Prove FSA map is not canon and more

That's not a problem if TMC comes before the flood and FSA comes after it...

Ok so how does the FS come back? My biggest complaint with games on the AT is that the MS makes no sense, even with fanfic. This would make an AT timeline make even less sense.

TMC was not made by the Zelda team from Nintendo. They didn't necesserily know about geographic timeline connectors.

Oh but they know about the Triumph Forks? Basically you're saying what contradicts your timeline is due to the fact that they didn't know about geographic connections? So now we're picking and choosing what's canon based on our timeline?

Books.

Fair enough, but isn't it funny that non of these books were ever mentioned?

Wait, is that from the beta text? Meaning it is not in the final version? Meaning it is not canon?

Have you missed the entire argument that we've been making? Since the beta map shows an island Hyrule and the beta seems to have been pretty clearly (in my opinion. It seems clear to me that the Hylian language died out in the flood. Oh and I remember the person who translated the text says that the language referred to is the language of Hyrule. So for it to be the same language from OoT wouldn't that be making a reference to old Hyrule which has been lost?) on the CT. Which means that FSA being an island is nothing more than artistic.

What the hell was that? I was hoping you would really respond to my points this time, instead you're just screaming at me blindly, and literally, unable to civilly focus on the point.

Originally Posted by Smertios

Pinecove said it wasn't canon. We all know you didn't...

Wow, you really are following Lex's example of ignoring any and all context to any statement. Look at the post I was responding to.

I used it to prove that Impossible was wrong. He clearly said (and affirmed) that languages cannot be revived

False. In fact, it's absolute, unadulterated garbage. Just wanted to get that out of the way before I respond.

No, I didn't miss that part. I said that because you said there is no possible way a dead language can be revived.

And here's the part of your post where you descended into dickery for no reason, I won't quote the whole thing.

I didn't say there's no possible way a dead language can be revived. Don't give me these bull**** strawmen. I explained the argument and why this was being perceived as implausible. And your example fails because the real world has vastly different circumstances to Hyrule. I'm not saying that a language that is no longer spoken can't start being spoken again, not that you give a **** because you'd rather respond to straw men than my real points (an issue I pointed out in my last post which you've refused to fix). I'm saying that a) a lost language is not the same as one that is not used orally, and b) the real world was never destroyed by an ocean falling on top of it, nor have languages ever been lost in this way.

You seem to have developed an obsession with non-sequiturs, where you quote something I said, but respond with something completely different, attacking a straw man because you refuse to comprehend the real point I'm making that you may actually have to think about. You keep attacking points and claims that are not actually present in anything you're quoting, while ignoring the real point because for some reason, you've failed to read my post and didn't realise what I was actually talking about. To top it off, you end with arrogant bull**** like "So none of what you said on the matter is valid", even though you haven't in any way invalidated my point. What I'm saying isn't wrong because I'm not making the claim you believe that you've disproved. It's all invalid even though you haven't even acknowledged the fact that the circumstances are completely different between your examples and a goddamn video game?

[QUOTE]You are arguing that the language wasn't dead in FSA because some people still knew it, but later you said this:

[Removed because this thing hates my quotes]
It is the same situation. You are contradicting yourself too much...[/QUOTE}

Er. Context for the win? I just complained about this in your last post, so you thought you'd do it again, by randomly extracting a sentence out of context and applying a new meaning to it, ignoring the accompanying point. Meanwhile, you ignore my points showing that none of this crap is relevant because you're misrepresenting the entire argument.

no comment

...In other words, the latter? You aren't helping your case here. This is what I mean by the blindly screaming at me without actually acknowledging the points coming back at you. You have these stupid rote learned responses that aren't relevant to the points I'm making. Your next paragraph was just an exact repetition of the same point, AGAIN ignoring what I said in the first place. You're not responding to the argument I made, you're taking me out of context to create a straw man.

"Every year after the Koroks perform this ceremony, they fly off to the distant islands on the sea and plant my seeds in the hopes that new forests will grow. Forests hold great power--they can change one tiny island into a much larger island. Soon, a day will come when all the islands are one, connected by earth and grove. And the people who live on that great island will be able to join hands and, together, create a better world."

You are ignoring the bold, which means you are the one taking the quotes out of context.

...I don't think you understand what the word context means. Or what the word "ignoring" means. I was specifically talking about THAT QUOTE, even specifically the bolded part (which references joining islands, not the idea that the "great island" he speaks of will grow), and yet you again refuse to acknowledge what I'm saying. And actually, context would be ignoring the fact that the above was not established as a certainty (you missed a line), or the fact that this is not part of the story, or the fact that it's never mentioned or referenced again in TWW or any of the games released since... Context is not the ****ing quote itself, it's the circumstances and implied details surrounding the point. So, for example, you took me out of context when you pretended that I was ignoring the Deku Tree's statement altogether, when if you'd actually READ my post, instead of just the first sentence, you would see exactly what I said.

Not to mention that you followed this with another non-sequitur, since, again, joining islands is not the same as expanding a joint landmass. What the **** does "all" the islands mean? Will the land keep expanding until there's no ocean left in the world? Why would trees, joining islands together, and having done this already over the region that was sunk to the bottom of the ocean, just magically make the land grow outward? It's not being joined with any islands (which would imply a more complex process where

So the GDT specifically says that the trees will continue to merge islands untill all of them are together. Stop saying the process will stop at some point or present evidence supporting that.

Er. Why don't you present evidence supporting the idea that this happens to any land by the name of "Hyrule"? Or why don't you present evidence that this actually happens? If all statements by major characters are future proof, then it's a fact from what Daphnes says that Hyrule is gone forever, and that any new land will not be Hyrule. The Deku Tree doesn't know for a fact what will happen, and nothing is "proof" until it's a past event. He may intend to join the islands, but where's you're proof that this will cause the joint landmass to grow? Where's your proof that it's Hyrule? Everything Daphnes says is said as fact as well, except a large portion of it is said while wishing on the Triforce. And "That land will not be Hyrule" is in gigantic letters filling an entire text box. And this scene is part of the story, while the quote you refer to is not - it's background for a side-quest. See, that's what we call context.

And adding to that context, of course, is the ending, which supersedes basically everything before it. How do we know that hints at the possible return of Hyrule weren't just teases, only for the ending to definitively yank the possibility away? It fits with the whole theme of change and moving on from the past. I'd say it makes far more sense for the Deku Tree to remain consistent with that, starting a new land with a new history and a new name, not Hyrule.

You affirmed that, if FSA is (or was supposed to be at some point) the SW, it and LttP no longer had to come in the AT (I agree until here), so it had, by logics [!], to come in the CT (this is the part that makes no sense, there could be FSA being the SW and LttP in the AT too.)

Maybe it doesn't make sense because you're not reading my posts, and instead deciding what you think I'm affirming (as with the language thing)?

...Didn't I write like five ****ing paragraphs about this point already? If my tone sounds pissed in this post, it's because, well, of that. You're not even reading what I'm saying. I didn't say that FSA being the IW would have meant with absolute 100% certainty that it could only be on the CT (although there are other reasons for that, i.e. TWW and its ending). I said it's a natural inference. I questioned why the hell you would want it on the Adult Timeline, when it functions better in basically every way on the Child Timeline - and certainly, if OoT isn't the IW (which we're assuming in this hypothetical case, and also since it was made impossible by TWW and FSA), there's no reason left for the AT placement. The old connection was severed. The whole point was to do a new story in a new direction without needing to give a crap about the old games, thanks to the creation of the split.

Just to name a few examples, FSA has no references to TWW or any adult events. It also has maidens who have never heard of Ganon. How is that plausible when that knowledge survived the flood? And when the maidens of ALttP clearly know the whole story? Hell, even with our current timeline, ignoring FSA's original development, this is a fatal contradiction for putting FSA on the AT.

There is speculation in saying that there is an ocean in the CT as well. The only two games confirmed to be in the CT (OoT and TP, MM doesn't count because it is a different world) have no ocean visible in leagues and leagues of distance ahead.

Who gives a ****? The existence of an ocean is not the most important detail in the series. The existence of Hyrule is, or it's pretty damn close. Also, lack of an explicit reference to an ocean in a whopping two goddamn games is not equivalent to physically SHOWING the complete annihilation of Hyrule. How can you even compare the two?

Also, since you love 1998 canon so much - OoT, ALttP, LA, LoZ and AoL were all made to be in the same Hyrule. It's inferred from this that oceans referenced in LoZ, AoL and LA can apply to any map, whether or not they're mentioned in-game. Same goes for OoX. What contradiction is there in saying Hyrule has an ocean if all of those games are on the Child Timeline for other reasons? It doesn't need to be visible on the map to exist. And FSA's map is clearly not an accurate representation for story purposes, because we know it takes place after TMC, and it kind of naturally has to be in the same Hyrule. Considering the Four Sword shrine and the FS and Vaati and whatnot all being there, and the way FSA is clearly referring to events in the same general WORLD as itself. Of course, I think that about ALttP, and people ignore that obvious implication...

What caused the Hylians to leave Hyrule and spread all across the world in your timeline? In my opinion that is clearly because of the flood, but I want to hear your views on this (hopefully with in-game evidence and as few assumptions as possible)...

Well, since I somewhat don't give a damn about irrelevant and unnecessary fanfic about minor details that never actually required an explanation in the first place (certainly not in your magical 1998 canon where you seem to live), I'm not sure how I'm supposed to respond to this... I love how you want in-game evidence and no assumptions, but you treat the existence of Hyrule after TWW as a fact. -_- Not to mention the utterly impossible existence of so much knowledge of ancient Hyrule and its history and locations that were lost in the flood.

Originally Posted by Impossible

False. In fact, it's absolute, unadulterated garbage. Just wanted to get that out of the way before I respond.

Oh really?

Originally Posted by Impossible

IThis doesn't make any sense. Pulling a Lex with the inappropriate real world references... Ancient Hebrew is a different form of the language. It didn't die, it evolved. Latin is a dead language. People can still speak it, just as some in TWW could speak Hylian. That doesn't mean it isn't dead. In FSA, it's not dead, it's still fading out of common usage, with someone trying to preserve it. I don't see this as the crux of the argument or something that must be true to prove this. All I'm doing is explaining why it's a valid point.

I'll reply to the rest when I come back from school. I'm kind of late...

Two things at Lex:

Your sig=win

No, sages+master=/=Seal War
But only aLttP's backstory, and OoT, which was originally made to be that backstory, have ever featured Seven Sages, someone searching for the Master Sword, and the Dark World.

What is the Ganondorf and the gerudos issues?

Well basicly that depending on where you place FSA on the childtimeline, you either (for pre TP, which makes no sense imo anyway, but hey there were people whovividly argued for it) get a suddend change of Gerudos and their relationshipt to Ganon, i.e. he intended to be the "protector of the desert" (or something) and not the king, but then they outcast him and even curse him while speaking to Link.

or (for post TP)

A mirror or it's likeness with the same backstory pops up after it's total destruction (twilight mirror and dark mirror)

Originally Posted by Som

I was tired I'm saying that there's no reason to put TMC first and FSA in the AT. Since they have to be on the same timeline then if you place FSA on the AT then there should be the TMC--FS/FSA arc somewhere.

Ah yes, agreed.

Well since TMC has more land than FSA, FSAs map was clearly retconned. It just makes no sense.

Wait what? tMc's map is the smallest of them all...

Originally Posted by Som

Well there's more land in TMC than FSA... hmm either it makes no sense or it was retconned. No one except the Deku Tree, KoRL, Valoo, and Jabun knew the Hylian language. So how was it preserved? So who was teaching the language?

Again, where did you get the idea that tMC's hyrule is bigger than FSA's one?

Originally Posted by Som

Fair enough, but isn't it funny that non of these books were ever mentioned?

May be pushing it, but...book of mudora? Just throwing that out there as an idea

Have you missed the entire argument that we've been making? Since the beta map shows an island Hyrule and the beta seems to have been pretty clearly (in my opinion. It seems clear to me that the Hylian language died out in the flood. Oh and I remember the person who translated the text says that the language referred to is the language of Hyrule. So for it to be the same language from OoT wouldn't that be making a reference to old Hyrule which has been lost?) on the CT. Which means that FSA being an island is nothing more than artistic.

If the language thing is the only reason for it to have been planned as an CT game, then I find that a bit shakey, for the reasons mentioned above.
I think we all driffted alittle too much into analysing the beta thing anyway, there are many unknown factors as to what got dumped at which point in time, etc. I wish they never messed around with FSA so much.

I can understand your reasons for, FSA apparently being planned as a CT game, better now.

Wait what? tMc's map is the smallest of them all...

Climb the beanstalk. There is clearly more land than FSA. I've posted the pictures in Skylark's most recent thread.

It really doesn't change the fact that it was clearly retconned by TMC.

May be pushing it, but...book of mudora? Just throwing that out there as an idea

LttP implies that if you have the writings of Mudora you know the Hylian language. So it wouldn't make much sense if people were forgetting the language.

Going by that, ALttP is in the same Hyrule as OoT.

Wrong. OoT's map isn't even Canon anymore because of TP, hense TP should be the map with all the comparisons, not OoT.

@Smertios:

The ****ing Hebrew language, and the ****ing Hylian language are two completely different things. The Hebrew language was recorded in ancient scriptures which people could still read, and some people still knew it, whereas the Hylian language is completely forgotten.

There is no-one who can speak it, except the King, Ganondorf and the dieties. The former dying at the end of TWW, and the latter dieties never being visited by anyone. The GDT's area is supposedly surrounded by monsters.

Valoo's area isn't even thought to EXIST of windfall.

And Jabun is in hiding at windfall only known to a select few.

Hylian is completely forgotten by the end of TWW. Get, The ****, over it.

Did you actually read my ****ing point, or are you doing another Lex and ignoring the actual argument, pretending to have responded by taking the first sentence out of context and making a meaningless remark? The Great Deku Tree's plan does not include expanding land. It's about joining islands. This doesn't lead to an inexplicable continuous expansion after said islands are joined. Joining islands doesn't go outwards, it goes inwards. Note that Forest Haven has been standing for hundreds of years and hasn't grown.

Stop insulting Lex. Don't be a douche here, alright?

This is a massive, gaping, horrific fallacy. As long as you go by this interpretation, you'll never come close to the intended timeline, because intent must be analysed and understood first. For the record, "FSA shows a Hyrule after TWW" is 100% subjective speculation. And I've already shown how baseless it is. If that's true, why the hell does FSA not once hint at it? Why didn't they insert references to TWW or the joining islands in the story so that we would know? Themes are sure as hell more important than geography, because despite what you seem to be claiming, geography's importance is also understood subjectively, depending on what can be seen as intent. And geography, unlike major themes, is incredibly minor and often unrelated to the story.

They did- In TMC. Now before you start saying I'm being Lex here, listen for a sec. If Nintendo were to just say "Oh yeah, a while ago Hyrule was drowned....." in FSA or TMC, then that's idiocy. With TMC's references to TWW, the so called "Non existent things" have just trumped your theory of no references.

Owned.

You give a real life example of something that apparently applies to FSA then you say that the GDTs plan, which is pretty much impossible for forests to do on their own, is evidence against us? Unless I'm mistaken you're being a hypocrite.

What the GDT does, happens in real life on a much smaller scale, called "Tree islands".

You know what's interesting? I may just be grasping at straws here, but I think I may have noticed something. The SW is stated to be surrounded by forests and mountains. Since FSA was clearly the SW but the game developers showed it as an island in the beta wouldn't that make it have nothing to do with the story?

Exactly. Clear proof, that FSA's map's borders don't matter.

I'd go further into this thread but I have a health project due so.....I'll keep informed.

They did- In TMC. Now before you start saying I'm being Lex here, listen for a sec. If Nintendo were to just say "Oh yeah, a while ago Hyrule was drowned....." in FSA or TMC, then that's idiocy. With TMC's references to TWW, the so called "Non existent things" have just trumped your theory of no references.

...what? Are you talking about the Triumph Forks? Which, to me now, really seems like an easter egg.

What the GDT does, happens in real life on a much smaller scale, called "Tree islands".

And assuming that the SW was less than 1000 years before LttP as the manual states then the islands must have come together at a ridiculously fast rate. Which is impossible.

Originally Posted by Som

...what? Are you talking about the Triumph Forks? Which, to me now, really seems like an easter egg.

And I can understand that opinion. I just happen not to share it. As far as I'm concerned, as long as there's nothing explicitly contradicting it (like if someone in TMC had said, "Wow! Good thing Hyrule has never been flooded, right?"), evidence is evidence. This is minor evidence, to be sure, but it stands amidst a complete lack of concrete major evidence, so there's nothing else to go by, other than a creator quote that doesn't make sense in the context of the series at large.

I ****ing love Smertios' repeated use of non-sequitur. Nowhere in that quote do I affirm what he claims I did. And AGAIN he misses the point of the argument...

What the GDT does, happens in real life on a much smaller scale, called "Tree islands".

NO NO NO NO NO NO NO, PLEASE STOP. Did you see that TML quote I posted in another topic? THAT'S WHAT IT WAS ABOUT. Worst theory of at least the last two years. Scientific explanations to prove something in Zelda are bull****. The science is irrelevant to this situation, as water that evaporates in an ocean will merely fall back into the same ocean, unlike the very small scale on swampland where the water will fall somewhere else, leading to uneven ground. And it does not lead to endlessly growing land, ever, ever, ever.

it stands amidst a complete lack of concrete major evidence

Completely and utterly untrue. This is why people here need to actually read the arguments for the other side.

Triumph Forks is about as pathetic as evidence as the Ballad of the Wind Fish in MM. Wait, no, bad comparison - the Ballad of the Wind Fish is actually heard and referenced by name over the course of playing MM. Triumph Forks are never, ever referenced in the text of TMC.

Hey, Som, add some new lines between the quote tags and your answers so it will be easier to quote you, please

Originally Posted by Som

Ok so how does the FS come back? My biggest complaint with games on the AT is that the MS makes no sense, even with fanfic. This would make an AT timeline make even less sense.

Why? There could be multiple ways for the MS to come back...

Oh but they know about the Triumph Forks? Basically you're saying what contradicts your timeline is due to the fact that they didn't know about geographic connections? So now we're picking and choosing what's canon based on our timeline?

First of all, who said I use 'triumph forks' to prove anything?

Second, you are missing the point. The devs from Flagship were probably not paid enough to study how geography worked in the timeline when they made the background images. They probably just paid some drawer to draw nice backgrounds for those areas.

Geography-wise, you'll notice that TMC map (the actual map) is more similar to FSA and LttP Hyrule (and even to LoZ Hyrule, to some extent) than to OoT. There is the two-peak mountain, the ruins in the swamp, the graveyard etc...

Fair enough, but isn't it funny that non of these books were ever mentioned?

What about the Book of Mudora? You clearly use it to translate ancient hylian in the desert...

Have you missed the entire argument that we've been making? Since the beta map shows an island Hyrule and the beta seems to have been pretty clearly (in my opinion. It seems clear to me that the Hylian language died out in the flood. Oh and I remember the person who translated the text says that the language referred to is the language of Hyrule. So for it to be the same language from OoT wouldn't that be making a reference to old Hyrule which has been lost?) on the CT. Which means that FSA being an island is nothing more than artistic.

But that is not important anymore. What the intent might have been in the early stages of development of FSA isn't necesserily what the intent was when the game was released. May I remind you that, originally, OoT was not going to be LttP BS...

And I'm still not convinced that FSA being the SW means it has to come in the CT. Bitterlime made a good point about the gerudo. They changed too much their behavior...

Originally Posted by Impossible

What the hell was that? I was hoping you would really respond to my points this time, instead you're just screaming at me blindly, and literally, unable to civilly focus on the point.

Trust me, I'm trying to, but in every post you come with personal attacks god knows why (and it has been like that with me since the first time you replied to anything I said).

Look at the previous pages, you are the one insulting me and everybody else in all posts, not me...

Wow, you really are following Lex's example of ignoring any and all context to any statement. Look at the post I was responding to.

See, proving my point above.

False. In fact, it's absolute, unadulterated garbage. Just wanted to get that out of the way before I respond.

You said :"Ancient Hebrew is a different form of the language. It didn't die, it evolved.", trying to prove to me that dead languages can't be revived.

But considering you already admitted you were wrong and languages can be revived, let's drop this useless discussion, shall we?

And here's the part of your post where you descended into dickery for no reason, I won't quote the whole thing.

No, find those quotes, I'll be waiting... Unless they don't exist of course...

You seem to have developed an obsession with non-sequiturs

non-sequi-what?

You're not responding to the argument I made, you're taking me out of context to create a straw man.

On the contrary, I'm replying to your points and you are babbling about how i'm not and forgetting to actually reply to what i say.

lol
hypocrisy...

...I don't think you understand what the word context means. Or what the word "ignoring" means. I was specifically talking about THAT QUOTE, even specifically the bolded part (which references joining islands, not the idea that the "great island" he speaks of will grow), and yet you again refuse to acknowledge what I'm saying. And actually, context would be ignoring the fact that the above was not established as a certainty (you missed a line), or the fact that this is not part of the story, or the fact that it's never mentioned or referenced again in TWW or any of the games released since... Context is not the ****ing quote itself, it's the circumstances and implied details surrounding the point. So, for example, you took me out of context when you pretended that I was ignoring the Deku Tree's statement altogether, when if you'd actually READ my post, instead of just the first sentence, you would see exactly what I said.

You said the islands would eventually stop growing, before creating a large continent, while the GDT specifically says there will be a day when all islands will be one, where 'everybody' will leave happily.

Not to mention that you followed this with another non-sequitur, since, again, joining islands is not the same as expanding a joint landmass. What the **** does "all" the islands mean? Will the land keep expanding until there's no ocean left in the world? Why would trees, joining islands together, and having done this already over the region that was sunk to the bottom of the ocean, just magically make the land grow outward? It's not being joined with any islands (which would imply a more complex process where

See? Until now in this post all you've done is personal attacks...

And can you say what you meant here again? I didn't quite understand you here.

Er. Why don't you present evidence supporting the idea that this happens to any land by the name of "Hyrule"? Or why don't you present evidence that this actually happens? If all statements by major characters are future proof, then it's a fact from what Daphnes says that Hyrule is gone forever, and that any new land will not be Hyrule. The Deku Tree doesn't know for a fact what will happen, and nothing is "proof" until it's a past event. He may intend to join the islands, but where's you're proof that this will cause the joint landmass to grow? Where's your proof that it's Hyrule? Everything Daphnes says is said as fact as well, except a large portion of it is said while wishing on the Triforce. And "That land will not be Hyrule" is in gigantic letters filling an entire text box. And this scene is part of the story, while the quote you refer to is not - it's background for a side-quest. See, that's what we call context.

Side quests are part of the story too.
And IMO Daphnes meant it wouldn't be the same place as the old Hyrule was. He couldn't possibly know that nobody in the future would create a new kingdom and call it Hyrule...

...Didn't I write like five ****ing paragraphs about this point already? If my tone sounds pissed in this post, it's because, well, of that. You're not even reading what I'm saying. I didn't say that FSA being the IW would have meant with absolute 100% certainty that it could only be on the CT (although there are other reasons for that, i.e. TWW and its ending). I said it's a natural inference. I questioned why the hell you would want it on the Adult Timeline, when it functions better in basically every way on the Child Timeline - and certainly, if OoT isn't the IW (which we're assuming in this hypothetical case, and also since it was made impossible by TWW and FSA), there's no reason left for the AT placement. The old connection was severed. The whole point was to do a new story in a new direction without needing to give a crap about the old games, thanks to the creation of the split.

If you knew what I was talking about, you would have known that I never claimed you meant that. Only Som is... For goodness sake, just read the rest of the posts and stop attacking me for no reason. If you do so, maybe (just maybe), you'll know what we are talking about.

Just to name a few examples, FSA has no references to TWW or any adult events. It also has maidens who have never heard of Ganon. How is that plausible when that knowledge survived the flood? And when the maidens of ALttP clearly know the whole story? Hell, even with our current timeline, ignoring FSA's original development, this is a fatal contradiction for putting FSA on the AT.

Again, they meant for the story to have survived. There is no evidence that it was lost at any point. In fact, we know that some people know it in TWW and, "strangely" enough, only some people know it in LttP...

Who gives a ****? The existence of an ocean is not the most important detail in the series. The existence of Hyrule is, or it's pretty damn close. Also, lack of an explicit reference to an ocean in a whopping two goddamn games is not equivalent to physically SHOWING the complete annihilation of Hyrule. How can you even compare the two?

See? This is biasing. You are saying there is no proof that there is Hyrule again in the AT, but completely ignores the fact that there is no known ocean in the YT.

And I did get your point, before you start saying that i don't read your post and write whatever i want. I agree that Hyrule is more important than the ocean, but, considering TWW existed, the ocean is actually a better timeline indicator than the existance of Hyrule itself...

Also, since you love 1998 canon so much - OoT, ALttP, LA, LoZ and AoL were all made to be in the same Hyrule. It's inferred from this that oceans referenced in LoZ, AoL and LA can apply to any map, whether or not they're mentioned in-game. Same goes for OoX.

I agree. But, imho, that was only until TWW was released, for obvious reasons.

What contradiction is there in saying Hyrule has an ocean if all of those games are on the Child Timeline for other reasons? It doesn't need to be visible on the map to exist.

No contradictions. I never said there were. But you have to agree that an ocean surrounding Hyrule works better in the AT than in the YT, even if you don't think the map has any relevance to the timeline...

And FSA's map is clearly not an accurate representation for story purposes, because we know it takes place after TMC, and it kind of naturally has to be in the same Hyrule. Considering the Four Sword shrine and the FS and Vaati and whatnot all being there, and the way FSA is clearly referring to events in the same general WORLD as itself.

I couldn't agree more. That's why I have TMC, FS, FSA and LttP in the same timeline, the AT...

Well, since I somewhat don't give a damn about irrelevant and unnecessary fanfic about minor details that never actually required an explanation in the first place (certainly not in your magical 1998 canon where you seem to live), I'm not sure how I'm supposed to respond to this... I love how you want in-game evidence and no assumptions, but you treat the existence of Hyrule after TWW as a fact. -_- Not to mention the utterly impossible existence of so much knowledge of ancient Hyrule and its history and locations that were lost in the flood.

See? You didn't reply to the actual subject. Nobody cares about what you think, we just want your solution to that problem.

And for the last time, I DO NOT TREAT THE EXISTANCE OF NEW HYRULE AS A FACT. I just think it is a better option than a mysterious periodical ocean surrounding Hyrule...

Originally Posted by bitterlime

Well basicly that depending on where you place FSA on the childtimeline, you either (for pre TP, which makes no sense imo anyway, but hey there were people whovividly argued for it) get a suddend change of Gerudos and their relationshipt to Ganon, i.e. he intended to be the "protector of the desert" (or something) and not the king, but then they outcast him and even curse him while speaking to Link.

or (for post TP)

A mirror or it's likeness with the same backstory pops up after it's total destruction (twilight mirror and dark mirror)

Makes sense. I have to think more about that though...

Wait what? tMc's map is the smallest of them all...

And more similar to FSA's, LttP's and LoZ's than to OoT's map...

Originally Posted by Som

Climb the beanstalk. There is clearly more land than FSA. I've posted the pictures in Skylark's most recent thread.

But that's just bg pics. In-game, TMC Hyrule is rather small...

It really doesn't change the fact that it was clearly retconned by TMC.

Not necesserily. TMC and FSA were being produced at the same time...

LttP implies that if you have the writings of Mudora you know the Hylian language. So it wouldn't make much sense if people were forgetting the language.

I don't get your point here. Can you rephrase please?

Originally Posted by Pinecove

@Smertios:
Stop insulting Lex. Don't be a douche here, alright?

but... but... it was impossible who said those things :S[/QUOTE]

Originally Posted by Som

...what? Are you talking about the Triumph Forks? Which, to me now, really seems like an easter egg.

We all pretty much agree here, but the alphabet is hard to ignore. In TWW it was clear that the old script had died and the new one had taken its place

And assuming that the SW was less than 1000 years before LttP as the manual states then the islands must have come together at a ridiculously fast rate. Which is impossible.

Impossible in real life. I'm not getting your point here. Physics in the Zelda universe doesn't work like it does in our universe...

[QUOTE=Impossible;2749580]I ****ing love Smertios' repeated use of non-sequitur. Nowhere in that quote do I affirm what he claims I did. And AGAIN he misses the point of the argument...[quote]

See? You are not reading what I post. I said: "I'll reply to the rest when I come back from school. I'm kind of late..."

Completely and utterly untrue. This is why people here need to actually read the arguments for the other side.

Yes, some people, like, for example, you...

Triumph Forks is about as pathetic as evidence as the Ballad of the Wind Fish in MM. Wait, no, bad comparison - the Ballad of the Wind Fish is actually heard and referenced by name over the course of playing MM. Triumph Forks are never, ever referenced in the text of TMC.

I couldn't agree more. But, as I've been saying for several ages, the alphabet is hard to ignore as evidence...

Why? There could be multiple ways for the MS to come back...

Tell me them, then.

But that is not important anymore. What the intent might have been in the early stages of development of FSA isn't necesserily what the intent was when the game was released. May I remind you that, originally, OoT was not going to be LttP BS...

And I'm still not convinced that FSA being the SW means it has to come in the CT. Bitterlime made a good point about the gerudo. They changed too much their behavior...

Umm it does matter. If a game was originally gonna be a CT game and the map is identical to the way it is now, an island, then Hyrule in FSA being an island doesn't matter.

First of all, who said I use 'triumph forks' to prove anything?

Sorry ahead of time if I accuse you of anything wrongly. I thought you've used triumph forks as evidence in the past.

And IMO Daphnes meant it wouldn't be the same place as the old Hyrule was. He couldn't possibly know that nobody in the future would create a new kingdom and call it Hyrule...

So you agree that there was no unflooding?

But that's just bg pics. In-game, TMC Hyrule is rather small...

What? Are you referring to the fact that I am calling all the area seen in TMC even the background images Hyrule or are you saying that the bg pics don't matter?

Not necesserily. TMC and FSA were being produced at the same time...

So TMC was retconned by FSA a year before it came out?

I don't get your point here. Can you rephrase please?

Well it seems to me that LttP implies that if you have the writing of Mudora you instantly know the Hylian language

If you have the writings of Mudora, they say you can understand language of the Hylians.

We all pretty much agree here, but the alphabet is hard to ignore. In TWW it was clear that the old script had died and the new one had taken its place

So they are supposed to use the TP alphabet that hasn't been made yet?

Impossible in real life. I'm not getting your point here. Physics in the Zelda universe doesn't work like it does in our universe...

Don't reference real life languages then. But you've said in the past that OoX showing growing land is evidence of the GDTs plan working. So let's review:

In your timeline OoT is the SW. The SW has to take place less than 1000 years before LttP. Implied to only be a few hundred years. You're saying that there was a flood, all the land came together, and 3 games that barely reference each other and happen quite some time after each other all happened in just a few hundred years? Sure things work differently in Zelda. But common sense still applies.

Originally Posted by Som

Tell me them, then.

It could have been retrieved. It is an assumption as good as the assumption that the ocean exists in the CT. And this last one is even more important than the MS, as we know why there is an ocean in the AT, but not in the CT.

I mean, if there was no flood mentioned at all, I would agree that the ocean connecting the 2D games to the AT just because of TWW geography. But the flood is actually an important storyline event. More important to the timeline than the MS.

Umm it does matter. If a game was originally gonna be a CT game and the map is identical to the way it is now, an island, then Hyrule in FSA being an island doesn't matter.

But I still didn't get why you believe that FSA was supposed to be a CT game. The language and the SW lone aren't enough to prove that...

Sorry ahead of time if I accuse you of anything wrongly. I thought you've used triumph forks as evidence in the past.

Long ago, yes. Now (and for the past months actually) I don't consider easter eggs as valid timeline indicators anymore.

So you agree that there was no unflooding?

Not really. I just agree that Old Hyrule won't rise again as it was. BUt I do believe the soil is the same...

What? Are you referring to the fact that I am calling all the area seen in TMC even the background images Hyrule or are you saying that the bg pics don't matter?

So you believe that TMC in-game map is bigger than FSA's?!

And yes, my point was that bg images are not accurate.

So TMC was retconned by FSA a year before it came out?

How about there were no retcons at all? The TMC map and FSA map are very similar and so is the TMC map in comparison to LttP's. IMO they just didn't work too much on the bg pics. I mean, one indicates Hyrule is an island, the other indicates it is a continent...

Well it seems to me that LttP implies that if you have the writing of Mudora you instantly know the Hylian language

I always saw it as some sort of dictionary...

So they are supposed to use the TP alphabet that hasn't been made yet?

fun-fact number 1: The OoT script existed already.

fun-fact number 2: TMC and TP were being produced at the same time from 2003 (there were trailers of both pof them on E3)

Don't reference real life languages then.

I didn't use that example to prove anything about the timeline. I used it to prove that languages can be revived. As far as I know, I never used real world examples to prove anything Zelda-related.

But you've said in the past that OoX showing growing land is evidence of the GDTs plan working.

Yes, I believe the GDT was inspired by OoA maps.

In your timeline OoT is the SW. The SW has to take place less than 1000 years before LttP. Implied to only be a few hundred years. You're saying that there was a flood, all the land came together, and 3 games that barely reference each other and happen quite some time after each other all happened in just a few hundred years? Sure things work differently in Zelda. But common sense still applies.

OoT = SW retconned LttP BS from the SNES manual = SW. That's why the manual was changed for the GBA version.

That's an actual retcon. It is directly related to the story of the games. The game maps aren't...

It could have been retrieved. It is an assumption as good as the assumption that the ocean exists in the CT. And this last one is even more important than the MS, as we know why there is an ocean in the AT, but not in the CT.

I truly don't know how to respond to this. Ok so you're saying that there isn't an ocean on the CT?

So you believe that TMC in-game map is bigger than FSA's?!

And yes, my point was that bg images are not accurate.

Have I once said in-game map? No, I haven't.

Well, see, if maps are canon then using back ground images to see what's around the maps are canon, too.

How about there were no retcons at all? The TMC map and FSA map are very similar and so is the TMC map in comparison to LttP's. IMO they just didn't work too much on the bg pics. I mean, one indicates Hyrule is an island, the other indicates it is a continent...

Proof that the two islands shown are Hyrule? And that is a long way up. The back ground images clearly show more land than FSA.

fun-fact number 1: The OoT script existed already.

fun-fact number 2: TMC and TP were being produced at the same time from 2003 (there were trailers of both pof them on E3)

So you're saying that Nintendo, the company that always works on gameplay first story second, had already made a localized Hylian alphabet 3 years before TP was released? BS

I didn't use that example to prove anything about the timeline. I used it to prove that languages can be revived.

Umm yeah you did. You showed that to show that languages can come back FOR THE TIMELINE.

That's why the manual was changed for the GBA version.

Proof? Here I'll give some proof to the contrary. If they had shortened the manual for the intent of OoT still being the SW don't you think they would have only shortened the SW? Not the entire manual including the creation and the appearance of Agahnim?

I don't see how you can deny the background images as canon.

My dear god. You are writing way to much for that kind of topic.
Everyone may know it, but I tell you it anyway.
Geographic changes in a game series is usually not always the same. A example is Breath of Fire. The first three games are conected, but in each game the world on which you travel is totally different. In Pokemon Gold and Silver you visit a slightly changed Kanto, which is almost the same like in Red and Blue.
I suggest for everyone of you to take only things as evidence if NPCs or writings which tell you explicit of the geographic state about that land. Compare for example OoT with TP. It just doesn´t make any sense for me, why the Hylia Lake is too near to the Sacret Grove ( The place where the Temple of Time is along with the city of OoT). Also the Death Mountain should be much more near to the Sacred Grove. Zora´s Domain is very questionable of it´s position. It should be in the east and not in the north.
Do you see what I mean? If you take everything as evidence, it would become chaotic and confusing for everyone here.

Originally Posted by Smertios

But that is not important anymore. What the intent might have been in the early stages of development of FSA isn't necesserily what the intent was when the game was released.

You're still missing the point here. We're not saying that the old story is canon. The point is that due to the specific circumstances of FSA's story and development, we can infer that it was originally going to be on the Child Timeline, and hence the ocean that was visible on the map during that development is not story-related. This is a case specific to FSA and the last minute story changes.

And I'm still not convinced that FSA being the SW means it has to come in the CT.

Again, not the point. I responded to this clearly, read my posts. It's not that it "has" to be, it's that doing so removes the need for near-infinite amounts of speculation and assumptions which are basically unnecessary.

Trust me, I'm trying to, but in every post you come with personal attacks god knows why (and it has been like that with me since the first time you replied to anything I said).

Look at the previous pages, you are the one insulting me and everybody else in all posts, not me...

No. Complaining about your false accusations and numerous logical fallacies are not "personal attacks" or "insults". I'm pissed off at you for good reason, as you'll realise if you actually read my posts. Every time I complain that you've falsely attributed something to me, or twisted the point of what I said, or responded with a non sequitur... I pointed out your non sequiturs because I was offended by the way you pretended I was saying something completely different to what I said, or by the fact that you were completely ignoring my argument in favour of a different argument, which you seemed to want to have by yourself. Quotes + Straw men = non sequiturs. This is not a personal attack, this is me wanting you to actually read my posts because you keep misunderstanding entirely. Your response to every claim I make of a fallacy is to repeat the EXACT SAME fallacy or otherwise wrong idea in your next post, ignoring the point I made. I've pointed this out 2-3 times by now quite explicitly because you keep attacking me with unjustified reasoning.

Complaining that your reasoning and responses to me are filled with incoherent babble is not a personal attack, it's an argument in order to explain why the point you're making is wrong. You now seem to have lost yourself in this delusion where the argument we're having is the one about the fictional points you've invented. If it ever looks like I didn't respond to a post you made, it was because WHAT YOU POSTED WAS A STRAW MAN/NON SEQUITUR/IGNORED MY POINT ENTIRELY. You have so far not acknowledged a single one of your mistakes, of your false attributions, or taking me out of context in order to turn my argument into a completely different one that you then responded to... If you actually read my damn posts, you would find not personal attacks, but complaints about your methods of debating and criticisms of the fact that your response had nothing to do with my original point.

But considering you already admitted you were wrong and languages can be revived, let's drop this useless discussion, shall we?

WHAT THE HELL IS WRONG WITH YOU, STOP ATTACKING ME WITH THESE STUPID STRAW MEN IF YOU REFUSE TO UNDERSTAND THE POINT I MADE IN THE FIRST PLACE. I will not have you accusing me of saying things I didn't say.

No, find those quotes, I'll be waiting... Unless they don't exist of course...

...What the hell are you talking about? Read your own post, why don't you? I omitted sentences immediately following the one I quoted. There's nothing to ****ing find, you know which comments I was referring to, because they didn't merit a response.

If you knew what I was talking about, you would have known that I never claimed you meant that. Only Som is...

NO. You do not. Get. To ****ing. Do this. This is what my above rant was about. I will stand idly by while you falsely accuse me of saying things I didn't say, directing posts AT ME, responding to an argument you were claiming I've made... And then, when I rebuke your comments, backpedal and claim you were talking to someone else. Don't give me this bull. You specifically responded to me. The word "you" was included in the statement I quoted, following a quotation from my own post. Maybe you do need to read those five-ish paragraphs.

See? This is biasing. You are saying there is no proof that there is Hyrule again in the AT, but completely ignores the fact that there is no known ocean in the YT.

...Again, definitive proof that you are not reading my posts. You're a goddamn broken record. You seem to have these arguments in your head that you insist on posting over and over no matter what the response is, without actually reading it. Look up what a non sequitur is, if you don't know, as you obviously don't. Your responses to my arguments have not logically followed from the arguments themselves. Either because you took something out of context in order to turn it into a different argument and make more false accusations (like the GDT quote), or because, beyond my comprehension, you directly quoted what I said, but decided to respond to something entirely different to what I wrote (like you just did).

I can barely even respond to you in this topic anymore, because it's degenerated to the point where everything you say has no bearing on the actual argument. At first it was just a few things that I complained about, and somehow this led you to compound the same fallacies over and over in every post. I can't respond to things I've already responded to.

No contradictions. I never said there were. But you have to agree that an ocean surrounding Hyrule works better in the AT than in the YT, even if you don't think the map has any relevance to the timeline...

...But you have to agree that the fact that Hyrule still exists and has not been destroyed works better in the CT than in the AT? This is so stupid. No, the ocean is not more important than Hyrule because ocean is not specific to a timeline. You can't claim it is based on two games. We don't see everything on the map. On the other hand, there is no game that allows us to infer the claims you make about what happens after TWW. There's no secret Hyrule hidden from view in the map of any game.

I couldn't agree more. That's why I have TMC, FS, FSA and LttP in the same timeline, the AT...

This misses the point quite thoroughly. I was pointing out TMC's Hyrule, which directly contradicts FSA's Hyrule. I'm saying that the ocean can't be relevant, because it goes against the map of TMC. You can't make these stupid excuses here; TMC was made with several close links to FSA, with Nintendo and Aonuma's supervision. Either it was made to be after TWW, or it wasn't.

See? You didn't reply to the actual subject. Nobody cares about what you think, we just want your solution to that problem.

...You don't care what I think, which is why you explicitly asked me what I think. Stop being an ass.

You know, what I did in the first place was to explain the reasoning behind a theory and why certain points are seen as relevant, which you never seemed to understand. Instead of reading those points, you're parroting the same stupid comments over and over with no regard to the responses already given to them. And you constantly accuse me of saying things I haven't, or treat me as having a position on an argument that I have never taken. (And then you have the nerve to get indignant over my "attacks" when I call you out on this.) If you want to know why FSA's development would indicate that it was originally on the Child Timeline (hence making the ocean, which already existed at that time, irrelevant), read what I already posted on the subject in this topic and the geography topic. It's that simple.

And for the last time, I DO NOT TREAT THE EXISTANCE OF NEW HYRULE AS A FACT. I just think it is a better option than a mysterious periodical ocean surrounding Hyrule...

Yes, god forbid there be vague inconsistencies and unseen areas in the map of a ****ing video game. Because every Zelda game clearly has the same Hyrule. And because those little details are so much more important than major plot details.

And for the last time, I DO NOT TREAT THE EXISTANCE OF NEW HYRULE AS A FACT. I just think it is a better option than a mysterious periodical ocean surrounding Hyrule...

Er. Explain TMC-FSA... There's clearly more to Hyrule than what's on FSA's map. There are a lot of mysterious, periodical things in Zelda geography that change in every goddamn game. And you know, just because there are a couple of games in which the map does not extend to show the ocean, it doesn't stop existing.

See? You are not reading what I post. I said: "I'll reply to the rest when I come back from school. I'm kind of late..."

I love how every time I accuse you of responding to me with a non sequitur that misses the real argument, you respond with... another non sequitur that is unrelated to the problem I was pointing out. Are you reading ANYTHING I say? What you hadn't yet responded to is irrelevant. The issue was with the response you did post. With the fact that you're constantly accusing me of stating things I have not, and either refusing to accept otherwise despite the fact that you clearly haven't read my posts, or backpedalling and lying about what you really said.. You quote me, word for word, and then attribute to the quote an opinion which is not held or argued anywhere in the quote. Hence my point of non sequitur.

This might be a good start for you to learn...

Originally Posted by Pinecove

Wrong. OoT's map isn't even Canon anymore because of TP, hense TP should be the map with all the comparisons, not OoT.

ALttP's map isn't even canon anymore because of OoT?
ALttP's map isn't even canon anymore because of FSA?
OoT's ,map isn't even canon anymore because of FSA? :O
FSA's map isn't even canon anymore because of TP? :O

Map retconning is retarded.

Originally Posted by Hombre de Mundo

ALttP's map isn't even canon anymore because of OoT?

If you believe they are separate landmasses, that's irrelevant.

ALttP's map isn't even canon anymore because of FSA?

If you believe aLttP comse after FSA chronologically, that's irrelevant.

OoT's ,map isn't even canon anymore because of FSA? :O

If you believe they are separate landmasses, that's irrelevant.

FSA's map isn't even canon anymore because of TP? :O

If you believe they are separate landmasses, that's irrelevant.

Next.
The point is, TP is proven to be chronologically after OoT, and in the same Hyrule. Thus, if it's different, there was either some massive-ass earthquakse that shifted everything 45 degrees, or retcon.

ALttP's map isn't even canon anymore because of OoT?
ALttP's map isn't even canon anymore because of FSA?
OoT's ,map isn't even canon anymore because of FSA? :O
FSA's map isn't even canon anymore because of TP? :O

Map retconning is retarded.

You misunderstand me.

The TP map retcons the OoT map.
Hense any comparisons between OoT and another game.......should be between TP and that game because TP only retconns the OoT map.

You get it?

Next.
The point is, TP is proven to be chronologically after OoT, and in the same Hyrule. Thus, if it's different, there was either some massive-ass earthquakse that shifted everything 45 degrees, or retcon.

No earthquake can move mountains Erimgard

Considering Impossible, Som and Pinecove have successfully proven that they can't be part of an actual decent debate anymore, I will take that their positions about this matter are set. With that said, the goal of this thread has been reached, so, could a mod please lock this thread?