The AoL Backstory

[sign of table]

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.

You're not saying it's canon, but you're saying it's completely irrelevant at a timeline point of view. Which is, essentially, saying that it is not canon for anything that pertains to 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.

I'M being condescending? Being right is different from being condescending. And you've done so in the past, hypocrite.

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.

If I was actually doing what YOU say I'm doing it would be an argument from ignorance. But having more proof than you is not an Argument from Ignorance.

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."

There is nothing that contradicts it, but there is something that agrees with it. That is a big difference. The text itself says she is the First Generation Zelda. Nothing more recent contradicts it, so what the text of the canon game says is true.

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.

No. I'm saying that you are saying that the evidence I give isn't canon because of your preconceived opinions, which is an argument from personal incredulity. There's a difference between debating something related to the timeline and going with what you find most logical, and debating something related to the timeline and making your desision on what is most logical based on your own preconceived timeline.

And, no, I don't place LoZ/AoL on the AT soley because of the AoL BS. The only real thing that makes me place it there is that Aonuma said that the names of the towns are named after the sages, and that in that same interview, it says that AoL takes place after the events of OoT.

Oh and lowering my rep because you don't personally like me? lolAdHominem

Not like it matters. Erimgard had red rep for a while, and he's like one of the best theorists on the internet.

 

[Zemen]

I'M being condescending? Being right is different from being condescending.

Not only was that a condescending statement, it was very egotistical, as well.

Congratulations. You win. You figured out the mystery of the BS of AoL. I commend you on your success. Once again, congratulations. I hope you do well with the rest of your thread. I withdraw my participation in this thread. (by the way, I didn't read 99% your post). You're just gonna keep arguing for the sake of arguing and completely disregard what anyone else says. That seems to be your trend lately, so I'm just gonna be the bigger theorist and back down. Congratulations on losing any respect I had for you. Bye.

 

[sign of table]

(by the way, I didn't read 99% your post). You're just gonna keep arguing for the sake of arguing and completely disregard what anyone else says.

That's too funny to not sig. You lecture me for completely disregarding what anyone else says, while admitting yourself in the previous sentance that you didn't read 99% of my post, and to top it all off, you couldn't have even known whether I acknowledged your points or not.

That is by far, the worst, most fallacious, stupidest, and bad sentance I have ever seen in my life.

Anyways, there's not much I can say when you deny reading the post that disproves your argument, and won't reply. I'm gonna post that on ZU, though. It'll make a couple people laugh.

 

[Hayzer]

I think I'll join this wonderful little thread, just because, I don't know jack about the AoL BS. XD

Tell me exactly what the story says.

 

[Zemen]

It is said that 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 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 a sleep 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 every female child born into the royal household should be given the name Zelda."

That's what the story of the sleeping Zelda is. The Legend of Zelda. Hope that helps you out a little bit, Hayzer.

Oh, and SoJ, thanks for posting the picture of what my sig said for everyone to see. It's even funnier to see when I'm not mad at you. Dark Link asked me to change it and never put something like that again. I was a little disappointed because no one would be able to see how awesome it was, but I must thank you for placing it for all to see, so thank you!

By the way, I didn't lower your rep for flaming. One, I definitely know how to spell the word "flaming" and two, I said something along the lines of "being condescending"

 

[sign of table]

^Well you were last night. Anyways, I'll delete the pic since it's unnesesary now. It doesn't matter now, anyways as it's over and done with now. Back on topic:

By the way, that's the fail NoA version.

Here's a link to the good translation version: http://www.zeldalegends.net/files/text/z2translation/z2_manual_story.html

Important differences: ""That person is the first generation princess Zelda."" (NoA version doesn't call it the first generation)
"The prince sought for what he did not have, and searched everywhere, but he couldn't seem to find it." (doesn't specify how many pieces (or singular piece) he was looking for.)

It's the second canon game in the series, this is almost the entire story of the game, hell even the developers seemed to have placed some important things on other aspects of this game (the towns). There is absolutely no reason to say that it is irrelevant to the timeline, AND there is every reason to say that it is relevant to the timeline.

 

[MrMosley]

Look, you can write all the stories in the world and come up with 50 thousand page articles of speculation towards AoL's BS (I am referring to Sign's earlier statement about whoever Lex is coming up with a document to where the sleeping Zelda would be OoT Zelda). But these theories easily fail. AoL Zelda cannot be the sleeping Zelda because it contradicts the fact that the King was supposed to rule with the Triforce. In OoT, the King did not rule with the Triforce. As I previously stated, the most likely place for AoL's BS to take place is after OoX. At least there, there's not anything that can mess it up.

And the fact that the story was written with only two games at the time is very important. Sign, its not necessarily that older things that haven't been retconned aren't canon just because of time, or just because the things do not fit into a person's particular timeline. It is more so that it just does not make any sense to be that way anymore. Its just like people that try to argue OoT as the Seal War. I can just as easily say that ALttP tells of the Seal War completely different than OoT shows it. It is the same exact concept which does not work. Regardless of timeline beliefs, the fact that AoL Zelda is the apparent first-gen Zelda is no longer canon towards the majority of the games because it is simply illogical.

 

[Zemen]

Look, you can write all the stories in the world and come up with 50 thousand page articles of speculation towards AoL's BS (I am referring to Sign's earlier statement about whoever Lex is coming up with a document to where the sleeping Zelda would be OoT Zelda). But these theories easily fail. AoL Zelda cannot be the sleeping Zelda because it contradicts the fact that the King was supposed to rule with the Triforce. In OoT, the King did not rule with the Triforce. As I previously stated, the most likely place for AoL's BS to take place is after OoX. At least there, there's not anything that can mess it up.

And the fact that the story was written with only two games at the time is very important. Sign, its not necessarily that older things that haven't been retconned aren't canon just because of time, or just because the things do not fit into a person's particular timeline. It is more so that it just does not make any sense to be that way anymore. Its just like people that try to argue OoT as the Seal War. I can just as easily say that ALttP tells of the Seal War completely different than OoT shows it. It is the same exact concept which does not work. Regardless of timeline beliefs, the fact that AoL Zelda is the apparent first-gen Zelda is no longer canon towards the majority of the games because it is simply illogical.

Exactly the point I was trying to make. Think of it in terms of the Miyamoto Order. SoJ says that in 1998 the Miyamoto Order was correct, but due to the new games in the series, it clearly doesn't seem to make any sense anymore. This is the same thing. Back when AoL was made, the BS made sense. Now that other games have been thrown into the mix, it makes no sense to put it where you think it should be put.

 

[Erimgard]

Zemen, the Miyamoto order didn't exist in 1993. It was invented in 1998. Just saying.

And the AoL backstory cannot make perfect sense no matter where you put it.

 

[sign of table]

Look, you can write all the stories in the world and come up with 50 thousand page articles of speculation towards AoL's BS (I am referring to Sign's earlier statement about whoever Lex is coming up with a document to where the sleeping Zelda would be OoT Zelda). But these theories easily fail. AoL Zelda cannot be the sleeping Zelda because it contradicts the fact that the King was supposed to rule with the Triforce. In OoT, the King did not rule with the Triforce. As I previously stated, the most likely place for AoL's BS to take place is after OoX. At least there, there's not anything that can mess it up.

As I said, I find that theory too speculative. I think it's more likely that it's the first Zelda of new Hyrule. But it's worth a read.

Regardless of timeline beliefs, the fact that AoL Zelda is the apparent first-gen Zelda is no longer canon towards the majority of the games because it is simply illogical.

HOW IS IT ILLOGICAL. Give me PROOF that the story is illogical and I'll believe you. But in an AT placement of the game, it WORKS.

SoJ says that in 1993 the Miyamoto Order was correct

'93? Huh? Ehh I assume that's just a typo.

 

[MrMosley]

HOW IS IT ILLOGICAL. Give me PROOF that the story is illogical and I'll believe you. But in an AT placement of the game, it WORKS.

Right. Notice I said the majority of the games. I wanted to avoid having to say CT or list all the games in that timeline. On the AT, it still might work. Maybe.

 

[sign of table]

^So you're making your decision on how much this story matters because of your preconceived timeline? Is that what you're saying?

Also, I love how Zemen (I assume it's Zemen, anyway. I didn't get any bad rep until last night when Zemen freaked out at me) continually lowers my rep on most of my posts for unfounded reasons. "Please learn your Zelda first." The hell does that have to do with post #25 of this thread?

lolAdHominem

 

[Zemen]

'93? Huh? Ehh I assume that's just a typo.

Yes, that was a typo.

^So you're making your decision on how much this story matters because of your preconceived timeline? Is that what you're saying?

That's basically what you're doing. Your argument works for your timeline so you fight it. Our argument works for our timeline so we fight it.

lolHypocritical (did I do that right?)

Also, I love how Zemen (I assume it's Zemen, anyway. I didn't get any bad rep until last night when Zemen freaked out at me) continually lowers my rep on most of my posts for unfounded reasons. "Please learn your Zelda first." The hell does that have to do with post #25 of this thread?

Have you ever given someone bad or good reputation? Once you affect/comment on their reputation one time, you can't do it for a while for that same user, so no, I'm not the one who keeps giving you bad rep. Apparently some people just don't agree with you. I can't imagine why they don't.

lolFalsesAssumptions

 

[sign of table]

That's basically what you're doing. Your argument works for your timeline so you fight it. Our argument works for our timeline so we fight it.

No that's not what I'm doing. I put LoZ/AoL on the AT BECAUSE of the AoL BS and the interview saying that AoL takes place after the events of OoT. I didn't make my desision on those because of my preconceived bias. That would be circular logic, argument from personal incredulity, and confirmation bias.

Have you ever given someone bad or good reputation? Once you affect/comment on their reputation one time, you can't do it for a while for that same user, so no, I'm not the one who keeps giving you bad rep. Apparently some people just don't agree with you. I can't imagine why they don't.

lolFalsesAssumptions

Huh, don't know why anyone would rep me down for "flamming" though lol as I haven't even come close to flaming anyone in months.

If that's right, sorry 'bout that, then.

 

[Hayzer]

All I can say about placing most games on the AT is that we have no proof as of yet. Everything was shaken up when the timeline split. While it's very possible for those games to be on the AT (via Town Names in AoL), it's also possible for them to remain on the CT (via WW/PH and ST are the only games to be specified on that timeline). So unless we get a quote from Aonuma about ST bridging a gap between say PH and MC or FS or FSA, we won't know for sure.