The Double ALttP Theory

Hey I'm not sure If this helps your theory but I read somewhere that Anouma wants to make a 3D Alttp remake.

^ I don't really think it does. However, that interview confirmed that he really likes ALttP, and that would fit nicely along with him wanting to give us a hint as to how TP relates to the game (sword in the woods). Thanks for the reminder.

And humulos, you spammer

and that would fit nicely along with him wanting to give us a hint as to how TP relates to the game (sword in the woods)

Seeing as how it was a completely different forest, it was more of an allusion

^I was just wondering, is there anything that contraditcs a suggestion of Hyrule being moved to the east- south east of TP Hyrule, making the woods, as well as death mountain fall into place? I remember suggesting so a long while ago, but can't remember the outcome of it. Just some guy saing "no it's the same" without anything to back it up. This was a thread about Zelda geography, by the way, hence my suggestion.

I certainly see no reason. After all Hylians do move around when provoked. Everyone moved north when Ganon attacked in the original game, and something like the Sealing War seems like something that could relocate Hyrule. The Knights would stay behind, fight, everyone else rebuilds elsewhere.

While those two would fall into place, everything else would be in completely wrong places. TP Hyrule looks like OoT Hyrule, and OoT Hyrule looks like ALttP Hyrule, no need to complicate things by shifting hyrule to the south.

Hmm... well, I'd very much like to discuss that, but not here. Maybe someone should make another Zeld Geography thread, where we could discuss everything on the topic, not just ALttP. My point is mostly that the Master Sword in the woods seems like too much of a hint to be a coincidence.

Originally Posted by humulos

I certainly see no reason. After all Hylians do move around when provoked. Everyone moved north when Ganon attacked in the original game, and something like the Sealing War seems like something that could relocate Hyrule. The Knights would stay behind, fight, everyone else rebuilds elsewhere.

Yeah, I had a similiar thought. There could be countless of reasons to relocate, actually. It won't make or break this theory but... yeah, we can speculate.

Sorry, forgot to reply to this

Everyone moved north when Ganon attacked in the original game

I doubt that all those towns were recently established. Considering their name origins, they are likely pretty old (also look at Old Kasuto). There isn't any real evidence to say that Hyrule was empty because of Ganon's attack, most of the monsters don't even seem loyal to him (things like Lynels were just gaurdian beasts I believe). Other monsters (such as the ones in the dungeons) can't possibly be loyal to him (or else they would hand over the triforce). The manual says a small group led by Ganon invaded the castle to steal the triforce, no big invading army that would destroy everything. It is far more likely that the settlements of south hyrule were just not shown, due to technical limitations (which is why the manual references a castle as existing in south hyrule). There is no real evidence of any northern shift, there are just people living up north as well.

The lack of settlements is definitely not because of technicals, since we could see the area again in AoL and there was still nothing there, yet towns were displayed. I suppose you may be right, but your mentioning of the guardians brings up another point. Why were there guardians? And more importantly, why were they only in those locations? The Royal family must have placed those establishments in case of such an emergency, and if Hyrule was not formerly located in that area, then wouldn't they place the dungeons all over Hyrule as it is known in AoL? It seems silly to place every single dungeon in that one small part, if the kingdom extended much farther.

The lack of settlements is definitely not because of technicals, since we could see the area again in AoL and there was still nothing there, yet towns were displayed.

AoL had much more disc space to work with. LoZ was completely, utterly crammed full of code, so much that they lacked enough space to make arrows have there own supply. AoL had about twice as much space to work with.

Why were there guardians? And more importantly, why were they only in those locations?

Can't say for sure, but here's the official description

A guardian deity that attacks anyone who approch Death Mountain. His attacking power is fairly stong, and small shields cannot stop the swords he shoots.

and if Hyrule was not formerly located in that area, then wouldn't they place the dungeons all over Hyrule as it is known in AoL? It seems silly to place every single dungeon in that one small part, if the kingdom extended much farther.

At the time of LoZ, that hyrule was the only one in existent. Expecting them to think so far ahead is ridiculous.

Originally Posted by MercuryMule

AoL had much more disc space to work with. LoZ was completely, utterly crammed full of code, so much that they lacked enough space to make arrows have there own supply. AoL had about twice as much space to work with.

That is exactly my point. The entire area of the first game is located in the southwest corner of AoLs map. If there was supposed to be a town there, they would have added it in, as they would have had space to do so. But they did not, which means there were no towns in that area of Hyrule, they were all destroyed.

Originally Posted by MercuryMule

Can't say for sure, but here's the official description

Sorry, I was not referring to the Lynels, I was referring to the guardians of the dungeons, Aquamentus, Gleeeok and all them.

Originally Posted by MercuryMule

At the time of LoZ, that hyrule was the only one in existent. Expecting them to think so far ahead is ridiculous.

Right, it was the only one at the time. Then the monsters and Ganon came, everyone branched out and settled other areas, and made the Hyrule seen in AoL.

Originally Posted by GarmGarf

I also have two questions: "is the legend of the sleep spell of the original Zelda being taken into account?" If so: "does she drown in the adult Link time line?"

Oh, sorry for not replying earlier. I've been very busy writing stuff. Too much writing.

I believe humulos said he didn't really care for it. And to be honest, neither did I. This theory doesn't really have anything to do with that at all, so my answer would be: no, it hasn't been taken into account and, of course, the second question is of no value.

That is exactly my point. The entire area of the first game is located in the southwest corner of AoLs map. If there was supposed to be a town there, they would have added it in, as they would have had space to do so. But they did not, which means there were no towns in that area of Hyrule, they were all destroyed.

No, they didn't have any disk space to do that, and to assume they had already thought of AoL's Hyrule is ridiculous. Every bite in the 128 they had available was already used, and adding something that, in essence, would take up as much size as another dungeon (not to mention all the text from people talking) would be impossible. AoL on the other hand had around 240 kb (more likely 256, so they didn't even use all the space), much more to work with.

LoZ was about exploring the wilderness, making towns pointless, and unneeded.

Right, it was the only one at the time. Then the monsters and Ganon came, everyone branched out and settled other areas, and made the Hyrule seen in AoL.

There's no real evidence of that though, just you assuming.

Originally Posted by MercuryMule

No, they didn't have any disk space to do that, and to assume they had already thought of AoL's Hyrule is ridiculous. Every bite in the 128 they had available was already used, and adding something that, in essence, would take up as much size as another dungeon (not to mention all the text from people talking) would be impossible. AoL on the other hand had around 240 kb (more likely 256, so they didn't even use all the space), much more to work with.

I am not arguing that there was not enough space on LoZ, I agree. But you said that the reason there were no towns in that game is because of it, and that there very well could have been towns there, had there been more space. There aren't though, because we see that area again in AoL, and since that game DID have room for towns, and there still were not any there, we can safely assume it was nothing but wilderness.

Originally Posted by MercuryMule

LoZ was about exploring the wilderness, making towns pointless, and unneeded.

There's no real evidence of that though, just you assuming.

Again, I ask you to explain the Guardians (not the Lynels) and the dungeons guarding the Triforces, being limited to that one area. It doesn't quite add up.

You can hardly call AoL's Map an accurate representation of old hyrule.

Again, I ask you to explain the Guardians (not the Lynels) and the dungeons guarding the Triforces, being limited to that one area. It doesn't quite add up.

I don't see that being significant in the slightest.

Also, I forgot why we're arguing about this.

Great theory, but I myself don't believe it, mostly at the point where you are asuming that they found a new hyrule and that its the same as the old one (alttp on both sides)

Originally Posted by MercuryMule

You can hardly call AoL's Map an accurate representation of old hyrule.

Accurate no, but it is there and there is no town. Considering significant things like spectacle rock, Lake Hylia, Lost Woods and the graveyard could be seen, I believe a Town would be included if there was one.

Originally Posted by MercuryMule

I don't see that being significant in the slightest.

All the Guardians are in Southwest Hyrule according to AoLs map. If they wanted the Triforce to be secure, they would have spread the dungeons and guardians out much further into all of Hyrule. So why did they not? Because all of Hyrule used to consist of that southwest corner of the map. After the attack, the moved from there and populated other areas of the world.

Originally Posted by MercuryMule

Also, I forgot why we're arguing about this.

Me too, I just like to debate.

There needs to be another Zelda geography thread so I can figure this stuff out.
Having not played some of the earlier games it is hard to think about a timeline with regards to the overworld and geography.

I don't know if I believe this theory... the Master Sword in the forest is a huge thing for me and I think that it is very important when considering timelines...

Originally Posted by troc

There needs to be another Zelda geography thread so I can figure this stuff out.
Having not played some of the earlier games it is hard to think about a timeline with regards to the overworld and geography.

I don't know if I believe this theory... the Master Sword in the forest is a huge thing for me and I think that it is very important when considering timelines...

Wot do you mean? This one has both the Master Sword in the forest connection and the FSA connection.

Awwww, it sucks living in a different time zone, all the good debating happens when I'm asleep! ;_;
I don't see any flaws in this theory...however there are some big assumptions (as in every timeline theory).
I think this is a very good and refreshing theory, but I need to think about it some more before I can agree with it or not.
The only thing I can think of at the moment that the towns in AoL where named after the six sages of OoT, and since they do not awaken as sages in the child timeline that would somehow push LoZ and AoL more to the adult timeline.
But I really like this theory!...well I'm off brooding about pros and cons.