The AoL Backstory

[sign of table]

Because in the ZD "project" thread (riddled with red herrings and Confirmation Bias. Those are just the ones I can remember off the top of my head, though. There would be more if I'd look through it more closely) I posted asking how the AoL BS would work in their current presented timeline (which in the end will no doubt be the, what I call, "Impossible Timeline" (I don't think Impossible actually made the timeline, but his 200 page document presenting this timeline is enough for me to call it that)), they didn't even respond, but they responded to the other parts of my post.

I would like for it to be responded to.

I'll start.
AoL BS says that the sleeping Zelda is the First Generation Zelda. So how does this work on the CT?

 

[Chrono]

Well LoZ and AoL can fit pretty much anywhere now.

But other than AoL, the North Castle (Palace) has never been seen and there has not been a King Harkinian yet either.

"Link, the time has come when I must tell you the legend of Zelda handed down in Hyrule. It is said that a long ago, when Hyrule was one country, a great ruler maintained the peace in Hyrule using the Triforce. However, the king too was a child of man and he died. Then, the prince of the kingdom should have become king and inherited everything, but he could inherit the Triforce only in part. The Prince searched everywhere for the missing parts, but could not find them. Then, a magician close to the king brought him some unexpected news. Before he died, the king had said something about the Triforce to only the younger sister of the prince, Princess Zelda. The prince immediately questioned the princess, but she wouldn't tell him anything. After the prince, the magician threatened to put the princess into an eternal sleep if she did not talk, but even still, she said nothing."

"In his anger, the magician tried to cast a magic spell on the princess. The surprised prince tried to stop him, but the magician fought off the prince and went on chanting the spell. Then, when the spell was finally cast, Princess Zelda fell on that spot and entered asleep from which she might never awake. At the same time, the magician also fell down and breathed his last." "In his grief, the prince placed the princess in this room. He hoped that someday she would come back to life. So that this tragedy would never be forgotten, he ordered that every female child born into the royal household be given the name Zelda." From the stand next to the altar where Princess Zelda lay in a deep sleep, Impa took six crystals and a scroll with the same crest and handed them to Link. "

 

[sign of table]

That didn't answer my question, though.

The AoL BS specifically calls Zelda the First Generation/Founder Zelda. How can the AoL BS take place with Zelda being the first generation Zelda on the CT?

 

[basement24]

Since it's the backstory of the legend of Zelda, then the backstory itself could take place before any other story. It doesn't mean that we have to have known this Zelda from a previous game, or that this one fell asleep at the beginning of the split.

The backstory can predate any game and actually start the timeline before there was any split. From this, it could be that there's still a sleeping Zelda on the opposite side of the timeline that still remains to be rescued.

 

[sign of table]

^However, the AoL BS requires that the king rules with the Triforce. Considering the TP BS, OoT BS, original intent for OoT BS (which is the LttP BS), the Triforce clearly wasn't out of the SR and controlled by the king pre-OoT. So how can the AoL BS actually work on the CT while taking the BS as canon (which we should)?

 

[Clucluclu]

Se's been sleeping there for a good long while, I think. I don't know the exact backstory, but I think thatit says the Prince was already dead when Link openned the chamber. This implies that it could have been any amount of time. Plus, the Prince ordered that every other Zelda be named Zelda, so this basicly explains why its always Princess Zelda.

 

[MrMosley]

^However, the AoL BS requires that the king rules with the Triforce. Considering the TP BS, OoT BS, original intent for OoT BS (which is the LttP BS), the Triforce clearly wasn't out of the SR and controlled by the king pre-OoT. So how can the AoL BS actually work on the CT while taking the BS as canon (which we should)?

Which is pretty interesting. One could say that during OoT, no one had any known history of a prior time when the King could have ruled with the Triforce. However, that wouldn't make sense considering most people place AoL at the end of the timeline, and they had history of it. Plus, the sleeping Zelda would obviously be around during the time of OoT, so they would have known this history. I'm just going to rule this theory out before it gets brought up.

The only sense you could make out of it, in my opinion, would be to consider AoL's BS taking place sometime way after OoT, and some of the other games. Just because it states that it was the first Zelda, doesn't literally mean it had to be the first Zelda ever in existance. Remember, AoL was the second Zelda game. At the time, I highly doubt Nintendo even knew if they would ever make another Zelda title; Much less about 15 more, spanning about 7 or 8 different generations of Zelda (and Link).

In that respect, AoL's BS does set up a nice way to explain why every Zelda after the BS would have been named Zelda, but it does not hold any value towards the other titles (at least anymore). I think that AoL's BS does not change AoL's position on the timeline, or any other game's position. But it does fill a gap somewhere. A gap that could come any time after TP. Personally, I think that gap would come sometime after OoX, and before LoZ. Why? Well, because the Triforce is in Hyrule (castle, to be exact). And we know that obviously the King would have dominion over it, and rule with it most likely. This seems like the most probable outcome to still consider AoL's BS valid.

So that is my theory. The BS of AoL does not have to take place before everything. It did when there were only two Zelda games. But with 15+ titles... No. It can't work that way.

 

[Zemen]

Because in the ZD "project" thread (riddled with red herrings and Confirmation Bias. Those are just the ones I can remember off the top of my head, though. There would be more if I'd look through it more closely) I posted asking how the AoL BS would work in their current presented timeline (which in the end will no doubt be the, what I call, "Impossible Timeline" (I don't think Impossible actually made the timeline, but his 200 page document presenting this timeline is enough for me to call it that)), they didn't even respond, but they responded to the other parts of my post.

I would like for it to be responded to.

I'll start.
AoL BS says that the sleeping Zelda is the First Generation Zelda. So how does this work on the CT?

Kind of to feed off of what DL was saying, the creators had absolutely no knowledge of where the series would go, let alone having a timeline for the series. They didn't make AoL thinking to themselves "where will this one fit in the timeline?"

If they did have that mind set, then I'm sure some things would be a lot clearer, but since the game was made second in the series with no intentions of a timeline, then it makes sense that it doesn't make sense.

So that is my theory. The BS of AoL does not have to take place before everything. It did when there were only two Zelda games. But with 15+ titles... No. It can't work that way.

Exactly. It made sense when there were only 2 games and it was made to only make sense for those 2 games because they didn't know that tons more games were gonna come along. They worked with what they had and at that time they only had one other title.

 

[angelkid]

The AoL BS is obviously supposed to be canon. If it wasn't then they would have retconned or altered it when they remade AoL for the NES classics series on GBA. Therefore it is canon.

 

[Zemen]

The AoL BS is obviously supposed to be canon. If it wasn't then they would have retconned or altered it when they remade AoL for the NES classics series on GBA. Therefore it is canon.

The NES classic series is just that, the classic series. They aren't remakes or re-dos of the games. They are just the old games made playable on a different system. Also, no one argued that the BS of AoL is not canon. I just wanted to make it clear that the AoL for GBA is not a remake, just a ported game.

 

[Clucluclu]

I think the king ruling with the Triforce helps to make it fit, somewhat, with the OoX, rather than make it harder to place. Wherever OoX goes, I think AoL should go before it.

 

[sign of table]

Which is pretty interesting. One could say that during OoT, no one had any known history of a prior time when the King could have ruled with the Triforce. However, that wouldn't make sense considering most people place AoL at the end of the timeline, and they had history of it. Plus, the sleeping Zelda would obviously be around during the time of OoT, so they would have known this history. I'm just going to rule this theory out before it gets brought up.

Unless, of course, OoT Zelda was the sleeping Zelda, and the order was OoT-LoZ/AoL-LttP/LA.

Just because it states that it was the first Zelda, doesn't literally mean it had to be the first Zelda ever in existance.

Yeah... makes total sense... it says first Zelda, so it's not the first generation Zelda...

You are right in one way, however. The first Zelda of a new Hyrule would potentially be the "first generation" Zelda.

At the time, I highly doubt Nintendo even knew if they would ever make another Zelda title; Much less about 15 more, spanning about 7 or 8 different generations of Zelda (and Link).

They could have changed the story in the GBA make of the game.

So that is my theory. The BS of AoL does not have to take place before everything. It did when there were only two Zelda games. But with 15+ titles... No. It can't work that way.

It CAN work, however, on the AT.

Erimgard believes that it's the first Zelda of new Hyrule, and Lex believes that it was actually THE first Zelda (OoT in his timeline). I recommend reading his theory. It's a little too speculative for my tastes, but it's still very good. He actually made a Bomber's article about it.

If they did have that mind set, then I'm sure some things would be a lot clearer,

It doesn't get much clearer than the FIrst Generation Zelda....

Exactly. It made sense when there were only 2 games and it was made to only make sense for those 2 games because they didn't know that tons more games were gonna come along. They worked with what they had and at that time they only had one other title.

Why does it matter? They could have edited the rerelease manuals like they did with LttP. And [/i]nothing contradicts it[/i]. You can't call something not canon just on the basis of it being old. That sounds kinda like Appeal to Novelty, to me.

NOTHING contradicts it. There is NO reason to call it un-canon just because it happened on the second game.

You know, if it actually contradicted the games and was impossible I'd agree with you, but doesn't and it's not.

 

[Zemen]

Unless, of course, OoT Zelda was the sleeping Zelda, and the order was OoT-LoZ/AoL-LttP/LA. Yeah... makes total sense... it says first Zelda, so it's not the first generation Zelda...

Once again, they did not make the AoL BS with the mindset that the series was going to be 15 games deep with a timeline included. The fact that many more games have been made could be enough of a contradiction than needing solid, in game proof of a contradiction.

They could have changed the story in the GBA make of the game.

They didn't change anything about the game. Like I said before, when they made it for GBA it wasn't a retconned game. It was just a ported game. It is nearly impossible to find a NES version of AoL. You can't just go to the store and buy a copy. They didn't port it to the GBA because they wanted to remake it. They literally changed nothing about the game. Why remake a game with no changes? Because they weren't remaking the game. They were making a GBA version since the NES version is very hard to get and since the Zelda series was booming at that time. GBA AoL is exactly the same as the original. It wasn't meant to be different or to prove anything. It was meant to be a playable version of a very old game.

It doesn't get much clearer than the FIrst Generation Zelda.... Why does it matter? They could have edited the rerelease manuals like they did with LttP. And [/i]nothing contradicts it[/i]. You can't call something not canon just on the basis of it being old. That sounds kinda like Appeal to Novelty, to me.

I'm not arguing that it's not canon because it's old. I'm arguing that it shouldn't be taken into account as much because it was created with absolutely no timeline in mind and no future of the series in mind. Every game after OoT was made with a timeline in mind. That's why those stories fit much better in a timeline than the older games. AoL doesn't fit so nicely in this one instance because it was not made with a timeline in mind.

Oh, and can you please stop using those "argument from ignorance" and "appeal to novelty" stuff? You are really just trying to sound smart and acting condescending and making yourself look like an *** when you do it.

By the way, saying that there is nothing contradicting it is an argument from ignorance. You say that nothing has been said to disprove it, so it must be correct. Now I'm smart.. Yay!

NOTHING contradicts it. There is NO reason to call it un-canon just because it happened on the second game.

Argument from Ignorance!

You know, if it actually contradicted the games and was impossible I'd agree with you, but doesn't and it's not.

The fact that all of the games that do not fit with this game were made with a timeline in mind and that this game was not made with a timeline in mind is a contradiction for it.

 

[sign of table]

Once again, they did not make the AoL BS with the mindset that the series was going to be 15 games deep with a timeline included. The fact that many more games have been made could be enough of a contradiction than needing solid, in game proof of a contradiction.

So anything that is from the first 2 games is essentially not canon to the timeline? Or is it just things that contradict your timeline?

They didn't change anything about the game. Like I said before, when they made it for GBA it wasn't a retconned game. It was just a ported game. It is nearly impossible to find a NES version of AoL. You can't just go to the store and buy a copy. They didn't port it to the GBA because they wanted to remake it. They literally changed nothing about the game. Why remake a game with no changes? Because they weren't remaking the game. They were making a GBA version since the NES version is very hard to get and since the Zelda series was booming at that time. GBA AoL is exactly the same as the original. It wasn't meant to be different or to prove anything. It was meant to be a playable version of a very old game.

Clearly nothing had to be changed, either, because everything about the story of the game worked just fine.

Oh, and can you please stop using those "argument from ignorance" and "appeal to novelty" stuff? You are really just trying to sound smart and acting condescending and making yourself look like an *** when you do it.

I'm not going to stop posting logical fallacies until you stop comitting logical fallacies. Learn how to debate and I'll stop.

By the way, saying that there is nothing contradicting it is an argument from ignorance. You say that nothing has been said to disprove it, so it must be correct. Now I'm smart.. Yay!

Except there IS proof that it is canon as, you know, it's official and it's one of the games. Saying a lack of proof is the only proof for something is an argument from ignorance. Saying that the other side has no proof, while I have proof is NOT an Argument from Ignorance.

Argument from Ignorance!

You know, you haven't given any proof for your side except for pre-conceived opinions (otherwise known as Confirmation Bias). I've given proof to my side, and shown that you have no proof. That is in no way an Argument from Ignorance.

The fact that all of the games that do not fit with this game were made with a timeline in mind and that this game was not made with a timeline in mind is a contradiction for it.

Except it DOES fit in the timeline. Just not yours.

 

[Zemen]

So anything that is from the first 2 games is essentially not canon to the timeline? Or is it just things that contradict your timeline? Clearly nothing had to be changed, either, because everything about the story of the game worked just fine. I'm not going to stop posting logical fallacies until you stop comitting logical fallacies. Learn how to debate and I'll stop. Except there IS proof that it is canon as, you know, it's official and it's one of the games. Saying a lack of proof is the only proof for something is an argument from ignorance. Saying that the other side has no proof, while I have proof is NOT an Argument from Ignorance. You know, you haven't given any proof for your side except for pre-conceived opinions (otherwise known as Confirmation Bias). I've given proof to my side, and shown that you have no proof. That is in no way an Argument from Ignorance. Except it DOES fit in the timeline. Just not yours.

I hate having to split up quotes so I'm just gonna treat it as one, big post since that is all it might as well be.

1. I never once said AoL is not canon. You seem to keep using this argument that I say it's not canon because it's old. I have even clearly stated "I am not saying AoL is not canon" multiple times. You just must have missed it. However, AoL original intent for the timeline was....oh wait, there is no original intent for it on the timeline.

2. I never said you can't call me out on logical fallicies, it's the way you are calling me out. You are acting condescendingly. By all means, keep doing it if you want. It's your image and reputation you are ruining, not mine.

3. You said that there is nothing contradicting AoL Zelda being the first Zelda. That is the same thing as saying "it hasn't been dis proven so it's true." except it's more of "there is nothing against it, so it's true" which, I believe, is the exact definition of argument from ignorance that you posted.

I will use an example. I gave my own, personal evidence that Ganondorf is not present or spoken of in MC so that is evidence, IMO, for it to be before OoT because I think it means he did not exist at the time. According to you, this means "he is not mentioned so he is not there. It has not been proven false so it is true."

You said that there is nothing to contradict AoL Zelda to be the first Zelda so it is true. "it has not been proven false so it is true."

Sure sounds like the same thing to me.

4. The GBA version is in now way a remake. It was changed because it is just a playable version of the original. Once again, this is something you must have missed from my previous post because you are acting as though the GBA version is a retcon. It's not a retcon. It was released for the GBA when Zelda was HUGE. They released it for the GBA (along with LoZ) because they knew they would make money off of it seeing as how the series was extremely popular (and still is) when they released those games. They are in no way meant to be retconned versions or evidence to us that the originals don't need to be changed. They were just made into GBA version so that everyone could enjoy the originals. It was highly unlikely that people would find the NES versions, so they made the GBA ones to make money. It's about money, not about whether the information in them is still true today.

5. You say that I'm arguing my side because the opposite of what I believe doesn't fit my timeline. That's true, but you do realize that you are arguing your side for the same reason, right? You argue what you believe because the opposite doesn't fit your timeline. Don't be a hypocrite.