Four Swords/Adventures - pre-OoT, child timeline or adult timeline?

Originally Posted by Nerushi

It's almost funny how misinformed you are. The interview itself was made in March 2004. Now when was FSA released in Japan? Oh right, March 2004. Yes, obviously the game wasn't finished, at the time of it's release.



No kidding. The difference here being that Aonuma stated that FSA was the oldest tale just some days before its release. It's more likely that the oldest tale statement was made by the "change until the end", as FSA showed signs of being IW but then "Mr. Miyamoto then came in and upended the teatable... we changed the story around quite a bit..."

Edit: Did my homework and it seems that the oldest tale statement and the changed until the end are both from the same ******* interview. They both came from the 'Game Developers Conference in March 2004', just released at different points. There goes your argument out of the window.

and if you look more carefully at the quote you will notice that Aonuma was referring to the GBA four swords, not FSA. Considering that he was barely involved with the production of FS, it is entirely possible that his initial timeline placement was not accurate.

I have a question: Potent col, is your Timeline supposed to be canon or is it just for fun?

Child Timeline: OoT/MM - TP - ALttP/AST/LA
Adult Timeline: OoT - tWW/PH - FPTRR - LoZ/AoL - OoA/OoS - tMC - FS/FSA

umm, FSA can't go before OoT because its already confirmed by the creators that OoT is the first game that mentions ganon and in FSA he is mentioned..

Originally Posted by Tyras

and if you look more carefully at the quote you will notice that Aonuma was referring to the GBA four swords, not FSA. Considering that he was barely involved with the production of FS, it is entirely possible that his initial timeline placement was not accurate.

If you look even more carefully, you'll see that the question was about how FSA Link is related to the others, not FS. Unless FS Link is FSA Link, Aonuma statement wouldn't make sense. Separating the two games is just stupid. Especially when it's implied that FSA happens after FS with the same Link.

Also, whether or not the intial timeline placement is accurate or not is truly irrelevant in this case. Had he stated that he made a mistake, which he never did, then yeah. Also, nothing suggest that he strayed away from this either. Only reason people can't accept it is because they feel an need to struggle out their daily AT vs CT battle, which has influenced the timeline among theorizer a lot, for better and worse. A lot of worse I must say, as there's an immense amount of bias involved that even breaks down an developers statement.

^Source?

Sure, I'll source it for you.

Orgin of 'changed until the end'.
http://www.nintendoworldreport.com/s...cfm?artid=2180

During Game Developers Conference in March 2004, Planet GameCube was fortunate enough to participate in a roundtable interview with Eiji Aonuma, previously the director of The Legend of Zelda: Majora’s Mask and The Legend of Zelda: The Wind Waker, and currently producer of all games in the Zelda franchise.

Orgin of 'oldest tale'.
http://www.gameinformer.com/News/Sto...1915.59084.htm

During the Game Developer’s Conference (yeah, that long ago), Game Informer Online Managing Editor Billy Berghammer got an exclusive one-on-one interview with Nintendo’s new Zelda producer and Deputy Manager of EAD’s Software Designing Department, Eiji Aonuma. We asked Mr. Aonuma about his new position, the upcoming Legend of Zelda: Four Swords Adventures, Wind Waker 2, and the Nintendo DS.

His timeline is serious.

Those aren't in the same interveiw though like you said they were.

GAME OVER

Also:

One was that it was a sequel to the Game Boy Advance Four Swords game, and so for the continuity there we wanted to retain the same graphic style.

Hmmm... Looks like we can throw TMC-FS-OoT.....-FSA out the window.

Originally Posted by Pinecove

Those aren't in the same interveiw though like you said they were

GAME OVER

You're such a tool. They're from the same conference. Erimgard argument was based on the assumptation that the oldest tale statement was made pre-release by huge margin, and that the "changed til the end" would counter it.

Now stop trolling, or is this really the best you can do against honest reasoning?

umm, FSA can't go before OoT because its already confirmed by the creators that OoT is the first game that mentions ganon and in FSA he is mentioned..

2004>1998. Also, FSA Ganon has a different orgin than OoT Ganon. OoT Ganon isn't mentioned anywhere in FSA.

You're such a tool. They're from the same conference. Erimgard argument was based on the assumptation that the oldest tale statement was made pre-release by huge margin, and that the "changed til the end" would counter it.

Now stop trolling, or is this really the best you can do against honest reasoning?

How the **** am I trolling? I you said they were from the same interveiw jackass.

Originally Posted by Nerushi

Edit: Did my homework and it seems that the oldest tale statement and the changed until the end are both from the same ******* interview. They both came from the 'Game Developers Conference in March 2004', just released at different points. There goes your argument out of the window.

Originally Posted by Nerushi

Also, whether or not the intial timeline placement is accurate or not is truly irrelevant in this case. Had he stated that he made a mistake, which he never did, then yeah. Also, nothing suggest that he strayed away from this either. Only reason people can't accept it is because they feel an need to struggle out their daily AT vs CT battle, which has influenced the timeline among theorizer a lot, for better and worse. A lot of worse I must say, as there's an immense amount of bias involved that even breaks down an developers statement.

It seems someones been watching too much Impossible (Maybe Person is to blame, rather).

Stop pretending like you know what your talking about. I've just about had enough of reading your posts full of your typical asshattery attitude.

Here's some sound advice: Stop provoking ad hominem responses from others by your own violently toned responses. Fuck the political history ingrained within the past of this place, and just debate. If you do any more than that, your not the solution to the problem... YOU ARE THE PROBLEM; staging this thread like people are purposely treating every thread like a battleground between AT bias and CT bias.

And another thing. Don't even think I'm targeting you because of your bias. That's hardly the case, and I won't allow you to have that as your defense because your turning this thread (plus warping your own general perspective) into something much more than theorizing. I've worked too hard, seen too much, and wasted too much time to see history repeat itself to someone so bent on turning this hobby into a "survival of the fittest" game-show.

God damn LA Forums. Fuck already. Enough is enough.

Edit:

Please change your perspective Nerushi. Your caliber is better off than wasting your time and energy into the dirt you suspect of others, or partially know on others.


Note to Self:

It appears that exposing and provoking the ugliness of this hobby before, during the "Timeline Wars", has been forgotten and skewed by newbies that couldn't have learned anything from it - because it is not their past...

Originally Posted by Pinecove

His timeline is serious.

Quoted for awesome Pinecove-loving truth.

Wait- why wouldn't anyone think my timeline was serious? :/

Originally Posted by Potent Col

Wait- why wouldn't anyone think my timeline was serious? :/

Beats me, that's a pretty decent timeline.

Originally Posted by Potent Col

Quoted for awesome Pinecove-loving truth.

Wait- why wouldn't anyone think my timeline was serious? :/

well, you do seem to change it a lot. it's hard to keep up when your views are constantly shifitng. The one you've got now makes good sense though.

Originally Posted by Triforce of the Gods

Beats me, that's a pretty decent timeline.

It is a fracking awesome timeline, if I do say so myself!

I include official Nintento timeline-indicating spin-offs, too. The fact remains that the spin-offs make mention of the events in some main series games, meaning they fall into continuity.

One Tingle game mentions the events of the Oracles in a post-flood world and shows The Wind Waker's islands expanding into the Hyrule seen in Four Swords Advetnures.

I include known spin-off, and nothing can change my mind about them.

Originally Posted by Potent Col

I include official Nintento timeline-indicating spin-offs, too. The fact remains that the spin-offs make mention of the events in some main series games, meaning they fall into continuity.

One Tingle game mentions the events of the Oracles in a post-flood world and shows The Wind Waker's islands expanding into the Hyrule seen in Four Swords Advetnures.

I include known spin-off, and nothing can change my mind about them.

it seems odd that you include FPTRRL as canon and not the FS temple in LttP GBA. Both are questionable, but one is at least in a confirmed canon game.

Originally Posted by Tyras

well, you do seem to change it a lot. it's hard to keep up when your views are constantly shifitng. The one you've got now makes good sense though.

You obviously weren't here when Pinecove changed it like once a month

Faggery Daggery Doo

^I concur. LoL

I'm going to have to ask Pinecove what his Timeline is.


As far as this thread is concerned, as is often the case in theorizing differences in opinion are mostly centered around what evidence one considers more important. It's basically geography versus Master Sword. The only thing that could change my mind about where I stand are developer quotes saying: "We don't give a damn about geography; it's all centered on the Master Sword and such".

Originally Posted by ahaha

Faggery Daggery Doo

That is what this site is called, yes. You going somewhere with this, or just bringing Zangaroa's comedy here?

Originally Posted by Slagr

it seems odd that you include FPTRRL as canon and not the FS temple in LttP GBA. Both are questionable, but one is at least in a confirmed canon game.

Palace of the Four Sword isn't much the do with the storyline of A Link to the Past. It was added mainly as a bonus gameply thing with the re-release of A Link to the Past combined with Four Swords.

Plus... I see to much saying that Four Swords/Advetnures and A Link to the Past was would-have-been same timeline games, but the child timeline indicates that A Link t0 the Past follows it and the adult timeline makes likely possibility that Four Swords Advetnures follows it.

I believe Miyamoto's tea table what that Four Swords Advetnures and A Link to the Past don't have a prequel/sequel relationship and are merely parallel now.

Originally Posted by ahaha

Faggery Daggery Doo

lol

It's funny when randoms come into the theorising section and start talking like big shots and flaming some of the well-known theorists. Makes my day.

The "First Story" quote has always been about FS GBA, and the reason it is not taken as a canonical developer quote is because Aonuma bearly had any role in the production of FS, and wouldn't have much of an idea abouts its timeline placement. Please get your facts straight before being a troll Mr. Nerushi.

a.k.a LOZ H's post ftw.