Geographical 'Canon' versus Developer Intent Issues

Originally Posted by quick silver

The person that put it the best (might actually have been impossible but I don't remember and I'm too lazy to go find it again) said that geography didn't matter, but for the sake of the temple of time which as it is a dungeon, in this case it constitutes a major story plot, and that this places Oot's temple of time and further castle town in the lost woods of TP. This really isn't debateable, and as a geographical placement, it is a high canon geographical placement only on the grounds that the developers decided in this case that it would be.

Originally Posted by Impossible

Yes, this is kind of the point. Because the ToT and MS are plot elements that link it to Hyrule's ancient history and OoT, they are the sole location in TP that is set in stone. All the inconsistencies in geography are hence rendered irrelevant. What's important isn't that the Sacred Grove is in the south. The important thing is that the former location of the Temple of Time is now the Sacred Grove. The key is the intended meaning in the context of the story. Not the arbitrary geographical placements, which are often minor details and have NOTHING to do with story - they're done for gameplay or artistic variety.

Originally Posted by quick silver

I personally believe that tWW's plot element of trees eventually raising Hyrule from the waves is valid geographical evidence as well, not because of the side quest itself or because of its canoninity in tWW, but because it is validated by Myamoto's statement that LoZ follows 'the events' of OoT, placing it on the adult timeline.

These might be the only geographical placements that I consider canonical.

Originally Posted by Impossible

There are two flaws with this, though. One is that, of course, there's an "after OoT" on the Child Timeline as well. Miyamoto didn't specify all or some of OoT. The big issue, though, is that this was in 1998. I really get annoyed by the overuse of canon that's over a decade old. When Miyamoto said that, there was no split, no TWW, no flood. Of COURSE the timeline is different now. 1998 canon is not 2002 canon is not 2006 canon. Newer is usually better, so we can account for retcons, big and small, and for Aonuma taking the helm of the series and changing its story direction pretty drastically. Anyway, as for Miyamoto's credibility:

Originally Posted by quick silver

I stick by the theory for three reasons, one because I don't want to negate every timeline placement that Myamoto has ever made just on the basis that he has screwed up a lot, because it is a fairly recent Myamoto statement (relatively speaking)

and two because there really are no 'events' that take place in the child timeline in OoT, except 'Link enters courtyard and stares at Zelda.'

In fact Myamoto uses the exact same phraseology for making timeline placements that Aonuma uses in the TP interview. 'After the events of young link' or 'after the events of majora's mask' would be a child timeline placement, but 'after the events of OoT' is decidedly an Adult timeline placement.

and further thirdly because Aonuma's statement about the sages' names being used as city names in AoL makes a 'classic games' child timeline placement impossible, if it is to be believed, because there is no evidence that the sages were awakened or were even called as sages on the child side; the TP sages are different sages.

Well Hombre, I thought I had pulled the topic back on track quite nicely, but whatev, this very related topic is more interesting anyway, although it might have flourished better in that other thread.

So, continuing the discussion from here, first of all, are there any other geographical placements that actually need be considered that can be interpreted as real developer intent?

Secondly, hopefully Impossible finds this thread and we can continue that discussion.

Wait wait wait, wasn't this the part that actually WAS on topic? Why is the on topic part being moved to another topic?

I stick by the theory for three reasons, one because I don't want to negate every timeline placement that Myamoto has ever made just on the basis that he has screwed up a lot, because it is a fairly recent Myamoto statement (relatively speaking)

1998 isn't relatively recent. An insane amount has changed since then. And I'm not just doing it because he's been wrong other times, I'm doing it because there's evidence that he didn't know what the timeline was.

and two because there really are no 'events' that take place in the child timeline in OoT, except 'Link enters courtyard and stares at Zelda.'

This is your assumption, though. I believe the entire sequence of child events up to opening the Door of Time must have taken place on the Child Timeline. Otherwise, Link would be trapped in the Temple of Time, if the door is closed... And he wouldn't be able to close it as per Zelda's instructions. And he wouldn't be a hero to the Gorons and Zoras as in TP. And he wouldn't have played Saria's Song for the Skull Kid as MM references.

In fact Myamoto uses the exact same phraseology for making timeline placements that Aonuma uses in the TP interview. 'After the events of young link' or 'after the events of majora's mask' would be a child timeline placement, but 'after the events of OoT' is decidedly an Adult timeline placement.

When on earth did he say "after the events of OoT"? I don't believe any interview has any such phrase. And this was 1998. The Adult and Child timelines didn't exist. You can't expect Miyamoto in 1998 to have accounted for games that would be made years later, it isn't fair to use canon that's so outdated now.

and further thirdly because Aonuma's statement about the sages' names being used as city names in AoL makes a 'classic games' child timeline placement impossible, if it is to be believed, because there is no evidence that the sages were awakened or were even called as sages on the child side; the TP sages are different sages.

Oh boy, and this is a whole new argument. Suffice to say, it's more 1998 canon that can't apply now. The thing is, TWW makes it just as impossible - the names of the sages would have been completely unknown, after all. Nobody on the Great Sea knew about the sages, their names weren't in the remnants of the legend, and now Hyrule has been destroyed, or as the Japanese version puts it, completely "erased". Arguably, it's more likely on the Child Timeline, because that knowledge would exist. The sages were all important leaders of their time anyway, even on the CT.

That, and the constant recurrence of names and places and such out of sheer fate and nothing else means that there's no actual contradiction or impossibility here. Remember, AoL doesn't contain a reference to OoT. OoT was referencing AoL, which was relevant at the time. But now, it's just a reference and nothing more. We would never say that any of the other references require a particular timeline in order for the name of a person or place to recur - it’s just something that happens.

Besides that. Mido? Are you telling me Mido makes sense on the Adult Timeline? No. It's just a reference, a character in OoT who was named after something from an older game.

And I don't believe Aonuma actually confirmed that as currently being relevant. He gave it as an example of a reference, and an editor extrapolated on this to explain it. This is based on a 1998 interview in which someone else made the same comment.

Wait wait wait, wasn't this the part that actually WAS on topic? Why is the on topic part being moved to another topic?

Because in my opinion Erimgard and Hombre are just a little bit heavy handed on the trigger finger. Just go with it.

Edit:

It's funny, your timeline was the very first split timeline I ever saw, and it was with that timeline (basically) that I came to ZU with, but our paradigms are VERY different. The FS interview isn't really that much newer than this 1998 interview, and at last check that was the very basis of your 'classic games child timeline.'

If developer quotes are most definitely nerfed by new dev quotes or in game material, I have no problem putting them by the wayside, but I'm not so quick to throw away developer quotes just because of their relative age.

Technically, by your view you should put AlttP last in your timeline, because that would mean you have to believe that Myamoto's last AlttP placement was more canonical than his first (on the back of the box)

I still go by one of the oldest timeline placements that exist in the series, and so do you.

I'll post this now, but I may have more to say later.

Geographical locations can have bigger impacts on a game's story than what you first might think. For instance, some people claim the ToT was always in the forest and that TP retconed the location of ToT as seen in OoT.

However, the story of OoT does not tell of Link venturing into the woods to find the long lost ToT as it does in TP. If you want to say it's location is retconned, you have to retcon the events in OoT. This is a much bigger change than having moved the Death Mountain further away, more to the left.

As this is a game, it can have a million different outcomes. Every player doesn't do exactly the same. Some players collect all skulltulas, kill as many enemies as possible and get as many items as they can. Some others try to avoid conflict and stick to the main storyline. This means that there's no canon as to how Link went to Kakariko Village. He could've gotten there by foot, by horse, by going to the Lost Woods first to get some fairies, etc.

But in OoT, Link did not go into the woods to find the ToT and as long as that remains, I just have to assume the ToT was moved. Not because it's important to the timeline but because it makes sense.


On the matter of geography vs developer intent, it's as hard to asnwer as anything regarding canon. If we see something in one game that's similar or the same as in another, it could very well be the same thing, connecting the games. But it could also just be for gameplay reasons (which is most likely since Zelda team alwasy prioritises gameplay before story and timeline). We can argue back and forth but we're never gonna know for sure if this one thing is canon or not.

This leads into what Impossible talked about in that other thread. If you have a situation like that, when something could be used as evidence (if it was canon, but we don't know that) it can and should be used as support for your theory. Of course, it's not the ideal piece of evidence you'd want but it's relevant.

responsibility lies withing the individuals to not go berserk over these little things.

Originally Posted by Impossible

Wait wait wait, wasn't this the part that actually WAS on topic? Why is the on topic part being moved to another topic?

The orignial topic was locked because of too much off-topic on more than one occasion. It's impossible for anyone to read through that thread and try to find the right things to respond to regarding the topic itself.

Originally Posted by quick silver

Well Hombre, I thought I had pulled the topic back on track quite nicely, but whatev, this very related topic is more interesting anyway, although it might have flourished better in that other thread.

fresh start is good sometimes. This is one of those times

Geographical locations can have bigger impacts on a game's story than what you first might think. For instance, some people claim the ToT was always in the forest and that TP retconed the location of ToT as seen in OoT.

On the matter of geography vs developer intent, it's as hard to asnwer as anything regarding canon. If we see something in one game that's similar or the same as in another, it could very well be the same thing, connecting the games. But it could also just be for gameplay reasons

These two statements are contradictory. Geography is important or it's not.

^ It varies. Story - for instance - is always important.

geography could play a part of the story, directly or indirectly. For example you can't get to Gerudo Dessert in TP by foot. I think there was actually someone telling Link that the way there has been made unaccessible for some reason. This would mean that the geographical location of the Gerudo Dessert - while not crucial to the story - is canon and plays a role in TP.

On the other hand, the other geographical changes, such as placing the death mountain further from Hyrule Castle (compared to OoT) is probably due to the fact that Hyrule in general is bigger and they wanted the locations to be spread all around the expanded overworld. This doesn't really have anything to do with the story in any way.

So you can't really say geography as a whole is either important or not.

The FS interview isn't really that much newer than this 1998 interview, and at last check that was the very basis of your 'classic games child timeline.'

...I really don't know what you're talking about. This isn't true.

For the record, though, anything from TWW onwards, with Aonuma's leadership and his stated attempt to connect the games, supersedes all previous canon. So yes, something from 5 years ago is still better than something from 11 years ago. That much should be obvious, anyway. You don't think 5+ years is a long time in a video game series with near yearly instalments? o_O

However, the story of OoT does not tell of Link venturing into the woods to find the long lost ToT as it does in TP. If you want to say it's location is retconned, you have to retcon the events in OoT.

No, not a retcon, merely a new development. I think you're attributing a completely different belief to me than the one I actually have. This is why I didn't come here to argue my own theory, and I still won't. One of the key problems on ZU seems to be people applying 1998 canon to ideas surrounding TWW, which just doesn't make any sense, and I think that's why we have a paradigm issue.

Remember, in 1998, OoT led to ALttP, right? That was stated by three people on the development team. The geography in those two games is almost identical - and if geography is as important as people here believe, that proves that they are in the same Hyrule. And they certainly were in 1998. The only difference was, where OoT had the ToT and Hyrule Castle, ALttP had a forest. Both had the Master Sword, so there was always that link. I always had the theory that the forest we can just see on the OoT map, north of Hyrule Castle, grew to cover that area and the Temple of Time. TP clearly shows that in action. It's not a matter of things being moved, or retconned to be something they weren't. The Temple of Time is in ruins, and a forest has grown over it, perhaps as a form of protection - much like how the Lost Woods protects the Master Sword.

If developer quotes are most definitely nerfed by new dev quotes or in game material, I have no problem putting them by the wayside, but I'm not so quick to throw away developer quotes just because of their relative age.

The developer quote in question is made redundant by three other developer quotes that explain the OoT-ALttP link, from the same period. And I'm not just doing it because of age. When I say 1998 canon, I mean all aspects of 1998 canon. TWW destroys that, period, no matter which timeline you put the rest of the games in. The games no longer connect as originally intended.

Technically, by your view you should put AlttP last in your timeline, because that would mean you have to believe that Myamoto's last AlttP placement was more canonical than his first (on the back of the box)

Except I'm not just rating developer quotes chronologically. I'm just speaking about all canon and creator intent. ALttP GBA was in 2002, for one. And you seem to greatly misunderstand Miyamoto's role and why I don't believe he's credible. It wasn't HIS placement for ALttP on the back of the box. It was Kensuke Tanabe's. Miyamoto had no involvement in the stories of these games, he said it wasn't that important to him. I already linked to a message from Dan Owsen paraphrasing Miyamoto on the timeline - he didn't know what it was.

What I'm saying is that Miyamoto's quote was never true. Almost everyone has to agree, in order to ignore the FS "oldest story" quote, that developer quotes can be discounted if a) the developer in question had little to do with the game's story, and/or b) there is in-game evidence or other quotes to contradict it. These both apply here. All the evidence before Miyamoto said that was for OoT-ALttP-LoZ. All the evidence AFTER Miyamoto said that was for OoT-ALttP-LoZ. Don't forget, the WHOLE Triforce has to be whole in Hyrule before LoZ, so the pieces can be split as in AoL's BS. And I'm basing my understanding of 1998 canon on Osawa and Tanabe, not Miyamoto.

So then what you're saying is that you're wishy washy

I think we're actually talking about two different things.

This would mean that the geographical location of the Gerudo Dessert - while not crucial to the story - is canon and plays a role in TP.

This statement is false in that you're saying that something that is crucial to a storyline is therefore crucial in the timeline.

I could care less about the storyline where it deviates from elements that help us define a timeline of all the games.

Therefore, unless I'm mistaken, the pass being blocked and further learning the information in game is crucial for TP playability, is necessary for the overal storyline, but means jackbeans as to the timeline.

Canon in this case refers strictly to information that helps us find the truth in the timeline.

Where you will be wishy washy I will be as clear as silver.

@Impossible, I could care less who the developer was that made what statement. And yes, you did indeed state that old canon was defuncable (ha made up a new word) You can't take it back now by saying it wasn't Myamoto who said it and that makes it more credible. I firmly believe that at one time Myamoto knew what the timeline was, and that he gave up on the timeline after OoT.

And... are you really saying that you no longer place TMC first? That would definitely be a new development. Or maybe I'm getting my facts wrong, maybe it was triple esspresso that had that timeline, or maybe I'm just misunderstanding you

Okay, so, geography. Here's the thing, and why I believe it's excessively overused at times.

Geographical SIMILARITIES, that is, theories affirming a timeline connection based on things that are the same between two maps, are relevant evidence. After all, it can clearly be shown that it was done deliberately. OoT and ALttP is the ultimate example of this, just look at the attached image. If it's deliberate, then it means there's a story connection there and it can be seen as representative of intent.

However, the problem seems to come from overanalysing geographical DIFFERENCES. That is, a map that looks nothing like another one. A map that's almost exactly the same, but appears to have land beyond its borders in one iteration, and surrounded by water in another, i.e. FSA and ALttP. A map that's completely different despite canonically being in the same place, i.e. OoT and TP. These are not representative of intent, because there is no way to show that they exist for story-related reasons.

Remember, Zelda is a video game, first and foremost. It's supposed to be fun, and not exactly the same every time. That's why it's such a damn good series of games. So when they make a map completely different, it's not to say Hyrule is completely different. It's for gameplay variety. Or perhaps because, for the gameplay structure to work, they needed you to go to places in a certain order, which necessitated a certain map structure. TP has many examples of this. Maybe they drew the map differently in a game to better suit its artistic style. For example, we know damn well that what FSA shows us of Hyrule is NOT all of Hyrule. TMC's backgrounds show land extending as far as we can see into the distance beyond the map. AoL has a hell of a lot more to it. So how can a difference like water being around the map have anything to do with creator intent?

I believe geography has some value, but only if there's any way to suggest something was done for story-related reasons. It gets abused a bit in cases where it shouldn't matter.

Note that I've attached an image of TP's map below which allows it to fairly strongly resemble OoT. Do I believe this is intentional? Probably not. Actually, I believe the initial design of TP's map originated from various flipping and distorting of OoT's map, solely for the sake of variety, and so there would be a vague similar-yet-different feel of familiarity for OoT players. So it kind of does make sense that, by flipping it back once (Wii version) then rotating it, it would come close to the OoT map. But it's probably never going to be strong enough to argue that the creators actually gave a **** about story when they made TP's map. It's a coincidence.

Edit:

@Impossible, I could care less who the developer was that made what statement.

Then you're choosing not to understand how game development works. Storywriters are not artists are not producers and so on.

And yes, you did indeed state that old canon was defuncable (ha made up a new word) You can't take it back now by saying it wasn't Myamoto who said it and that makes it more credible.

You misunderstood me. I'm saying that 1998 canon fails when applied to 21st century games. That is, the assumption of OoT as the IW, solely because it was said in 1998, fails because stuff has changed drastically since the last time that was canon, and ALttP GBA even contradicted it. Same deal with other things, like the sage names coming from the towns in AoL. However, fully intact canon applying to games that are still connected in exactly the same way, i.e. the first four Zelda games, has some value. Especially after ALttP GBA.

As a side note to the OoT as the IW thing... Even the people arguing it here defy all logic by saying that it's not the same evil being sealed, not the same Ganon, and basically not the same events at all... So I have no idea what the hell they think the IW is, if not ALttP's backstory. Yet they use ALttP GBA, which never, ever mentions the IW/SW? It just explains the seal. ALttP's BS seal is the same as ALttP's seal, which means all of ALttP's BS still happened at the same time, or you're going against the clear intent of the intro story.

I firmly believe that at one time Myamoto knew what the timeline was, and that he gave up on the timeline after OoT.

I already posted evidence that contradicts this.

Originally Posted by quick silver

This statement is false in that you're saying that something that is crucial to a storyline is therefore crucial in the timeline.

Ganondorf dying is crucial to the story of a single game and to the timeline... So depending on what you consider "crucial", I'd say that crucial story elements are also crucial to the timline. But I never said that, I said that something that's not crucial to the story of the game still plays a role in that game and is therefore canon.

Canon in this case refers strictly to information that helps us find the truth in the timeline.

And geography could help you find truth in a timeline. could.

Where you will be wishy washy I will be as clear as silver.

and in being clear as silver you're also overlooking things. You can't say "this is not important in every case" or "this is important in every case". Surely, you can put developer quotes over geography. I do as well, but you must also look at specific cases and see if it actually makes sense, because as we all know, developer intent can change. It has changed in the past and it will continue to change.

So your "clear as silver" thing doesn't really work out for me. Of course, I'm not the one to tell you what you should say or do, but I think it's always important to keep as much in mind as possible and not narrow yourself down to look at one or two things that you consider unquestionably above everything else.

I'm sorry, I wasn't saying that geography is important, in fact that would be going against what I said before, that TP's temple of time and tWW's tree growth were the only instances of canonical geography that I supported.

Don't know if you read this part:
@Impossible, I could care less who the developer was that made what statement. And yes, you did indeed state that old canon was defuncable (ha made up a new word) You can't take it back now by saying it wasn't Myamoto who said it and that makes it more credible. I firmly believe that at one time Myamoto knew what the timeline was, and that he gave up on the timeline after OoT.

And... are you really saying that you no longer place TMC first? That would definitely be a new development. Or maybe I'm getting my facts wrong, maybe it was triple esspresso that had that timeline, or maybe I'm just misunderstanding you

@Hombre: as I stated before, I had asked if there were any other instances of canonical geography that I had overlooked. You so far have not brought any such elements to my attention.

And all I was saying was that I was hoping that you'd be more specific.

Isn't this the exact problem I keep complaining about here? People just don't know the evidence. Nobody posts the reasons for TMC to be first, so everyone assumes there's nothing and that another placement must be superior. Nobody wants that to be questioned, and even if it were, they would rather die defending their theory than potentially have their opinion changed. There are many reasons for TMC's placement, but I'm not going into that there, and what you were saying had nothing to do with my timeline. I wasn't and still am not saying anything about what I do and don't believe, I'm just annoyed by the implication of what you were assuming.

I responded to that other statement before, I didn't want to double post, so I edited the last one.

By the way, someone said that in early stages of development, FSA's map appeared to be like ALttP's? Back when FSA was meant to be the IW? Turns out this is completely false. Good thing there's someone here willing to check facts rather than blindly accept everything.

IGN: The Legend of Zelda: Four Swords Adventures Pictures (GCN) 587950

The earliest map image I can find, August 2003. Months before it finished, and presumably when it was still supposed to be the IW. It's just artistic.

hahahhahahahahahahahahah

*wipes a tear away*

You think I'm a Lex/Erimgard clone!

That's the funniest thing I've heard all morning.

My timeline is:

....................MM-TP
................../
TMC/FS-OoT
..................\
....................FSA-AlttP/LA-tWW/PH-LoZ/AoL-OoX

Furthermore I was figuring your timeline was

....................MM-TP-FSA-AlttP/LA-LoZ/AoL-OoX
................../
TMC/FS-OoT
..................\
....................tWW/PH

or some variety thereof. You and I are not that different.

Trust me, I would never go as low as to compare you to Lex. You just seemed to have the wrong idea of the main basis and evidence for my timeline, although maybe I misunderstood what you were referring to. I'm still not sure.

Yeah, what would really help to get a better idea is if you gave me your timeline. You could pm it to me if you wanted.

As a side note, I have thoroughly enjoyed this conversation.

Oh, I can't believe I took so long to make this connection, considering I just went looking through old FSA info. FSA was actually scheduled to come out in the US and Japan in February 2004. We know from the fact that the text from the original story was already translated (sadly they only left a few chunks and not enough for us to learn from) that they must have had the story written and the translation finished well in advance, right? NoA had the original story to work with, so they were ready for the simultaneous release.

But then FSA got delayed to March in Japan and June in the US. This didn't happen until the start of 2004, so we can make a rough guess that the upending of the tea table was a little while before that - certainly after an August 2003 build, which probably had to have been ready for approval and testing and transporting and whatnot by the end of July. And the water is visible in that screenshot. The US got a much bigger delay because they had a heavily modified story to translate.

Man, I'll never forgive Miyamoto for this butchering, though. FSA's story would have made so much more sense, without directly contradicting ALttP. Kind of ironic that the entire reason for the change was because it was too confusing BEFORE, but he just made it far more confusing for all of us. Plus, the original story seems potentially kickass. I've always been against an IW game as I figured it would be too much like OoT, but FSA was such an amazing idea to do it with, considering how different it was. We had this closely-related near prequel to ALttP, it was such a perfect time to do this, and it got screwed up.

By the way, isn't everyone on ZU a Lex/Erimgard clone?

I'd say having a fundamentally different philosophy towards the entire nature of intent makes our timelines a bit different. And no, that's not my timeline. Stop trying to force it into conversation, dammit.

I'm pretty sure I'm gonna drag your timeline out of you by accident sooner or later.

I'm very persuasive.

I'm pretty sure I've just proved that not everyone on ZU is a Lex/Erimgard clone, not even the good theorists. I've got great respect for them both, but my timeline looks nothing like theirs.

I'm also pretty sure I got pretty close to your timeline. touche!

And I totally just showed you mine, it'd be rude not to reciprocate.

Edit:
Now, my best guess for your timeline is:

..........MM-TP-AlttP/LA-LoZ/AoL-OoX/TMC/FS/FSA
......../
-OoT
.......\
.........tWW/PH

or

...........................MM-TP-AlttP/LA-LoZ/AoL-OoX
........................./
TMC/FS/FSA-OoT
.........................\
...........................tWW/PH

Based on the theory you used to have...

Honestly, to my knowledge those are the only even slightly logical possibilities, if it's not one of those three then maybe you aren't as smart as I had once thought.

Originally Posted by quick silver

By the way, isn't everyone on ZU a Lex/Erimgard clone?.

hey!
lol

Sometimes lex sounds hypocrite, but he is a good theorist too. The same for erimgard...

Anyway, we are far from being their clones...

I didn't say that Smertios.

ZU behaving strangely