Timeline of Startimer (draft)

[Pinecove]

But if they wanted OoX to be the direct prequel to LA then they would have changed ALTTP to the point where it didn't fit perfectly with LAs BS. They retconned ALTTP and it still fit perfectly with LAs BS. It's obvious that's where they want it.

ALttP for the GBA came out one year after OoS/OoA did.

That's screwed up logic.

 

[Erimgard]

Sweet Din I don't even want to know how in the hell Brett Favre came into this discussion.

 

[MrMosley]

ALttP for the GBA came out one year after OoS/OoA did.

That's screwed up logic.

Its not necessarily screwed up at all. Many Zelda games are changed just before their release, whether some information is added or some is taken out. A year is plenty of time to change whatever they wanted to with ALttP.

However, I don't personally see how they could have changed ALttP any particular way to disprove LA as its sequel. The only thing they may have done is add a part on to the ending where it said or showed something along the lines that Link never left Hyrule. They could have done this, but they didn't. And I don't think they done it for no particular reason; Only that it was not that important of a detail to add.

 

[startimer]

lol Emigrand

anyway,

Its not necessarily screwed up at all. Many Zelda games are changed just before their release, whether some information is added or some is taken out. A year is plenty of time to change whatever they wanted to with ALttP.

However, I don't personally see how they could have changed ALttP any particular way to disprove LA as its sequel. The only thing they may have done is add a part on to the ending where it said or showed something along the lines that Link never left Hyrule. They could have done this, but they didn't. And I don't think they done it for no particular reason; Only that it was not that important of a detail to add.

pretty much sums up what I was gonna say about the 'retconning Alttp' remark. No, they wouldn't change Alttp, they'd change the BS of LA, which has not been re-released since DX and might never.

 

[Pinecove]

Its not necessarily screwed up at all. Many Zelda games are changed just before their release, whether some information is added or some is taken out. A year is plenty of time to change whatever they wanted to with ALttP.

The only games where that's ever happened is FSA with the ties to it being the SW being removed, and TP with the removed text at the end of the game.

However, I don't personally see how they could have changed ALttP any particular way to disprove LA as its sequel. The only thing they may have done is add a part on to the ending where it said or showed something along the lines that Link never left Hyrule. They could have done this, but they didn't. And I don't think they done it for no particular reason; Only that it was not that important of a detail to add.

For once I agree with this site. It isn't important a detail so it doesn't matter weather they changed it.

HOWEVER this does NOT mean LA can't come after OoX.

 

[Zemen]

The only games where that's ever happened is FSA with the ties to it being the SW being removed, and TP with the removed text at the end of the game.



For once I agree with this site. It isn't important a detail so it doesn't matter weather they changed it.

HOWEVER this does NOT mean LA can't come after OoX.

I'm not saying that LA CAN't come after OoX, I'm saying that ALTTP fits perfectly with the BS where as you have to stretch some things to make OoX fit. Which game logically would be the prequel? The game that fits perfectly or the game that requires speculation? I would pick ALTTP over OoX any day.

 

[sign of table]

^It's not exactly speculation. It just requires a different interpretation than you have.

Thinking that games can go after TWW even though the ending says the land won't be Hyrule isn't speculation, it's just a different interpretation.

Anyways, I'm barely gonna be on for the next week because the comp I'm on right now SUCKS and is ridiculously slow.

 

[Hayzer]

^It's not exactly speculation. It just requires a different interpretation than you have.

Thinking that games can go after TWW even though the ending says the land won't be Hyrule isn't speculation, it's just a different interpretation.

Anyways, I'm barely gonna be on for the next week because the comp I'm on right now SUCKS and is ridiculously slow.

You guys also have to think, "What was Nintendo's intent for this game?" LA was obviously meant to be a sequel to ALttP. Interpreting stuff that goes against intent is just bias, unless of course, the intent was clearly rejected by Nintendo in the form of a quote or interview.

 

[sign of table]

^Of course. LA was clearly meant to take place after LttP at the time of its release.

But that was before OoX, which makes you have to consider that maybe OoX was made to go before LA (thus retconning LttP/LA).

You can't just dismiss it because of original intent. Because it has a LOT of evidence. When you look at the evidence, it has just as much as LttP/LA. Essentially everything that LttP/LA has, OoX/LA has (plus OoX Link is all "I'M ON A MOTHER ****IN' BOAT!" ) about as much (there are some exceptions to both sides. Agahnim appears in LttP, whereas OoX/LA has atleast twice as much, close to three times as much, of exclusive enemies shared between OoX and LA than LttP and LA share. Could just be laziness, but notice the Agahnim shadow uses pretty much the same sprite as in LttP so that could just as easily be developer laziness).

You should really clear your preconceived bias of LttP/LA and look at both sides and see which one has the most evidence/intent.

I'm having a lot of trouble myself making the decision. LttP/LA was confirmed at one point, whereas OoX/LA has that freaken ending which is soooooo remniscent of LAs beginning.

PS. I'm on a different comp for the next week that has no spell-check. So you might notice some typos

 

[startimer]

You guys also have to think, "What was Nintendo's intent for this game?" LA was obviously meant to be a sequel to ALttP. Interpreting stuff that goes against intent is just bias, unless of course, the intent was clearly rejected by Nintendo in the form of a quote or interview.

So we're arguing intent now? Ok.

OoX was intended to be a prequal to LA

That is what I believe,

 

[Pinecove]

that maybe OoX was made to go before LA (thus retconning LttP/LA).

NO RETCON. Changing the intent.

505050505050505050505050505050

 

[sign of table]

^That is what a retcon is. The way it could go now (or does) is different than it used to be. Like the SW.

The SW cannot work the same way as it did in '91/'98. It has been retconned. It's been changed since its release. I'd say that's what a retcon is.

If it were to go OoX/LA it WOULD be a retcon.

What's with your hatred towards the word retcon? You were arguing pretty much the same thing on LA (which is why I mentioned the SW).