Dun, Dun, Dun!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

[Pinecove]

Also, if the predecessor thing was wrong and ALTTP in fact does go after LoZ/AoL then that means the following.

1) Someone mistranslated something and didn't double check their translations and that person should be fired.

2) They didn't double check the information they put on the box before production and the people in charge of that should be fired.

3) They didn't double check the information put in their own, official strategy guide (which also says ALTTP goes before LoZ/AoL) and the people in charge of that should be fired.

1. His name is Dan Owsen and he WAS fired.
2. His name is Dan Owsen and he WAS fired.
3. His name is Dan Owsen and he WAS fired.

Also, as I recall, the direct translation from the Japanese version of the box still EXTREMELY hints to ALTTP being a prequel to LoZ/AoL without straight up saying it like the NoA version.

Not really. It says the stage is set when Hyrule is still one country....how does that relate to LoZ in any way?

 

[Erimgard]

Just because my posts were deleted because I called you a fool doesn't mean you can pretend that you didn't read what I said

You know damn well that I don't believe the English translations, nor do I say you should. Read the Japanese. Read what the people who make the game say. It's the correct timeline.

If you think it's wrong, and that you somehow know more than the people who invented it, that's your own ignorant perrogative in this case. No matter how many followers you have.

But this is a fact: The developers are right, even if you don't like what they have to say. When you look at the actual evidence in the game, not the corrupted evidence, or your biased interpretation of evidence, it has never, ever, ever once contradicited a concrete, post-game declaration of timeline placement. Ever.

 

[Zemen]

Not really. It says the stage is set when Hyrule is still one country....how does that relate to LoZ in any way?

When Hyrule is STILL one country. It's implied that previously, Hyrule was not one country and this game takes place before Hyrule was not one country. When would there be a time prior to the making of ALTTP where Hyrule is not one country? It has to be LoZ/AoL since those were the only 2 games made before ALTTP's release. This implies that Hyrule takes place before LoZ/AoL when Hyrule was still one country. Basically saying that you are playing the history of Hyrule which can only be the history BEFORE LoZ/AoL.

Just because my posts were deleted because I called you a fool doesn't mean you can pretend that you didn't read what I said

I actually did read your post and responded to it very well. My post was deleted when yours was deleted before you had a chance to read it. The administrator who deleted it said that he unfortunately had to delete my post too even though it was a sensible response. I really could care less what you think of my theorizing styles. No one has any big problems with my timeline (in fact, I find many people agree with my timeline) so either deal with how I theorize and just put up with my posts or just ignore my posts and move on with your life.

Just because I don't listen to all of the developers (Aonuma is the only one I trust), doesn't mean my timeline is much different from theirs. That's just your false assumption that I MUST be wrong if I don't listen to them.

 

[MrMosley]

But this is a fact: The developers are right, even if you don't like what they have to say. When you look at the actual evidence in the game, not the corrupted evidence, or your biased interpretation of evidence, it has never, ever, ever once contradicited a concrete, post-game declaration of timeline placement. Ever.

Yeah that's false. Miyamoto made quotes about his game series that right now doesn't make sense (the infamous Miyamoto Order). Ganon wasn't supposed to have left the Dark World after the Seal War.

Question. If your parents told you that you were a girl (assuming your a boy), would that make you a girl? Absolutely not. Not everything a "creator" says becomes true just because they say it. ESPECIALLY when evidence from the creation itself completely contradicts the creator's word.

 

[Zemen]

not everything a "creator" says becomes true just because they say it. ESPECIALLY when evidence from the creation itself completely contradicts the creator's word.

This is the point I've been trying to make all along. At least someone gets it.

Just because Miyamoto says something doesn't make it fact.

If he told you Link is really named Fred and Zelda is really named Sara does that make it fact even though every game calls Link, Link and Zelda, Zelda? No.

 

[Viral]

But you can't think in that logic when considering the timeline. The timeline is not what you want it to be, it is what the creators shape it to be. If they make mistakes in the continuity of the games (which they have), then they try to fix it in future titles or remakes (eg. LttP GBA).

As much as you would like to create your own timeline about the games, ignoring clear developer quotes or intent is simply wrong. What is the point in theorising about Zelda lore if your not even going to agree with the people that invent said lore.

Yes, theorising can be tackled in a variety of manners, but if you are completely ignoring what the developers are trying to achieve, then you are not theorising, you are writing fan-fiction. Personal, bias and ignorant views of what the games say cannot be considered theorising, because it isn't factual.

tl;dr: Yeah, the creators have made mistakes pertaining to the timeline. However Aonuma has said he wants to combine the games, so we have to trust that any inconsistencies in the games as of now will be fixed or reviewed in future games. If you want to ignore what the creators say about the timeline, then you may as well be making up your own Zelda stories to fill in gaps in your fan-fiction, because a timeline that isn't built around what the creators intend it to be isn't a timeline at all, nor is it theorising.

 

[sign of table]

Yeah that's false. Miyamoto made quotes about his game series that right now doesn't make sense (the infamous Miyamoto Order). Ganon wasn't supposed to have left the Dark World after the Seal War.

Then lets look at the alternatives, shall we?

I've already noted that based upon your logic, all in-game evidence > creator quotes, OoT=SW is one of the most ridiculous and unlikely things in the entire series. Based upon in-game evidence, OoT=SW was probably less likely than a linear timeline is now.

So with in-game evidence we can assume that OoT=SW was wrong (because OoT=SW had very little in-game evidence, while having a LOT of evidence against it).

So any timeline based on in-game evidence would have to include either OoT-SW-LttP-LoZ, or OoT-LoZ-SW-LttP.

Let's look at how both of these work.

OoT-SW-LttP

So Gerudo Ganondorf steals the ToP and becomes the Daimaou Ganon, then gets sealed in the SR. Then the SW happens and a new Ganondorf who leads a band of theives steals the full Triforce and becomes a Maou then gets sealed in the SR. LttP happens and Ganon is now a Yami no Maou and is the only one in the SR. Then a long while later people suddenly remember the sages who sealed the Daimaou Ganon that was forgotten and never dealt with aftewards.

...Ok now let's look at OoT-LoZ-SW-LttP, since we've already concluded that with in-game evidence OoT=SW was incredibly unlikely.

Ganondorf steals the ToP gets sealed by the sages and becomes Daimaou. For some reason Ganon got out of the SR, but his backstory is that he stole the ToP and is now the Daimaou. He then gets killed and is completely dead. A new Ganondorf comes around, steals the full Triforce, becomes the Yami no Maou Ganon, then gets sealed, then killed.

I think it's pretty clear that the latter makes much, much more sense.

So how can OoT-LoZ-LttP be wrong? You'd be a complete hypocrite to say that OoT=SW but it goes OoT-LttP, as in-game evidence contradicts OoT=SW more than any other accepted or well known theory in the entire series. However OoT-SW-LttP makes absolutely NO sense.

So the only viable possibility, using your logic, of course, would be OoT-LoZ-SW-LttP.

 

[MrMosley]

So any timeline based on in-game evidence would have to include either OoT-SW-LttP-LoZ, or OoT-LoZ-SW-LttP.

Before I go any further, I don't see TP or FSA in there at all (assuming you even place FSA before ALttP). Regardless, TP will need to be put in a timeline these days and that will change quite a bit, I believe.

Let's look at how both of these work.

OoT-SW-LttP

So Gerudo Ganondorf steals the ToP and becomes the Daimaou Ganon, then gets sealed in the SR. Then the SW happens and a new Ganondorf who leads a band of theives steals the full Triforce and becomes a Maou then gets sealed in the SR. LttP happens and Ganon is now a Yami no Maou and is the only one in the SR. Then a long while later people suddenly remember the sages who sealed the Daimaou Ganon that was forgotten and never dealt with aftewards.

No. Ganondorf steals the Triforce of Power in OoT (even on the CT, I believe this event still occurs). Now, we come later to TP, where Ganondorf obviously has the ToP. He apparently loses it at the end of that game. And THAT's where you have a major hole in your idea of this timeline structure. Your trying to say that Ganondorf got the ToP, the later went after the full Triforce which would impossibly exist since he has the ToP. But he loses it in TP, which gives an opportunity for the complete Triforce to then later exist come time for the SW.

On a side note, I don't currently believe that there are multiple Ganondorfs. There might be in the case of FSA, but I'm not completely sure, nor does it really matter to my timeline idea. If Ganondorf has no pieces of the Triforce (after TP), then a long time later is seen in FSA, going after the Trident of Power, it makes perfect sense that by the time of FSA, the Triforce is lost again (or in the SR). Now, between FSA and ALttP, Ganon has to break out of the Four Sword (which we see he obviously done in ALttP), which gives a perfect opportunity, during that entire period of time, for the SW to occur, Ganondorf to become Ganon (by way of his wish), and be sealed within the Dark World.

OoT--TP--FSA-(SW)-ALttP, makes good sense to me.

...Ok now let's look at OoT-LoZ-SW-LttP, since we've already concluded that with in-game evidence OoT=SW was incredibly unlikely.

Ganondorf steals the ToP gets sealed by the sages and becomes Daimaou. For some reason Ganon got out of the SR, but his backstory is that he stole the ToP and is now the Daimaou. He then gets killed and is completely dead. A new Ganondorf comes around, steals the full Triforce, becomes the Yami no Maou Ganon, then gets sealed, then killed.

This contradicts TP and WW (which again, you are forgetting to include). We aren't discussing a linear, 1998 timeline anymore. Its like Viral said, they make later games to fix the mistakes of past games.

Yeah, the creators have made mistakes pertaining to the timeline. However Aonuma has said he wants to combine the games, so we have to trust that any inconsistencies in the games as of now will be fixed or reviewed in future games.

Obviously, the Miyamoto Order was a big mistake because the timeline now splits, Ganon can't escape the SR in time for LoZ on the AT because the only time he does that is in WW (and I believe a past escape would have been mentioned), and he isn't even sealed on the CT, so that's completely out of the question.

 

[Zemen]

But you can't think in that logic when considering the timeline. The timeline is not what you want it to be, it is what the creators shape it to be.

I never once said I'm making the timeline what I want it to be. I'm making the timeline based on evidence from the games and by what Aonuma says. I even stated in my last post that he is the only one I trust on timeline issues. Not one time have I ever explained the placement of a game and said "this is what I beleive because it's what I want to be true." Again, this is your guys' false assumption that if I don't listen to the developers I MUST be wrong. Just because I don't listen to them doesn't mean I don't agree with where they put stuff and with their interpretations of the game. The difference is rather than taking their word for it, I try to find out how what they say works. If Miyamoto (or Aonuma) told me the official timeline, I wouldn't just say "Ok, game over. Time to find something else to do." I would look at each aspect of it and see how they came to their conclusion. Most people here are taking all developer quotes as concrete evidence. I'm questioning the authority to see if they actually know what they are talking about.

If they make mistakes in the continuity of the games (which they have), then they try to fix it in future titles or remakes (eg. LttP GBA).

GBA ALTTP didn't really change anything huge except the minor addition of the PotFS.

As much as you would like to create your own timeline about the games, ignoring clear developer quotes or intent is simply wrong.

Again, I never said I ignore them. I said that I don't use them as evidence. I actually research why they said what they said. If they said that OoX is before OoT would you believe them without any question or would you go play OoX and figure out how it could be first?

What is the point in theorising about Zelda lore if your not even going to agree with the people that invent said lore.

I've agreed with pretty much everything Aonuma has ever said. I don't agree with the Miyamoto order. Just because I don't listen to developer quotes and use them as evidence doesn't mean I don't agree with them.

Yes, theorising can be tackled in a variety of manners, but if you are completely ignoring what the developers are trying to achieve, then you are not theorising, you are writing fan-fiction.

I didn't realize that using actual in game evidence was the same as writing a fan fiction. I'm not making up stuff to fill in holes. I'm using the in-game evidence that your beloved creators made.

Personal, bias and ignorant views of what the games say cannot be considered theorising, because it isn't factual.

What biased statements have I used? MrMosley seems to listen to developer quotes and him and I have a very similar view on what the timeline is and why it is that way. The difference? He listens to developer quotes and I don't, yet we still have the same interpretation of the timeline. Funny how that works out when you all seem to think that I HAVE to be wrong.

tl;dr: Yeah, the creators have made mistakes pertaining to the timeline. However Aonuma has said he wants to combine the games, so we have to trust that any inconsistencies in the games as of now will be fixed or reviewed in future games.

But until then we're stuck with what we have.

If you want to ignore what the creators say about the timeline, then you may as well be making up your own Zelda stories to fill in gaps in your fan-fiction, because a timeline that isn't built around what the creators intend it to be isn't a timeline at all, nor is it theorising.

Again, maybe sometime you should actually listen to my explanation of my timeline. There are no fan-fictions. Nothing made up. Nothing biased. All it is is my timeline based on in-game evidence (which are fact) and other interpretations of certain things that are unclear to everyone. You are all assuming that because I don't listen to developers that anything I come up with is fan-fiction. You obviously have no faith in the games that the developers made. If you are that against me using in-game evidence to figure out a timeline then that shows how competent you think the creators are at displaying evidence in their games. Why even play them if you're only going to listen to what they say about them rather than trying to find the timeline on your own?

Instead of trying to bash how I theorize, why don't you let me do what I do and you do what you do? Sounds good to me, eh?

As for the actual topic on hand..

@SoJ: We aren't arguing 1998 timeline. We are arguing the first five titles based on today's timeline.

 

[Pinecove]

GBA ALTTP didn't really change anything huge except the minor addition of the PotFS.

The manual was completely fixed from the SNES version of it.

 

[sign of table]

Before I go any further, I don't see TP or FSA in there at all (assuming you even place FSA before ALttP). Regardless, TP will need to be put in a timeline these days and that will change quite a bit, I believe.

Oh damn it I misread the part I quoted.

Yeah that's false. Miyamoto made quotes about his game series that right now doesn't make sense (the infamous Miyamoto Order). Ganon wasn't supposed to have left the Dark World after the Seal War.

I didn't notice when you said "right now"... that's what I get for scanning instead of not reading word-for-word... soo... I fail

Anyways, of COURSE things right now don't make sense 11 years after the quote. Stuff gets retconned ALL the time.

I didn't realize that using actual in game evidence was the same as writing a fan fiction. I'm not making up stuff to fill in holes. I'm using the in-game evidence that your beloved creators made.

Even if the creators say that that same evidence means something else?

@SoJ: We aren't arguing 1998 timeline. We are arguing the first five titles based on today's timeline.

That's the other thread

I just want to clear up this ******** misconception that the 1998 official timeline was wrong in 1998 (however that quote hardly holds any ground now 11 years later).

 

[Zemen]

Even if the creators say that that same evidence means something else?

Give me an example and I would love to answer that question. As far as I know, I don't contradict anything Aonuma has ever said about the timeline.

I guess I'll say this for the millionth time. Just because I don't listen/use the developer's quotes as evidence doesn't mean that I don't agree with them. This is literally everyone's false assumption. Leave my style of theorizing alone and focus on your own. If you don't like how I theorize then who cares? It doesn't affect how you come up with your timeline. I'm not necessarily aiming that last statement at you, SoJ. Just at everyone as a collective who seem to care so much about the way I do things.

 

[MrMosley]

@SoJ: We aren't arguing 1998 timeline. We are arguing the first five titles based on today's timeline.

That's the other thread (as SoJ stated). These are all seeming to run together into one massive discussion though.

The manual was completely fixed from the SNES version of it.

The manual was simply shortened. The SNES manual was like reading a chapter from a book. The GBA simply didn't go into that much detail on the matter. The game, however, was NOT changed to disregard the original format. I have proven before, in other threads, multiple quotes from the GBA version of ALttP that still says Ganondorf (man) was sealed and stayed in the Dark World (as Ganon) from the SW to ALttP. That's what ALttP is all about, SNES and GBA.

What biased statements have I used? MrMosley seems to listen to developer quotes and him and I have a very similar view on what the timeline is and why it is that way. The difference? He listens to developer quotes and I don't, yet we still have the same interpretation of the timeline. Funny how that works out when you all seem to think that I HAVE to be wrong.

Actually, we have quite the same way of going about theorizing. I listen to what the developers have to say, but their background goes a long way. And what they say has to make sense. Take LoZ--ALttP, for example (the Miyamoto Order). Before anyone began theorizing, before any kind of timeline began to click in anyone's head, one could play A Link to the "Past" and realize that it was meant to be a prequel. Especially if we were in 1993, looking at the back of the box, playing a game that gives Ganon an origin (as by how he came to be the pig-beast), and the history of the Triforce, all of that comes together quite nicely to spell out "distant prequel" to the original LoZ.

Now, Miyamoto comes in and makes a quote that says LoZ is before ALttP. Of course, those who have come to know and completely understand (with good reason) that ALttP is a prequel, go . This is what happened to me. So I went back, played the game again, took everything into consideration... But ALttP pretty much still spelled out "distant prequel" to me. In that sense, why would I say "Okay. Well Miyamoto says this, so I'm going to ignore the fact that everything about ALttP was meant to be a prequel, and just put it ahead of LoZ", when there's no reason to? I'll admit that its easy to say Ganon escaped from the Dark World and did his thing in LoZ after OoT (in 1998). I might be able to bring myself to consider that a possibility. But games sense then have stated otherwise.

For example, the Split Timeline made the events of Ganondorf being sealed fall on the AT. He escapes for WW. Nothing happens between OoT and WW, so LoZ can't exist there. That alone disregards the Miyamoto Order. Conclusively, we have ALttP originally made to be a prequel... Miyamoto saying that it wasn't a prequel... Then other games coming out to further prove that its a prequel. I'm pretty content with my belief that ALttP is, in fact, a distant prequel to LoZ, in that case.

Miyamoto hasn't been the developer of a Zelda game since LoZ. I'll believe anything he says about that game specifically. But when he comes out saying things about the rest of the games and their placement on the timeline, when its been Aonuma since MM that has developed these stories and even stated that he is in the process of putting them all together, I'm going to listen to him instead. Either way, the Miyamoto Order was 1998. Today, it doesn't make much sense or hold any validity.

 

[Erimgard]

Yeah that's false. Miyamoto made quotes about his game series that right now doesn't make sense (the infamous Miyamoto Order). Ganon wasn't supposed to have left the Dark World after the Seal War.

BS-LoZ (which was created by the man who wrote the plot for the Seal War) and aLttP GBA (which was stated to have changes made to it for accuracy) both imply that he did.

 

[MrMosley]

BS-LoZ (which was created by the man who wrote the plot for the Seal War) and aLttP GBA (which was stated to have changes made to it for accuracy) both imply that he did.

ALttP GBA does not imply that he left the Dark World after the Seal War. Give me one good example from ALttP GBA that clearly implies that he left the Dark World.

I gave many points here:

http://zeldadungeon.net/forum/showthread.php?t=5150&page=4

(Read post #51.. More specifically, examples 4, 5, and 6) That pretty well implies that he did NOT leave the Dark World from the SW on to ALttP. All of those quotes come straight from the GBA version of ALttP.