The LA debate

What are the literally exclusive features of LttP and LA that are not also in OoX? I don't see why LA after LttP is necessary, even with OoX between/before, because it seems like OoX has just about everything LttP has.

Originally Posted by Table

I'm fine with retcons, but if they were making OoX to go between LttP and LA, wouldn't they make it fit that way, instead of making it make no sense?

Yeah, it wouldn't make sense in that way. However, I just realized that Link wasn't sailing to Hyrule, he was sailing from it. Thus my original point is meaningless, anyway.

Originally Posted by bitterlime

Yes ofcourse you can work around the problem, but should we do that?

How is that, "working around the problem?" Its only a problem if you assume Zelda must be the same.

There are two assumptions to take:
1) the Zelda from OOX is the same from ALTTP
2) the Zelda from OOX is different from ALTTP

Assumption 2) seems more probable because Zelda doesn't know Link. There are many Zelda's due to the naming tradition told in the AOL backstory, so the probably of Zelda being the same or different is equal. What tips the ice is that Zelda doesn't Link in OOX, thus they should be different. There is no other evidence to indicate that she is related to Zelda in ALTTP.

Originally Posted by Slagr

What are the literally exclusive features of LttP and LA that are not also in OoX? I don't see why LA after LttP is necessary, even with OoX between/before, because it seems like OoX has just about everything LttP has.

Only 1 thing comes into my mind, and that's Turtle Rock being the final dungeon in both games.
Oh and maybe the Hinox enemies...I think they are exclusive to ALttP and LA.
Edit: There is also a remarkable similarity between the statues infront of both the face shrine of LA and the eastern palace in ALttP.

Originally Posted by bjamez7573

How is that, "working around the problem?" Its only a problem if you assume Zelda must be the same.

There are two assumptions to take:
1) the Zelda from OOX is the same from ALTTP
2) the Zelda from OOX is different from ALTTP

Assumption 2) seems more probable because Zelda doesn't know Link. There are many Zelda's due to the naming tradition told in the AOL backstory, so the probably of Zelda being the same or different is equal. What tips the ice is that Zelda doesn't Link in OOX, thus they should be different. There is no other evidence to indicate that she is related to Zelda in ALTTP.

The problematic asumption is there being "twin Zeldas" so to speak.
It is obviously "working around a problem" because it makes assumptions to avoid an issue.

What are the literally exclusive features of LttP and LA that are not also in OoX?

Hinox, Bombers, Lanmola (boss form), and Moldorm (boss form). Compared to around 14 enemies for OoX/LA.

There are two assumptions to take:
1) the Zelda from OOX is the same from ALTTP
2) the Zelda from OOX is different from ALTTP

So two fully grown Zelda's meet the exact same Link without anything implying an existance of another Zelda?

This seems very, very unlikely. I know the tradition was 'every female in the Royal Family'- but surely this is just illogical- I always interpreted it as first born girls. Imagine how weird that's be.

'Zelda- I need your help with something... no, not you, your sister... no your other sister.... no... not... GAH.'

Originally Posted by Table

So two fully grown Zelda's meet the exact same Link without anything implying an existance of another Zelda? It's too fanfic-y for me.

So what's she supposed to say? "Oh hi Link. My name is Princess Zelda. You don't know me but I recognize you. You're that fairy boy my fourth cousin Princess Zelda told me about."

Why do you assume that they have to acknowlwdge each other. Furthermore, I didn't hear anything about a Sleeping Zelda in LoZ, meaning no one is forced to say anything.

Nothing wholly contradicts the Tetraforce theory. Should we believe it?

No because:
1. A Tetraforce is stupid.
2. It's been 20 ****in years. If there was a Tetraforce, it'd have been confirmed by now.
3. A Tetraforce would retcon the whole series.
4. I think Miyamoto said something about there being only a Triforce, but I don't remember.
5. Yes there is something that contradicts it:
a. 3 Goddesses
b. TRIforce.

If you try to argue a Tetraforce beyond that, you're reaching.

Just because nothing wholly contradicts it doesn't mean that there's nothing heavily implying the opposite.

Um, ja.

Originally Posted by Table

So two fully grown Zelda's meet the exact same Link without anything implying an existence of another Zelda?

I want you to see how exactly weak your argument is:

2 people with the same name around the same age in the same family don't mention each other because you're implying that they're the same person.

EVERY Female in the Royal Family is named Zelda. There are bound to be multiple Zelda's. Saying that there can't be 2 teenaged/grown females named Zelda in existence at the same time is ludicrous.

My name is Quientin. I have a friend, whose name is Quintin. We're technically related by marriage. We're not the same person. Until this moment, there was no reason to divulge that info.

See how disturbingly weak your argument is?

Ok, even if all the cousins are called Zelda too-

Both Zeldas are the PRINCESS OF HYRULE.

Thus they would have to be sisters at the very least- if so why do we only see one Zelda in aLttP? They each have this magically not mentioned sister?

Your argument is very odd and makes little sense.

Originally Posted by River Zora

Ok, even if all the cousins are called Zelda too-

Both Zeldas are the PRINCESS OF HYRULE.

Thus they would have to be sisters at the very least- if so why do we only see one Zelda in aLttP? They each have this magically not mentioned sister?

Your argument is very odd and makes little sense.

You're one to talk. I was clear and concise with my argument.

I'm not sure why you think that both of them being princesses require them to acknowledge each other.

Two sisters both to be called Zelda both of similar age to Link, neither making reference to either Link or the other Zelda in two games within a couple of years of each other? You word your argument well, but that's not to say it makes sense. I could put forward a well structured argument towards Disney's Dumbo being set in the Zelda universe- just cause one can articulate does not mean said articulations are of any sense making.

There is absolutley zero evidence to suggest the familial link you claim and every piece of common sense to suggest that there would not be two sisters who are only called 'Princess Zelda of Hyrule', not even 'Zelda the Younger' and 'Zelda the Elder' just 'Hey, I'm Princess Zelda of Hyrule.'

I see no reason at all either to believe your claim or indeed to want to believe it as it solves no problem thus raised, only going against every piece of sensibility.

Where is the other sister in aLttP? When Agahnim is kidnapping all the descendents why isn't the other Zelda there seen kidnapped? Why is only the one Zelda kidnapped by Twinrova in OoX when they need said sacrifice- surely taking them both would be far more sensible as a safeguard?

Originally Posted by River Zora

Two sisters both to be called Zelda both of similar age to Link, neither making reference to either Link or the other Zelda in two games within a couple of years of each other? You word your argument well, but that's not to say it makes sense. I could put forward a well structured argument towards Disney's Dumbo being set in the Zelda universe- just cause one can articulate does not mean said articulations are of any sense making.

There is absolutley zero evidence to suggest the familial link you claim and every piece of common sense to suggest that there would not be two sisters who are only called 'Princess Zelda of Hyrule', not even 'Zelda the Younger' and 'Zelda the Elder' just 'Hey, I'm Princess Zelda of Hyrule.'

I see no reason at all either to believe your claim or indeed to want to believe it as it solves no problem thus raised, only going against every piece of sensibility.

Where is the other sister in aLttP? When Agahnim is kidnapping all the descendents why isn't the other Zelda there seen kidnapped? Why is only the one Zelda kidnapped by Twinrova in OoX when they need said sacrifice- surely taking them both would be far more sensible as a safeguard?

Case in point: Princess Zelda in LoZ. She makes no mention of Sleeping Zelda.

OoX Zelda: You are Link, correct? [or words to that gist]
If this was the same Zelda from aLttP, she'd know Link right away.

The difference is Zelda in LoZ does not know about the sleeping Zelda- the sleeping Zelda is centuries, perhaps even millennia old in her magical coma stuck behind 'The Door that Doesn't Open' that only Impa knows about.

I agree if the order is aLttP-OoX with the same Link then there has to be two Zeldas at the same time. The problem is that it is significantly more likely by both in game evidence, logic and plain common sense that the order is NOT aLttP-OoX for this very reason. If you want it to be the same Link have it OoX-aLttP, if you want it order aLttP-OoX then have them a century apart or what have you with new generations of the Princess and Link for whom it is the first meeting.

You have given an ultimatum that is not the case and thus is the flaw in your argument.

Case in point: Princess Zelda in LoZ. She makes no mention of Sleeping Zelda.

AoL also gives a story for why there is a second sleeping Zelda, whereas no game featuring Ganon makes mention of a second Ganon on the side, nor do we hear anything that would suggest that there was one in any sequel.

Originally Posted by Slagr

What are the literally exclusive features of LttP and LA that are not also in OoX?

The first three bosses of ALttP (Moldorm, Lanmola, and Armos Knight) appear in LA and are fought the exact same way. Similarly, Agahnim and Ganon appear as part of the final boss fight, and use their attacks from ALttP. LA also emulated the scenario for getting Magic Powder from ALttP, and ALttP and LA are the only games to feature Magic Powder to date.

OoX has just about everything LttP has.

OoX has most everything from every game, including the bosses of LoZ and ALttP, characters from OoT and MM, and enemies from LA. Since OoX used a port of the LA engine, the recycling of enemies is to be expected. But the other references are really all over the place - the only solid fact is that OoS has every single boss from LoZ.

The first three bosses of ALttP (Moldorm, Lanmola, and Armos Knight) appear in LA and are fought the exact same way.

Armos Warriors are in OoX. Which are visually the same.

LA also emulated the scenario for getting Magic Powder from ALttP, and ALttP and LA are the only games to feature Magic Powder to date.

OoX had no need for Magic Powder since they already had Mystery Seeds which achieved the exact same effect.

Since OoX used a port of the LA engine, the recycling of enemies is to be expected.

LA recycled the sprite for Agahnim and Ganon... sure I understand that. But it's just plain ridiculous to say that because OoX recycled the sprites/textures from LA and say that Agahnim, Moldorm, and Lanmola are super important when they use the same sprite... (I'm not sure about Moldorm or Lanmola, actually. But Agahnim uses the same sprite)

Then there's the OoX ending which is perfect for setting up LA.

Originally Posted by Table

^LttP/LA contains 5 exclusive enemies shared between only those two games. OoX/LA contains 14 exclusive enemies shared between only those 2 games.
The LttP rerelease on the GBA contains identical style of art as OoX does. Ganon is in OoX.

OOX-LA just makes too little sense, there is no story, no background, no anything. They might as well not be part of the series if your proposing that.

OOX-LA just makes too little sense, there is no story, no background, no anything. They might as well not be part of the series if your proposing that.

How-so? What do you mean by no story or background?

Originally Posted by Watties

OOX-LA just makes too little sense, there is no story, no background, no anything. They might as well not be part of the series if your proposing that.

The LA manual says that Link left Hyrule to train in case Ganon returns. That's all the story there is.

OoX is arguably very relevant as they at least feature Ganon, fulfilling that part of the BS, and the ending shows Link sailing away from Hyrule (as noted by the castle in the scene). So if the exclusive features weren't enough to change the intent from LttP-LA to OoX-LA, consider the fact that Capcom made the ending an obvious departure from Hyrule, with the exact prerequisites for LA as LttP, and included more numerous references.

Originally Posted by Table

How-so? What do you mean by no story or background?

Sorry, I said that wrong.

What I mean is I think it's a little to broad already, your putting one mysterious game with another random game that was intended as a sequel. Sure, the graphics are the same in OOX-LA, but that's just engine, MC, WW, FS, FSA, PH, ST Link's all look the same, they aren't though. I think that Nintendo may have changed something AGAIN, but ALttP fits the ALttP - LA roll perfectly. Plus, Agahnim anyone? Although I must admit that Nintendo/CapCom probably changed something and screws another thing up.

Originally Posted by Watties

ALttP fits the ALttP - LA roll perfectly.

and OoX-LA works just as well, plus direct references (ever see a boat in LttP?)

Plus, Agahnim anyone? Although I must admit that Nintendo/CapCom probably changed something and screws another thing up.

Agahnim is a miniboss in OoS's Dancing Dragon Dungeon.

Originally Posted by Slagr

and OoX-LA works just as well, plus direct references (ever see a boat in LttP?)



Agahnim is a miniboss in OoS's Dancing Dragon Dungeon.

Yeah, yeah I know. Here's what happend:

1) Nintendo makes LA as a sequel to ALttP

2) Nintendo changes the timeline again, screws everything over, so at this point there really isn't a "possible" one, and now OOX-LA is how it rolls.

Originally Posted by Watties

Yeah, yeah I know. Here's what happend:

1) Nintendo makes LA as a sequel to ALttP

2) Nintendo changes the timeline again, screws everything over, so at this point there really isn't a "possible" one, and now OOX-LA is how it rolls.

LttP-LA was never confirmed. The only thing that is required for LA was a dead Ganon, so AoL works just as well also. Everyone thought LttP was the prequel because of the specific references in LA, of which there are more in OoX. It seems pretty obvious what is currently intended.

Also, retcons do not screwing everything over. Maintaining old canon in spite of retcons does.