Smertios's Timeline

[sign of table]

you say MC comes in the new hyrule after WW and PH. the game would have to come quite a bit of time later. if WW link and tetra started this new world then wouldnt the legend of the hero of winds be passed down? technically that would be like the greatest hero the world has ever known since he saved the great sea world AND started a new Hyrule, but this legend is not mentioned, or even found in a book at the library that you love talking about so much. if MC takes place in the new Hyrule, then how come there is no mention of tetra and the hero of winds? MC was made closely after WW which would mean that if it was to fit into a timeline RIGHT after WW/PH then there should a much more obvious connection because as you said, they go back and change little details to make it fit into a timeline. the fact that the "triforks" are mentioned in a book in a different language is about as important to me as the hat is to you. where are the books on the hero of winds? i would think that would be much more important but i have yet to hear one argument from you that isnt about an ocean under the sky temple or the triforks. both are very very terrible arguments. that argument is about as good as saying it goes after WW/PH because they used the toon link design. i hate people who say that.

The wall of text... it burns!!!!

you say MC comes in the new hyrule after WW and PH. the game would have to come quite a bit of time later. if WW link and tetra started this new world then wouldnt the legend of the hero of winds be passed down?

Good point. But I must also ask something of you too. Why isn't the story of the Hero of Men or the hero from tMC ever passed down in TP? He saved the world too. And on the CT they would be the only heroes as well.

MC First because you get a hat without anyone telling you that the founder of new hyrule, the hero of winds, had a hat just like it. i would think that someone would be like "hey youre wearing what our great and wonderous founder wore back in the day!"

OoT first because in TP you get a tunic and it doesn't imply anything about tMC. Only OoT starting the tunic.

MC First because no previous link is mentioned anywhere, and as i said, the hero of winds was the founder (along with tetra) of this new Hyrule. he was known for saving the world from ganondorf, but this isnt mentioned anywhere? interesting.

OoT first because TP makes no mention of a previous hero.

TMC Link was known for defeating Vaati and saving the world from him. This isn't mentioned anywhere? Interesting...

Oh and the only people who even knew of Ganondorf were the King of Red Lions, Tetra and Link. (Maybe the pirate crew did. I can't quite remember) Ganondorf died and so did the KoRL.

So my vague, pointless implication uses the exact same logic as yours, but mine works.

MC First because there is no mention of a previous evil. only monsters.

Technically the same would be if tMC was directly after tWW. Actually with tMC as the first game in new hyrule I can use all of the same perks of tMC being first. And OoT being first. Plus factual non-implication evidence.


With evidence OoT being first is better and more evidenced. You can't deny that. It's like saying that LttP-LA has more evidence and is a better placement than OoX-LA. OoX-LA has far more evidence. OoT first has far more evidence. I don't care whether you choose to believe in tMC-OoT. I do care, however, that you admit there is more overall evidence and that your argument relies soley on pure unevidenced implications.

Sorry if I come off rude. This debate is just getting a little irritating when all that happens is:
You present un-evidenced implications.
I show how those exact implications can work for my timeline. Then I show you true evidence.
You don't mention that the implications can work for my timeline. You then say that my evidence is too old.
I show evidence more recent than your evidence and show how pointless those implications are.
You don't acknowledge my evidence then re-present your implications.

It's just going around in circles. So don't take my irritation personally. I'm just a little tired of this debate and not having my evidence acknowledged.

 

[MrMosley]

Sign, my timeline had about the same basic idea that MC took place in the new Hyrule, so on that I can pretty much agree. But where is the "more evidence" that LA is a sequel to OoX than evidence of LA being a sequel to ALttP. Judging by the manual of LA, ALttP was its direct prequel. I can find no way that LA would be a sequel to OoX besides the end scene with Link on a boat, but to me that dosen't proove anything other than he had to sail back to Hyrule.

Heres how my timeline was set up:

(splits to Adult Timeline) WW--PH--MC--FS--FSA
OoT
(Splits to Child Timeline) MM--TP--ALttP--LA--OoX--LoZ--AoL

 

[Zemen]

The wall of text... it burns!!!!

Good point. But I must also ask something of you too. Why isn't the story of the Hero of Men or the hero from tMC ever passed down in TP? He saved the world too. And on the CT they would be the only heroes as well. OoT first because in TP you get a tunic and it doesn't imply anything about tMC. Only OoT starting the tunic. OoT first because TP makes no mention of a previous hero.

TMC Link was known for defeating Vaati and saving the world from him. This isn't mentioned anywhere? Interesting...

Oh and the only people who even knew of Ganondorf were the King of Red Lions, Tetra and Link. (Maybe the pirate crew did. I can't quite remember) Ganondorf died and so did the KoRL.

So my vague, pointless implication uses the exact same logic as yours, but mine works. Technically the same would be if tMC was directly after tWW. Actually with tMC as the first game in new hyrule I can use all of the same perks of tMC being first. And OoT being first. Plus factual non-implication evidence.


With evidence OoT being first is better and more evidenced. You can't deny that. It's like saying that LttP-LA has more evidence and is a better placement than OoX-LA. OoX-LA has far more evidence. OoT first has far more evidence. I don't care whether you choose to believe in tMC-OoT. I do care, however, that you admit there is more overall evidence and that your argument relies soley on pure unevidenced implications.

Sorry if I come off rude. This debate is just getting a little irritating when all that happens is:
You present un-evidenced implications.
I show how those exact implications can work for my timeline. Then I show you true evidence.
You don't mention that the implications can work for my timeline. You then say that my evidence is too old.
I show evidence more recent than your evidence and show how pointless those implications are.
You don't acknowledge my evidence then re-present your implications.

It's just going around in circles. So don't take my irritation personally. I'm just a little tired of this debate and not having my evidence acknowledged.

why would the back story of TP talk about MC? you assume that because i put MC first then the child timeline should have more mention of it. that is not the case at all. MC is about Vaati and the picori blade. TP is about Ganondorf and the master sword so why would TP have a back story about MC if the game has absolutely nothing to do with any of the events of MC. the game is an obvious sequel to OoT much like WW is so its going to focus on the events of OoT. the game is about the twili realm and ganondorf who survived an execution that happened after OoT. i dont understand why they would have to mention MC anywhere if nothing in MC relates to TP. there was no ganondorf or master sword or twilight realm so why would that game be brought up? it would have been irrelevant to the entire game if MC was the back story, but according to your placement of MC, there would be a lot of connections but these connections are NEVER made obvious. if its the new Hyrule why is there no mention anywhere of the founders or the fact that there was an old Hyrule? you assume that link and tetra wouldnt tell people their story. i dont think people would just start following a pirate who says she is a princess without any story or evidence to back that up. and i know for a fact that link, tetra, the pirates and the king of red lions were not the only ones who knew that ganondorf existed. there were the great fairies, key people throughout the game that help you along your quest (the korok and the rito who help you). and im assuming that if the people who help you know of your quest they would tell others of your quest especially AFTER you save them. this great event happened. people knew monsters and stuff were attacking them and people knew that link was trying to do something about it. maybe not everyone knew but more than the people you named knew what was going on. maybe they didnt know about hyrule but i would hope that tetra/zelda would tell them the story otherwise they would be dumb to follow her because all they would know is that she SAYS she is a princess with no proof. but wait...none of this is mentioned anywhere in MC. there is no mention of a great sea. there is no mention of a previous Hyrule. there is no mention of a flood or deflooding period. there is no mention of link and tetra who supposedly started this new hyrule. and whats this? theres not mention of ganondorf who is the reason why they needed new land to begin with?!

i rest my case. you can argue this all you want but im done. IMO, my evidence for why MC should go first is much stronger than why you put it after WW. you have my answer. you know my argument. this is going no where so im done.

 

[Smertios]

Sign, my timeline had about the same basic idea that MC took place in the new Hyrule, so on that I can pretty much agree. But where is the "more evidence" that LA is a sequel to OoX than evidence of LA being a sequel to ALttP. Judging by the manual of LA, ALttP was its direct prequel. I can find no way that LA would be a sequel to OoX besides the end scene with Link on a boat, but to me that dosen't proove anything other than he had to sail back to Hyrule.

Heres how my timeline was set up:

(splits to Adult Timeline) WW--PH--MC--FS--FSA
OoT
(Splits to Child Timeline) MM--TP--ALttP--LA--OoX--LoZ--AoL

Pretty nice. So you don't trust Miyamoto when he said that OoT is the Imprisoning War? I know that some people don't, by arguing that FSA retconned that by itself being the IW, but you don't have FSA before LttP for that...

 

[Skull_Kid]

Pretty nice. So you don't trust Miyamoto when he said that OoT is the Imprisoning War? I know that some people don't, by arguing that FSA retconned that by itself being the IW, but you don't have FSA before LttP for that...

Something about OoT being the Imprisoning War smells too Fishy!
If it is the Imprisoning war, then Nintendo did an epic fail, because, it is more like a war of One against a lot of people!
But I am not going against the thoughts of the creator, if he says so, then it is

 

[sign of table]

And the IW/SW is implied to be the first time the triforce leaves the SR. The sleeping Zelda story features the First Generation Zelda. It also features the Triforce. So that means if LoZ/AoL is on the CT no other game can go before OoT.

Oh and... damn I forgot to reply to that bit about LA. Here we go

LA takes place in the Wind Fish's dream. But he obviously shares the dream so for the most part a lot of the stuff seen in there is from Link. Probably things from Link's life. The manual works for both OoX-LA and LttP-LA.

13 or 14 exclusive enemies between OoX and LA. 2-5 exlusive enemies for LttP-LA. Exclusives mean enemies that don't appear in any other game. I'm too lazy to recount how many total enemies shared between OoX and LA and LttP. IIRC it was 60 for OoX-LA and like 35-40 for LttP-LA.

Then there is the boat. There is more overall evidence for OoX-LA. You may not choose to believe all of the evidence. But counting everything there is more evidence for OoX-LA.

 

[MrMosley]

Honestly I can't think of any ememies right off that are only in OoX and LA. LA's final boss transformed into three different versions of bosses which he faced in ALttP. To me, that means more than a few small enemies, still of which I have yet to find. Anyway, all that is thinking way too critically about a game. LA is supposed to be a direct sequel of ALttP. I don't see why they would go back and retcon the entire manual of LA just to include the Oracle titles.

Main Exampl: LA manual states Link leaves Hyrule to clear his mind after defeating Ganon. If OoX was a prequel, Link would have left Labyrnna or Holodrum after defeating Ganon, not Hyrule. So that would destroy the entire purpose of LA's storyline.

 

[sign of table]

They didn't retcon the entire manual. OoX fits perfectly in the LA manual.

Ok I'll give you them.

Angler Fish, Arm-Mimic, Blaino, Cheep-Cheep, Facade, Giant Ghini, Pincer, Pokey, Shrouded Stalfos, Smasher, Thwomp, Vire (in that form), Pigblins (they are different from Moblins), Spiked Thwomp.

For LttP-LA exclusives.

Bomber, Hinox, Agahnim (and Agahnim may or may not be in OoS)

14 to 3.

Actually the japanese manual of LA says that Link left for enlightenment after being in foreign countries. Or something like that. Read the japanese manual. I have it linked in my new translations thread.

 

[MrMosley]

They didn't retcon the entire manual. OoX fits perfectly in the LA manual.

Ok I'll give you them.

Angler Fish, Arm-Mimic, Blaino, Cheep-Cheep, Facade, Giant Ghini, Pincer, Pokey, Shrouded Stalfos, Smasher, Thwomp, Vire (in that form), Pigblins (they are different from Moblins), Spiked Thwomp.

For LttP-LA exclusives.

Bomber, Hinox, Agahnim (and Agahnim may or may not be in OoS)

14 to 3.

Most of the enemies, and pretty much all sprites that could be, which were used for the Oracle titles were because Capcom used recycled Link's Awakening sprites and graphics, not because they wanted it to be a sequel to LA. So that can't really be used as a good resource for placing a game in a timeline.

Agahnim was not in OoS, or OoA for that matter. He was only in ALttP and LA. Thwomp was from the Mario series, as was Goombas, and many other things used in LA which were symbolism from other Nintendo games because it was a dream. It had telephones too.

Stalfos were in ALttP. So were the Moblins, who in ALttP looked like pigs, so the Pig Moblins were in ALttP.

But anyway, most of those enemies came from Capcom recycling older graphics from LA like I had previously stated.

Actually the japanese manual of LA says that Link left for enlightenment after being in foreign countries. Or something like that. Read the japanese manual. I have it linked in my new translations thread.

Okay, but does the manual for OoX fix this? I can figure that it would be easy enough to stick the games there because it mentions "foreign countries", but if the designers wanted the player to know that the Oracle series was supposed to go there, don't you think that they would have said that Link had previously defeated Ganon? Or saved Hyrule? They basically ignore that Link ever had done anything at all in the Oracle titles. Impa dosen't know him, Zelda dosen't know him, so he is virtually non existant until the Oracle titles.

A Link to the Past would have to come before both games in order for anything at all to make since, first of all. In ALttP, Link met Zelda for the first time, at least that generation of Link did. In the Oracle series, Link also meets Zelda for the first time, meaning it is obviously two separate generations of Link. In LA, Link already knows Zelda, as he thinks Marin is Zelda once he wakes up in her home.

Taking this into consideration, you "could" say that it could go ALttP->LA or OoX->LA, but then the fact that the final boss shows up as Agahnim, fighting the same exact way Agahnim fought Link in ALttP, and same going for Ganon, that wouldn't make sense, as the Link from ALttP and the one from LA would now be two completely different generations of Link, and thus the new Link, the one supposidly from OoX and LA, would know nothing about Agahnim or Ganon, and much less be havin nightmares about them.

 

[sign of table]

^Notice what I said before. I never said that OoX-LA evidence is better that would be bias. I said that counting everything there is more OoX-LA evidence. Which there is.

Also the LA manual says that Link brought peace back to hyrule. Zelda in OoX says that Link brought peace back to hyrule.

I never said LttP-OoX-LA. I said OoX-LA or LttP-LA.

Stalfos were in ALttP. So were the Moblins, who in ALttP looked like pigs, so the Pig Moblins were in ALttP.

In OoX and LA there are both Stalfos and other things called Shrouded Stalfos. Shrouded Stalfos appear only in OoX and LA.

Also in OoX and LA there are both Moblins and Pigblins. Japanese names are Moriburin and Butaburin. Moriburin are in LttP and pretty much every game. Butaburin are only in OoX and LA.

Look at the mini-boss of Dancing Dragon Dungeon in OoS. It's the 4th dungeon. It looks identical to the official art of Agahnim. Which is why I said that Agahnim 'might' be in OoS.

 

[MrMosley]

^Notice what I said before. I never said that OoX-LA evidence is better that would be bias. I said that counting everything there is more OoX-LA evidence. Which there is.

Also the LA manual says that Link brought peace back to hyrule. Zelda in OoX says that Link brought peace back to hyrule.

I never said LttP-OoX-LA. I said OoX-LA or LttP-LA. In OoX and LA there are both Stalfos and other things called Shrouded Stalfos. Shrouded Stalfos appear only in OoX and LA.

Also in OoX and LA there are both Moblins and Pigblins. Japanese names are Moriburin and Butaburin. Moriburin are in LttP and pretty much every game. Butaburin are only in OoX and LA.

Look at the mini-boss of Dancing Dragon Dungeon in OoS. It's the 4th dungeon. It looks identical to the official art of Agahnim. Which is why I said that Agahnim 'might' be in OoS.

But enough evidence to say that you would believe OoX->LA than ALttP->LA? To me, there isn't enough of it to support that OoX is the prequel. Really I just wanted to know what all the reasons were, or all the evidence, and basically its the creatures. Thats easy though. As I had stated, Capcom used recycled LA graphics, so of course they were going to use a lot of the monsters that were already there.

 

[sign of table]

Yeah, to me it is enough. I'm not going to disregard every single similarity due to the same engine. Just like I'm not going to disregard every similarity for LttP-LA because of original intent.

Plus the boat to me shows enough intent that we have to take all OoX-LA evidence seriously.

 

[MrMosley]

Yeah, to me it is enough. I'm not going to disregard every single similarity due to the same engine. Just like I'm not going to disregard every similarity for LttP-LA because of original intent.

Plus the boat to me shows enough intent that we have to take all OoX-LA evidence seriously.

Eh, the boat is just a picture to me. He had to get back to Hyrule someway or another, and I'd say that was his only option. I will agree that Nintendo is more likely to base continuation off something simple than a very in depth perspective of something because really I don't think they are all that worried about it. But I still think that its just a picture, and that if they wanted us to know that Link from OoX was the same as the one in LA, we would have some evidence as to how a completely different Link somehow knows how Agahnim and Ganon both fight in ALttP. Theres just too much reference to ALttP in LA to discount it as a prequel/sequel type deal for me.

 

[Smertios]

Something about OoT being the Imprisoning War smells too Fishy!
If it is the Imprisoning war, then Nintendo did an epic fail, because, it is more like a war of One against a lot of people!
But I am not going against the thoughts of the creator, if he says so, then it is

But, if you do believe that OoT is the IW, you shouldn't put LttP in the CT. The full events of LttP only happened in the Adult portion of the game...