• 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.

OoX and LA

Zemen

[Insert Funny Statement]
Joined
Nov 11, 2008
Location
Illinois
there are so many different ideas on what the order of these two games are.

Scenarios:

1. some say that it is ALTTP-OoX-LA

2. some say that it is ALTTP-LA-OoX

3. and some people dont even put them on the same timeline.

what do i think? i think they dont go on the same timeline but i do think its possible for the second of the three scenarios i mentioned to be correct. before i say why i think they dont go on the same timeline im gonna say why i dont think that the first scenario i named is possible.

ALTTP/OoX/LA...this means that all four games have the same Link in them. why do some believe that OoX is a prequel to LA? i have heard multiple reasons that i believe to be totally, and utterly terrible reasons. one of these reasons is because of similar monsters that apparently are only in those two games. ok thats evidence ill admit but couldnt that also mean that OoX is after LA?

another piece of evidence argued for OoX/LA is that at the end of OoX you leave on a boat that looks like the one in LA. this is hardly a good argument. with the technology in the Zelda series there is only one way to travel across the sea (if youre not using magic) and that is by boat. what does it matter if the boats look similar? why cant there be more than one of any boat in the world? two words...reused artwork...

wanna hear something funny? those are the best two pieces of evidence ive heard argued for why OoX should be a prequel to LA.

now why dont i think its possible? the BS for LA clearly states as follows:

"Link, who had defeated the evil Ganon and regained peace in Hyrule, had not enjoyed the archived tranquility for long, and eventually becomes restless. Feeling in need of training or enlightenment, he embarks on a journey and sails across oceans in a small sail boat. Eventually Link completes his training in foreign countries and begins to sail back to his home, Hyrule."

now lets break this up and look at it.


"Link, who had defeated the evil Ganon and regained peace in Hyrule,"

this implies that Ganon was fought in Hyrule. in OoX, Ganon is fought in Holodrum/Labrynna. now correct me if im wrong, but if he was defeated in completely different countries than Hyrule then why would the BS say that he brought peace back to Hyrule?

"had not enjoyed the archived tranquility for long, and eventually becomes restless. Feeling in need of training or enlightenment, he embarks on a journey and sails across oceans in a small sail boat."

this implies that Link was leaving Hyrule. if he brought peace to Hyrule then its safe to assume he is in Hyrule which means its safe to assume that this means he is leaving Hyrule, not Holodrum or Labrynne which is the places he would be leaving if OoX was a prequel.

"Eventually Link completes his training in foreign countries and begins to sail back to his home, Hyrule."

the part of the BS that best destroys OoX going before LA. now if OoX comes before LA then this part refers to the events of OoX and Link leaving to return to Hyrule (like we assume he does at the end of OoX). the only problem with this is that it says he completes his "training"

correct me if im wrong but i would consider OoX to be much more than mere training in foreign countries, wouldnt you? he had two pretty big adventures that ultimately lead to him fighting Ganon (kinda) again, but the LA BS is about him finishing training and returning home.


not convinced? well here is another piece of evidence OoX doesnt go before LA. in OoX, Link has the symbol of the triforce on his left hand, but its not there in LA. why would he lost the symbol if LA is supposed to be the same Link? its not like he all the sudden lost his courage or lost whatever he had that made him worthy enough to have the ToC.

my final reason is that i dont even believe the two games go on the same timeline. ALTTP BS talks about the seal war which takes place in the adult portion of OoT therefor ALTTP has to be on the AT. we know that LA is (or was) the sequel to ALTTP which means it has to go on the same timeline as ALTTP. now OoX, IMO, does not go on the AT for the reason that Koume and Kotake are in the game.

if you dont recall, they died in OoT by the hands of adult link, but they were never killed during link's childhood which means they were still alive on the CT (as seen in MM if you believe that is the original Koume and Kotake). if they are dead on the AT and OoX goes on the AT then how are they alive in OoX? dont even try to shoot our resurrection or rebirth because there is absolutely no in game hints or quotes to back up either theory which means we have to assume they are the originals and if they are then they cannot be on the AT.

so lets discuss this.
 

ChargewithSword

Zelda Dungeon's Critic
Joined
Jan 13, 2009
Location
I don't want to say.
Zemen, OOX was made after LA of course the events that take place are going to be different. Game developers don't always follow BS's, in fact the BS is usually the last thing they follow. Look at LOZ how it states that Ganon can only be defeated by a silver arrow, yet now there is a sword that can do that job already.
Things change and developers get facts mixed up at the same time. Don't forget that another company made this. What if Capcom never saw the BS.

This isn't my opinion, it's been done before in the Zelda series take Four Sword Adventure's BS for example.

Long ago in the inner reaches of Hyrule, an evil wind sorcerer known as Vaati began kidnapping beautiful young maidens, one after another. Nobody could stop Vaati, and the people of Hyrule despaired.


I have no recollection of that happening in Minish Cap.
 
Joined
Feb 2, 2009
Location
Brasil
there are so many different ideas on what the order of these two games are.

LOL
You just read my mind. I was about to start this thread when i saw this :P

1. some say that it is ALTTP-OoX-LA

This is only possible if it goes like LttP-OoX/LA, and yet that doesn't have much supporting it...

2. some say that it is ALTTP-LA-OoX

This is what I support, LttP/LA-OOX more specifically...

3. and some people dont even put them on the same timeline.

Works well, but it is an easy solution. IMO it ignores the many similarities between OoX and LttP; between OoX and LA; and between OoX and LoZ/AoL...

one of these reasons is because of similar monsters that apparently are only in those two games. ok thats evidence ill admit but couldnt that also mean that OoX is after LA?

Exactly what I believe. I do think the similarities between OoX and LA are too many to simply ignore them, but they don't imply any order of the games...

"Link, who had defeated the evil Ganon and regained peace in Hyrule, had not enjoyed the archived tranquility for long, and eventually becomes restless. Feeling in need of training or enlightenment, he embarks on a journey and sails across oceans in a small sail boat. Eventually Link completes his training in foreign countries and begins to sail back to his home, Hyrule."

The boat from OoX is not small. The one from LA is...

not convinced? well here is another piece of evidence OoX doesnt go before LA. in OoX, Link has the symbol of the triforce on his left hand, but its not there in LA. why would he lost the symbol if LA is supposed to be the same Link? its not like he all the sudden lost his courage or lost whatever he had that made him worthy enough to have the ToC.

This is conclusive, imho. Anyone need fanonic assumptions to deal with this problem...

now OoX, IMO, does not go on the AT for the reason that Koume and Kotake are in the game.

Is there anything else for OoX to come in the YT? Because, when OoX was released, there was no TP yet, meaning Ganon (the demon) had never appeared in the YT yet. And, a few years later, FSA was released and told a new BS for Ganon, in which he used the trident to become the demon. Considering he has the trident in Oox and LttP, I think that is enough to prove that OoX is actually in the AT.

As for Twinrova, the devs reuse characters from time to time. I could list dozens here, but I know your stance on this. You say that these other reused characters were not important to the storyline, while Twinrova was. But this is not true. Twinrova existed only in the second liked game (in the rest of the games she was not even mentioned). It was a bonus.

I'm not saying it is not a canon ending. I'm just saying that Twinrova wasn't put there to imply timeline connections, the same way Dampè wasn't put in TMC to relate it to OoT (it is a different Dampè, even if you put TMC before OoT).

And, to be honest, Dampè is way more important to the TMC storyline than Twinrova to the OoA or the OoS ones. I mean, you can beat both OoA and OoS without even seeing twinrova, but you can't beat TMC without talking to Dampè...


Solid evidence, sure. But Nintendo quite possible couldn't even have a timeline.

Shigeru Miyamoto, Eiji Aonuma and Dan Owsen/Bill Trinnen (one of these two) disagree with you here. They all said there is an actual timeline...

This isn't my opinion, it's been done before in the Zelda series take Four Sword Adventure's BS for example.

Long ago in the inner reaches of Hyrule, an evil wind sorcerer known as Vaati began kidnapping beautiful young maidens, one after another. Nobody could stop Vaati, and the people of Hyrule despaired.


I have no recollection of that happening in Minish Cap.

TMC was never meant to be the FS BS. There was a 4th FSS game planned to be a sequel to TMC (as proven by the "here ends Link's first adventure" line in the end of TMC), which would be that story...
 

Zemen

[Insert Funny Statement]
Joined
Nov 11, 2008
Location
Illinois
Zemen, OOX was made after LA of course the events that take place are going to be different. Game developers don't always follow BS's, in fact the BS is usually the last thing they follow. Look at LOZ how it states that Ganon can only be defeated by a silver arrow, yet now there is a sword that can do that job already.
Things change and developers get facts mixed up at the same time. Don't forget that another company made this. What if Capcom never saw the BS.

This isn't my opinion, it's been done before in the Zelda series take Four Sword Adventure's BS for example.

Long ago in the inner reaches of Hyrule, an evil wind sorcerer known as Vaati began kidnapping beautiful young maidens, one after another. Nobody could stop Vaati, and the people of Hyrule despaired.


I have no recollection of that happening in Minish Cap.

it doenst matter that Capcom made the games. it still Miyamoto/Aonuma are still the ones who saw over the project. the only difference between which company made the game is who is signing the checks to make it.

as for the BS for FS not connection to MC, that is not entirely wrong. the BS for LA literally doesnt connect to OoX in any way. at least the BS for FSA talks about Vaati who was the main villain in MC. thats at least one more connection to MC than LA has for OoX. also, like Smertios said, there was a 4th FS game that was going to be made and it was going to be a sequel to MC but they never made it.

it sounds like youre saying that OoX is made after LA which means the BS for LA would not be based on OoX. thats true, but i will also say that if they are making a game to be a prequel, they would at least try to connect it to the BS because the BS is one of the main components of the Zelda series. name one game that doesnt connect to its prequel with a BS or its sequel's BS except for the original LoZ and AoL. those two games were made with absolutely no idea of the series lasting this long. if OoX is supposed to be a prequel then how come there are absolutely no connections to make it so?

this next part is for Smertios:

i think i just decided that OoX does go on the AT. i understand your point on the Koume and Kotake thing and i think for some reason i always thought they were in both games regardless of the link. its still always going to be in the back of my mind but in the long run, with its connections to LA and ALTTP it seems as if it goes on the AT.
 

ChargewithSword

Zelda Dungeon's Critic
Joined
Jan 13, 2009
Location
I don't want to say.
it doenst matter that Capcom made the games. it still Miyamoto/Aonuma are still the ones who saw over the project. the only difference between which company made the game is who is signing the checks to make it.

as for the BS for FS not connection to MC, that is not entirely wrong. the BS for LA literally doesnt connect to OoX in any way. at least the BS for FSA talks about Vaati who was the main villain in MC. thats at least one more connection to MC than LA has for OoX. also, like Smertios said, there was a 4th FS game that was going to be made and it was going to be a sequel to MC but they never made it.

it sounds like youre saying that OoX is made after LA which means the BS for LA would not be based on OoX. thats true, but i will also say that if they are making a game to be a prequel, they would at least try to connect it to the BS because the BS is one of the main components of the Zelda series. name one game that doesnt connect to its prequel with a BS or its sequel's BS except for the original LoZ and AoL. those two games were made with absolutely no idea of the series lasting this long. if OoX is supposed to be a prequel then how come there are absolutely no connections to make it so?

this next part is for Smertios:

i think i just decided that OoX does go on the AT. i understand your point on the Koume and Kotake thing and i think for some reason i always thought they were in both games regardless of the link. its still always going to be in the back of my mind but in the long run, with its connections to LA and ALTTP it seems as if it goes on the AT.

I'm willing to admit that the Alttp/LA-OOX story is more plausible.

Still I am interested in the 4th FS game for I need proof to know if it is real.
 
Joined
Jan 1, 2009
Location
Hyrule and Azeroth
one of these reasons is because of similar monsters that apparently are only in those two games. ok thats evidence ill admit but couldnt that also mean that OoX is after LA?
LA is a dream and it takes things from Link's life. Therefore it is evidence for OoX/LA.

Let's look at the LttP/LA evidence... huh it looks like the only real evidence is the shadow of Agahnim.

@the rest of your post.

Oh and thank you for actually using our translations.
this implies that Ganon was fought in Hyrule. in OoX, Ganon is fought in Holodrum/Labrynna. now correct me if im wrong, but if he was defeated in completely different countries than Hyrule then why would the BS say that he brought peace back to Hyrule?
Have you played OoX?
Zelda said:
Link... The three (Triforce) on your left hand symbolize power, wisdom
and courage-- these are the mark of the hero who is fated to appear
when peace crumbles in Hyrule. With the Essences of Nature and Time and
the courage you possess, you have fought back the powers of evil! The
guidance of the Triforce has made you into this legendary hero! Thank
you, Link.
Hmm if he comes when peace in Hyrule crumbles... And then destroys what made the peace crumble... wouldn't that restore peace to Hyrule?
correct me if im wrong but i would consider OoX to be much more than mere training in foreign countries, wouldnt you? he had two pretty big adventures that ultimately lead to him fighting Ganon (kinda) again, but the LA BS is about him finishing training and returning home.
Whoa, whoa, whoa, I would like some proof that LA has to happen immediatly after OoX. I've always had it a few years after. When you look at the artwork LA Link is obviously a little older so time has passed.
my final reason is that i dont even believe the two games go on the same timeline. ALTTP BS talks about the seal war which takes place in the adult portion of OoT therefor ALTTP has to be on the AT. we know that LA is (or was) the sequel to ALTTP which means it has to go on the same timeline as ALTTP. now OoX, IMO, does not go on the AT for the reason that Koume and Kotake are in the game.
Not quite. If Koume and Kotake are enough evidence for a placement wouldn't the loss of the MS be enough to place LttP on the CT?

Oh and LA and LttP don't have to be in the same timeline that was bad logic.

Btw, I think that the SNES LttP manual is the more canon version. So OoT can't be the SW in my mind.

So what are the reasons for LttP/LA?

Oh and you forgot to mention that some people put it OoX/LA with LttP no where near it.
with its connections to LA and ALTTP it seems as if it goes on the AT.
It only connects to LA, though, and those connections only matter if OoX is a direct prequel.
 
Joined
Feb 2, 2009
Location
Brasil
Btw, I think that the SNES LttP manual is the more canon version. So OoT can't be the SW in my mind.

Exactly on the contrary. The SNES LttP manual was released before OoT. And before the devs (I have to go check who said that again) said that ooT was the IW...
 
Joined
Jan 1, 2009
Location
Hyrule and Azeroth
^Yeah, but the FSA beta shows that Nintendo obviously doesn't care as much about OoT being the SW. And the SNES manual has some ridiculously blatant contradictions with OoT. Unless, of course, you're willing to believe that Ganondorf was sealed the night he got the Triforce and he never took over the palace...
 
Joined
Feb 2, 2009
Location
Brasil
^Yeah, but the FSA beta shows that Nintendo obviously doesn't care as much about OoT being the SW. And the SNES manual has some ridiculously blatant contradictions with OoT. Unless, of course, you're willing to believe that Ganondorf was sealed the night he got the Triforce and he never took over the palace...

OK, please pardon me but I didn't understand what you meant here.

First, what FSA beta?
Second, please list the contradictions between the SNES LttP BS and OoT.
Third, Ganon was sealed at the end of OoT, SEVEN years after he got the ToP.
 
Joined
Jan 1, 2009
Location
Hyrule and Azeroth
^I'll reply in the newly made SW thread so as not to spam up this thread.

@Zemen: So you've changed your timeline? You're putting OoX on the AT but keeping TMC before OoT? Here's my question. In TMC Labrynna and Holodrum exist. So after a flood why would they exist again? I never saw anyone trying to recreate a Labrynna and Holodrum like Tetra and Link probably did with Hyrule.
 
Last edited:

Zemen

[Insert Funny Statement]
Joined
Nov 11, 2008
Location
Illinois
^I'll reply in the newly made SW thread so as not to spam up this thread.

@Zemen: So you've changed your timeline? You're putting OoX on the AT but keeping TMC before OoT? Here's my question. In TMC Labrynna and Holodrum exist. So after a flood why would they exist again? I never saw anyone trying to recreate a Labrynna and Holodrum like Tetra and Link probably did with Hyrule.

where is your proof that holodrum and labrynna exist? dont even use the picture of 2 islands as your reason because you have no idea what places those islands are. there is absolutely no mention of holodrum and labrynna because if there was there would be SIGNIFICANTLY less debate on its placement. you can PM me with your evidence for that but dont post it here because its off topic.
 
Joined
Jan 1, 2009
Location
Hyrule and Azeroth
It isn't off topic at all. It's related to the OoX placement. Nayru's figurine says that she is descended from a line of priestesses from Labrynna. That's in TMC.

So, yeah, Labrynna exists during TMC.
 

Zemen

[Insert Funny Statement]
Joined
Nov 11, 2008
Location
Illinois
the titla of the thread is OoX and LA. i dont recall it being anything about MC. stay on topic. and in response to the statue, i still stand by my placement. after Hyrule was flooded, everyone forgot about it. they didnt even know the name of the place. the legend that is passed down on onset island (the BS) never even calls the flooded kingdom "Hyrule" they only refer to it as a great kingdom. Hyrule was obviously eventually unflooded or new land was found and the name was reused so why cant the same be for Labrynna/Holodrum? if Hyrule is forgotten and then remembered then why cant Holodrum and Labrynna be forgotten then later remembered? and, again, dont post your answer here as it is not at all on topic. the topic is the order of OoX and LA in respects to each other. PM me with your answer to my question if you wish to discuss this further or post something in a thread thats actually about the placement of MC.
 

Users who are viewing this thread

Top Bottom