Which LttP manual is more canon

Ok I've gotten tired of people referencing BOTH LttP manuals when it supports their argument. So tell me. In your opinion which manual is more canon, GBA or SNES?

Personally I think that the SNES manual is more canon, but I'll reference the GBA manual at times since I've always thought that you people thought that the GBA manual was more canon.

Well I personally follow the GBA, but I also can see why CT followers follow the SNES version.

If the Gba and Snes manuals don't conflict with each other, then I don't think it matters.

SNES manual give us more information, GBA manual is only a summary, a short version of the SNES manual.

Like SevenYears says, if they don't contradict, take both.

Originally Posted by smallville boy

SNES manual give us more information, GBA manual is only a summary, a short version of the SNES manual.

I mainly agree with this, especially since manuals have become shorter over time and the game itself tells us all we need to know to piece together the SNES manual story anyway. Furthermore, Jacensolo06 of Legends Alliance has revealed that the Japanese Script for the GBA ALttP is the same as the Japanese Script for the SNES ALttP, meaning that the story itself was utterly unchanged.

Well I personally follow the GBA, but I also can see why CT followers follow the SNES version.

You say that as if I follow the SNES manual because I have a CT timeline.

@SevenYears: Well there is a difference. They don't contradict each other, but some people believe that they left certain things out of the GBA manual for a reason.

You say that as if I follow the SNES manual because I have a CT timeline.

No actually, I respect the CT followers and if I were to one day follow a CT myself I would perfer the SNES version (because of depth)

SNES manual cannot be completely true in it's entirety (without assuming that it's a distorted legend) because it is completely impossible for the Seal War to exist given the current "Aonuma Timeline" and the conditions layed out in the SNES manual.

The SNES manual is more Canon as it gives more depth on the matter, however parts of the GBA manual retcon things that are said in the SNES manual hense the SNES manual should be taken with a grain of salt.

^Which things, Pinecove? The details about Agahnim? The copied version of the opening? The shortened creation? They shortened things that didn't need to be shortened. That's enough for me to believe that the SNES version is more canon.

SNES manual cannot be completely true in it's entirety (without assuming that it's a distorted legend) because it is completely impossible for the Seal War to exist given the current "Aonuma Timeline" and the conditions layed out in the SNES manual.

Can you elaborate on that a bit?

They shortened things that didn't need to be shortened.

I'd say that at the very least, the absence of Ganon is a pretty important change. The GBA manual takes him out of the picture and puts more emphasis on the seal itself.

^It didn't change a damn thing though. It just copied the opening.

Also "Therefore, the king ordered the Seven Sages to create a firm seal so that the entrance to the sacred place would never be opened again." is more emphasis on the seal than: "The King of Hyrule called upon the Seven Sages of Hyrule, as well as the Knights to seal the source of this evil.", "Using the most of their powers, the Sages and Knights threw open a heroic battle with the evil one.", "The Knights had valiantly used their bodies as shields during the fierce attack, and although they unfortunately perished when their strength had exhausted, this had given the Sages time to complete their Seal.", "This battle, for its many sacrifices, was passed down to future generations as the "Seal War.""....

Hell it even mentions the seal again with "However, in a certain year, unexplained catastrophes began to occur. Plagues, drought, and no amount of magic could do anything. The King of Hyrule was greatly troubled, and had the seal studied, but found nothing. The people had nothing else to do but pray to the gods. Then, like a comet, a man named Agahnim appeared, and ended the catastrophes with a curious magic." compared to this in the GBA manual...: "However, suspicious incidents have been occurring in Hyrule since a mysterious priest who calls himself "Agunim" used as a pretext his confronting and suppressing a calamity of unknown origin that happened one year."

They shortened everything. All if it has no reason, yet you claim that one line that pretty much copies the opening is a meaningful change, and ironically your entire argument relies on believing that one change out of a hundred is actually meaningful when it's just the copied opening...

Originally Posted by Sign-of-Madness

In your opinion which manual is more canon, GBA or SNES?

Neither. None of the immediate content in the SNES manual is any less accurate than it was now; so is GBA's.

The only reason that the GBA manual matters is because it better reflects the background and context of ALttP as the developers see it today. The absence of Ganon and the otherwise massively-diluted story demonstrates to us that a very long time has passed, enough time that Ganon's role in the war was forgotten.

Originally Posted by Som

It didn't change a damn thing though. It just copied the opening.

If not for the manual, there would be no direct evidence for a tie between Ganon and the IW; the IW would be, like the Interloper war in TP, just a conflict that led to the creation of the seal, just like the Interloper war led to the shadow clan being trapped in the Twilight Realm. Ganon's exploits definitely happen in the background as well, but there's some room to dispute whether they are tied to the Interloper conflict. By the same token, there's room to dispute whether [ALttP] Ganon was involved with the IW.

I don't believe that ALttP needed the manual to describe Ganon's involvement in the IW anymore because OoT served to tell that story; thus, there was no need to expand upon his role in the manual. The introduction of stories that contradict a direct OoT-ALttP progression, therefore, do not necessarily sever OoT from the IW story but may in fact definitively sever the IW story (which only OoT fully tells) from being the direct backstory of ALttP.

It could go one way or the other- it really depends on whether you believe ALttP to provide definitive proof that its Ganon was the villain of the IW, and whether you believe the original manual was rendered obsolete (not incorrect) by OoT. I don't believe the former, and strongly believe the latter, so that's where my conclusion comes from.

Originally Posted by Artemicion

The only reason that the GBA manual matters is because it better reflects the background and context of ALttP as the developers see it today. The absence of Ganon and the otherwise massively-diluted story demonstrates to us that a very long time has passed, enough time that Ganon's role in the war was forgotten.

No, the GBA manual was just cut down in general, as Sign-of-Madness has pointed out. Ganon's already explained plenty of times in the game, so they presumably figured that they could avoid his background in the manual since the game itself covers it.

I've gone over enough IW discussions, so I'll leave it at that.

Originally Posted by Average Gamer

No, the GBA manual was just cut down in general

Name one detail regarding the IW and its backdrop, not involving Ganon, that was cut out that was not:

1) told to us in some form in OoT
2) told to us in some form in-game in ALttP

Ganon's already explained plenty of times in the game

Name one time where the game says or implies "Ganon's evil spread across Hyrule." They say he planned to do so, but that he first had to break the seal and cross over to the Light World. In the Imprisoning War darkness was already spreading across Hyrule before the seal was even cast, in fact the reason it was cast to begin with.

Originally Posted by Artemicion

Name one detail regarding the IW and its backdrop, not involving Ganon, that was cut out that was not:

1) told to us in some form in OoT
2) told to us in some form in-game in ALttP

By "cut down" I meant shortened by removing details from the manual that the ALttP told anyway. Ganon and the Knights were removed from the GBA manual, but they were mentioned in the game, letting us understand the backstory anyway.

Originally Posted by Artemicion

Name one time where the game says or implies "Ganon's evil spread across Hyrule."

The times that characters speak about Ganon's minions invading Hyrule, which forced the Knights and Sages to try to stop them.

Originally Posted by Artemicion

They say he planned to do so, but that he first had to break the seal and cross over to the Light World.

After the demon invasion plan failed.

Originally Posted by Sign-of-Madness

Can you elaborate on that a bit?

Certainly.
The SNES manual requires for the Seal War to be the first time the Triforce was ever touched, and that this touching of the Triforce marked the "birth" (Japanese word can mean literally birth, or the beginning of something completely new) of Ganon, the King of Evil.

It is also required (if taken completely literally, and not as a legendary account) that Ganondorf entered the Sacred Realm with a band of theives, killed them all, and then wished upon the Triforce. Though not technically stated, it is heavily implied that this wish was granted.

Either way, his "malicious/evil power" left the Sacred Realm (he personally did not, just his power) and threatened Hyrule. The King ordered the Sages to Seal this evil, and the Hylian Kinghts died in protection of the Sages, who succeeded in casting the Seal.

This event cannot take place before Ocarina of Time, because Ganondorf had not entered the Sacred Realm, and was still looking for a way to do so.

This event cannot take place during Ocarina of Time, becuase Ganondorf himself left the Sacred Realm for seven years before getting Sealed in it, and there were no knights present at the time of the Sealing.

This event cannot take place in between Ocarina of Time's child ending and Twilight Princess, as Ganondorf was in the Twilight Realm at that time.

This event cannot take place after Ocarina of Time, as it would not be the birth of Ganon.

This event cannot take place after Twilight Princess as it would not be the birth of Ganon.

All the details laid out in the SNES manual simply cannot. function without being distorted into legends.

The events in both manuals are essentially the same, so I don't see any reason to dismiss the older manual simply because the new one is abridged. At the time the GBA version was released, OOT was already released, and WW had not yet been, so if there is an incentive for Nintendo to remove conflicting story elements, I suggest it's because the in-game events of OOT already told the story far better than the original manual had (retcon style changes). For me, I say the older manual trumps the short one because it is more complete, but the events of OOT trumps them both because it is actual in-game footage of the same events described that are in the manual.

lol @ copy pasta

However langford that philosophy only works if we assume the directors still consider Ocarina of Time to be the Seal War.