Search results for query: *

There's a difference between canon and important to the timeline.

^LA doesn't HAVE to be a sequel to LttP. It's logical and was clearly the original intent, but it can take place after other games. However TWW/PH/LA makes no sense as Link didn't really help Hyrule... he more assisted in destroying it lol

Maybe not. It's worth debating. I didn't say it isn't canon, I said it doesn't matter. Just like how Triumph Forks in TMC ARE canon, but I doubt that it's a timeline reference.

^That was on topic. It stemmed from Zemen talking about PotFS, me saying I don't think it matters much, Pinecove posting an interview in the hopes of proving me wrong, Erimgard saying that the interview is inconclusive, Zemen saying that Erimgard is biased and wrong, Erimgard saying once again...

^TSA was referring to the SNES version. Bill Trinen was saying that he made things more consistent on the GBA version.

OH **** Damn... WHY didn't you ever show me that in our countless SW debates? Well... I'm gonna have to think that over a little bit. No. The quote from the NoA dude only talks about the text itself. This part: "-2003 Chat Room Discussion with Bill Trinen -Essentially stating that the GBA...

You don't think that the map is canon, right? I'd say that it's obvious that it isn't part of the canon timeline. I'd say it shows intent for things (IE Ganon had the trident), but it most certainly isn't canon. Meh Palace of the FS seems kinda... well... Triumph Forks-ish to me, if you know...