Disagree on Everything in Here!

[CZG]

I wonder about the timeline just like lots of other people around here, but pretty much all the timelines are mere speculation. Let's use this topic to disagree on everything without solid facts.

Yes, Ocarina of Time talks about the three goddesses that created the lands. But I think this doesn't mean that OoT neccesarily has to go first in the series, as there is no proof for that (to my knowledge).

Same goes for the Minish Cap. Yes, he gets his hat, so this is the first game in the series, is all other Zelda games Link wore a green hat. Wrong! No proof! More things in the story (something sealed away in a chest, locked with some sort of sword...) learn us that there was at least one event before this.

Many timelines have TLoZ and TAoL directly after each other (with some blank years in between, but still)...
Not that I have better proof, but if you look at the manual of both games, LoZ is a kid, TAoL is older (16 years old). Doesn't some story go in between these? Being both NES games doesn't proof that the follow each other chronoligically...

Any more things bothering you?

 

[Evil Space Fish]

TWW ending always bothered me. It seems like Link and Zelda just say screw it to reviving old Hyrule so they can start over?? That never made much sense to me, I know with the story line and Ganondorf trying to rule and everything but still... just let him do it and THEN kick the crap out of him.

 

[Skull_Kid]

Both eiji aonouma and shigeru myiamoto said so, try to counter argumentate that-.-"

If you don't have enough knowledge to even come up with good arguments, then, refrain from replying

 

[Evil Space Fish]

Both eiji aonouma and shigeru myiamoto said so, try to counter argumentate that-.-"

If you don't have enough knowledge to even come up with good arguments, then, refrain from replying

The guy said "to his knowledge" so maybe he's not a super nerd OH MY GOD! Someone doesn't know that Eiji said that, what'll we do?!
Plus he didn't "reply" to anything, he started this thread. Maybe you should heed your own advice.

I agree with ya CZG about Minish Cap. I'm still kinda debating where'd set it on the line but I doubt it's at the beginning due to a hat! But actually about your OoT not being first, it more than likely is just because of what the designers stated and it still makes the most sense to be first... until/if the game designers throw us some massive curve ball that throw everyone off.

 

[DeletedUser9]

Yes, Ocarina of Time talks about the three goddesses that created the lands. But I think this doesn't mean that OoT neccesarily has to go first in the series, as there is no proof for that (to my knowledge).

Same goes for the Minish Cap. Yes, he gets his hat, so this is the first game in the series, is all other Zelda games Link wore a green hat. Wrong! No proof! More things in the story (something sealed away in a chest, locked with some sort of sword...) learn us that there was at least one event before this.

Many timelines have TLoZ and TAoL directly after each other (with some blank years in between, but still)...
Not that I have better proof, but if you look at the manual of both games, LoZ is a kid, TAoL is older (16 years old). Doesn't some story go in between these? Being both NES games doesn't proof that the follow each other chronoligically...

Ocarina of Time isn't necessarily the first game, but it still has to come before any game that has Ganon in it, because it covers Ganondorf's origins.

Agreed, there's little to no proof that MC is the first game, that I know of at least. And the hat is an invalid argument. It's a hat. And all the Links are different anyway; just because MC Link got a hat doesn't affect other Links having hats.

AoL was intended as a direct sequel to LoZ. It came out second, before they started making the timeline difficult to understand. Also, between being a kid and being a teen... that's too short an amount of time, IMO, for there to be a game in-between.

TWW ending always bothered me. It seems like Link and Zelda just say screw it to reviving old Hyrule so they can start over?? That never made much sense to me, I know with the story line and Ganondorf trying to rule and everything but still... just let him do it and THEN kick the crap out of him.

The whole story seemed to follow a "new generation" kind of feel. Remember how back in OoT, Ganondorf said he'd return to get revenge on Link and Zelda's descendants? Well, Link wasn't a descendant, but this was more or less intended as that. Ganondorf and the King of Hyrule were old and part of an older generation that had it's time. Hyrule was more or less the same. In order to restore Hyrule, they would have to destroy the world of the new generation. I thought it made sense, but maybe that's just me...

Both eiji aonouma and shigeru myiamoto said so, try to counter argumentate that-.-"

If you don't have enough knowledge to even come up with good arguments, then, refrain from replying

Miyamoto has proven he doesn't know what he's talking about when it comes to the timeline. He's contradicted himself a lot. Eiji is a little more reliable, but in general "official announcements" from Nintendo about the timeline generally don't hold much water.

 

[Evil Space Fish]

The whole story seemed to follow a "new generation" kind of feel. Remember how back in OoT, Ganondorf said he'd return to get revenge on Link and Zelda's descendants? Well, Link wasn't a descendant, but this was more or less intended as that. Ganondorf and the King of Hyrule were old and part of an older generation that had it's time. Hyrule was more or less the same. In order to restore Hyrule, they would have to destroy the world of the new generation. I thought it made sense, but maybe that's just me...

Very true. I guess I always thought that it would be better to bring back old Hyrule rather than a new one but I forogt that everyone above the sea would prolly die if that happened.

 

[sign of table]

Both eiji aonouma and shigeru myiamoto said so, try to counter argumentate that

Eiji never said that OoT went first.

Ocarina of Time isn't necessarily the first game, but it still has to come before any game that has Ganon in it, because it covers Ganondorf's origins.

FSA has a Ganondorf origin, too; it can take place before OoT.

Agreed, there's little to no proof that MC is the first game, that I know of at least. And the hat is an invalid argument. It's a hat. And all the Links are different anyway; just because MC Link got a hat doesn't affect other Links having hats.

Bill Trinen stated that TMC is the origin of Link's hat.

The Japanese version of TMC calls it the end of the first adventure of Link.

One of the sword guys teaches you the hurricane spin thingie and says that he was the only one to ever teach it to you, except in TWW Orca teaches you the same technique.

In one interview back in like '04 I think (it was after FSA was released) Eiji Aonuma said that FS is the first game in the series. Which would be evidence for TMC being first as it goes before those two.

It gives a ****ton of origins for stuff.

Meh just read Impossible's timeline document; he sums it up well.

Miyamoto has proven he doesn't know what he's talking about when it comes to the timeline. He's contradicted himself a lot.

Name ONE time that Miyamoto contradicted himself.

I guess I always thought that it would be better to bring back old Hyrule rather than a new one but I forogt that everyone above the sea would prolly die if that happened.

Not just that. The Japanese version of TWW says that Daphnes wished to "erase" Hyrule.

So old Hyrule is GONE.

 

[CZG]

Well, it's quite impossible to keep track of all the offical statements. I saw one video where an employee of Nintendo was telling about the mess in the timeline and that he himself didn't understand all of it. That kinda killed all the 'official' things that came out.

Where do all the official announcements go?
To some gaming fan magazine or something. Well, excuse me for not knowing.
Plus, even those who seem to keep track of everything can't figure it out anyway...

Shiguru, wasn't that some lead director from Nintendo or something?
Who is mr. E then? Like I would know when you beat some Zelda games a few times... Even if I try hard to remember people on the ending credits, I suck at that.

I just try to rely on in-game info and the manual that comes together with your game.
(Especially with LoZ and TAoL, as the game itself doesn't tell you that much)

About the Minish Cap... how come there already be a legend and some monsters inside a chest and stuff.
Maybe it's the first game we know at the moment, maybe it was the first story on THAT SPECIFIC Link. How much is certain anyway?

 

[Locke]

Shiguru, wasn't that some lead director from Nintendo or something?
Who is mr. E then? Like I would know when you beat some Zelda games a few times... Even if I try hard to remember people on the ending credits, I suck at that.

Eiji Aonuma directed most of the Zelda games since OoT. He is also in charge of the timeline.

I just try to rely on in-game info and the manual that comes together with your game.
(Especially with LoZ and TAoL, as the game itself doesn't tell you that much)

Game quotes and manuals are the most reliable source of information, though director quotes are important to understand them.

About the Minish Cap... how come there already be a legend and some monsters inside a chest and stuff.
Maybe it's the first game we know at the moment, maybe it was the first story on THAT SPECIFIC Link. How much is certain anyway?

It is possible for important things to happen without actually being in a game. For example, OoT talks of a "fierce war," but that doesn't mean that there must be a game out there that describes the events of the fierce war.

 

[SamuraiOfShikah]

I'm still a noob here, so I'm not entirely sure, but I don't think it's right that OoT ---> MM because MM was in between OoT, not after. OoT isn't just young Link, it's also hero Link, and MM starts after young Link, but not after hero Link.

 

[Shadsie]

What bothers me... what I dissagree with...

Is how *rude* many people on this subforum are to one another when disscussing Timeline ideas. If anybody comes in with anything new, they get shot down... when people dissagree over minor things, such as the placement of the OoX games, they're always telling each other how they "fail." That's what bothers me whenever I look upon any thread on this subforum.

The SERIOUS BUSINESS of it is the reason why I don't really give a Bulbo's hiney about the Timeline, myself. I tend to ignore it for the most part, enjoy a game as it comes, and only think about it when I'm writing a fanfiction that involves ancestry/bloodlines/eras - and then, I'll use whatever I think works at that time, leaving myself free to do something else at another time. Some games are obvious sequels to one another, that's true, such as OoT-MM, and some are indirect, games that refer to "the ancient Hero" and such, but, really the Zelda Timeline is something I find speculative at best.

I don't argue with the "big boys" here. I tend to get insulted by people's attitudes about the whole thing and just leave.

I've been contemplating trying to construct a semi-coherent (or maybe just butt-pull) in game-release Timeline, - as in all the games in order of actual release, LoZ-AoL-ALTTP-LA-OoT-MM-OOX-yadda, yadda, yadda, just for the SHEER HEAD-EXPLODY of it. Not canon in the least, nothing I see as anywhere near canon, but something I might take on as something fun and dorky... but I'm even afraid to try to do that here for the sake of FUN because of the way people screech if you do anything that contraditcs in any way what *they* think is canon.

Aside from the way people treat each other over Timeline arguments, another thing that bothers me is Wind Waker. I thought it was a fun game, but there are things about it that bother me - the King's wish annoyed me, also how it seems to be the basis for people's vicousness over the "Timeline Split" idea. How polarizing it is to the fandom in general, yeah.

 

[Locke]

I'm still a noob here, so I'm not entirely sure, but I don't think it's right that OoT ---> MM because MM was in between OoT, not after. OoT isn't just young Link, it's also hero Link, and MM starts after young Link, but not after hero Link.

Technically, MM does take place at the time as OoT, but on a seperate timeline (2-dimentional time!)
............7years.....OoT (after touching Master Sword)
OoT--<
............MM (after going back in time)
MM is between the two in regard to linear time (though if you take the 2nd dimention into account, it's more like the 3rd point on a triangle), but MM is considered a sequel because as far as Link is concerned, OoT happens, then he gets sent back and MM happens afterward. And the games are obviously from Link's perspective, so his perception of time is what's important.

 

[SamuraiOfShikah]

Technically, MM does take place at the time as OoT, but on a seperate timeline (2-dimentional time!)
............7years.....OoT (after touching Master Sword)
OoT--<
............MM (after going back in time)
MM is between the two in regard to linear time (though if you take the 2nd dimention into account, it's more like the 3rd point on a triangle), but MM is considered a sequel because as far as Link is concerned, OoT happens, then he gets sent back and MM happens afterward. And the games are obviously from Link's perspective, so his perception of time is what's important.

I see, I suppose that makes sense, not much to me, but then again, I'm still a little new to Zelda games.

 

[travisback]

i dont see really why people argue that MC is first, just because of the hat. OoT has more evidence to support being first, and i really do believe that its first.

And besides, the whole literal legend thing cant be true, cause the nintendo guys say that OoT happens first, more or less saying there is a timeline

 

[Zemen]

i dont see really why people argue that MC is first, just because of the hat. OoT has more evidence to support being first, and i really do believe that its first.

There is more evidence than just the hat that would help place MC first. It's not a good idea to ONLY use the hat as evidence, but there is other evidence.

And besides, the whole literal legend thing cant be true, cause the nintendo guys say that OoT happens first, more or less saying there is a timeline[/QUOTE]

They said that OoT was first on the timeline long before MC was created. Their original idea can be retconned by new games that are made.

Also, we know there is a timeline. It's been confirmed many times and you make it sound like this is new knowledge.