any significance of anything at all.

[sign of table]

u are wrong because u dont have any hard evidence to back this up, 1) A quote from Aonuma is all the evidence I need. 2) That's an argument from ignornance fallacy, by the way.
did you make the game? NO. No, but the person who wrote the story of OoT and the person who directs the series agree with me.
PH is AoL flooded, get real your theories are weak and so are your replies so don't bother, u aren't convincing anyone. Can you please clean up your grammar? I'm having trouble actually understanding everything you say.
if this is your attitude about trying to cover up your own mistakes then thats just sad. Yes... making a mistake is sad and I should burn in hell for it.......
@SoJ: You've got some good theories there, but I can also say that the Legend of the Fairy was probably just an easter egg to set off some nostalgia in the fan base. Cameo, easter egg, what have you, that's what it was.

However, you have produced some shockingly good evidence as to how the majority of the games go on the AT. In fact that's what I've been leaning towards recently. That's part of my point. If it's in-game evidence vs developer quote then developer quote is always more important. Otherwise we'd all have linear timelines...

Funnily enough, I don't place most of my games on the AT :P. The only one I actually consider placing on the AT is LoZ/AoL and maybe OoX.
@SoJ, if your going to come in and use that one specific quote to try and knock all the other evidence, then you are wasting your time. So you're saying that in-game evidence > developer quotes?
I've made other reasons, yet you keep coming back to that one quote as if it is a definite. I'd say it IS definite. It happened in 2008. There hasn't been ANYTHING to retcon it. No way it could be wrong right now.
Remember the Miyamoto Order Quote? Yeah we kinda destroyed that one as well, so. You didn't destroy it. You debated nothing but opinions. OoT-LoZ/AoL-LttP could work. There was NOTHING stopping it. But there was the creator of the series saying that that's the timeline.
But its obviously wrong. Of course it's wrong! Why is it wrong? Because it contradicts developer quotes.
They could have not planned for a split timeline at the time. Other parts of TWW implied a split timeline. And the quotes about the split happened immediatly following the release of TWW. It was clearly intended with the release of TWW.
They could have suggested that the events of the AT still happened on the CT, sorta like how Back to the Future works. Remember how Marty could go back and forth through time and see himself driving the Delorian back in time? It would have worked something like that. And things would have been fine. When TWW was out, however, there WAS a split timeline confirmed by Aonuma and Miyamoto. Which is EXACTLY why the Legend of the Fairy is wrong. Because it contradicted Aonuma (and Miyamoto).
That piece of info could have also just been thrown in there for nostalgic reasons, as Zemen stated. The bottom line is, we now know its wrong. And it doesn't help your argument of LoZ/AoL being on the AT at all. So its kinda irrelevant. Of course we know it's wrong. But we know it's wrong because of more recent developer quotes contradicting it. The Aonuma interview talking about the towns being named after the sages was JUST LAST YEAR. There is NOTHING more recent that contradicts or retcons it. It is the most recent developer quote, and there has not been a Zelda game since. What can we conclude from that based on the logic both you and I used for the Legend of the Fairy story? That it retcons everything previous to it.
And the Triforce "flying away", as you call it at the end of OoX... I highly doubt that has any significance of anything at all. Let's look at the situation from when it was released.

In 1998 the official timeline was OoT-LoZ/AoL-LttP. Whether or not OoT-LttP-LoZ/AoL made more sense (which I'd say it did), the Miyamoto order was the official timeline.

Look at the state of the Triforce in OoX. It's exactly the same as the ending of LoZ/AoL. Look at Ganon's title in OoX. First he's a Daimaou, then he calls himself a Yami no Maou after being resurrected (but everything else in the entire game called him a Daimaou). In LoZ/AoL Ganon is only known as a Daimaou. And in LttP Ganon is only known as a Yami no Maou. Is it me, or does it look like a transitional phase from Daimaou to Yami no Maou?

That is more than LttP-OoX had at the time.

So I'd say it's safe to say that the intended timeline was OoT-LoZ/AoL-OoX-LttP.

Now let's look at the ending of OoX if we assume the above order is correct (yes, I know it's kinda circular logic. But I'd say LoZ/AoL-OoX is much more evidenced. And the Miyamoto order WAS official).

LoZ/AoL happens. The Triforce gets brought together (still seperated, though) by Link. OoX happens. The Triforce is seperated and in the castle. When it ends the Triforce is seens flying away from Hyrule castle.

Now let's step back a bit. Back to 1998. OoT-LoZ/AoL-LttP had something that was a little odd. The Triforce of LttP is in the SR.

Now this may look like a stretch, but assuming OoT-LoZ/AoL-OoX-LttP was correct (the only real thing to argue here is the placement of OoX. Which I'd say definitely fits better after LoZ/AoL) then the Triforce flying away and disappearing likely meant that it was going to the SR.

Of course the theory only works if the Miyamoto order was correct. But the Miyamoto order was the official timeline. So the only real speculation here is the placement of OoX, which is more evidenced, I'd say, to go after LoZ/AoL in 2000, and that the Triforce was going to the SR. But assuming that order was correct, OoX was the only chance in the series to fix the Triforce problem between LoZ/AoL and LttP.



Now I have a very serious question to ask you. I'm having trouble actually figuring out how important developer quotes are to you. You say that the official order of 1998 (and the Aonuma quote heavily implying AoL on the AT from 2008) is wrong, but you say that the split timeline is fact (when it is contradicted by in-game evidence in TWW. Which was the same time that the split was confirmed). So I ask you this:

If they ever made an official timeline and it didn't go with your preconceived beliefs, would you deny it?

[MrMosley]

Now I have a very serious question to ask you. I'm having trouble actually figuring out how important developer quotes are to you. You say that the official order of 1998 (and the Aonuma quote heavily implying AoL on the AT from 2008) is wrong, but you say that the split timeline is fact (when it is contradicted by in-game evidence in TWW. Which was the same time that the split was confirmed). So I ask you this:

If they ever made an official timeline and it didn't go with your preconceived beliefs, would you deny it?

No, I would not. There would still be inconsitancies, but I would not deny an official timeline. I am only pointing out the imperfections in these developers and their stance on timeline-related quotes. Miyamoto was only involved (storyline wise) heavily, in LoZ. After that, he had others to write those stories for him. Knowing that, and understanding that the Miyamoto Order does not make sense in my mind, I don't consider it to be true. Anyone who would play the games in the Miyamoto Order would be confused.

Aonuma didn't start making these games until MM. He made a quote on AoL and OoT, two games that he had nothing to do with. That is a problem on his part. Now, he may have heard or been told that they deliberately named the Sages after some of the towns in AoL to show a connection, but that, we do not know. Does this quote make sense? Sure it does. Are their inconsistencies? Yes there are. Are there other things that are just as important as this quote? I believe so.

I am really taking quite a basic stance on all of this. I have detailed theories, but my logic is pretty basic. Take a look at the games in the eyes of a common gamer; Someone who doesn't know every single minute detail about these games. Playing through them in certain orders would not make sense. If you told them, okay, the timeline is split, then they would be able to make some sense of things.

My approach is taking the games and placing them in a timeline that is detailed and has good reason for being the way it is, yet it is a timeline that would make more sense to a normal gamer or someone who could care less about a timeline debate. Structuring the timeline in such a way that the gamer does not have to stop and say "Wait... This doesn't make sense... Shouldn't this be like this?" is the goal. And as long as the average game knew the split and is aware that not all Link's and Zelda's are the same, I think they could play through them without much of any confusion in the order that we have established thus far.

[sign of table]

Aonuma didn't start making these games until MM. He made a quote on AoL and OoT, two games that he had nothing to do with. That is a problem on his part. So if/when Aonuma releases an official timeline, he isn't allowed to place any of the games from LoZ-OoT any differently than you, or else you'll disregard it?
Now, he may have heard or been told that they deliberately named the Sages after some of the towns in AoL to show a connection, but that, we do not know. Does this quote make sense? Sure it does. Are their inconsistencies? Yes there are. Are there other things that are just as important as this quote? I believe so. He's the only person likely to ever put out an official timeline. If he says that the AoL towns are named after the OoT sages, and that the game takes place after the events of OoT, I'd say it's pretty damn likely that it'll matter to an official timeline.

[MrMosley]

So if/when Aonuma releases an official timeline, he isn't allowed to place any of the games from LoZ-OoT any differently than you, or else you'll disregard it?

I believe you need to try and read an entire post before you start quoting each part.


He's the only person likely to ever put out an official timeline. If he says that the AoL towns are named after the OoT sages, and that the game takes place after the events of OoT, I'd say it's pretty damn likely that it'll matter to an official timeline.

Yeah it would matter, IF we had an official timeline. But we don't. So as of right now, I'm taking better evidence over his word in this one.

[Zemen125]

Well I have been on hiatus for a couple days so now that I see an entire new page has been added in my absence I will start addressing stuff.

@SoJ, I don't think you are quite understanding what DL01 is saying. There is no official timeline as of yet. You are trying to argue stuff that would matter if we had an official timeline, but we don't have one so we can only go on our own opinions mixed with in game evidence and creator quotes. If one creator quote is contradicted by a slew of in game evidence then I would personally go with the in game evidence which is what DL01 is trying to tell you. You would go with the creator quote and that's fine because that is your choice, but that's not our choice.

I know you hate this argument but you said that if a creator quote contradicted in game evidence then you would go with the creator quote. This leads back to the whole "If Miyamoto told us Link never existed and his name is Fred, you would believe him and Link would cease to exist to you" argument. The games always stay the same unless they are retconned. If we have multiple pieces of evidence against AoL on the adult timeline then it probably doesn't go on the adult timeline. The games never change, is my point. Developers can always change what they say.

Today Aunouma says that AoL towns are named after sages. Tomorrow he could say they were named after important people in Hylian history. The point is that no matter what he says, he can change his mind but the games don't magically change to fit what they say. If Miyamoto says Link doesn't exist, he's wrong unless they retcon every game and change Link's name to Fred.

Long story short is that to an extent, creator quotes are very important, but if the game contradicts a creator quote more than it fits with one, then the creator quote is probably wrong.

Also, stop using that part of the quote where Aunouma says that AoL takes place after the events of OoT. That could literally go either way. You're interpreting it one way when other people can interpret it a different way. It's your OPINION that it refers to the adult portion of OoT, but that doesn't mean you're right. The only part of that quote that is clear is when he says that the AoL towns are named after the sages of OoT.

Also, the name of every town is important. If 2 towns don't match up with what Aunouma says that we can't just disregard them and say they aren't important. If the name of one town matters, then the name of all of the towns matter. We have 2 towns named after people who were not important at all. In fact, how would anyone even know who Mido is? I thought the Kokiri were cut off from the rest of the world and I doubt that Link would say anything good about him that would make him worthy of having a town named after him later on in history.

Putting AoL on the AT would mean there was a new Hyrule. How would the history of Hyrule be passed down and how would traditions and names be the same as stuff that was supposed to be forgotten on the AT? You have yet to explain that.

[sign of table]

I believe you need to try and read an entire post before you start quoting each part. Some of what you said I didn't have a comment for. So I quoted the first thing that I found important.
Yeah it would matter, IF we had an official timeline. But we don't. So as of right now, I'm taking better evidence over his word in this one. In 1998 we DID have an official timeline. But you say that the Miyamoto official timeline has always been wrong. I assume you'll disregard any official timeline we get if it goes against your preconceived opinions.
I know you hate this argument but you said that if a creator quote contradicted in game evidence then you would go with the creator quote. This leads back to the whole "If Miyamoto told us Link never existed and his name is Fred, you would believe him and Link would cease to exist to you" argument. The games always stay the same unless they are retconned. If we have multiple pieces of evidence against AoL on the adult timeline then it probably doesn't go on the adult timeline. The games never change, is my point. Developers can always change what they say. And if I began to float upwards one day the theory of gravity would be wrong; so the theory of gravity is untrustworthy. See how ridiculous that is?

The games can't change, yes, but the intent behind those games CAN change.
Today Aunouma says that AoL towns are named after sages. Tomorrow he could say they were named after important people in Hylian history. So WHAT if that could change one day? It was confirmed in '98 and it was confirmed in '08. Nothing more recent has come since then so it hasn't been retconned, so RIGHT NOW (not a later time. Since we aren't theorizing about what the timeline could be in a couple years) it is safe to say that the towns are named after the sages.
If Miyamoto says Link doesn't exist, he's wrong unless they retcon every game and change Link's name to Fred. And if Miyamoto is adamant on Link being Fred he would likely retcon all the times Link is mentioned and replace that with Fred for every rerelease. But Miyamoto isn't a pyshco.
Also, stop using that part of the quote where Aunouma says that AoL takes place after the events of OoT. That could literally go either way. You're interpreting it one way when other people can interpret it a different way. It's your OPINION that it refers to the adult portion of OoT, but that doesn't mean you're right. The only part of that quote that is clear is when he says that the AoL towns are named after the sages of OoT. When did I ever say I'm right when referring to the part about AoL taking place after the events of OoT? I was only stating the facts and/or voicing an opinion.

The facts are that it DID say that it takes place after the events of OoT, and the majority of the events, if not all of them, take place on the AT. I see nothing wrong or opinionated with that except for me saying that maybe all of the events take place on the AT. That's the ONLY opinion I gave, and I in no way voiced it as fact.


Why does what could happen in the future matter so much? A personal timeline isn't meant to be infallible or good forever (look at the linearists). It's supposed to be a timeline based on what makes sense from RIGHT NOW. RIGHT NOW nothing at all more recent than Aonuma's quote has said that the towns of AoL can't be named after the sages.
If the name of one town matters, then the name of all of the towns matter. If my thumb is important, my pinky is equally important. If the second-to-last chapter of the Harry Potter series is important, the 7th chapter of the second book is equally important to the progression of the story. If using Meta Knight(of SSBB)'s Down Smash to kill is important to playing well, then Meta Knight's jab is just as important for killing as his Down Smash.

See the problems in those? I place much less importance on my pinky as I do my thumb (of course I like both :P, but my thumb is much more used and is... well more useful and important). The 7th chapter of the second book of Harry Potter has much less emphasis, and is much less important to the outcome of the story as the second-to-last chapter of the entire series is. Meta Knight's Down Smash is good, his jab is freaken awful. No emphasis or importance was ever placed upon the towns of Mido and Kasuto, whereas the other 5 were given importance by developer quotes twice (the most recent one being just last year with nothing possible retconning it or the intent behind the quote).
Putting AoL on the AT would mean there was a new Hyrule. How would the history of Hyrule be passed down and how would traditions and names be the same as stuff that was supposed to be forgotten on the AT? You have yet to explain that. In the room with the MS in TWW there are portraits of all of the sages. For all we know it could have happened because of those.

The point is that Aonuma said that it happens. Nothing blatently contradicts it. It's a stretch to think up any explanation for how it works, but nothing makes it wrong. And when the current director says that the towns are named after the sages, while nothing contradicts it, then it is correct. Your analogy doesn't even apply here; because Aonuma ISN'T contradicted. His statement works fine; it just don't agree with your preconceived opinions on the placement of AoL. That doesn't make it wrong.

[Zemen125]

If my thumb is important, my pinky is equally important. If the second-to-last chapter of the Harry Potter series is important, the 7th chapter of the second book is equally important to the progression of the story. If using Meta Knight(of SSBB)'s Down Smash to kill is important to playing well, then Meta Knight's jab is just as important for killing as his Down Smash.

See the problems in those? I place much less importance on my pinky as I do my thumb (of course I like both :P, but my thumb is much more used and is... well more useful and important). The 7th chapter of the second book of Harry Potter has much less emphasis, and is much less important to the outcome of the story as the second-to-last chapter of the entire series is. Meta Knight's Down Smash is good, his jab is freaken awful. No emphasis or importance was ever placed upon the towns of Mido and Kasuto, whereas the other 5 were given importance by developer quotes twice (the most recent one being just last year with nothing possible retconning it or the intent behind the quote).

Worst argument I have ever seen. You're comparing body parts and books to the names of towns in a video games. First of all, our bodies are not created the same way as a video game. God isn't going to come down from the heavens and say "your thumb is called so because it is named after an ancient sage but your pinky doesn't matter because it's not."

You are also comparing 1 chapter in a book to the entire series. I am comparing one town to another. See the difference? At least the things I'm comparing are essentially the same thing. Like comparing one basketball to another or like comparing one thumb to your other thumb. You're making drastic comparisons and trying to make it work with my comparison of 2 things that are the same. It's not working.

All of the towns are the same exact thing in AoL. They are just towns from an old game. The game was not created so that some towns are more important than others. The only thing that gave the "sage" towns importance was Aunouma focusing on them. Until he said anything about it, they were all equal. The fact that there are 2 towns named after completely unimportant name is important. As DL01 said earlier, you can't say that one town is important but the other isn't just because Aunouma didn't say anything about it. They are all towns. They are the same basic thing with different names. To say that those 2 aren't important is just ignorant.


In the room with the MS in TWW there are portraits of all of the sages. For all we know it could have happened because of those.

I must have missed the part where their names were also encased on the stain glass windows. Also, I don't believe Link was ever told that the windows depicted sages.


The point is that Aonuma said that it happens. Nothing blatently contradicts it.

Really? Nothing blatantly contradicts it?

How about the fact that in WW, Link and Tetra were told to find a new land? How about the fact that Hyrule was flooded and no one knows any history of Hyrule (kind of weird that AoL Hyrule would be a lot like a previously lost Hyrule)? How about the fact that you even said that in the Japanese version of the game, the king wished for Hyrule to be erased? When something is erased it usually means it disappears. Kind of hard for this new Hyrule that you are suggesting to be EXACTLY like the old one when the old one was supposed to be "erased"

That all contradicts it.

[MrMosley]

I assume you'll disregard any official timeline we get if it goes against your preconceived opinions.

Okay, so even though I told you in two separate posts that I would not disregard an official timeline, you still say that you assume I would? Then why even ask me? Why are you wasting both of our time by asking if your preconcieved notions about my opinion aren't going to change either way? That's kinda retarded.

Also, I'm not going to say "Oh yeah I believe that developer quote because its is a developer quote", just to not seem like a n00b to you. Its like Zemen said, if you want to believe developer quotes that have more in-game evidence to contradict them, then go ahead. But personally, I'll take the more knowledgable way out. I'd rather make a better educated guess by using more facts than just disregarding everything for a developer quote that doesn't much help the situation at the moment.


It's supposed to be a timeline based on what makes sense from RIGHT NOW. RIGHT NOW nothing at all more recent than Aonuma's quote has said that the towns of AoL can't be named after the sages. If my thumb is important, my pinky is equally important. If the second-to-last chapter of the Harry Potter series is important, the 7th chapter of the second book is equally important to the progression of the story.

The problems in those is that they aren't all of equal value. Your picking things that vary amongst their importance. I don't read Harry Potter books, but most of everything you came up with is pretty unequal. A posable thumb is more important than a finger that can't do much. A town name is a town name. No one town is more important than the next in AoL. In just about every one, you meet an old woman to restore your magic, a young woman to restore health, and find an important item or learn a spell. It doesn't matter if any emphasis was put on Mido or Kasuto from an interview because that just means the interview was a half-hearted effort to explain something that did not get explained all that well.

If two out of however many towns do not match up, then there is an inconsistency. You cannot disregard two towns and consider the rest or you are being biased on the fact that they are all important, just to cling on to your Aonuma quote. That is biased, and it doesn't work.


The point is that Aonuma said that it happens. Nothing blatently contradicts it. It's a stretch to think up any explanation for how it works, but nothing makes it wrong. And when the current director says that the towns are named after the sages, while nothing contradicts it, then it is correct. Your analogy doesn't even apply here; because Aonuma ISN'T contradicted. His statement works fine; it just don't agree with your preconceived opinions on the placement of AoL. That doesn't make it wrong.

Again, you are clinging to the quote for dear life and avoiding things that DO contradict it. Legends of Zelda have been proven to be passed down. Also, specific traditions have been proven to be passed down if you believe that those traditions are all apart of the same Hyrule, thus far. But I'll go back to the idea that specific names (Spectacle Rock) would not be passed down if they were not in the same Hyrule. The Hyrule with that location was proven to be flooded (as I previously mentioned). That contradicts the possibility of LoZ/AoL taking place in a new Hyrule. And if you consider Aonuma's quote to have to mean that LoZ/AoL takes place on the AT, then to you, Aonuma's quote=LoZ/AoL on new Hyrule, which Spectacle Rock/Island contradicts. O my! I thought nothing contradicted his quote?

[ironknuckle1]

Wait ok Spectacle rock is in death mountain in OoT and on it in LoZ. If Spectacle island is 4 whole squares away from where Death Mountain (dragon Roost Island) then there is no way they are alike.

[MrMosley]

Wait ok Spectacle rock is in death mountain in OoT and on it in LoZ. If Spectacle island is 4 whole squares away from where Death Mountain (dragon Roost Island) then there is no way they are alike.

Distance is irrelevant. The size of one square in WW is the size of OoT's Hyrule Field. You can't argue distance. And no one ever said Dragon Roost Island was supposed to be Death Mountain. That is speculation, not a fact.

[sign of table]

You are also comparing 1 chapter in a book to the entire series. I am comparing one town to another. See the difference? At least the things I'm comparing are essentially the same thing. Like comparing one basketball to another or like comparing one thumb to your other thumb. You're making drastic comparisons and trying to make it work with my comparison of 2 things that are the same. It's not working. Fine.

My left hand and my right hand are essentially the same, but I find my right hand to be much more important than my left.
All of the towns are the same exact thing in AoL. They are just towns from an old game. The game was not created so that some towns are more important than others. The only thing that gave the "sage" towns importance was Aunouma focusing on them. Until he said anything about it, they were all equal. The fact that there are 2 towns named after completely unimportant name is important. As DL01 said earlier, you can't say that one town is important but the other isn't just because Aunouma didn't say anything about it. They are all towns. They are the same basic thing with different names. To say that those 2 aren't important is just ignorant. It's not ignorant at all. It's somewhat picking and choosing, yes. But not everything is equal. The two town names have NEVER been given significance. The other five were given significance the moment OoT was released (when the writer for OoT said that they named the sages in OoT that so that players might notice it and think that they could be connected. Like "pseudo secrets". (it's not a 100% exact quote, but that's for the most part what he said in 1998) Apparently Aonuma, the current director, thinks that they should still be important.

Not all similar things are equal. Agahnim being in LttP and LA is quite important. To you it's more important than the 14 exclusive characters shared between OoX/LA. Which is fine. Because some similar things ARE more important.
How about the fact that in WW, Link and Tetra were told to find a new land? How about the fact that Hyrule was flooded and no one knows any history of Hyrule (kind of weird that AoL Hyrule would be a lot like a previously lost Hyrule)? TWW says that many legends lived on, but the HoT story is just one (or something to that extent).

Funny how LttP Hyrule is identical to OoT Hyrule, but it can't be a sequel/prequel.
How about the fact that you even said that in the Japanese version of the game, the king wished for Hyrule to be erased? When something is erased it usually means it disappears. Kind of hard for this new Hyrule that you are suggesting to be EXACTLY like the old one when the old one was supposed to be "erased" Makes no sense for LttP Hyrule to be identical to its OoT state when it has to take place after TP or TWW, in which Hyrule is radically different. And AoL Hyrule looks nothing like the Hyrule destroyed in TWW. They only share the same name. They don't even really share similar traditions; because there's hardly any story in the games (apart from the AoL BS... which only works in full on the AT). I mean LoZ/AoL Hyrule only shares one noticeable geographic similarity to anything else, and that's spectacle rock (apart from maybe those god-forsaken comparisons that Pinecove showed between LoZ/AoL and OoX :P). Ugh if ZU was working right now I'd search for that picture someone got of the sunken TWW Hyrule and show how eerily similar to TMC it is.
Okay, so even though I told you in two separate posts that I would not disregard an official timeline, you still say that you assume I would? Then why even ask me? Why are you wasting both of our time by asking if your preconcieved notions about my opinion aren't going to change either way? That's kinda retarded. You say you won't disregard an official timeline, but you say that OoT-LoZ/AoL-LttP was wrong in 1998, even though it was the official timeline of the time. Only because you think OoT-LttP-LoZ/AoL made more sense (I personally think that OoT-LttP-LoZ/AoL DID make more sense. But OoT-LoZ/AoL-LttP was the official timeline. And that's that. Which is why I say you'd deny any timeline that you think doesn't make as much sense as yours; because you already have, and do.
Also, I'm not going to say "Oh yeah I believe that developer quote because its is a developer quote", just to not seem like a n00b to you. Its like Zemen said, if you want to believe developer quotes that have more in-game evidence to contradict them, then go ahead. But personally, I'll take the more knowledgable way out. I'd rather make a better educated guess by using more facts than just disregarding everything for a developer quote that doesn't much help the situation at the moment. We're never going to agree on anything... ever lol.

If the developer who creates the timeline says that one thing is more important to the timeline than something else, I'd say that what he says is more important to the timeline is more important to finding out the official timeline (which he would create).

Again, you are clinging to the quote for dear life and avoiding things that DO contradict it. I had the same timeline as you until I saw that quote, actually. I didn't know that there was a quote from Aonuma heavily implying that AoL goes on the AT.

Meh this isn't getting anywhere. I think developer quotes matter more than anything in trying to find the current developer intended timeline, you clearly don't.
And if you consider Aonuma's quote to have to mean that LoZ/AoL takes place on the AT, then to you, Aonuma's quote=LoZ/AoL on new Hyrule, which Spectacle Rock/Island contradicts. O my! I thought nothing contradicted his quote? It only contradicts it if you don't assume it's a bland generic name. It doesn't make his quote impossible. Just like nothing made Miyamoto's timeline impossible. Of course it was logical when LttP was released to believe that Ganon was stuck in the SR from the SW to LttP. Because pretty much the entire story progression implied it. But in 1998 the official timeline said otherwise. So the intention behind the game must have changed, and it must have happened differently.

What are you timeline theorizing to try and figure out? The current developer intended timeline that is most likely to be official, or are you only theorizing to try and figure out a timeline that makes the most sense to you, not the most likely to ever be official?

I don't see any point in spending time making a timeline that the director who oversees the series clearly doesn't intend.

[Zemen125]

Fine.

My left hand and my right hand are essentially the same, but I find my right hand to be much more important than my left.

Personal opinion. Not everyone will think their right hand is more important than their left. That's just YOUR opinion.


The two town names have NEVER been given significance. The other five were given significance the moment OoT was released (when the writer for OoT said that they named the sages in OoT that so that players might notice it and think that they could be connected.

Those characters in OoT were named after towns in AoL so that's why they are important? Funny you should mention that because the 2 towns that you say are not important are also named after characters in OoT. Obviously that was meant to connect too, eh?

It's also funny you should mention developer quotes being so important. This is a little off topic right now but it's more of an example. You don't think that Link getting his hat in Minish Cap is important at all but there is a quote from Nintendo floating around about them saying that we can look at Minish Cap as "the story of how Link gets his hat."

Despite that developer quote, you still don't believe it's important, so why should this developer quote be more important than that one?

[Erimgard]

I believe you're talking about this quote:



“This game takes you really, really deep into Hylian lore , and you could almost look at it as the story of how Link gets his cap.”

Not exactly concrete evidence. He even uses "almost" in describing the hat's origins.

[ironknuckle1]

Distance is irrelevant. The size of one square in WW is the size of OoT's Hyrule Field. You can't argue distance. And no one ever said Dragon Roost Island was supposed to be Death Mountain. That is speculation, not a fact.

What I was trying to say was that won't they need to be near each other im not saying Dragon Roost is death Mountain im sayin that they will probably be near each other so if that is found then these other theories can be proven.

[MrMosley]

What I was trying to say was that won't they need to be near each other im not saying Dragon Roost is death Mountain im sayin that they will probably be near each other so if that is found then these other theories can be proven.

I'll agree that Death Mountain is very similar to Dragon Roost, and it is easy to assume that those locations match up. Which, they still very well could. Death Mountain doesn't have to be just the size we have seen in most other Zelda titles. Those mountains can go on for a much greater distance, and I believe this has been proven by WW. All of the islands in the Great Sea are very doubtingly part of Hyrule itself. Most are part of areas surrounding Hyrule, and some are most likely other areas that was around those territories.

The thing is, nothing in Dragon Roost relates to much of what we have seen of Death Mountain in the past, other than the volcanic relation and the fact that it is a large mountainous range. But Spectacle Island makes a direct relation to Spectacle Rock. So we can know that Spectacle Island is the location where Spectacle Rock is in old Hyrule. At least by my understanding and that of anyone who has played the games.

[Zemen125]

Not exactly concrete evidence. He even uses "almost" in describing the hat's origins.

He probably uses the word almost because the game isn't about Link getting his cap. It was just a nice quote talking about Link getting his cap seeing as how at the end of the game the guy he has been wearing on his head gives him a hat. I don't see how using the word almost contradicts the quote... It still mentions the idea of how Link gets his hat. If it had no relevance towards how Link got his hat then the quote never would have been said.

Also, I want to know why this quote can't be considered concrete evidence but SoJ's can be. You're picking and choosing quotes to believe. Seems a little contradictory in itself.

Someone from Nintendo stated this quote and there is nothing to contradict it. Seems like concrete evidence to me.

[startimer]

We still talkin' AT placements? I don't think there is any reason to place games other than WW/PH-ST and mayby FS/FSA on the AT. I'd go into it further, but it's late and I don't have time.

One more thing, the presence of twinrova in OoX proves it goes on the CT.

[Zemen125]

We still talkin' AT placements? I don't think there is any reason to place games other than WW/PH-ST and mayby FS/FSA on the AT. I'd go into it further, but it's late and I don't have time.

If you put FS/FSA on the AT then you have to put ALTTP there because ALTTP is obviously connected to FSA and then you would almost have to put LoZ/AoL there as they were connected in the past (under strange quotes by Miyamoto) and are still probably connected and then you would probably have to put LA there as LA has to be on the same timeline as ALTTP because of the shadow turning into Aghanim.

Basically I'm saying that FS/FSA should not be on the AT.

The Master Sword is a good indication of ALTTP not going on the AT which would also place FS/FSA NOT on the AT.


One more thing, the presence of twinrova in OoX proves it goes on the CT.

It's a good indication but without other proof it isn't much. I agree that Twinrova should not be alive on the AT so OoX shouldn't go there, but others don't see it as very important information.

[Viral]

Someone from Nintendo stated this quote and there is nothing to contradict it. Seems like concrete evidence to me.

What do you make of OoT essentially starting the tradition of Link's clothing? The original Hero of Time not only started the trend of the green hat, but the entire outfit.

The hat quote is so ambiguous and so unimportant that it really isn't a good quote to hinge the placement of an entire game on.

[ironknuckle1]

I'll agree that Death Mountain is very similar to Dragon Roost, and it is easy to assume that those locations match up. Which, they still very well could. Death Mountain doesn't have to be just the size we have seen in most other Zelda titles. Those mountains can go on for a much greater distance, and I believe this has been proven by WW. All of the islands in the Great Sea are very doubtingly part of Hyrule itself. Most are part of areas surrounding Hyrule, and some are most likely other areas that was around those territories.

The thing is, nothing in Dragon Roost relates to much of what we have seen of Death Mountain in the past, other than the volcanic relation and the fact that it is a large mountainous range. But Spectacle Island makes a direct relation to Spectacle Rock. So we can know that Spectacle Island is the location where Spectacle Rock is in old Hyrule. At least by my understanding and that of anyone who has played the games.

I have a thread going called Island Theories trying to think of ways the islands got their. Such as mountain ranges and maybe a piece of land broke under water and floated up making an island. Such and such.

[Caleb, Of Asui]

New Discussion 2:
Where do the tunic and hat come from?

- Current Discussion -

In both Ocarina of Time, Nintendo shows us where the green tunic worn by all future Links comes from in the first place. The Minish Cap explains the origin of the hat piece of this outfit; however, that Link is already wearing the tunic that a future Link is supposed to introduce. Does this debunk the Kokiri as the origin of the outfit, or is there some other explanation?

(Sorry, I wasn't really following the previous discussion. I'll try to follow this one more.)

[MrMosley]

In both Ocarina of Time, Nintendo shows us where the green tunic worn by all future Links comes from in the first place. The Minish Cap explains the origin of the hat piece of this outfit; however, that Link is already wearing the tunic that a future Link is supposed to introduce. Does this debunk the Kokiri as the origin of the outfit, or is there some other explanation?

No. The tunic in MC had no significance. The hat was simply said to "suit Link" at the end of the game. This was obviously to signify that Link has always fit the look of the green tunic and hat. I see it as more of something that the developers wanted to add to make this reference, rather than actually set up some kind of important event chain for the games.

OoT's tunic and hat has a little more significance, as it has been referenced in multiple games thus far. I highly doubt the Kokiri based their clothing off of the hero from MC. It was simply what they wore. They were an elf-like group of beings, so they wore what we usually see from an elf. Link's attire was based off of what the Kokiri wore in OoT, because he grew up alongside them.

Now in WW, as well as TP, the "Hero's Clothes" were based off of the look of the hero in OoT. WW makes it clear that the attire is based off of the Hero of Time's look. TP sort of makes the same reference, but because of timeline restraints, this is a bit debatable. However, I like to think that young Link himself was somewhat of a hero. I also like to think that the Spirits in TP that give Link his clothing knew of young Link in OoT travelling through time, and fullfilling his destiny as a hero there as well as during his childhood.

The other games, such as ALttP/LA, LoZ/AoL, and the Oracle titles, never gave any explanation to Link's clothing, as obviously it wasn't really a big deal then. That is simply what Link looked like, and fans were used to it. LoZ/AoL were the same Link, so of course they are going to wear roughly the same outfit. ALttP Link was based off of the original LoZ Link's look, but seeing as how I believe that game is a prequel to the originals, there is not definite, or storyline-based explanation, as to why he looks the way he does in that game. He just does.

Therefore, MC's outfit doesn't do much towards setting up a general look for Link. Although I believe it is the first game, it doesn't mean that all other looks for Link were based off of that. As you can see, OoT's look had much more significance on the history of how the hero in each game should look.

[angelkid]

There's no real reason for Link's clothes in MC, and if you actually think about it, they could be his pyjamas given that Zelda wakes him up, and he was sleeping in his tunic. MC Link started the hat trend amoung Link's, but arguably, he didn't. If you say that OoT Link's tunic is not based of MC Link and that is just the way he is, then why is OoT Link wearing a hat? This means either MC Link wearing a hat makes no difference or MC Link inspired the whole outfit.

[The_Crow_]

Thats a fair arguement but start up Oot and take a look around the Kokiri Forest.... Go on I'll wait...

Now notice Mido and the pther males are all wearing hats exactly like Links.
The hat must be a Kokiri tradition. Otherwise you are suggesting that MC Link inspired the Kokiri to wear these unique green hats. This seems unlikely given how oblivious they are to the world outside the forest in OoT. I am open to correction but I'm pretty sure none of the Kokiri ever mention anything about a hero to whom they look up to.

I believe the hat was started by Oot Link, part of his Kokiri heritage.

[startimer]

to me, i believe it dependson the timeline. The adult timeline links were OoT link's outfit. but since OoT never happened on the child timeline (technically, the adult porton of OoT), the child timelinelinks could be modeled after MC link. Or MM link ;p.

but no, OoTlink, or the kokiri, were not inspired by MC link's outfit. noway.