• Welcome to ZD Forums! You must create an account and log in to see and participate in the Shoutbox chat on this main index page.

Adam's Timeline

Zemen

[Insert Funny Statement]
Joined
Nov 10, 2008
Location
Illinois
I agree with your LttP placement, but I don't see the connection between it and LoZ/AoL.
ALTTP was made when the most basic of timelines was in development. At the time of ALTTP's release everyone knew 1 thing based on what Miyamoto had said and based on what the box and the strategy guide said. Everyone know that ALTTP was either a prequel or sequel to LoZ/AoL. Everyone knew the game was connected in some way to LoZ/AoL. There doesn't need to be in game evidence to support it because it was created with only 2 previous games on the table. There was no split at the time of ALTTP's released so we knew that it had to take place in the same universe. No retcons have changed this idea so why put them on seperate timelines when the original idea of them has not necessarily changed. Whether ALTTP is a sequel or prequel is debated a lot, but that doesn't change the fact that most people can agree that they at least go on the same timeline. You don't see a connection between the games from in game evidence, you see the connection based on the history of the games/timelines development.
 
Joined
Aug 7, 2008
ALTTP was made when the most basic of timelines was in development. At the time of ALTTP's release everyone knew 1 thing based on what Miyamoto had said and based on what the box and the strategy guide said. Everyone know that ALTTP was either a prequel or sequel to LoZ/AoL. Everyone knew the game was connected in some way to LoZ/AoL. There doesn't need to be in game evidence to support it because it was created with only 2 previous games on the table. There was no split at the time of ALTTP's released so we knew that it had to take place in the same universe. No retcons have changed this idea so why put them on seperate timelines when the original idea of them has not necessarily changed. Whether ALTTP is a sequel or prequel is debated a lot, but that doesn't change the fact that most people can agree that they at least go on the same timeline. You don't see a connection between the games from in game evidence, you see the connection based on the history of the games/timelines development.
We seem to differ on how much weight we give the history surrounding the release of the games especially before OoT. I think the games were originally conceived as closely connected, but since the connections were never made fully explicit, there has been plenty of room for ret con, and I think that this has occurred.

First, The complete lack of a master sword in LoZ/AoL suggests a division and while I agree that the placement of the master sword in TP is a clear link to ALttP, it is notable that
a) the towns in AoL are named after the sages in OoT, and they are only sages in the AT. In the CT, the sages are shown to be the ones we see in TP. Eventually these give way to the maidens which appear in FSA and ALttP. and
b) the GBA rerelease of AoL renames Barba Volvagia which I take as an obvious attempt to strenthen the ties between AoL and OoT. It is notable that Volvagia is only awakened in the AT. He is destroyed -- it is true -- but the Zelda series is full of defeated enemies that come back. and
c) the post flood era after WW provides the only reasonable time to squeeze in the AoL backstory
 

Zemen

[Insert Funny Statement]
Joined
Nov 10, 2008
Location
Illinois
We seem to differ on how much weight we give the history surrounding the release of the games especially before OoT. I think the games were originally conceived as closely connected, but since the connections were never made fully explicit
Wrong. The original box and the strategy guide for ALTTP specifically called Link and Zelda in ALTTP the ancesters of the previous Link and Zelda. Since the only Link and Zelda around at the time were the ones from LoZ/AoL then it's obvious that ALTTP is talking about LoZ/AoL Link and Zelda.

Now, Miyamoto completely contradicts what the box and strategy guide say by saying that ALTTP takes place AFTER LoZ/AoL which would make ALTTP Link and Zelda descendants, not ancestors.

Regardless of which order is correct, it was made perfectly clear that the games go together. Regardless of games going in between based on new games created, it WAS made fully explicit that there was some sort of connection, whether it be a prequel or sequel connection, it was made clear that there is a connection.

First, The complete lack of a master sword in LoZ/AoL suggests a division and while I agree that the placement of the master sword in TP is a clear link to ALttP, it is notable that
In the end of ALTTP when you put the Master Sword back in the pedestal it is stated that the Master Sword would rest there forever. The fact that it wouldn't show up later on in LoZ/AoL only makes that statement work even more. Every game I put after ALTTP on my timeline doesn't feature the Master Sword, thus the fact that it is stated to rest in its pedestal forever holds true. The lack of Master Sword in LoZ/AoL doesn't seperate the games at all. It just continues the final statement made about the Master Sword in ALTTP.

a) the towns in AoL are named after the sages in OoT, and they are only sages in the AT.
Just because they are only sages in the AT does not mean that no one on the CT can know about them. We know that after Link was sent back to his childhood in OoT he tells Zelda about his adventure. I'm sure he went to great detail, even about the sages that helped him throughout his journey. This legend about the sages from a different time (the future) could have been passed down through the ages, thus causing towns to be named after these legendary figures.

b) the GBA rerelease of AoL renames Barba Volvagia which I take as an obvious attempt to strenthen the ties between AoL and OoT. It is notable that Volvagia is only awakened in the AT. He is destroyed -- it is true -- but the Zelda series is full of defeated enemies that come back.
You're right, the Zelda series is full of defeated enemies that always come back. That's the very reason why this is not a good point to make. Who says there can only be one Volvagia? If he exists in the adult part of OoT then he had to be around somewhere in the child part of OoT. We have no idea what is origins are in OoT so for all you know he could have been in that dungeon long before Link was even born. Also, the fact that there are other recurring villains that have been defeated in the past kind of shoots down a lot of credibility behind the continuity of lesser enemies. By lesser enemies I mean not main antagonists.


c) the post flood era after WW provides the only reasonable time to squeeze in the AoL backstory
The only reasonable time to squeeze the AoL BS in is just before AoL. The BS of AoL says nothing about Zelda being immortal. It only says she was put into a deep sleep. This could easily mean that she still ages like a normal human/Hylian. If she still ages normally then it's impossible for the BS of AoL to take place too long before AoL, especially since AoL is a direct sequel to LoZ. Based on that, Zelda in AoL has to be the same as Zelda in LoZ because there has never been more than one Zelda in a game. The only thing that makes sense is that the AoL BS takes place shortly before AoL.

I think it's clear that AoL takes place shortly after its own BS. This would make it impossible for the BS to take place between WW and OoT because WW makes it clear that there was no Link (and it doesn't mention any Zelda) between the two titles.

The way I see it, the AoL BS takes place shortly after LoZ so the BS doesn't really affect LoZ/AoL's placement on the timeline.
 
Joined
Jan 1, 2009
Location
Hyrule and Azeroth
a) the towns in AoL are named after the sages in OoT, and they are only sages in the AT.
Too bad ST has COMPLETELY ORIGINAL town names.

I have trouble believing that they would suddenly just remember the sages and change the names of all of their towns.
The only reasonable time to squeeze the AoL BS in is just before AoL. The BS of AoL says nothing about Zelda being immortal. It only says she was put into a deep sleep. This could easily mean that she still ages like a normal human/Hylian. If she still ages normally then it's impossible for the BS of AoL to take place too long before AoL, especially since AoL is a direct sequel to LoZ. Based on that, Zelda in AoL has to be the same as Zelda in LoZ because there has never been more than one Zelda in a game. The only thing that makes sense is that the AoL BS takes place shortly before AoL.
Japanese AoL quote thingie said:
Long ago, when Hyrule was still one country, a great King was said to have used the Triforce to maintain order in Hyrule.
It was said to have happened long ago.
This text is written in ancient characters, and now, no one can read them.
It happened long enough ago that an ENTIRE language died out and NO ONE can read it.
"Link, those things have been set aside by my family for many generations, in order to prepare for the next time a great King will come.
The jewel thingies were set aside generations ago.
But the Triforce of "courage" I have hidden for a reason.
We know that the Triforce of Courage was hidden before this scroll was made.

Facts: The king of Hyrule that was the sleeping Zelda's father had ruled with the Triforce. Someone many generations ago (long enough ago that the language had died out) hid the ToC and it is still hidden. Link is a 16 year old.

From just the facts we can conclude that Zelda was put to sleep many generations ago. However I highly doubt a normal human lifespan is long enough for NO ONE to be able to read the language from that time.

Combined with the fact that it is CLEARLY influenced by Sleeping Beauty, who slept for 100 years and never aged.

Zelda didn't age while she was asleep, obviously.
 
Last edited:

Locke

Hegemon
Site Staff
Joined
Nov 24, 2009
Location
Redmond, Washington
Too bad ST has COMPLETELY ORIGINAL town names.
I have trouble believing that they would suddenly just remember the sages and change the names of all of their towns.
Unless AoL takes place in resurfaced Hyrule, not New Hyrule. (note my WW split in sig)

Thanks for that AoL BS info! I always knew that, but I never got around to digging up facts about it.
So it probably occurs somewhere between OoT and WW?
 
Joined
Jan 1, 2009
Location
Hyrule and Azeroth
Unless AoL takes place in resurfaced Hyrule, not New Hyrule.
Daphnes specifically said in the Japanese version of TWW to "erase" the land of Hyrule in his wish.

Old Hyrule is GONE. Erased from a wish on the Triforce, there's no resurfacing.
So it probably occurs somewhere between OoT and WW?
No I'd say it's more of a story that got ****ed by every single game released after AoL (LttP screws it over if you look deep enough).

Like the SW.
 

Zemen

[Insert Funny Statement]
Joined
Nov 10, 2008
Location
Illinois
There is no way to place AoL without something being illogical. The game was made with the only timeline in mind being LoZ/AoL. I guess you would have to say that the BS of AoL takes place before OoT but AoL takes place a long, long, long time after OoT.
 
A

Avilink777

Guest
What about WW in the beginning when it says that he rode into the forest Which is a reference to MM how come they are on different time lines when it splits!=|
 

Zemen

[Insert Funny Statement]
Joined
Nov 10, 2008
Location
Illinois
What about WW in the beginning when it says that he rode into the forest Which is a reference to MM how come they are on different time lines when it splits!=|
Can you post the exact in game quote that says Link rides into the forest? Also, in OoT Link goes back and forth from the forest multiple times so even if WW BS talks about Link going into a forest doesn't automatically pin point it to one game.

As far as I know, the WW BS only refers to Adult Link, never the child Link. MM is kid Link. WW only refers to Adult Link thus there is no contradictions.
 
C

Carmen Sandiego

Guest
In the BS for AoL, Zelda is merely put to sleep. She's not turned immortal. At the end of AoL, Link finds the sleeping Zelda. There is no way that this one Zelda has been around, sleeping in some random chamber for however much time there is between OoT-AoL or WW-AoL. I think it's obvious that the BS for AoL has to take place shortly before the actual events of AoL, otherwise it wouldn't make sense (not that it does anyway when compared to other games).
Then why, pray tell, is every Zelda named after that Zelda?
It was only because of the fact Zelda was put into a deep sleep that every Princess was named Zelda in honor of his sleeping sister. :)
And, she's viewed as a Sleeping Beauty sort of character - time keeps going on, but she's frozen as is. At least, that's how I interpreted it XD

And, it can make sense, if you put it on the Child Timeline ^^;
[because on the Adult Timeline, she would've been buried underwater D:]

My problem with this is that the towns in AoL are named after the sages from the Adult portion of OoT.
This was labeled as Fan Service, I think. But, whatever D:~
 

CZG

Joined
Dec 16, 2009
Isn't there any way to make granted wishes by the triforce undone?
Like in ALttP, you have the dark world, which vanished when Link wished for a golden land / light world.

Would he wish for an old hyrule, it would be back again, wouldn't it?
 

Zemen

[Insert Funny Statement]
Joined
Nov 10, 2008
Location
Illinois
Isn't there any way to make granted wishes by the triforce undone?
Like in ALttP, you have the dark world, which vanished when Link wished for a golden land / light world.

Would he wish for an old hyrule, it would be back again, wouldn't it?
In WW, the king made it very clear that he wanted Link and Zelda to find their own land and not to rule over old Hyrule. Why would Nintendo give us this symbolism that there is going to be a new great kingdom, have PH where they searching for land then have ST where new land is found just to turn around in a later game and bring old Hyrule back? They have spent 3 games emphasising the fact that a new land is being searched for, then found. It would be a waste of those 3 games plots if they brought back old Hyrule and would totally take away from the overall impact of those 3 games.
 

CZG

Joined
Dec 16, 2009
It would be a waste indeed.
But it would make it easier to put old games in Hyrule and not, for example in Termina, which we won't believe anyway.

But even if there was a new land, doesn't link try go BACK to Hyrule at least once?
Like, in LA or before? Nah, that was a dream wasn't it? That doesn't make sense.

Some kind of Hero he is, letting the land drown and just leaving. Surprising to say the least.
WW flood was created to prevent evil and such, but I assume everything was taken care of and a dry land wouldn't hurt anybody? Why keep it flooded?
 

Zemen

[Insert Funny Statement]
Joined
Nov 10, 2008
Location
Illinois
It would be a waste indeed.
But it would make it easier to put old games in Hyrule and not, for example in Termina, which we won't believe anyway.
Everything you're saying is assuming that all games that aren't confirmed on the CT take place on the AT. I'm a CT placer so I don't worry about an old Hyrule returning because the end of my AT has ST.

But even if there was a new land, doesn't link try go BACK to Hyrule at least once?
Like, in LA or before? Nah, that was a dream wasn't it? That doesn't make sense.
Umm.... there ARE different Links, you know. They aren't all the same. OoT Link was sent back to his childhood by Zelda so he wasn't around for the flood, which is the reason why the world was flooded. That's not his fault. WW Link was asked by the old king of Hyrule to go find a new land to make Hyrule. LA Link has nothing to do with OoT or WW Link so I don't know why you even posted that. Have you played all of the games?

Some kind of Hero he is, letting the land drown and just leaving. Surprising to say the least.
Once again, that's not Link's fault. Zelda is the one who sent him back to his childhood so that he could stop Ganondorf from ever taking over Hyrule. Link didn't know that the future he left would stay the same and he had no choice in the matter.

WW flood was created to prevent evil and such, but I assume everything was taken care of and a dry land wouldn't hurt anybody? Why keep it flooded?
Because it makes for a much more interesting story to leave it flooded and give us a series of games like no other?
 

Users Who Are Viewing This Thread (Users: 0, Guests: 1)

Top Bottom