Cementing AoL on the CT

Originally Posted by bitterlime

No, it was even unlikley at the time of LoZ release since the Loz map had no castle, let alone much population. It was always more fitting to assume that those things are off map.

But if "LoZ's Hyrule Castle" was destroyed it wouldn't be on the map
either... this would also explain the people scattered into caves.

Originally Posted by bitterlime

And after the release of AoL it was pretty obvious where Impa and Zelda came from.

I'm not so certain, if their original home was destroyed, it's only natural
that they would relocate to North Castle.

Originally Posted by bitterlime

No it makes no sense...Ganon never destroyed Hyrule castle when he took over it.

He did in OoT, (LoZ may parallel this, like it parallels Ganon taking the ToP)

Originally Posted by bitterlime

In fact we don't even know if he took it over. All that is said in LoZ is that he stole the ToP and kidnapped the princess.

We know that Ganon and his army stormed in. While not proven, I find
castle damage very likely. Even in TP Zant's little invasion caused significant
damage.

Originally Posted by bitterlime

I'll go with north castle being "Hyrule castle" rather than assuming that there is a hyrule castle we never see.

I dunno, "North Castle" implies that there is more than one castle, or else
what does the term 'North' differentiate it from?

Also, if Hyrule Castle = North Castle why don't we hear the phrase "North Castle"
in any other game?

Also, the Hyrule Castle in OoT, FSA, TP, etc. matches up with LoZ Hyrule,
not the portion introduced in AoL Hyrule...

I can appreciate your hesitation based on lack of evidence, but it seems the
evidence points to North Castle ≠ Hyrule Castle.

Originally Posted by bitterlime

Yet such an explanation is not needed since the manual referes to damage spread over Hyrule, and the picture shows the destruction of a village.

A village destroyed? That's more info than you get in that image of two Moblins
and a Goriya. I don't see how you can determine if the damage from them is
minor or major.

Originally Posted by bitterlime

We never see it from far away enough to see it's base.The area where the water would be is not visible.

Therefore, we can't prove it's surrounded by water.

Also, what about the elevation? North Castle doesn't seem elevated in the
in-game map. I know you can attribute this to level-of-detail, but you can
just as well say that in-game maps are more canon.

Originally Posted by bitterlime

Because there has to be more to the building. Especially since Impa leads Link to the specific "door that does not open".

Perhaps. Maybe the closed door is the only chamber, maybe North Castle
is larger than Zelda's chamber... but how much larger? Hard to say.

Originally Posted by bitterlime

I also noticed that I should have shown this picture instead, as it is more obvious here that north castle is depicted.

It shows Link leaving for his adventure. From where does he leave? Where does he start in game? North castle.

That looks like good support for you, but does that picture show him beginning
his adventure, or does it show him on his adventure? If it's the latter, it may
simply be that Hyrule Castle is visible from far off.

Originally Posted by Potent Col

Cukeman: Hyryle Castle was protected by a seal when Hyrule was under water!

I'm afraid that Daphnes wish removed the seal. Remember Hyrule was flooded
at the end of WW? WW's Hyrule Castle was flooded.

Originally Posted by Potent Col

Maze Island is and island, what else is there to it?

You would have to prove that on the Child Timeline Maze Island is landlocked.

Originally Posted by Potent Col

In Phantom Hourglass, it is small; in the Advetnure of Link is is big and connected to another island, showing: expanding landmass and connecting islands.

I object. There is no proof that the Child Timeline has no ocean, none, nada, zilch!
The AoL map may simply show the ocean & islands east of "Old" Hyrule...

Originally Posted by Potent Col

The Adventure of Link's overoworld is basically ravaged landscape, expanding islands, water, and don't you find it suspcious... that is appears as if the land is new? The Advetnure of Link's Hyrule is basically new when you look at it, and made up of islands.

I agree that AoL map can easily be seen as post-flood, but this is
extremely biased and has no absolute evidence. The AoL map
only has THREE certifiable islands. There is NO evidence that
the portion of the map with North Castle is an island:



In fact since the map shows 'the largest island in Hyrule' we can
conclude that North Castle is NOT on an island.

People who claim post-flood AoL just ignore these facts, it's far
too speculative. Until there is proof that the Child Timeline
has no ocean, and until there is proof that North Castle is on
an island... there just is a strong lack of evidence that AoL
is post-flood (based on the visible ocean)

Originally Posted by Potent Col

You fail to notice how extremely post-flood orinentated the Advetnure of Link is.

Bias and speculation.

Originally Posted by Potent Col

Spirit Tracks will certainly prove your wrong about placing it on the chuld timeline.

At this point in time, this is speculation. What is your track history on telling
the future? If you are right (based on evidence not up for interpretation) then
I will change my timeline. I have changed my timeline twice in the past few
months, so I am open to change as long as there is strong evidence. At the moment
the evidence that AoL features the Great Sea is not provable. The weight of a
theory depends upon how well it is grounded in strong evidence.

Originally Posted by Potent Col

Just looking at the overworld in Spirit Tracks, I can tell it is set in The Advetnure of Link's Hyrule. Heck, the castle seen in the game looks like it might be northern castle.

You can't tell it's the AoL Hyrule based on the trailers! Ridiculous.
It may be a good theory, but it's not that certain. You are so sure, yet
the castle only "might" be North Castle? It doesn't sound like
you are too certain yourself. We really don't know what will change
from the trailer to the release. It's just too soon to tell. This just reflects
on your habit of jumping on a theory before it can be proven.

I will admit there is reason to support post-WW AoL, but I will also
take into account that it is largely interpretational, and that there is
evidence against post-WW AoL.

How we judge this evidence will certainly vary from person to person,
but it must ALL be taken into account before we make a decision, or
else we can't make an informed decision.

Originally Posted by Cukeman

But if "LoZ's Hyrule Castle" was destroyed it wouldn't be on the map
either... this would also explain the people scattered into caves.

My problem with that is that we never hear of this "LoZ's Hyrule Castle", we can't really just assume it to be there. I admit that the maps are anything but detailed in LoZ.

He did in OoT, (LoZ may parallel this, like it parallels Ganon taking the ToP)

I considered that more of an takeover ...but yeah you are right he does destroy the old castle to built his castle i that place. But he only does so after succesfully taking over Hyrule during Links 7 year slumber. His first attack was more of a raid, and LoZ sounds more like a raid to.

We know that Ganon and his army stormed in. While not proven, I find
castle damage very likely. Even in TP Zant's little invasion caused significant
damage.

True, but the game indicates that there was damage all over Hyrule. So yeah. It still seems likley that north castle is the scene of all these events though. Since it's the only castle that is every talked about in LoZ and AoL.

I dunno, "North Castle" implies that there is more than one castle, or else
what does the term 'North' differentiate it from?

I guess that's a point...north castle is the castle in the north...that's where the term clearly comes from. But it's strange that they call it north castle since. I guess that does imply that there are more castles.
The point that north castle is the only castle that plays a role in the story of AoL and LoZ still stands though.

Also, if Hyrule Castle = North Castle why don't we hear the phrase "North Castle"
in any other game?

Because we never saw north castle again...at least I don't think we did. I didn't want to say that north castle is the same hyrule castle that we see in other games. I just meant that north castle is the hyrulian castle in AoL.
Hyrule castle had it's first appearance in ALttP.

Also, the Hyrule Castle in OoT, FSA, TP, etc. matches up with LoZ Hyrule,
not the portion introduced in AoL Hyrule...

That's what I meant with the part of my reply above. Hyrule castle of ALttP, FSA etc should be in the LoZ, map...yet at that point only 2 little islands with ruined underground temples remain. Sreems like if LoZ happens in the same place as ALttP and co, then ALttPs castle is long gone and the sewers might be one of the two dungends that are near it's former location.
That might also explain why north castle is named north castle. When north castle was built AlttP'S hyrule castle might still have been in one piece.
But it apparently is gone by the time of LoZ and AoL.

I can appreciate your hesitation based on lack of evidence, but it seems the
evidence points to North Castle ≠ Hyrule Castle.

Yes I do agree to that. I've choosen my words badly earlier. I do not believe north castle to be Hyrule Castle. I think it's the equivalent to the Hyrule Castle of other games, the only castle in LoZ and AoL.

A village destroyed? That's more info than you get in that image of two Moblins and a Goriya. I don't see how you can determine if the damage from them is minor or major.

Okay the destruction of a village was clearly stretching it. Wgat I meant is that there is destruction all over Hyrule.

Therefore, we can't prove it's surrounded by water.

I forgot the relavance of the water to be honest. The map shows the north castle to be surounded by water. And the manual never shows the bottom of the castle it depicts.

Also, what about the elevation? North Castle doesn't seem elevated in the
in-game map. I know you can attribute this to level-of-detail, but you can
just as well say that in-game maps are more canon.

Ineed I do think that's a lack of detail. But I can't stop people from saying that the ingame map should be treated as more reliable.

Perhaps. Maybe the closed door is the only chamber, maybe North Castle
is larger than Zelda's chamber... but how much larger? Hard to say.

Given that it is well...a castle. I would say it's of decent size.

That looks like good support for you, but does that picture show him beginning his adventure, or does it show him on his adventure? If it's the latter, it may simply be that Hyrule Castle is visible from far off.

I think it would be strange to show Link on his adventure. The manual usually stops where the game starts. I think it's rather obvious that he's leaving from north castle and that this last picture in the manual story refers to the last statement in the manual story and also the moment the actual game starts.

^ I found everything you said to be fair and valid

Originally Posted by Cukeman

^ I found everything you said to be fair and valid

Thanks, debating that with you made me understand it better than before. ...at least that's what I think.

One thing I have a hard time with is that basically throughout the Zelda series until WW:

LoZ
AoL
ALttP
OoT

We become familiar with the land of Hyrule. Then Wind Waker rolls along, and with a
huge surprise twist, Hyrule is flooded by Daphnes. This is a colossal shift in the series,
leading one to wonder what will come next...

...then we find out that we've already explored the new world in the first 2 NES games...
talk about a letdown...

I've been considering the AoL BS. One theory is that the scroll was written
after the sleeping spell was cast on Zelda, but I find this unlikely. This theory
makes the claim that there are two kings in the AoL BS (Zelda's father, and
the scroll-writer). The manual says nothing to clarify that there is more than
one king.

The king who wrote the scroll is said to have ruled with the Triforce, the
message he leaves in the scroll is that the Triforce cannot be used as a
whole unless the user has the 'balance' spoken of in OoT.

Impa's duty was to watch for somebody with balance who could break the
spell on the sleeping Zelda. The crest on AoL Link's hand was a sign that
AoL Link was a person with 'balance'. So whether or not Impa knew what
the symbol meant, she was on the watch for someone with balance.

So, we can conclude that the scroll-writer was a man with balance, and
that it wasn't until AoL Link that someone with balance was born into
the world. The Impa family had been watching for the one with the crest.
Only someone with balance could use the Triforce to awaken Zelda.



My point is, that if the scroll-writer (a man with balance) wrote the scroll
after the sleeping spell was cast, then the scroll-writer himself could have
awoken Zelda, since he had balance.

The Impa family knew that it took the whole Triforce to awaken Zelda,
but this information is not on the scroll. The idea that the Impa family
failed to notice their own king ruling with the whole Triforce, and neither
asked him to awaken Zelda, or told him the story of why princesses are
named Zelda is very implausible. Any king of Hyrule would surely know
the legend of the sleeping Zelda.

Because the scroll was kept next to the altar where sleeping Zelda lay, it
seems even more unlikely that the scroll-writer did not know about Zelda.



What I think really happened is that Zelda's father wrote the scroll, hid the
Triforce of Courage because the prince did not have balance, and told
Zelda about the Triforce of Courage. Then, when the king died, a sleeping
spell was cast on Zelda as a result of the prince's search for the Triforce
of Courage. This makes the AoL BS far less convoluted.

Originally Posted by bitterlime

The hell? What you said makes no sense. Quite in contrary one should ask why someone WOULD remember the naming tradition, if the majority of the old legends and traditions are lost and there is not even a royal family...or a royality at all.
The only one that seems to remember is Daphnes.

I wasn't referring to Daphnes. I was referring to the princess' parents at the time of the flood.

[quote]I don't necisariely agree. I don't mind the whole naming traditon to be a post flood occurance. I don't give a ***** about the naing tradition anyway to be honest since AoLs backstory and it's "naming tradition" explanation thing are outdated imo.[/qupte]

still happened.

1 - If this is the first princess to be named Zelda, then we have two options:

(1A) - either the AoL backstory occurs before OoT
(1B) - OoT Zelda is the princess in the AoL backstory

I stopped reading there.

False Delimna.

Look it up. I've never actually seen a false dilema (ugh I need to learn to spell this word lol) in debate, but that is most definitely one.

First princess of new Hyrule can be sleeping Zelda, btw.

Originally Posted by Table

I stopped reading there.

False Delimna.

Look it up. I've never actually seen a false dilema (ugh I need to learn to spell this word lol) in debate, but that is most definitely one.

How on earth is that a false dilemma?
What part of "first" don't you understand?

If she is first that means she is before OoT Zelda, or she is OoT Zelda.

Originally Posted by Table

First princess of new Hyrule can be sleeping Zelda, btw.

Not if sleeping Zelda was the first princess named Zelda.
(OoT Zelda comes before WW)

Originally Posted by Cukeman

How on earth is that a false dilemma?
What part of "first" don't you understand?

If she is first that means she is before OoT Zelda, or she is OoT Zelda.



Not if sleeping Zelda was the first princess named Zelda.
(OoT Zelda comes before WW)

It's actually first/founder. As in the founder of the naming tradition. Besides, it'd still be the first Zelda, just the first Zelda of New Hyrule.

Originally Posted by Cukeman

How on earth is that a false dilemma?
What part of "first" don't you understand?

If she is first that means she is before OoT Zelda, or she is OoT Zelda.

What TotG said. The first Zelda of a particular Hyrule could be the first Zelda referred to in the AoL BS. So for anyone with an AT placement of AoL, the Zelda of the "new Hyrule" can be the first generation/founder of that Hyrule. Therefore, there is no dilemma.

Although there really isn't anything to back it up:

It's possible that the Royal Family princesses weren't all necessarily named Zelda in succession. For example:

Zelda -> Ophelia -> Diana -> Edea -> (Sleeping) Zelda -> Zelda -> Zelda -> etc.

Sleeping Zelda could be the founder of the naming tradition in which every subsequent princess must be named Zelda.

Credit goes to MPS on LA for thinking that up.

Again, I don't really have anything to back up the princesses being named something else, it just seems like a painless way to explain the Sleeping Zelda story so it's out of the way.

^ That's another great alternative. The point is, the First/Founder Zelda quote is often seen as too strict, when realistically, we don't know when the naming tradition began prior to AoL. It doesn't necessarily have to be Zelda from OoT, as many people first assume it is.

Cukeman, you being biased. The Legend of Zelda's Hyrule ("old" Hyrule) is south of The Adventure of Link's map in the bottom left corner, not west of it.

>:|

Originally Posted by Jarsh

Although there really isn't anything to back it up:

It's possible that the Royal Family princesses weren't all necessarily named Zelda in succession. For example:

Zelda -> Ophelia -> Diana -> Edea -> (Sleeping) Zelda -> Zelda -> Zelda -> etc.

Sleeping Zelda could be the founder of the naming tradition in which every subsequent princess must be named Zelda.

Credit goes to MPS on LA for thinking that up.

Again, I don't really have anything to back up the princesses being named something else, it just seems like a painless way to explain the Sleeping Zelda story so it's out of the way.

As shown by Tetra, the tradition has to happen post Tetra

Originally Posted by Twilit_Hylian

As shown by Tetra, the tradition has to happen post Tetra

This strikes me as odd logic.
Why did Daphnes call Tetra Zelda then?

Originally Posted by bitterlime

This strikes me as odd logic.
Why did Daphnes call Tetra Zelda then?

Because she - whoa, I was already in trouble two words in that sentence.

I just personally believe that the tradition began post Zelda

Originally Posted by Twilit_Hylian

Because she - whoa, I was already in trouble two words in that sentence.

I just personally believe that the tradition began post Zelda

"Personally believe" sounds much better than: "Tetra = proof that the naming tradition has to happen after Tetra".

If she is first that means she is before OoT Zelda, or she is OoT Zelda.

It's actually first generation.
Or it could even be founder.

Now think. If Tetra was continued to be called Tetra (as we know she wants to be) but named her daughter Zelda, then wouldn't that daughter be the first generation Zelda of new Hyrule?

It's a lot of speculation, of course, but it's the only way for the AoL BS to work fully.

Not if sleeping Zelda was the first princess named Zelda.
(OoT Zelda comes before WW)

How in ****ing hell would Tetra or Link know that there were any previous Zelda's?

Originally Posted by Triforce of the Gods

It's actually first/founder. As in the founder of the naming tradition. Besides, it'd still be the first Zelda, just the first Zelda of New Hyrule.

When I said first Zelda, I meant first princess to be named Zelda in the
entire history of the world.

What you said is an alternative possibility, but you can't just stick your
definition of first (first Zelda of New Hyrule) into my sentence.

You can change the meaning of a game quote that way, but since I was
using first to mean "first in history" then what I said was accurate.

Originally Posted by Viral

Therefore, there is no dilemma.

There is if first means "first in history" which was how I used it in the sentence.

Originally Posted by Potent Col

Cukeman, you being biased. The Legend of Zelda's Hyrule ("old" Hyrule) is south of The Adventure of Link's map in the bottom left corner, not west of it.

>:|

You are being biased too. LoZ Hyrule could be either the tiny SW corner of the AoL map,
or that SW corner could just as easily be only part of the LoZ map. I believe the latter.

Anyhow, I never said that LoZ Hyrule was West of the AoL map.
the AoL map is North of the LoZ map, and stretches to the East (thus NorthEast as I claimed).

The point is that no matter if the SW corner of the AoL map is all of LoZ Hyrule
or not, going strictly straight-up north from that area will NOT bring you to North
Castle, You still have to veer a bit to the East. That is why I said North Castle is
NorthEast of the LoZ map.