Geographical 'Canon' versus Developer Intent Issues

If FS games don't seem to fit on the Adult timeline or specifically after tWW it's because in my opinion they never worked that way, and nods at tWW in TMC were just as prevalent as nods to any game, as TMC was an amalgamation of nods to Oracle and classic games alike, this is why I don't care about triumph forks, swamps, moving mountains or octorocks, Aonuma's intent on the FS series has always been clear to me.

And Impossible, I'm pretty sure you just said

....................MM/TP-FSA/AlttP
................../
TMC/FS-OoT


My problem with that is that MM and TP present a darker side of Hyrule with similar themes between termina and this alternate Hyrule.

That's also the thing... MM made an alternate timeline, before MM, there was only one timeline that was only definable as alternative when Link didn't go back like he was supposed to. To suggest that the classic games would suddenly jump from their intended timeline to this alternate child timeline seems to ignore original intent and 'telling the future in gaming' just as much as the 'after the events of OoT' quote seems to suggest that a future flood will connect the classic games to the modern games.

No matter how many times you say we ignore evidence and connect things and predict floods with outdated information, Impossible, you ignore as much and connect things in a very similar way.

And saying that ALttP's backstory has nothing to do with ALttP, and isn't in the same Hyrule, isn't ignoring the original intent? Saying that OoT and ALttP aren't in the same Hyrule isn't ignoring the original intent? Saying that Hyrule can just come back and be the same it was isn't ignoring NEWER intent that supersedes old intent? Saying that TP clearly links to ALttP via the Master Sword isn't the newest intent of all? I'm sorry, but there IS NO TIMELINE that can change the fact that the originally intended OoT-ALttP connection is false. Miyamoto's statement, which would supposedly make OoT the IW, specifically said that OoT showed the Ganon from the SNES game. This is no longer true. The connection is broken, the intent has changed.

People who claim that ALttP's manual describes OoT's events but remove OoT's Ganon make no sense, because the maidens talk about the same damn events and explain that Ganon was behind them, and it's clear that the way this leads to ALttP, if it's OoT, would blatantly contradict everything ALttP says. I choose to maintain the intent that ALttP's story actually makes sense. I'm still focusing on the old connections, I'm just focusing on the connections that STILL WORK (like the Master Sword and even geography), instead of ones that are now flawed and broken no matter what. And if they aren't talking about those events, then the manual has nothing to do with the game and is simply there for fitting with perversions of the timeline. The fact is, it's ALttP's backstory.

Meanwhile, I have people declaring the theory that the Deku Tree joining islands means there will be a new Hyrule as though it's a fact, and as though this alone means all of the inherent problems in the lack of Hyrule after TWW can be ignored. You know what? THEY CAN'T. They're still problems. It's still a flaw and a contradiction, because it's speculating to an extent that is virtually fan fiction. You can't treat a theoretical event as a given and expect people (like in that new topic) to just not point out that it's still all speculation. The Deku Tree's plan is literally the response to all claims of this flaw, even though it doesn't counter the argument being raised at all. It just gives a theory.

^Here's a question for you. I assume you place LoZ on the CT. How does the AoL BS work on the CT?

Here's the thing. I don't see how the AoL BS can work on the CT. You could disregard it as non-canon but I always thought that the plot itself was the most important thing to you. And the AoL BS is the plot of AoL. So if you were to think of it as non-canon you'd be a hypocrite like Lex, Imo.

Also, I added that paragraph because I'm not gonna be on tomorrow. So that was just in the possible anticipation of your answer. If you weren't gonna say that the AoL BS isn't canon then I take all of that back (except the question of how the AoL BS works on the CT, of course).

I don't really know why you're asking this. There's no reason why it wouldn't work... In ALttP, Link gets the Triforce, logically taking it back to Hyrule, since he is its new master. At some point after that, AoL's backstory occurs, so that the king hides the ToC and the royal family has the other two pieces. Cue LoZ. This is completely independent of whether the games are on the Child or Adult Timeline, both only give this one opportunity for the Triforce to be where it needs to be for AoL's BS to occur.

The only part that doesn't work is it being the first Princess Zelda. But this is not an issue with any particular timeline, or even one I made with respect to my own timeline at all. (It's even more blatant on the Adult Timeline, since the Sleeping Zelda would have been left behind at the bottom of the ocean, stuck in that room.) The fact is, the Zelda in AoL's backstory is not the first Zelda. It's impossible, particularly since the Triforce of Courage was hidden, and the other two pieces in the royal family's possession, the entire time up to LoZ. The argument that this could have happened as a separate event doesn't work for many reasons, and there's a lot of evidence requiring it to be the king who ruled with the Triforce in the sleeping Zelda's era to have hidden the ToC as well.

And just to make the point that I do NOT look for or manipulate evidence to prove my theory, or reject other possibilities/creatively reinterpret the evidence so that it still works (i.e. the Lex method), the aforementioned argument was, to be precise, my own argument. I wanted to maintain the original intent of that Zelda being first, as I saw that as the key symbolic aspect of intent to the story. Unfortunately, the physical impossibilities and various problems outweigh that. The Triforce can't even have been united at all between Zelda being put to sleep and LoZ occurring, otherwise she could have been awoken.

Originally Posted by Pinecove

^what's the difference? It's the same toung.

Not really.
According to Jancesolo, in FSA's removed text, they are forgetting the language spoken by "the Hyrule people", and not specifically the "Hylian" people.

Hylian is a specific race/language. Hyrulean is not.

Hylian is a specific race/language. Hyrulean is not.

Ah...just like with FSA having Hylians.....well that settles it. FSA was DEFINATLY going to be a CT game. And Impossible has yet to reply to my post about maps. That is not an alpha map if it was made only 6 months before the game. That's a pro-game design map, which is pretty much the rough draft unlike the beta which is the basic format.

I dunno Pinecove...
They only show a small section, but it looks pretty identical to the final map. At the very least, it shows water bordering Hyrule's northeast parts...where aLttP shows only trees.

Yes exactly. It was not a beta map. A beta map comes before the rough copy draft which is testable in every function.

The map Imp posted was not the beta map but the other one.

Where is your evidence for this baseless claim? Since FSA's map was not an overworld, merely a level select, we don't even know when it was first incorporated into the game, as it was not necessary from the beginning. All we know is, in mid-2003, FSA was still a CT game, and had a watery map. The teatable was upended at the end. We're talking about a period pretty much in the middle of development, considering they wouldn't have started this until after FS.

Originally Posted by Impossible

All we know is, in mid-2003, FSA was still a CT game, and had a watery map. The teatable was upended at the end. We're talking about a period pretty much in the middle of development, considering they wouldn't have started this until after FS.

How do we know it was a CT game again?

Well, aside from the still-present aspects of ALttP Ganon's origins (which we know were the IW), the maidens not knowing who he is (yet somehow knowing all about the IW events in the very next game, ALttP, indicating exactly when the IW occurs), and the Knights of Hyrule (died out in the IW, in FSA but not in ALttP)? We have removed text from the game that basically confirms that every single element of the IW was intended to be in FSA. In a world that's just like ALttP's. Explaining the origins of Ganon transforming into the King of Darkness, as well as getting the trident he uses in ALttP. Erimgard's topic on this explained it pretty well. And those things still in FSA that I pointed out show that the IW can't have happened before FSA. Considering we're talking about the origin story of ALttP's Ganon, obviously it was going to be during FSA, and now we're forced to move it to afterwards instead. Much of ALttP's backstory hasn't occurred yet in FSA's time.

I would say, considering the original references to the sages and Sacred Realm, Ganon was going to be sealed in the SR at the end of FSA. The stupid Four Sword sealing that produces all these plotholes was basically a rushed attempt to wrap up loose ends.

Originally Posted by Impossible

Well, aside from the still-present aspects of ALttP Ganon's origins (which we know were the IW), the maidens not knowing who he is (yet somehow knowing all about the IW events in the very next game, ALttP, indicating exactly when the IW occurs), and the Knights of Hyrule (died out in the IW, in FSA but not in ALttP)? We have removed text from the game that basically confirms that every single element of the IW was intended to be in FSA. In a world that's just like ALttP's. Explaining the origins of Ganon transforming into the King of Darkness, as well as getting the trident he uses in ALttP. Erimgard's topic on this explained it pretty well. And those things still in FSA that I pointed out show that the IW can't have happened before FSA. Considering we're talking about the origin story of ALttP's Ganon, obviously it was going to be during FSA, and now we're forced to move it to afterwards instead. Much of ALttP's backstory hasn't occurred yet in FSA's time.

I would say, considering the original references to the sages and Sacred Realm, Ganon was going to be sealed in the SR at the end of FSA. The stupid Four Sword sealing that produces all these plotholes was basically a rushed attempt to wrap up loose ends.

Yes, that is rather likely. However when you said "All we know is, in mid-2003, FSA was still a CT game, and had a watery map", I noticed that this might unintentionally make people think that this was the only possible theory to be made, which would lead to the creation of a 'sheep assuming something to be gospel' situation that I know you want to avoid.

Okay, fair enough.

All we can infer is, in mid-2003, FSA was still a CT game, and had a watery map. Pinecove's claim is not an inference, but rather, what he wants to believe.

Even without this evidence, though, the reasons I stated on page 1 (before I found that early map) are enough to say that FSA's map is more of an artistic detail than a story one. I'm not denying the use of any minor evidence, I'm denying its use as the main reason for a theory. (I agree with whatever it was LoZH said on this subject in his long post, that people fail to make the distinction between evidence that proves a timeline, and evidence that creates a theory which is used as proof.) This is ESPECIALLY important when it's an artistic or gameplay detail, because those can simply only ever be auxiliary elements of a theory. Yet for the arguments behind TMC or FSA being after TWW, both are supported entirely by this kind of evidence. And nothing else.

Where is your evidence for this baseless claim? Since FSA's map was not an overworld, merely a level select, we don't even know when it was first incorporated into the game, as it was not necessary from the beginning. All we know is, in mid-2003, FSA was still a CT game, and had a watery map. The teatable was upended at the end. We're talking about a period pretty much in the middle of development, considering they wouldn't have started this until after FS.

ALL maps are incorperated near the beggining or end of the game.

Also prove to me that the teatable was turned over at that exact point in time, why couldn't Aonuma have said it later?

Pinecove's claim is not an inference, but rather, what he wants to believe.

I find that highly offensive.

Even without this evidence, though, the reasons I stated on page 1 (before I found that early map) are enough to say that FSA's map is more of an artistic detail than a story one. I'm not denying the use of any minor evidence, I'm denying its use as the main reason for a theory. (I agree with whatever it was LoZH said on this subject in his long post, that people fail to make the distinction between evidence that proves a timeline, and evidence that creates a theory which is used as proof.) This is ESPECIALLY important when it's an artistic or gameplay detail, because those can simply only ever be auxiliary elements of a theory. Yet for the arguments behind TMC or FSA being after TWW, both are supported entirely by this kind of evidence. And nothing else.

When did I say I based my theory soley off that? If we're to take every detail into your range of Canon then why not debate your timeline? We don't think like you, all the time and the truth is that we don't want to. That's what makes theorizing fun. I take things as Canon that you don't.

It's time to accept that and move on.

ALL maps are incorperated near the beggining or end of the game.

...What are you even talking about? Now you're the expert on game development? If this is the case, the August 2003 map was already months old.

Also prove to me that the teatable was turned over at that exact point in time, why couldn't Aonuma have said it later?

I didn't specify an exact point in time. I specified a range of OVER SIX MONTHS, nearly half the time from FS's release. However, from what Aonuma said, we know it was towards the end. We also know this because the game was obviously delayed for the same reason - originally, the US and JP versions of the game would have finished development at the same time, since the story was ready, which is why they were going to come out on the same day. This did not happen as planned because, as we KNOW, the story changed near the end, forcing more translation on the NoA side.

I take things as Canon that you don't.

The issue is, this isn't a matter of taking things as canon. This is writing your own canon with no evidence. That's what I'm criticising you for.

As you completely ignored my major points, I have no problem ignoring your 'coulda been' theory.

...What are you even talking about? Now you're the expert on game development? If this is the case, the August 2003 map was already months old.

Yes, because I'm tsking a video game design coarse as explained in one of my other posts. Yes it might be months old. Or perhaps they tweaked it like most people do, leading us to the map you have. Also I'd like to know where you got that map please.....

The issue is, this isn't a matter of taking things as canon. This is writing your own canon with no evidence. That's what I'm criticising you for.

Give me an example of that. I'm the kind of guy who looks into things as either Canon or not. I don't get points, for being an idealist, I just have to do the best that I can with what I have. The things I say may be questionable, but they are true. Either something happened, or it didn't. Period.

Yes, because I'm tsking a video game design coarse as explained in one of my other posts. Yes it might be months old. Or perhaps they tweaked it like most people do, leading us to the map you have.

I can't even see what your point is here. The date of the map is clear, it was uploaded on that date, meaning it was in the game before that. There's no evidence that this is a "tweaked" map, and even if it is, it's still clearly at the point when FSA was supposed to be the IW.

Also I'd like to know where you got that map please.....

...I linked directly to the source.

Give me an example of that.

Er. Falsely claiming the existence of a map that doesn't exist?

I can't even see what your point is here. The date of the map is clear, it was uploaded on that date, meaning it was in the game before that. There's no evidence that this is a "tweaked" map, and even if it is, it's still clearly at the point when FSA was supposed to be the IW.

See that's what I'm getting at. We see the date of the map. We KNOW the date of the map. We DON'T KNOW exactly when the teatable was turned over.......what I'm asking is if when the teatable was turned over, did Nintendo keep it hushed up untill some American dude said "WHERE THE HELL IS FSA!!!!!"?

Er. Falsely claiming the existence of a map that doesn't exist?

I never claimed it existed. I claimed that since we don't know what the hell happened with the timing of the teatable, it might not have ever been made as Maps are generally made near the beggining or end of the game. In this case, the end.

Originally Posted by Impossible

The issue is, this isn't a matter of taking things as canon. This is writing your own canon with no evidence. That's what I'm criticising you for.

You like to accuse people of that, don't you?

As for LttP, the IW was never said to be Ganon's BS. It's just part of it. There are implications that Ganon has been sealed in the SR since the war, yes, but, iirc, that's not explicitly said at any point of the game. So, that leads to multiple interpretations.