Master Sword Grove vs. Lost Master Sword- A Link to the Past Placment Debate!

Originally Posted by Jarsh

You see, the thing is it's because the new intent is debatable, whereas the old intent is more set in stone, it leaves a feeling of security. We can't all be tools for thinking differently.

Set in stone? Hardly. The new intent is no more debatable than the old intent. Wind Waker clearly interferes with the old intent of OoTA - ALTTP, and then TP comes in and makes a connection with ALTTP, with the new intent being OoTC - TP - ALTTP. There's clearly a pattern which favors the new intent.

Also, not everyone are tools. Only those who doesn't even make a effort to think for themselves for change are. For example, that game over maniac who states thing without backing them up is tool.

I agree with Jarsh that while in AlttP and TP the MS is found in a forest and grove, the two places are in completely different areas of the map. Those two evidences cancel each other out, I reckon.

I submit that the Noble Sword in OoX is ALttP's Master Sword; look at the hilts, they're completely different from OoT/TP/TWW's Master Sword!

Jarsh: storyline triumphs geography in the timeline. Geography is never exactly the same between each game and never will be. The Master's Swords location and various storyline elements in Twilight Princess connect up with A Link to the Past, and various things about the way the characaters begin to dress and Hylian tradition matches, too.

In Twilight Princess, Hyrule is populated by Hylians, but you can see the numbers decreasing and more humans being born. A Link to the Past refers to the time when Hyrule was populated by lots of Hylians - lots of Hylians contradicts the adult timeline - and how the numbers naturally decreased.

The New Hyrule, based on adult timeline facts, will only be populated by a few Hylians and lots of humans. A Link to the Past says Hyrule was once just Hylians - this is a refernece the The Minish Cap and Ocarina of Time, where there were only Hylians - and says they decreased naturally.

The adult timeline just killed most Hylians off like that with the flood and then found a new Hyrule that would have mainly humans. Because of the adult timeline events, it contradicts A Link to0 the Past: if A Link to the Past is in the new Hyrule, why does it mentioned when THAT land had lots of Hylians? The new Hyrule could never have had lots of Hylians, as they already became rare and there were mainly humans.

Originally Posted by Nerushi

Set in stone? Hardly. The new intent is no more debatable than the old intent. Wind Waker clearly interferes with the old intent of OoTA - ALTTP, and then TP comes in and makes a connection with ALTTP, with the new intent being OoTC - TP - ALTTP. There's clearly a pattern which favors the new intent.

There's clearly a pattern when we involve our own personal bias. To choose either side means to be biased towards it, I think. One could say that TWW doesn't interfere with ALttP too much as long as FSA picks up the pieces and puts it back together. But yeah, you're right, a lot of that old intent is debatable still.

Originally Posted by Potent Col

The Master Sword's grove appearance is a huge storyline element in both Twilight Princess and A Link to the Past. The Master Sword's flood demise on the adult timeline of The Wind Waker is part os the storyline. Timelines are supposed to follow storyline elements and refernece.

GAME OVER

ALTTP most important storyline is the backstory(Sacred realm and triforce), and the backstory of ALTTP dont match with OOT-MM-TP

GAME OVER

Originally Posted by Potent Col

Jarsh: storyline triumphs geography in the timeline. Geography is never exactly the same between each game and never will be. The Master's Swords location and various storyline elements in Twilight Princess connect up with A Link to the Past, and various things about the way the characaters begin to dress and Hylian tradition matches, too.

In Twilight Princess, Hyrule is populated by Hylians, but you can see the numbers decreasing and more humans being born. A Link to the Past refers to the time when Hyrule was populated by lots of Hylians - lots of Hylians contradicts the adult timeline - and how the numbers naturally decreased.

The New Hyrule, based on adult timeline facts, will only be populated by a few Hylians and lots of humans. A Link to the Past says Hyrule was once just Hylians - this is a refernece the The Minish Cap and Ocarina of Time, where there were only Hylians - and says they decreased naturally.

The adult timeline just killed most Hylians off like that with the flood and then found a new Hyrule that would have mainly humans. Because of the adult timeline events, it contradicts A Link to0 the Past: if A Link to the Past is in the new Hyrule, why does it mentioned when THAT land had lots of Hylians? The new Hyrule could never have had lots of Hylians, as they already became rare and there were mainly humans.

Were there to be a New Hyrule it's uncertain as to whether it would be populated by descendants of the pirates, Link, and Tetra, or if they brought a bunch of people from the Great Sea over.

Originally Posted by Jarsh

There's clearly a pattern when we involve our own personal bias. To choose either side means to be biased towards it, I think. One could say that TWW doesn't interfere with ALttP too much as long as FSA picks up the pieces and puts it back together. But yeah, you're right, a lot of that old intent is debatable still.

Yes, but that only works if you can somehow confirm that FSA belongs on the AT, as otherwise it's just theory based on theory, not the same way that we know TP belongs on the CT, and that ALTTP follow. That's a theory based on a confirmed placement, and not a theory based on a assumed placement. FSA could just as well be the piece that futhers the new intent. ( TP-ALTTP )

Also, a little bias is cruical to decisiveness... Probably.

@Nerushi: Your judging that based on your bias that OoT directly lead into ALttP when it never did.

Man. This is turning into a pretty heated debate.

Originally Posted by Triforce of the Gods

@Nerushi: Your judging that based on your bias that OoT directly lead into ALttP when it never did.

I agree with Nerushi. I think the original intent was an OoT-ALttP connection.

Originally Posted by Triforce of the Gods

@Nerushi: Your judging that based on your bias that OoT directly lead into ALttP when it never did.

Hardly. I am jugding that based on the fact that WW interferes with cruical elements that is required for OoT to be the ALTTP BS, and that other games seem to imply that there no longer is a need for OoT to be it either.

OoT not leading directly into ALTTP is just a ruse to support the AT, based on something really vague. ( Obviously talking about the infamous Miyamoto timeline )

The infamous Miyamoto timeline never made any sense even when there were only 6 games. Two of which had a direct sequel/prequel relationship to the other two (LoZ/AoL and aLttP/LA) while Ocarina was alone, mind you.

Back then, even the the A Link to the Past manual said that it was the prequel of The Legend of Zelda, making it come after Ocarina with nothing inbetween at the time.

Originally Posted by Bingo675

I agree with Nerushi. I think the original intent was an OoT-ALttP connection.

Miyamoto>what you think.

I'm not going to keep responding to the "it didn't make sense" crap because I already explained why it made more sense than what people thought it was.

Originally Posted by Triforce of the Gods

Miyamoto>what you think.

Right, because Miyamoto sooo knew the timeline.

Chance that Miyamoto was misquoted, made a mistake, or just plain out didn't really know ( like the link suggest ) is very high. But we'll never know that, since our only source is an 11 year old NPM.

1. Whether Miyamoto knew what he was talking about or not doesn't change the fact that his timeline made more sense.

2. You trust Dan Owsen, the worst translator ever, over Bill Trinen who is a good tranlater?

Originally Posted by Triforce of the Gods

1. Whether Miyamoto knew what he was talking about or not doesn't change the fact that his timeline made more sense.

No it doesn't. Maybe out of your biased perspective.

Originally Posted by Triforce of the Gods

2. You trust Dan Owsen, the worst translator ever, over Bill Trinen who is a good tranlater?

Owsen had asked Miyamoto a question what the timeline was and he responded that he didn't know. Just how does Bill Trinen has anything to do with this?

Originally Posted by Nerushi

No it doesn't. Maybe out of your biased perspective.

Right, because thinking one inconsistancy is better than two is being biased.

Originally Posted by Nerushi

Owsen had asked Miyamoto a question what the timeline was and he responded that he didn't know. Just how does Bill Trinen has anything to do with this?

Bill Trinen says that there is a timeline and there was one for as long as he was working for Nintendo. Seeing as he actually works with NoJ representatives and Owsen didn't, I trust Trinen more.

I submit that the Noble Sword in OoX is ALttP's Master Sword; look at the hilts, they're completely different from OoT/TP/TWW's Master Sword!

I hope you're joking...

Seeing as this is about intent, I may aswell throw in my two cents which will probably turn into a few paragraphs:

We have clear intent that LoZ/AoL come on the AT.

We also have clear intent that ALttP comes on the CT.

This creates a problem however: The FSS.

See FSA connects quite clearly to ALttP. But TMC clearly connects to OoX and LoZ which we know for a fact come on the AT, thanks to Aonuma, PH references, and FPTRRL.

So what do we have now?

/TWW/PH-ST-LoZ/AoL-OoS/OoA-TMC
OoT
\MM-TP-FS/FSA-ALttP/LA

.........Yeah right.

My point on this topic is that we do NOT know clear intent untill ST comes out. We either have to place TMC and FSA on different timelines, put ALttP on both timelines/make a merge, or completely seperate the FSS from the timeline.

And that's only looking at DI. If we take Geography into the picture, then the timeline only becomes more ♥♥♥♥ed up because TP's map doesn't line up with any other one.

Originally Posted by Triforce of the Gods

Right, because thinking one inconsistancy is better than two is being biased.

All these inconsistencies... Tss tss. No wonder they strayed away from the idea of OoT being SW.

Originally Posted by Triforce of the Gods

Bill Trinen says that there is a timeline and there was one for as long as he was working for Nintendo. Seeing as he actually works with NoJ representatives and Owsen didn't, I trust Trinen more.

Owsen opinion on the timeline doesn't have anything to do with this. Had he gotten a positive respone from Miyamoto about what the timeline was then he might had another opinion. Point is, he asked Miyamoto, Miyamoto didn't know.
This has nothing to do with Bill Trinen ( and if you must know, yes, I think Bill Trinen is a better translator, but that completely beside the point. )

Pinecove, the geograpghy doesn't matter much on the timeline, the developers make that clear. They don't design games to all match perectly with geography, they make the story and references play part in the timeline.

The develppers are well aware of connecting the timeline, but they regard geography a majority o the time as part of the gameplay. Gameplay isn't a timeline indicator, and therefore the geography should play little part in timeline indicators. The story, however, goes with timeline.

Gameplay = geography
Story = timeline

What we have is that the timeline is mainly centred on the actual story, not the geograpghy of each game. They simply will not make every Hyrule look the same, but give a basic reason for some changes in-game: Twilight Princess mentioned landslides and there were chams everywhere.

But in the end, in timeline theorizing, one must forget the geography, as they mostly base that on gameplay. They use the storyline as to what the timeline placment is.

For example, Ocarina of Time is supposed to be the story of how the towns were mamed in The Adventure of Link.