A ZD Timeline Project

[Zemen]

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.

 

[Zemen]

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.

 

[Zemen]

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? 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? 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.