Geographical 'Canon' versus Developer Intent Issues

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.

Proof for it being made in the end? Just because people actually saw it that late doesn't mean that they actually made the map at that exact moment.
If a big portion of your timeline is based off of a beta map that no one has ever seen you're doing exactly what Impossible is saying. Writing your own baseless canon.

Figured you'd rather hear that from someone you (I hope) don't hate as much as Impossible.

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!!!!!"?

They already had a complete story. It was changed by Miyamoto AT THE END. Halfway through development is not "at the end". This is ridiculous conjecture. What I said was inferred based on the facts of the game's development, you can't seriously believe that the two are equal.

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

How else can I describe someone claiming the existence of a map that we have no reason to beleive was ever made, for absolutely no reason except to maintain his own timeline?

Proof for it being made in the end?

ALL maps are made durng the beggining or ending development of a game.

If a big portion of your timeline is based off of a beta map that no one has ever seen you're doing exactly what Impossible is saying. Writing your own baseless canon.

I NEVER said the map existed. And I base my timeline off more then that. Don't be stupid.

How else can I describe someone claiming the existence of a map that we have no reason to beleive was ever made, for absolutely no reason except to maintain his own timeline?

I NEVER ****ING CLAIMED IT EXISTED!!!

LOOK AT MY POSTS!

wow this is getting nuts. anywho, i never really consider geography at all when making my timeline. the only games that i see geography as a good timeline tool is WW/PH and TP because WW/PH is a flooded Hyrule and stated to be a flooded Hyrule and because TPs map is almost exactly the same as OoTs map which shows it is closely after OoT. this is also pointless because we already know where those games go. other than that, i dont think that the geography really matters.

^ I'll sortof agree with you here.

While it is not COMPLETELY important to match up maps, I think we can get an overall glimpse of what the Devs have in mind, such as if the map is surrounded by water.

Matching up maps could do well for a theory however...

Well, I think that not all map comparisons are good timeline indicators, because I don't really believe the devs have the timeline in mind when they make the maps. Some of these comparisons, however, show obvious connections that shouldn't be ignored.

Like the fact that Labrynna and Holodrum appear as parts of the AoL map. The existance of Crescent (Moon) Island in AoL, OoA and TWW. The fact that LoZ Hyrule appears as a small part of the AoL map. The fact that the LttP map was roughly based on the western part of the LoZ map. The many similarities between Hyrule in FSA and LttP. The fact that all geographical features are relatively in the same place in LttP and OoT. Etc etc...

^ Exactly. Not to mention *glares at Impossible* Island based Hyrules.

Some of those are REALLY stretching it. Especially elements you've retroactively applied knowledge of TWW to in a nonsensical way. I personally think the Oracles comparisons are stretching it, ESPECIALLY since those games were originally meant to be remakes of the NES games. Nothing to do with the current story, which is set far from Hyrule. I also notice that you omit the obvious similarities between OoT and ALttP's map! That's far stronger geographical evidence than some vague points that seem to stretch the concept of geography way too far. Unlike many points hailed as gospel here, it was clearly deliberate.

There are no island Hyrules that can be linked to the story, now that we know that FSA's map has nothing to do with the story anyway.

ALL maps are made durng the beggining or ending development of a game.

I like how you can claim this with absolutely nothing to back it up. This was NOT made at the end, due to the date it was put up. If it was made at the beginning, it renders your entire argument void.

I NEVER said the map existed. And I base my timeline off more then that. Don't be stupid.

You mean aside from your bull**** baseless accusations against the map I found, on the previous page? Okay, let's see...

No. That was after the beta map.

Look:

Beat map (with forests etc)-Map Imp posted(rough copy test drive)-FSA map.

I'm also positive you made a post saying there was an earlier map without water as though it were a fact (rather than a theory that has now been disproved) a few weeks ago, but I can't be bothered trying to find it now.

There are no island Hyrules that can be linked to the story, now that we know that FSA's map has nothing to do with the story anyway.

This is bad logics. You see, back in 1998 (I hope you'll agree with me for the date), OoT was still supposed to be the IW. Yet it was never called so in-game.

The devs don't make games to connect to the overall storyline. They add a few quotes etc. The state of the land in FSA is included in that.

I mean, if there had never been TWW and the flood before FSA, your point would be valid. But they made sure to have FSA be set in an island-nation after the flood had been thought of. Why else would they do that, if not to indicate that FSA had to follow TWW? They even used the same artforms in those 2 games! The only other times this happened was when the games were supposed to eb directly connected (like OoT and TP, etc)

...You realise, if you bothered to read my posts, that I have not only addressed those claims, but outright disproven them, right? The map simply can't be logically seen as a story detail... Especially since it contradicts TMC anyway.

And no, FSA's Hyrule's appearance as an island is not necessarily included in what you perceive to be timeline evidence - it's not even remotely related to FSA's own story, let alone the timeline, and all the evidence reveals that it is NOT indicative of creator intent. There was never evidence that it was, making it a weak claim in the first place, but it's clear by now that FSA was originally going to be in the CT, and it always had that map.

Impossible, I don't know if you outlined that somewhere allready, but what makes you so sure that FSA was planned to be a CT game? I agree it was at one point most likley planed to be the complete imprisoning war, but that doesn't automaticly make it a CT game, does it?
Sorry if you explained that somewhere allready, I skimmed the thread again ond didn't find something. If you explained it allready just paste or link me.

Originally Posted by Smertios

This is bad logics. You see, back in 1998 (I hope you'll agree with me for the date), OoT was still supposed to be the IW. Yet it was never called so in-game.

The devs don't make games to connect to the overall storyline. They add a few quotes etc. The state of the land in FSA is included in that.

I mean, if there had never been TWW and the flood before FSA, your point would be valid. But they made sure to have FSA be set in an island-nation after the flood had been thought of. Why else would they do that, if not to indicate that FSA had to follow TWW? They even used the same artforms in those 2 games! The only other times this happened was when the games were supposed to eb directly connected (like OoT and TP, etc)

EDIT: Ignore this post.