The greatest debate: timeline theories!

Originally Posted by Slagr

um, actually it does and I don't understand the fixation on undermining such evidence. It's the only game that starts with the green tunic and without a hat and ends with a hat, and the hat is important to the story, so I don't see why it wouldn't mean anything.

Really basing a timeline on something as trivial as a hat is stupid. If it weren't for the hat where would you place it?

Originally Posted by Nerushi

You can quote and interpretate all you want. It doesn't change the fact the we never see or hear about the Triforce itself. All there is, is cryptic talk of godness power.

The "power of the gods" is the Triforce. Honestly, WTF? What else could they be talking about? Especially because every time "power of the gods" is mentioned, a character shows that they possess the triforce mark on their hands. Ganon does it this way, as does Zelda in the scene where she gives her soul to Midna. Not to seem insulting, but it's idiotic to think that the characters are referencing anything other than the triforce when they talk about the "power of the gods."

Originally Posted by Nerushi

The Triforce doesn't dump down on the ground which would make sense if he actually physcially poessed it like in other games.

That hasn't even happened since the very first game.

Originally Posted by Nerushi

This is backed up by the way Link, Zelda and Ganondorf just seem to 'have' the Triforce mark ( or it just randomly appearing ). This seem to contradict the way of attaining it in other games, where it is actally neccesary for someone to touch them to attain it.

The sages explicitly say Ganondorf gained it through a "divine prank." Whatever this divine prank is, Link and Zelda must have gained their pieces the same way, because Link has the Triforce of Courage during the final scene of OoT. This proves that it isn't 100% necessary to touch the Triforce in order to obtain it, playing god works just as well.

Divine prank is just a colloquialism for 'misfortune' or 'sod's law'. It's like saying 'the gods aren't on my side today!'- nothing literal meant about it at all.

I wish people would begin to get this...

I always though divine prank meant how the Triforce comes to Link in OOT's ending which also causes Zelda and Ganon to get their pieces unknowingly.

The sages are basically saying 'unfortunately Ganon had the Triforce' or 'by some stroke of unforseen bad luck unbeknownst to us'.

It is not the gods had anything to do with it or that said 'prank' is intended to reference a specific event.

Yeah, but it still means that the Sages didn't know why Ganondorf had the Triforce... So, it means Ganondorf had not invaded the Sacred Realm (the Sages would know if he had invaded... Their job is to protect it, after all)... It would be pretty dumb for the Sages to think Ganondorf invaded the SR for other reason, instead of stealing the only important/powerfull thing that's in the realm (as far as we know)...

RZ, you should give a seminar on the proper usage of the term "Divine Prank" one of these days.

Lex (Artemicion) is more on the anti-divine prank wagon than I am. He set it rolling! He has example news documents where people have used the phrase- he's the better one to go to on this issue- not that it's particularly complicated or in any way difficult to grasp.

Originally Posted by Oni Dark Link

Really basing a timeline on something as trivial as a hat is stupid. If it weren't for the hat where would you place it?

First. The hat is not the primary indicator for me. TP-LttP is evident and FSA-LttP is evident, therefore tMC-OoT is evident.

First. The hat is not the primary indicator for me. TP-LttP is evident and FSA-LttP is evident, therefore tMC-OoT is evident.

Um... wut?

There is significant evidence, cameos or otherwise, to place TP-aLttP (which I do believe) and again the same for FSA-aLttP (which I do not), but I don't get any of the tMC first arguments, 'sepcially when they claim 'the hat is nothing to do with it'.

Originally Posted by River Zora

Um... wut?

There is significant evidence, cameos or otherwise, to place TP-aLttP (which I do believe) and again the same for FSA-aLttP (which I do not), but I don't get any of the tMC first arguments, 'sepcially when they claim 'the hat is nothing to do with it'.

If the CT is OoT-TP-FSA-LttP, then where should tMC be? Should we assume that the locations changed names after TP and back again before FSA, or should we assume that they changed once before OoT?

There is NO evidence for first or post-WW in tMC itself. The ONLY way to prove it is by placing LttP and FSA.

Originally Posted by Slagr

If the CT is OoT-TP-FSA-LttP, then where should tMC be? Should we assume that the locations changed names after TP and back again before FSA, or should we assume that they changed once before OoT?

There is NO evidence for first or post-WW in tMC itself. The ONLY way to prove it is by placing LttP and FSA.

Yo Slag, question. Why do you place AoL on the CT? Especially with the name of the sages in town?

Originally Posted by Watties

Yo Slag, question. Why do you place AoL on the CT? Especially with the name of the sages in town?

I believe that the intent of AoL's towns was overshadowed by new intent, specifically the TP-LttP connection and the LttP-LoZ connection.

Originally Posted by Slagr

I believe that the intent of AoL's towns was overshadowed by new intent, specifically the TP-LttP connection and the LttP-LoZ connection.

Smart. Retcons, I don't like em', but they seem to be dominating. Aiight, ty.

I honestly never much cared for the quote about the towns in AoL being named after the Sages. If anything, it's more obvious the Sages were named after the towns (and Mido, of course--speaking of which, I find it hard to believe at all that a town was named after Mido...I've always, despite silly quotes from developers, believed that the names in OoT were just a mere nod to AoL).

^ Well, personally I'm taking it as canon. Now, even though you don't give a ♥♥♥♥, taking things like that needs to be taken seriously. Hell, the way everyone is going and not taking things seriously, I might as well Jabun was just a cameo, he wasn't actually in the Wind Waker, just a nod to Jabu Jabu.

Originally Posted by Watties

^ Well, personally I'm taking it as canon. Now, even though you don't give a ♥♥♥♥, taking things like that needs to be taken seriously. Hell, the way everyone is going and not taking things seriously, I might as well Jabun was just a cameo, he wasn't actually in the Wind Waker, just a nod to Jabu Jabu.

I don't need to take the Zelda series seriously at all. It's not real life after all. Moron.

For the sake of argument, you didn't notice that I actually gave good reason to disbelieve a developer's quote that the Towns in AoL were named after the Sages of OoT. I claimed the opposite happened due to the chronology of game releases.

Mido's not even a Sage, and Kasuto makes no appearance at all in OoT. I assert once more that the Sages in OoT (and little Mido) were named after towns in AoL, and not the other way around.

I believe that the developers' words are not always accurately stated, or sometimes even stated in error.

For instance, a storywriter said that OoT was meant to be the SW. However, later we find that Aonuma tried to have FSA become the actual SW. Miyamoto upended the teatable on that because he didn't want the storyline to be too involved or complicated (not because he still believed OoT to be the SW...in fact, he may have never believed that in the first place).

My take on that was that the Storywriter was probably just stating his opinion on the matter, as people who write stories and fiction tend to get a little more involved in the mechanics of the plotlines and can start guessing things for themselves. That's why OoT was taken to be the SW for the longest time until WW put a damper on things in 2003.

So I don't think OoT was the SW because of these reasons, and I don't believe that AoL MUST come on the AT, because I don't believe that the towns are named after the Sages of the the events of OoT.

Also, look at it this way. All the Sages are great people in their own right before even attaining Sage-hood. Therefore I think they'd be renowned enough to have towns named after them later, if this is indeed what happened and if we say AoL comes on the CT. (You may argue that Mido and Saria were not very renowned...but who cares? You might even say they were the leaders of the Kokiri and were known as such. Not a big deal in the end.)

Anyway, this is just something I'm throwing out there for you. I'm not saying AoL doesn't come on the AT at all, but I'm telling you to not disregard the likelihood that it could come on the CT as well.

I have always found LoZ/AoL by far the hardest games to place.

If sleeping Zelda's father wrote the scroll, then LoZ/AoL must come before OoT.

If the town names are valid, then an AT placement is suggested, but there is no evidence
that the new world will be anything like Hyrule, and the developers clearly had no flood in
mind until WW, meaning LoZ/AoL/ALttP/LA/OoT/MM/OoA/OoS all related to pre-flood
Hyrule when they were released.

My current solution is to place LoZ/AoL on an AT future that can no longer happen when Zelda
sends Link back in time.

Originally Posted by Sparty

I don't need to take the Zelda series seriously at all. It's not real life after all. Moron.

For the sake of argument, you didn't notice that I actually gave good reason to disbelieve a developer's quote that the Towns in AoL were named after the Sages of OoT. I claimed the opposite happened due to the chronology of game releases.

Mido's not even a Sage, and Kasuto makes no appearance at all in OoT. I assert once more that the Sages in OoT (and little Mido) were named after towns in AoL, and not the other way around.

I believe that the developers' words are not always accurately stated, or sometimes even stated in error.

For instance, a storywriter said that OoT was meant to be the SW. However, later we find that Aonuma tried to have FSA become the actual SW. Miyamoto upended the teatable on that because he didn't want the storyline to be too involved or complicated (not because he still believed OoT to be the SW...in fact, he may have never believed that in the first place).

My take on that was that the Storywriter was probably just stating his opinion on the matter, as people who write stories and fiction tend to get a little more involved in the mechanics of the plotlines and can start guessing things for themselves. That's why OoT was taken to be the SW for the longest time until WW put a damper on things in 2003.

So I don't think OoT was the SW because of these reasons, and I don't believe that AoL MUST come on the AT, because I don't believe that the towns are named after the Sages of the the events of OoT.

Also, look at it this way. All the Sages are great people in their own right before even attaining Sage-hood. Therefore I think they'd be renowned enough to have towns named after them later, if this is indeed what happened and if we say AoL comes on the CT. (You may argue that Mido and Saria were not very renowned...but who cares? You might even say they were the leaders of the Kokiri and were known as such. Not a big deal in the end.)

Anyway, this is just something I'm throwing out there for you. I'm not saying AoL doesn't come on the AT at all, but I'm telling you to not disregard the likelihood that it could come on the CT as well.

Again, you miss my point. Please stop responding to me, it's an ultimate waste of both our times.

I don't take a video game seriously, I have fun doing this.

I said my thing was an opinion, and you go bite my head off. Good, you've made your point, and I think AoL CT is very possible, I asked a question, didn't make a statement.

Originally Posted by Watties

^ Well, personally I'm taking it as canon. Now, even though you don't give a ♥♥♥♥, taking things like that needs to be taken seriously.

There's your statement. So yes, you made a statement. I gave a very in-depth rebuttal to your statement. Don't contradict yourself.