The Evolution of the Timeline Debate

[Jarsh]

LoZ didn't have much to do with the SW; so little that many are separating it from ALttP and putting them on opposite timelines (not that I agree with that). Direct continuity may have been broken with OoT-ALttP, but nothing has ever broken continuity between ALttP-LoZ. Not even OoX. If we're going to say that because one game broke another's connection, then we might as well say that ALttP and LoZ can go before OoT because of the old intent being broken with TWW. And I really don't like to think Nintendo has such a loose view of the timeline. I think they offed OoT as being the full SW because it required a lot of leaps and bound to make it work with ALttP (blood relations between sages? Ganon acquiring the entire Triforce?); I'd go as far to say that's why beta FSA was probably going to be the SW. Nothing of the sort impedes upon ALttP's and LoZ's connection except Ganon somehow returning.

 

[Pinecove]

^ Agreed 100%.

Nice to see you on here Jarsh. (btw there's a 50 character limit)

 

[sign of table]

@Pinecove: Okay, fair enough, LoZ-LttP is very unlikely. However my point about the 1998 interview no longer being proof for LttP-LoZ still stands.

LoZ didn't have much to do with the SW; so little that many are separating it from ALttP and putting them on opposite timelines (not that I agree with that).

It has nothing to do with the SW directly. However, it was always because of the SW that it couldn't be before LttP in 1991 and 1998 (when those confirmations were made (IE the only thing supporting those confirmations was the SW making the alternatives impossible). With the release of TWW, things came around that had never even been conceived in 1998 that provided definite alternatives due to destroying all of the proof that the previous confirmations were based upon.

Direct continuity may have been broken with OoT-ALttP, but nothing has ever broken continuity between ALttP-LoZ.

What continuity? The only continuity connections between LttP and LoZ was the fact that in 1991 the SW made it impossible for LoZ to be the first game in the timeline, and in 1998 the SW made it impossible for LoZ to go before LttP and after OoT (the two times when LttP-LoZ was confirmed).

Those are the only timeline relevant connections. There are essentially no connections between LttP and LoZ now due to TWW ****ing up the SW.

If we're going to say that because one game broke another's connection, then we might as well say that ALttP and LoZ can go before OoT because of the old intent being broken with TWW.

That's completely different. TWW did nothing to change every piece of in-game evidence we had that OoT was first in the timeline. It did, however, destroy all of the in-game evidence for LttP-LoZ.

I think they offed OoT as being the full SW because it required a lot of leaps and bound to make it work with ALttP (blood relations between sages? Ganon acquiring the entire Triforce?); I'd go as far to say that's why beta FSA was probably going to be the SW.

I disagree here as well, I think they offed OoT=SW when TWW was released, as it was the release of TWW that destroyed every piece of in-game evidence for OoT=SW (not making it impossible, but succesfully making those confirmations outdated. Same exact concept with the LttP-LoZ thing).

Nothing of the sort impedes upon ALttP's and LoZ's connection except Ganon somehow returning.

They don't have a connection. They are not connected in any way. The timeline only went LttP-LoZ in 1991 because the SW made it impossible for LoZ to be before LttP, same thing in 1998 with OoT. All of that evidence was removed by TWW, thus removing any sort of connection the two games have.

It, in no way, makes LttP-LoZ impossible, it just shows us that a quote from 1998 is DEFINITELY outdated and is NOT a clear indication of current intent.

 

[Jarsh]

They don't have a connection. They are not connected in any way. The timeline only went LttP-LoZ in 1991 because the SW made it impossible for LoZ to be before LttP, same thing in 1998 with OoT. All of that evidence was removed by TWW, thus removing any sort of connection the two games have.

I concede that there isn't much to connect ALttP and LoZ since LoZ is rather story-barren, but why would that ever move LoZ before ALttP? I can see the SW as OoT being retconned moving some things around (like ALttP), but I don't see how it would ever place LoZ before ALttP in any situation. Pretty much everything in your post is more like an argument for LoZ and ALttP being on separate timelines rather than an argument for a modern LoZ-ALttP, which was what I was trying to say isn't a good idea. Though I don't use the placement myself, I'm alright with LoZ and ALttP being on separate timelines.

 

[sign of table]

I concede that there isn't much to connect ALttP and LoZ since LoZ is rather story-barren, but why would that ever move LoZ before ALttP?

I'm not saying it does (maybe I didn't make that clear enough ). I'm just saying that the 1998 interview is NOT proof for current intent.

I don't put LttP and LoZ on seperate timelines, hell if ever I make a timeline I'll probably put LoZ after LttP. I just want to get rid of the idea that a 1998 confirmation of LttP-LoZ is evidence of current intent as fast as I can, before it becomes a widespread and commonly accepted idea.

 

[Jarsh]

^
But why would Nintendo ever do that? What kind of logic says that would ever happen? From in-game evidence and developer quotes, we've yet to see a game that spontaneously changed position before another game released at the time. We've had nothing else to contradict otherwise; I say that it's fine for evidence until a developer quote or in-game evidence contradicts it. I don't even think we'd be debating about the possibility of LoZ-ALttP for current intent if it weren't for the '98 Miyamoto quote in Nintendo Power.

 

[Pinecove]

However my point about the 1998 interview no longer being proof for LttP-LoZ still stands.

What point was that exactly?

Also from the same page:

Ocarina of Time→Majora's Mask
　↓　↓　　　　　　↓　↓
Wind Waker　Twilight Princess
　　　↓　　　　　↓
(It's not clear which branch this follows)
　　 A Link to the Past
　　　　　↓　↓
　　　　Link's Awakening
　　　　　↓　↓
　　　　The Legend of Zelda
　　　　　↓　↓
　　　　Link's Adventure

Intent for ALttP-LoZ after TP was released.

 

[sign of table]

But why would Nintendo ever do that?

They've done that sort of thing in the past.

Because there are alternatives now.

Once again, I'm NOT saying that the alternatives are true, I'm saying that the 1998 interview is NOT proof of anything due to it being outdated because all of the evidence those quotes were based upon are gone now.

From in-game evidence and developer quotes, we've yet to see a game that spontaneously changed position before another game released at the time.

Jesus Christ, are you actually reading my posts? I've clarified this atleast 4 times.

I'm not saying that it's evidence for LoZ-LttP, I'm ONLY saying that the interview is NOT evidence of current intent. So, just to clarify this further, I am NOT trying to give evidence for LoZ-LttP, or LttP and LoZ on different timelines. I am ONLY STATING (nothing else) that if you ever try to present an argument for LttP-LoZ, the interview is not valid evidence of current intent.

I don't even think we'd be debating about the possibility of LoZ-ALttP for current intent if it weren't for the '98 Miyamoto quote in Nintendo Power.

I'm not debating for LoZ-LttP, I'm debating against the idea that a 1998 interview as a valid current timeline indicator.

Nothing else.

What point was that exactly?

Maybe if you read my points and tried to respond to them instead of strawman points that I haven't been trying to make, you'd know

Intent for ALttP-LoZ after TP was released.

Isn't that a wiki page that says that?

 

[Pinecove]

Maybe if you read my points and tried to respond to them instead of strawman points that I haven't been trying to make, you'd know

No, I'm really serious.

Isn't that a wiki page that says that?

No, but upon further inspection it's not Aonuma, but the interveiwer. Aonuma says "it's mostly up to speculation."

My final point is that if there's no reason for LoZ to come early and earlier intent showed it to come late, then why would it come early in the first place?

 

[sign of table]

No, I'm really serious.

That all of the evidence that the 1998 quote was based on is DESTROYED AND NO MORE. Everything that the 1998 quote was based on is gone due to TWW. If all of the evidence that a quote was based on is destroyed by a later release, that is a clear sign of that quote being outdated and no longer being a good representative of current intent.

No, but upon further inspection it's not Aonuma, but the interveiwer. Aonuma says "it's mostly up to speculation."

What is the full interview?

My final point is that if there's no reason for LoZ to come early and earlier intent showed it to come late, then why would it come early in the first place?

Earlier and OUTDATED intent. There are alternatives now (such as them being on different timelines).

That interview is completely outdated (I gave an explanation for why and how it's outdated in the first part of my post, so don't even ****ing dare ask why I know it's outdated ) and has NOTHING to do with current intent. Especially since there are possible alternatives now that we didn't have in 1998.

 

[Jarsh]

They've done that sort of thing in the past.

Besides the SW, like what?

Once again, I'm NOT saying that the alternatives are true, I'm saying that the 1998 interview is NOT proof of anything due to it being outdated because all of the evidence those quotes were based upon are gone now.

That's not quite all you're saying:

With the release of TWW, things came around that had never even been conceived in 1998 that provided definite alternatives due to destroying all of the proof that the previous confirmations were based upon.

TWW didn't erase everything before its release. You're proposing its very release may have changed other aspects besides OoT being the SW. You're saying it somehow affects ALttP-LoZ, among other (confirmed) placements. Such as what? I'm not asking you to defend LoZ-ALttP, I'm asking you to tell me how it affected previously known placements besides OoT-ALttP. If it doesn't, then what's changed? Not much.

Jesus Christ, are you actually reading my posts? I've clarified this atleast 4 times.

I'm not saying that it's evidence for LoZ-LttP, I'm ONLY saying that the interview is NOT evidence of current intent. So, just to clarify this further, I am NOT trying to give evidence for LoZ-LttP, or LttP and LoZ on different timelines. I am ONLY STATING (nothing else) that if you ever try to present an argument for LttP-LoZ, the interview is not valid evidence of current intent.

I think you misunderstood what I said. I'm not asking you to prove LoZ-ALttP or any other placement; I'm asking you where else could LoZ go (if it's on the same timeline as ALttP). If it could only go before LoZ currently (besides putting them on different timelines), then what has been changed? If nothing's changed, it would seem that the quote would be somewhat valid because the developers are still being somewhat consistent. Somewhat outdated? Yes. Completely irrelevant? No.

 

[sign of table]

[/quote] Besides the SW, like what? [/quote] Do I need more than one example that fits the situation perfectly and answers your original question?

I really think this example is conclusive enough to answer your original question.

You're saying it somehow affects ALttP-LoZ, among other (confirmed) placements. Such as what? I'm not asking you to defend LoZ-ALttP, I'm asking you to tell me how it affected previously known placements besides OoT-ALttP.

It does affect LttP-LoZ, by destroying all of the in-game evidence that supported LttP-LoZ.

I'll clarify AGAIN.

In 1991 using in-game evidence the timeline went LttP-LoZ because of the SW, then in 1998 the timeline went OoT-LttP-LoZ because LoZ didn't fit between OoT and LttP (due to the SW). Since the OoT-LttP connection was destroyed by TWW, then the only things supporting LttP-LoZ (well, as Pinecove said, LoZ-LttP doesn't fit due to other problems, but TWW not only gave us the alternative of LoZ and LttP being on different timelines, but it also got rid of all of the evidence that LttP-LoZ ever had) were destroyed as well (because LoZ couldn't fit between OoT and LttP due to the SW-LttP connection in 1998. That's gone because of TWW).

That seems to be enough evidence to show that the 1998 interview is no longer good for knowing the current intent; because everything in-game that supported that confirmation was eliminated.

The interview is based on completely different evidence that is completely impossible now. That DEFINITELY shows that the interview can't be trusted when trying to find out the current order of things (directly, anyway. Imo this new find is enough to disprove OoT=SW, but the interview itself shouldn't be used as direct evidence for LttP-LoZ).

I think you misunderstood what I said. I'm not asking you to prove LoZ-ALttP or any other placement; I'm asking you where else could LoZ go (if it's on the same timeline as ALttP). If it could only go before LoZ currently (besides putting them on different timelines), then what has been changed? If nothing's changed, it would seem that the quote would be somewhat valid because the developers are still being somewhat consistent. Somewhat outdated? Yes. Completely irrelevant? No.

You presented the problem right there. LoZ could DEFINITELY be on a different timeline than LttP, and a 1998 interview based on completely different, and now impossible due to TWW, things isn't valid evidence against them being on different timelines.

 

[Jarsh]

Do I need more than one example that fits the situation perfectly and answers your original question?

Well, it wasn't my question. My question was when has a game ever changed places with other games that were also in the timeline of its release, as a fact? It didn't happen.

In 1991 using in-game evidence the timeline went LttP-LoZ because of the SW, then in 1998 the timeline went OoT-LttP-LoZ because LoZ didn't fit between OoT and LttP (due to the SW)

No, it went in that order because the developers intended so. Not because it didn't fit anywhere else. LoZ/AoL weren't this malleable set of games that were forced into one place. Who says LoZ/AoL gets to change position when something that barely affects it gets changed? The developers didn't. As far as we know (as in, official confirmations) the developers have only ever intended LoZ/AoL to be after ALttP and no other placement for it considered.

Since the OoT-LttP connection was destroyed by TWW, then the only things supporting LttP-LoZ (well, as Pinecove said, LoZ-LttP doesn't fit due to other problems, but TWW not only gave us the alternative of LoZ and LttP being on different timelines, but it also got rid of all of the evidence that LttP-LoZ ever had) were destroyed as well (because LoZ couldn't fit between OoT and LttP due to the SW-LttP connection in 1998. That's gone because of TWW).

Like I said, LoZ/AoL doesn't get to spontaneously slip in somewhere else in the timeline just because one thing gets changed. In fact, I said I just didn't agree with ALttP and LoZ to be on different timelines, but I believe I'm against that now. Nothing indicates that something like that just happens. I guess what I'm saying is, I've got to see some proof of it happening, not just "well, it's possible".

That seems to be enough evidence to show that the 1998 interview is no longer good for knowing the current intent; because everything in-game that supported that confirmation was eliminated.

Sorry, I don't buy it; not that that would change anything for you. This "ripple effect" caused by TWW doesn't affect much except the SW, which was messed to begin with. I'm glad you fleshed out this explanation much more than the first time, but I still can't agree with it.

You presented the problem right there. LoZ could DEFINITELY be on a different timeline than LttP, and a 1998 interview based on completely different, and now impossible due to TWW, things isn't valid evidence against them being on different timelines.

I would ask you why it should go on a separate timeline, but I know that you don't have a concrete timeline.

 

[sign of table]

Well, it wasn't my question. My question was when has a game ever changed places with other games that were also in the timeline of its release, as a fact? It didn't happen.

Fair enough, that hasn't happened (as a fact).

No, it went in that order because the developers intended so.

Look at the ingame evidence that went along with that intent. That ingame evidence is gone. Of course it went that way because the developers said so, but why did the developers say so? It definitely went along with in-game evidence. Then that in-game evidence was later destroyed. If everything those quotes were based upon is now 100% IMPOSSIBLE (LttP-LoZ is very possible, but the only in-game evidence there was for it in 1998 (when it was true because of the developers) was retconned by a later placement.

Look at it this way. The confirmation we had was due to the SW connections between OoT and LttP. With the reasoning behind the confirmation completely retconned, what reason do we have to believe that it represents current intent? The timeline that we had in 1998 is impossible now, and the evidence behind some of the still possible things are gone, and there are now alternatives. With the old evidence gone, and new possibilities, I don't see how something from 1998 (before the evidence got destroyed and before there actually were alternatives) should be taken into account when trying to make a timeline based on current intent.

LoZ/AoL weren't this malleable set of games that were forced into one place.

Except they were. If you use in-game evidence, it still went OoT-LttP-LoZ in 1998.

Who says LoZ/AoL gets to change position when something that barely affects it gets changed? The developers didn't.

The developers haven't mentioned the placement of LttP or LoZ since 1998, they haven't had the chance to say that it's changed.

We can't JUST use developers. Don't get me wrong, developer word is by far the most important thing. But when a later game contradicts an older developer quote, then it's a clear indication of retcon.

And it's not something that "barely affects" it, TWW changed the only in-game evidence that forced LoZ after LttP.

As far as we know (as in, official confirmations) the developers have only ever intended LoZ/AoL to be after ALttP and no other placement for it considered.

As far as we know, OoT is the SW, and FSA goes before OoT.

What the developers considered 12 years ago has no bearing on current intent, especially when what was fact 12 years ago is IMPOSSIBLE.

You could say it's the same placement (LttP-LoZ, I mean) as it was 12 years ago, and it's the same game order, but it doesn't work the same way as it did in 1998 when it was confirmed.

It's the same bull**** OoT=SW supporters spew out. "It was confirmed 12 years ago. So what if it doesn't work the same way as it did 12 years ago and everything that supported it 12 years ago is destroyed. It was confirmed and that confirmation stands forever and ever until the developers specifically state it's wrong (which has never happened, mind you)"

Like I said, LoZ/AoL doesn't get to spontaneously slip in somewhere else in the timeline just because one thing gets changed.

Either that was worded badly, or you're stating that retcons have no bearing on timeline placements.
If it's the former, could you clarify? If it's the latter... well I hope you don't think the latter lol

Nothing indicates that something like that just happens.

We don't have much (really we don't have any definitive evidence of it, but for the timeline I'm mostly considering, LttP-LoZ just fits better than the alternatives. But for other timelines, LoZ being on a different timeline flows better (if FSA isn't first, then FSA-LoZ on one timeline, and LttP alone on another timeline flows way better than LttP-LoZ, imo)) evidence for LttP-LoZ, either. We have a 12 year old quote in which all of the in-game evidence it was based on has been definitely retconned, and we have alternatives that didn't exist then now, and consider that everything else (as in timeline relevant) that I can think of from 12 years ago has been retconned (I don't know your views on the SW, but it's been retconned no matter your views).

The ingame evidence that the quote was based on is gone, and it was in the same time period where everything else timeline relevant got completely raped by TWW. I don't see how that quote can be used as evidence for attempting to prove LttP-LoZ as the current intent.

Everything about the quote has changed, it's old, everything else from its time period got retconned in some way or another... It is NOT trustworthy for trying to figure out the current intent.

This "ripple effect" caused by TWW doesn't affect much except the SW, which was messed to begin with.

It removes the basis behind the LttP-LoZ 1998 confirmation. That's pretty noteworthy.

I would ask you why it should go on a separate timeline, but I know that you don't have a concrete timeline.

Because FSA-LttP doesn't make sense (it has some things that fit, but likely due to the beta that got retconned. The SW just plain doesn't fit with FSA), and if you have your timeline go FSA-LoZ, you can explain Ganon better than any other timeline that I can think of.

Not that that's what I think. If I were to make a timeline, it'd probably be something like:

---------------------TWW/PH-ST
TMC-FS/FSA-OoT
---------------------MM-TP-LttP-LoZ/AoL

With OoX and LA having a couple potential places.

 

[Jarsh]

Look at the ingame evidence that went along with that intent. That ingame evidence is gone. Of course it went that way because the developers said so, but why did the developers say so? It definitely went along with in-game evidence. Then that in-game evidence was later destroyed. If everything those quotes were based upon is now 100% IMPOSSIBLE (LttP-LoZ is very possible, but the only in-game evidence there was for it in 1998 (when it was true because of the developers) was retconned by a later placement.

But that doesn't mean the developers don't consider it the order of those two games, still.

Except they were. If you use in-game evidence, it still went OoT-LttP-LoZ in 1998.

True enough, at least we know this as a fact.

The developers haven't mentioned the placement of LttP or LoZ since 1998, they haven't had the chance to say that it's changed.

Assuming that it has been changed; there may not be anything to say if the order hasn't changed (and in-game evidence to show that it's been retconned).

As far as we know, OoT is the SW, and FSA goes before OoT.

Fair enough, but we can ascertain the former through in-game evidence. Nothing has definitively disproved ALttP-LoZ (I know you're not arguing that, for the record).

What the developers considered 12 years ago has no bearing on current intent, especially when what was fact 12 years ago is IMPOSSIBLE.

This is pretty much my main disagreement, even though I do agree somewhat. It's outdated, but it could show that the developers do follow the old order somewhat, except they are now adding more games in-between and filling in holes (OoT as the SW was a pothole).

You could say it's the same placement (LttP-LoZ, I mean) as it was 12 years ago, and it's the same game order, but it doesn't work the same way as it did in 1998 when it was confirmed.

Well, that's pretty much what I'm saying, sorta.

Either that was worded badly, or you're stating that retcons have no bearing on timeline placements.
If it's the former, could you clarify? If it's the latter... well I hope you don't think the latter lol

No, no, I definitely believe in retcons. But I also think if a game placement has changed, something has to be shown for it other than a "maybe". For instance, I think we can safely say OoT as the SW has been retconned via in-game evidence. We can't say for certain if ALttP-LoZ is no longer a valid placement since nothing really contradicts it in current intent (as the placement still works the best, in my opinion).

We don't have much (really we don't have any definitive evidence of it, but for the timeline I'm mostly considering, LttP-LoZ just fits better than the alternatives. But for other timelines, LoZ being on a different timeline flows better (if FSA isn't first, then FSA-LoZ on one timeline, and LttP alone on another timeline flows way better than LttP-LoZ, imo)) evidence for LttP-LoZ, either. We have a 12 year old quote in which all of the in-game evidence it was based on has been definitely retconned, and we have alternatives that didn't exist then now, and consider that everything else (as in timeline relevant) that I can think of from 12 years ago has been retconned (I don't know your views on the SW, but it's been retconned no matter your views).

I would further discuss this, but I don't know my views on the SW yet because of the new (older) intent turning up. But I agree OoT as the SW has been retconned (and understandably).

The ingame evidence that the quote was based on is gone, and it was in the same time period where everything else timeline relevant got completely raped by TWW. I don't see how that quote can be used as evidence for attempting to prove LttP-LoZ as the current intent.

The timeline has changed and the ripple effect may have affected

Everything about the quote has changed, it's old, everything else from its time period got retconned in some way or another... It is NOT trustworthy for trying to figure out the current intent.

I guess I just see it in a different way. I do agree to an extent that much has changed, and you do bring up good points on how TWW affected the old order; I admit that much. But I don't think that the developers have gone completely back on their word. I think that the quote can be used to show the developers may be sticking to their guns, in a way. I don't think either of us will 100% agree on this, but I'm alright walking away from it with a few more things in mind.