FSA Ganon =/= ALTTP Ganon?

This has been a question I have been thinking of for a while. Does FSA really make any good connections with ALTTP? I know that it shows the orgins of a trident, but is that as strong as TP's connections with ALTTP? FSA's Ganon is most definitely LOZ's Ganon, but is he ALTTP's Ganon? Especially in light of FSA more than likely being on the Adult timeline. What do the rest of you think?

Originally Posted by Ganonlord

This has been a question I have been thinking of for a while. Does FSA really make any good connections with ALTTP?

No, not really. Everything that was going to be a direct connection was removed.

I know that it shows the orgins of a trident, but is that as strong as TP's connections with ALTTP?

I think that they're probably about equal, but it really depends on how you differentiate "cameos" and "evidence".

FSA's Ganon is most definitely LOZ's Ganon,

Please elaborate. I want to know more.

but is he ALTTP's Ganon? Especially in light of FSA more than likely being on the Adult timeline. What do the rest of you think?

He was originally going to be ALttP Ganon, but it depends on whether or not you consider Miyamoto's "teatabling" of the story a complete change or just a simplified version of the original.

Originally Posted by Beemnorv

No, not really. Everythingthat was going to be a seal war reference was removed.

fixed.

I know that it shows the orgins of a trident, but is that as strong as TP's connections with ALTTP?

are FSA's connections to WW (lol are there any?) stronger than FSA-LttP? Is there a definite reason to separate FSA and LttP regardless, and is the AT the best place for FSA if they are separate?

Originally Posted by OP

but is he ALTTP's Ganon? Especially in light of FSA more than likely being on the Adult timeline. What do the rest of you think?

um what. is this because of... the water? Any other evidence? Anything with value? Anything stronger than TP-LttP or FSA-LttP? It's not most likely anywhere, and certainly not the AT if anything.

Originally Posted by Beemnorv

No, not really. Everythingthat was going to be a direct connection was removed.

I know that it shows the orgins of a trident, but is that as strong as TP's connections with ALTTP?

I think that they're probably about equal, but it really depends on how you differentiate "cameos" and "evidence".



Please elaborate. I want to know more.



He was originally going to be ALttP Ganon, but it depends on whether or not you consider Miyamoto's "teatabling" of the story a complete change or just a simplified version of the original.[/QUOTE]
FSA Ganon has to be one of the demon Ganons. FSA-LOZ would have an easy explanation for Ganon's return in LOZ. Besides, how can all of the ALTTP references in TP be cameos? There are at least 2 (Master Sword and Hyrule Castle). FSA's whole story was probably changed after Miyamoto got involved. Even the Master Sword in FSA was removed. Maybe this was because it is the Master Sword.

Why do two games have to be separated for minor discrepancies when they have more connections than any other game? LttP ties more closely to FSA than any other game (other than OoT perhaps, but that takes more to explain). I don't see the logic for separating them.

I think that at this point in time, we can say that the placement of FSA depends on the placement of ALttP. If ALttP is on the CT, then we have three options (in my opinion):

1. FSA is on the AT, separate from ALttP, which is on the CT;
2. FSA comes before ALttP on the CT, or;
3. FSA is before OoT.

or FSS-OoT, as Nerushi would have it. I'd really like to have that but I can't see it working out as well as FSA-LttP.

IMO FSA, even without the direct connections, still connects well to ALttP. In terms of pretty well identical geography. The fact is anyone who docks my little geography claim here cannot tell me ALttP is on the CT because the master sword is in the lost woods.

Originally Posted by Slagr

or FSS-OoT, as Nerushi would have it. I'd really like to have that but I can't see it working out as well as FSA-LttP.

Oh, of course. *edits* I forgot to include that.
That theory actually does work out well, but I just like to create my timelines independently from what other people think, if you know what I mean.

Well, if we go by raw connections then FSA Ganon and ALTTP has most matching ones.
Only in FSA and ALTTP is he called 闇の魔王 (Yami no Maou) = Demon King of Darkness.
Where in other games such as LoZ, OoT, TP, OoX etc. he is called 大魔王 (Dai Maou) = Great Demon King. Finicky, I know.

So there's title, apperance, choice of weapon and the fact that FSA Ganon was left alive in a sealed state for a game to follow, where ALTTP is the first game that comes to mind. I wouldn't overrule these unless there a particulary good reason and explantion for it.

Oh, and my timeline works IMO because FSA Ganon was sealed and that OoT Ganon ≠ FSA Ganon. These two condition creates an ideal hiatus for Ganon where the setup for ALTTP can still work. Especially since FSA Ganon wasn't sealed in the SR.

Also, this timeline:

AT: WW/PH - LoZ/AoL
TMC - FS/FSA - OoT
CT: MM - TP - ALttP/LA

explains the appearances of both LoZ Ganon and ALttP Ganon if they are FSA Ganon and occur parallel to each other.

Can someone please get me an NOJ quote where some big man says MC/ FS/ FSA is first.

BB: That’s something that, you (Bill Trinen – Localization Team) and I have talked about with the release of the Zelda compilation disc, cleaning up some of the spellings like Ganon, and making sure everything is cohesive. Maybe that’s an American thing – us wanting to know how it all works together. I guess that leads me to my next questions. How do the Links in The Four Swords Adventure relate to the overall story line? Or is it just a subchapter or something like that?
EA: The GBA Four Swords Zelda is what we’re thinking as the oldest tale in the Zelda timeline. With this one on the GameCube being a sequel to that, and taking place sometime after that.

They don't seem too definitive on that "what we're thinking".

But, they said it, basically meaning it has to go:

/...
MC -->FS/FSA-->OoT
/....

I still don't like MC going first, but now that's my main concentration. Time to go grab both sides of the argument.

They also said this:

NP: Where does the latest Zelda game fall into the series' mythology? Early in the series or after Majora's Mask?
Miyamoto: This is the very first Zelda story. If all we ever did was try to continue the story, we'd lose some of the interest. It's fun to jump back and forth.

Whether this is true or not doesn't matter. The point is that they don't consider OoT to be the absolute first anymore, allowing more games (from the present or the future) to be placed before it.

Originally Posted by Watties

They don't seem too definitive on that "what we're thinking".

But of course. However, they even considering it and telling us it gives a so much higher probability of being true. The idea of going against said creator intent can only be spawned out of already etablished preference for a particular timeline or idea. What need to be realized though is that NOTHING is established. Everything goes through changes. And if new intent collide with old intent, then its obviously the new intent that has the priority. That is, FSS being the oldest tale despite OoT once being mentioned as the first game. Anything else is just irrational and irrelevant, really.

Originally Posted by Beemnorv

They also said this:


Whether this is true or not doesn't matter. The point is that they don't consider OoT to be the absolute first anymore, allowing more games (from the present or the future) to be placed before it.

There's debate on that quote on if it's referring to TWW which was still in development or FS.

Interview done - July 2002
FS released - December 2, 2002
WW released - December 13, 2002

I don't know. FS was released before WW, but WW was probably in development before it as FS is a relatively simple game and wouldn't take very long to program. Also, the whole interview was about the upcoming WW game, but then the interviewer asked about the "latest Zelda game", which could technically be OoX.

Why would Miyamoto so confidently say that WW was before OoT when it was clear that they were making it to be after it?

Could someone find out when WW and FS began production?

All I know is that FSA was in production at the same time as WW, so they must have finished FS to some extent before they had that interview.

^
I do not know when I started production, but I imagine that it must have been during MM since it came out 2 years after MM did.

But yeah, that's what I mean, people aren't sure if he's referring to FS or TWW. I personally think TWW just because that's what they were talking about before and I think the interviewer would want to know more about the latest BIG Zelda game. As for Miyamoto getting its placement wrong, he probably just didn't know much about the story. Aonuma had more involvement anyhow.

Also, I would also say that TWW was in development before FS because I believe the cartoony Link was made for TWW and they probably decided to use that art style for FS after it was conceived for TWW.

Hmm....

WW it is for that quote then. It just makes more sense.