Zeldaduderox's LEGIT timeline for 2009

Originally Posted by Anubis

To get people to buy more of their games.

you still think Nintendo needs to lie about the timeline to get people to keep buying Zelda games? You're aware that no Zelda has ever gotten below an 8.7 (FSA, but that was an odd circumstance) by IGN, and if TP's success is any indicator, the public could care less. The point is, the series has an outstanding tradition of quality, and they're going to continue making record profits every time they release a game-- without "lying" about the timeline.

Originally Posted by Anubis

Good job on countering my argument, as per obvious.

There was no argument to counter:

Hahahahahahahahhaha.
I forgot to mention: People like money. Oh, but that's also forgetting the fact that everything anybody does is for their own personal gain, in one way or another.

Also, your last sentence basically helps prove my point, too.

You still have yet to provide an example.

Originally Posted by Anubis

To get people to buy more of their games.

And just how does lying about the timeline get people to buy more of their games? You really think the majority of people who buy Zelda games really give a **** about the timeline? No. We theorizing fans are in a small minority.

I, personally, would stop buying Mario games if I wasn't certain Nintendo knew which Bowser confrontation happened in which order.

^How do you know which confrontation comes in what order?

Galaxy and Paper mario have conflicting evidance. Galaxy shows the building of toad town, yet in PM bower jr doesn't seem to exist yet.

becase hardly anyone makes a mario timeline, it is just a bunch of games to most others. as for zelda it is more interesting to link them up so you have communitys like this. and ia agree with

And just how does lying about the timeline get people to buy more of their games?

as big as this community may seem it is a flea compared to the earth that is legend of zelda fans. and yes

You still have yet to provide an example.

anubis. stop avoiding

I think that at the end of the Zelda games, when they finally release their last Zelda, Miyamato will announce the timeline.

EDIT: Oh yeah and you'll all see that I'm right.

Originally Posted by Slagr

you still think Nintendo needs to lie about the timeline to get people to keep buying Zelda games? You're aware that no Zelda has ever gotten below an 8.7 (FSA, but that was an odd circumstance) by IGN, and if TP's success is any indicator, the public could care less. The point is, the series has an outstanding tradition of quality, and they're going to continue making record profits every time they release a game-- without "lying" about the timeline.

Doesn't mean they don't want more people to buy their games.

Originally Posted by Jarsh

There was no argument to counter:

You still have yet to provide an example.

Obviously, you don't understand that Examples != argument.

Originally Posted by Link92

And just how does lying about the timeline get people to buy more of their games? You really think the majority of people who buy Zelda games really give a **** about the timeline? No. We theorizing fans are in a small minority.

Depends on how they lie.
And you'd be amazed at how a little mystery can make something so much more desirable, especially something as explorable as a video game.

Originally Posted by Doomjaw

and yes anubis. stop avoiding

Doomjaw. Start arguing.

Originally Posted by Anubis

Obviously, you don't understand that Examples != argument.

It matters not, the fact you can't come up with a legitimate example means you can't properly formulate your argument. You can counter-argue until your face turns blue, but what's decisive will be the evidence/example.

Originally Posted by Anubis

Depends on how they lie.
And you'd be amazed at how a little mystery can make something so much more desirable, especially something as explorable as a video game.

Lol no. A game's placement in the timeline does not diminish or enhance a game's sales, and even if they did? Who cares? Miyamoto and Aonuma have no reason to lie about the timeline. What would they gain? What would they gain from lying about it that they can't gain from simply telling the truth?


They wouldn't give us timeline information unless it is or was once the truth. If they didn't want us to theorize, they would just tell us "Nope, there's no timeline," instead of flatout lying about the timeline. There is no reason for them to lie about it, but there IS reason to tell the truth: it's the truth. That's the reason.

Obviously, you don't understand that Examples != argument.

that is why he said

There was no argument to counter

so you obviously didn't pay attention becase he said NO ARGUMENT AT ALL

A game's placement in the timeline does not diminish or enhance a game's sales

so your saying if nintendo said this game is comeing right after TP as their way of saying "hey a sequel!" the sales would not change?

EDIT:

Doomjaw. Start arguing.

ive been argueing for about 4 pages, if you had payed attention

Originally Posted by Doomjaw

so your saying if nintendo said this game is comeing right after TP as their way of saying "hey a sequel!" the sales would not change?

No, they wouldn't. Because the vast majority of people who buy the Zelda games don't give a **** about the timeline.

Twilight Princess was one of the most successful games in the Zelda series and any game for that matter. I'd say that it would be a good decision to actually make a sequel to that game, which would be sick. However, Miyamato (Did I spell that right?) announced that the Zelda: Wii game is not going to be a sequel to Twilight Princess as we should know. I hope it's a sequel to Majora's Mask, but that seems very, Very, VERY, VVEERRYY, VVEERRYY, unlikely.

Originally Posted by xoɹǝpnpɐpןǝz

However, Miyamato (Did I spell that right?) announced that the Zelda: Wii game is not going to be a sequel to Twilight Princess as we should know. I hope it's a sequel to Majora's Mask, but that seems very, Very, VERY, VVEERRYY, VVEERRYY, unlikely.

We don't even know for sure the Link in the art is OoT Link. If anything, it will probably take place near the beginning of the timeline and show how the Master Sword transforms from an anthropomorphic being to the actual sword.

Originally Posted by xoɹǝpnpɐpןǝz

Twilight Princess was one of the most successful games in the Zelda series and any game for that matter. I'd say that it would be a good decision to actually make a sequel to that game, which would be sick. However, Miyamato (Did I spell that right?) announced that the Zelda: Wii game is not going to be a sequel to Twilight Princess as we should know. I hope it's a sequel to Majora's Mask, but that seems very, Very, VERY, VVEERRYY, VVEERRYY, unlikely.

You're such an ocarinahero10 the timeline could cry.

It is, in fact, very, verrrryyy, VERRRRRRRRY, likely that Zelda Wii follows on some years after Majora's Mask. The Link in the artwork is identical to an older Hero of Time, in adult age: same tunic, same hair colour, hairstyle, same ear piercings, same eyes. For your information, Miyamoto descibed the Link almost as if he had appeared in another game, which is suspicious.

"Now Link is older..." - Miyamoto.
Sounds as if he is refering to a Link that has appeared before, saying the Link is now older.

Originally Posted by Link92

We don't even know for sure the Link in the art is OoT Link. If anything, it will probably take place near the beginning of the timeline and show how the Master Sword transforms from an anthropomorphic being to the actual sword.

No, no, no! You are wrong wrong wrong!!! The blue Figure is not the master sword!!!!!

do you have proof that the blue figure is not the MS? we dont have any real evidence on what/who the blue figure is til the game comes out, she could be the MS, she could be the Fairy Queen, or she could be something else all together, we dont know. If someone believes that the blue figure is the MS, let them, we will find out once the game comes out.

I know that it WON'T be the Master Sword.

Originally Posted by xoɹǝpnpɐpןǝz

I know that it WON'T be the Master Sword.

No you don't. Stop stating your opinions as fact. Why are you so butthurt about people thinking she's the Master Sword?

Originally Posted by Jarsh

It matters not, the fact you can't come up with a legitimate example means you can't properly formulate your argument. You can counter-argue until your face turns blue, but what's decisive will be the evidence/example.

And have you ever come up with examples? No, you haven't. Yet, you expect me too, when you yourself haven't been living up to your whole "LOLEXAMPALZ!" requirement.

Originally Posted by Link92

Lol no. A game's placement in the timeline does not diminish or enhance a game's sales, and even if they did? Who cares?

Have you checked?

Miyamoto and Aonuma have no reason to lie about the timeline. What would they gain?

Money. I mean really, I know a good deal of the people on these forums who wouldn't buy the next Zelda if they knew exactly what the timeline is.

What would they gain from lying about it that they can't gain from simply telling the truth?

Read up.

They wouldn't give us timeline information unless it is or was once the truth.

Are you sure?

If they didn't want us to theorize, they would just tell us "Nope, there's no timeline," instead of flatout lying about the timeline.

That isn't the only thing to theorize about.

There is no reason for them to lie about it, but there IS reason to tell the truth: it's the truth. That's the reason.

I laughed.

Originally Posted by Doomjaw

that is why he said
so you obviously didn't pay attention becase he said NO ARGUMENT AT ALL

Obviously you didn't pay attention to the argument.

so your saying if nintendo said this game is comeing right after TP as their way of saying "hey a sequel!" the sales would not change?

The sales would change, in fact. That's exactly what I'm trying to state.

EDIT: ive been argueing for about 4 pages, if you had payed attention

Except you haven't been arguing at all. In fact, you're one of those people I hate. One of those guys who doesn't know how to spell and just piggybacks on the arguments of others.