Prove FSA map is not canon and more

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?

Ugawhat now?

I don't have set veiws anymore as I'm not sure if FSA was originally supposed to happen in the Child or Adult timeline.

Originally Posted by Erimgard

Thus, if it's different, there was either some massive-ass earthquakse that shifted everything 45 degrees, or retcon.

Or because such things aren't necessarily canon, since Zelda team would never consider such pety things in their own canon. Or because it's a videogame which has floating platforms and other stuff that's unnatural.

If you believe they [ALttP and OoT] are separate landmasses, that's irrelevant.

When OoT was released I think nobody (not even the developers) had thought they'd be on a different landmass. So by developer intent, ALttP's map should be the one of OoT. Now I know you talked about this a lot and I still think that you can make a huge mess out of it. What if a prequel/close sequel or remake of OoT happens which has the exact same map as OoT, is TP's map retconned back to OoT?

I can't accept these kinds of changes that have no impact on anything whatsoever canon.

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

Why so? As ALttP's prequel it should effectively retcon ALttP's map and - heck - why not everything used to describe the surrounding world since they're bound to the map as well?

Originally Posted by Pinecove

No earthquake can move mountains Erimgard

How about a polar shift?

Originally Posted by Smertios

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?

Because you're incapable of responding to my actual points, instead of straw men and irrelevant arguments, I can't have an actual debate? I'm not ****ing physically capable of adding additional responses to the argument until you respond to the posts I already made, which you have not done - you've responded with false accusations of things I never said, stupid backpedalling, irrelevant non sequiturs, and whatever argument you thought was easiest to have regardless of the one that was actually relevant.

Edit: It's also sad that you're not even mature enough to admit to any of your mistakes. You have stated several factually untrue things about my arguments, either in your accusations of what I was saying, or in your responses to what I was saying. Instead you're going to storm out whining because you never had a counterargument.

You also ignored my points on the basis of being "personal attacks", even though almost nothing there even resembled ad hominem. They were legitimate complaints, and I have every right to make them after the offensive, insulting, misleading crap you had thrown at me - that being what I was complaining about in my "attacks".

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?

What? So are you basically confirming right here that you are in complete denial about my evidence considering you didn't reply to any of it? I showed you that you are wrong about the LttP manual and showed that on your timeline TMC would obviously retcon FSA. But I guess you deny both of those?

Originally Posted by Hombre de Mundo

Or because such things aren't necessarily canon, since Zelda team would never consider such pety things in their own canon. Or because it's a videogame which has floating platforms and other stuff that's unnatural.

That's just dancing around the issue.
If the are the exact same Hyrule, yet everything's in a slightly different spot, that would constitute retconning geography. Whether you believe the geography matters is your own affair, but the fact is, they changed it. Saying "well I don't think it counts" doesn't chagne that.

When OoT was released I think nobody (not even the developers) had thought they'd be on a different landmass. So by developer intent, ALttP's map should be the one of OoT.

At the time it was.
aLttP's map was forced into a perfect little square though, which is why they couldn't properly display Hyrule.
With OoT's better graphics, they could display Hyrule in it's "real" form...thus, retconned.

Now I know you talked about this a lot and I still think that you can make a huge mess out of it. What if a prequel/close sequel or remake of OoT happens which has the exact same map as OoT, is TP's map retconned back to OoT?

If it's a remake obviously they aren't going to change the map.
If it's a prequel/sequel they might make it look like a hybrid between the two [but it's unlikely we'll see that anyway]

Four Swords Adventures showed us a very similar scenario.
aLttP had a square, scrunched-together Hyrule.
With the N64s graphics, they created a more realistic Hyrule.
Then FSA reverted back to the aLttP-style Hyrule, despite having the graphics to be "real"
And then TP went back to being "real", but moved stuff around moreso than OoT did.

Thus, the believe that OoT-TP equal the same landmass, with some minor changes due to it being "retconned" into a more "real" Hyrule.

FSA-aLttP equal the same landmass with some minor changes due to the passing of time. Since FSA/aLttP's map doesn't move stuff around like OoT/TPs, but just edits it a little, it's not retcon. It's just the passing of time. The passing of time does not explain every major landmark getting up and moving a few miles as in OoT/TP.

How about a polar shift?

How about a polar shift?

That would shift the climate

@Impossible. You have every right to tell Smertios off But DO NOT FLAME AND SWEAR!

At the time it was.

At the time, OoT was the IW. See how this works?

Erimgard: All your points are depending on developer intention, of course. Surely it would make sense for things to have happened the way you describe it, but the problem is that in order for us to make these assumptions we have to assume the developers think the way we think they do.

A retcon would only be a retcon if they intended it to be a retcon. There can be other reasons for geographical changes, as well as different reasons for changes within the same game. If we don't know the developers wanted to retcon Hyrule, we can't say for sure it happened. If the developers had no intent to retcon, there is no retcon because it can't happen without the direct intention, and therefore we don't know if retcons exist in Zelda.

Did I repeat myself too much?

Originally Posted by Pinecove

@Impossible. You have every right to tell Smertios off But DO NOT FLAME AND SWEAR!

Again, I've already justified my supposed "attacks" for what they really are, but in any case... This is one of my major problems on ZU. Several logical fallacies are used constantly, in almost every post by some users, and people here seem to be entirely unfamiliar with the fact that these techniques are fallacies. (I assume that's why you-know-who's circular arguments, quoting out of context, false analogies, and cherry picking evidence are so welcome here. But I digress. Although come on, were any of those NOT included in the LttP box topic alone? And don't forget the straw men, which are used not only to set up an opposing argument for the purpose of easily defeating it, but also in order to make false claims of being "unbiased" and considering both sides.)

When someone's argument consists entirely of throwing these fallacies at me, and when their response to being called out on this is to double their efforts and repeat the precise fallacies I was getting pissed off about, I tend to take the gloves off. These things need to be recognised

Originally Posted by Impossible

When someone's argument consists entirely of throwing these fallacies at me, and when their response to being called out on this is to double their efforts and repeat the precise fallacies I was getting pissed off about, I tend to take the gloves off. These things need to be recognised

Actually, if, when you point out the flaw in someone's argument, they stick to said flaws, it's really best to just leave. "Taking the gloves off" makes YOU look like the bad guy, so other people will take his side not on the merit of his arguments but simply because he opposes you. I know this from experience. You can't be the debate police and expect to win any arguments.

Originally Posted by Hombre de Mundo

Erimgard: All your points are depending on developer intention, of course. Surely it would make sense for things to have happened the way you describe it, but the problem is that in order for us to make these assumptions we have to assume the developers think the way we think they do.

A retcon would only be a retcon if they intended it to be a retcon. There can be other reasons for geographical changes, as well as different reasons for changes within the same game. If we don't know the developers wanted to retcon Hyrule, we can't say for sure it happened. If the developers had no intent to retcon, there is no retcon because it can't happen without the direct intention, and therefore we don't know if retcons exist in Zelda.

Did I repeat myself too much?

Hombre, to "retcon" something is just to change an established element [like geography] into something different without giving an explanation.

How is changing the location of virtually everything in Hyrule, and not giving an explanation, not constituting a retcon?

^ Exactly.

And whose to say TP retconned ALttP aswell then? It only retconned OoT's map because it comes after it.

Originally Posted by Erimgard

Hombre, to "retcon" something is just to change an established element [like geography] into something different without giving an explanation.

In that case, I can think of a million things that we can declare retconned, like the appearance of Hyrule Castle, vitually all maps, most enemies, zoras and zolas could be the same. Just because there is an explanation in one game doesn't mean that wasn't retconned by another game where there's only one type, right?

Helmasaur and Helmarocs are probably the same too, they just changed it from a lizard (?) to a bird.

You see my point? There are so many "established elements" that constantly change into something different without reason. And sometimes there's probably a reason or an esasy explanation, but we don't know for sure because we're not given one. Will these be considered retcons too, because we're not explicitly told? Or problems that are too hard to solve the only changes that get retconned?

And just because the developers change something without giving a reason doesn't mean they want to change that fundamental establishment, just expand on it, or just change it for that one game (without reason).

How is changing the location of virtually everything in Hyrule, and not giving an explanation, not constituting a retcon?

How is changing a land octoroc to a sea octoroc not a retcon?
How is changing evil zoras to good zoras to both zoras to good zoras to evil zoras not constant retcons?
How is changing Hyrule Castle from OoT to TP not a retcon?
Etc.

EDIT: I'd like to state for the record that while I'm not against the idea of a retcon, I'm against theorist deciding what are retcons and what are canonical changes. Maybe it's not that different from debating canon and cameo and I'm just havinga grudge with retcons because I think's its stupid... I dunno, but I think it's not something we should get into a lot at all.

Originally Posted by Erimgard

Hombre, to "retcon" something is just to change an established element [like geography] into something different without giving an explanation.

No.

Retroactive continuity is the deliberate changing of previously established facts in a work of serial fiction.

Note the word deliberate, we do not know if they want Hyrule to have different geography...or if it's just a gameplay element. In that case it wouldn't be a deliberate change, it would not mean that they intend Hyrule to be retconned each time.
Please also note that there can be retcons that have explanations.

I know this makes me look like a nit picking dick, but I think we should get our terms right before we slap them onto the whole Zelda Canon.

EDIT:
Also a point we shouldn't forget: retcon =/= plot inconsistencies

Changing geography is not a retcon. Games need no story-related reason to have different geography. That was the entire point of my geography explanation in that topic a little while back, please read that again. Games like TMC and TP have completely different geography for no reason. It's just not worth making a big deal out of. It's more about gameplay variety than anything.

I personally think the TP map was the end result of various manipulations of OoT's map, like flipping/rotating it and moving things a little - so it would feel familiar, yet not like a boring, rehashed copy. This is why rotating the Wii version map actually produces something much closer to the OoT (or FSA) map, and it's also why TP's geography is completely irrelevant to the story. It was changed for gameplay reasons.

If TP can retcon OoT, it can retcon any game. So it's just a stupid argument.

I think Aonuma said somewhere that they make the places first and then decide if they'll be Kakariko or whatever later. The geography really doesn't seem to be important unless we're dealing with things that we are basically told are the same.

Originally Posted by Average Gamer

I think Aonuma said somewhere that they make the places first and then decide if they'll be Kakariko or whatever later. The geography really doesn't seem to be important unless we're dealing with things that we are basically told are the same.

Exactly. As we know, it is said by Nintendo that they usually cares first about the gameplay and than about the story. I have read that kind of information in a interview, which I can´t trace back somehow.

However here again my words from my post here it this topic.

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.

In short for Zelda Games: Gameplay comes first and than any shanigans.