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

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

By completely ignoring the point. I don't care if they're from the same interview. What's important is that they're from the same time, as they came from the same conference. If you hadn't been so rushed to post you might have figured out the point of logic, yet instead you had to pick on my mistake, which, still doesn't take away my point, but I guess it was a quick attempt to confuse me. Well that's rather obvious since no one did properly respond to it.

Originally Posted by LOZ Historian

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

No, seriously, I haven't.

Originally Posted by LOZ Historian

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.

What am I talking about then? Obviously, you just want me to not talk at all.

Originally Posted by LOZ Historian

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.

When did I do anything else than that? It's not my fault that someone had to rush a post just to prove a point against me, despite that point being unfounded and completely misleading, also acting as if it was a fact. What's important is that it could have been avoided.

Besides, what do you think you know? I am not staging anything. I am just trying to explain the reason why people choose to disregard a perfectly sound developer quote. Because there is something else than reasoning involved in this.

Originally Posted by LOZ Historian

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.

Aren't you the one doing just that. Apparently, you're the only one who actually responded to it in the first place. You haven't even repsonded to anything that's on-topic. Obviously you're encouraging this, and the only one to do so too. Your only chance at sensible post for this week, perhaps?

Originally Posted by LOZ Historian

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

You know, I haven't spent as much as even a fraction theorizing in that place, in comparison to this place. Just what makes you think that place has anything to do with the reasoning I use here. Or did you just feel like putting the blame on someone else? Or perhaps just curse them for the heck of it...

Originally Posted by Viral

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.

Well-known or not, someone has to correct them if they state false/misleading in an also lazy attempt to a post.

I don't care much for you elitist, but if I made your day, then you're welcome.

Originally Posted by Viral

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.

Which is complete bull**** and you know it. There no reason Aonuma statement isn't justified, he doesn't even refear to only himself, but "we" meaning the rest of the developers. Meaning apparently Aonuma craps out lies on the behalf of all the developers. Yeah, that sounds reasonable. Also, Aonuma was talking about FS as much as he was talking about FSA. The question was about FSA, not FS. What you apparently don't understand is that chances of FSA being the oldest tale is higher than any AT placement you can think up of in 100 days.

BB: That’s something that, you (Bill Trinen – Localization Team) and I have talked about with the release of the Zelda compilation disc, cleaning up some of the spellings like Ganon, and making sure everything is cohesive. Maybe that’s an American thing – us wanting to know how it all works together. I guess that leads me to my next questions. How do the Links in The Four Swords Adventure relate to the overall story line? Or is it just a subchapter or something like that?

EA: The GBA Four Swords Zelda is what we’re thinking as the oldest tale in the Zelda timeline. With this one on the GameCube being a sequel to that, and taking place sometime after that.

So Aonuma, a guy who had NO IDEA about the story of FS, is running around saying that it is the first game in the timeline. I don't know if your aware, but the developers have made some pretty big mistakes before. If I'm not mistaken, Miyamoto once said that WW came before OoT and had to be corrected. Yes, we should take creators quotes into consideration when thinking of the timeline, but when they are obviously mistakes or misinformed, then they are going to be dismissed. I don't think anyone has used that quote as evidence in an attempt to try and combat the clear links between FSA and LttP before.

Yeah, maybe I sounded a bit elitist, but the fact that you came in here acting all smug and saying that people are "clearly misinformed and twisting evidence" made you look like a massive ass-wipe, and that is the type of attitude that is going to send theorising down the drain. Again, LOZ H's post is a fairly good summary.

Viral, I am just gonna give you a hint right now since I don't have much time, but I have dissected post just like your 100 of times by now. Obviously you think I misinformed, however, I spent quite a lot time reading just that interview as a whole, not just picking one sentace and make something completely out of context, and I know for certain that Aonuma wouldn't make that mistake "because he had no idea"

He is the producer and he consider the story important, he says this in the interview. No where does it says that he had no idea what the story was about, just that he wasn' involved in making it. The two are not equals.

"How do the Links in The Four Swords Adventure relate to the overall story line? Or is it just a subchapter or something like that?" That was the question. Unless FS Link and FSA Link aren't the same, which many tries to prove just to be able to disregard, FSA = Oldest tale after FS.

It's funny how Aonuma is apparently missinformed when he is probably the single most important and influencing person on the timeline, starting with the split.

I'll say it again: They have made mistakes before. There have been countless threads showing how TMC (and conversely, FS and FSA should you put them there) might not come after OoT, and the games themselves show that there are many possible places to put the FS saga. I know Aonuma is the single most important person when it comes to Zelda, but if you take every single quote made by a top Nintendo worker, you would have a timeline with 3 ALttP's in it.

I'm sure you have read that discussion many times over, but when i read it, all I see is a quick response from Aonuma that is totally out of the ball park. It's not the first time a Zelda producer has given a quick, wrong answer to a timeline based question as to not reveal anything.

As sure as you are that the quote in question is perfectly canon, I have my own thoughts on it. Your interpretation is completely different to mine, so let's leave it at that. I just hate seeing posts in theorising sections that are more about winning an argument than actually working towards a common goal; completing a timeline. People throwing out their own interpretations of evidence and quotes without consideration of the alternatives is exactly what leads to arguments like this.

I completely agree with you. Know that I didn't start an argument for the sake denying anyone of their opinion. I stated my opinion and someone quickly replied that my opinion was wrong based on facts. Which, in the end proved not to be facts. One thing lead to another and things got out of hand.
Everyone is entitled to their opinion. As long as they're aware of facts before they form an opinion, rather than having an opinion, and then starts looking for facts. I know because I used to argue that FSA didn't go first and I didn't even care about that interview to begin with. And it's almost impossible to convince a determined theorizer that their timeline is wrong ( Goes for me to ), so the only thing anyone can do is state their opinion and reasoning and exchange ideas.
What I am doing is reasoning the possibility ( which I consider high ) that FS/FSA pair is the oldest pair. You can say Aonuma was wrong, he could be. It's all opinions.

I'm glad that it's all sorted then. Sorry about being a bit of an ass (I do that on occasion). I have only good intentions.
Continue the voting so that Potent can boast about having a more popular theory (unless of course the voting swings around...).

Yeah, these debates have more to do with the value given to certain pieces of evidence rather than the presence or the lack of evidence.

Take Aonuma seriously or not?
There are good reasons either way you look at it.

And yeah, that interview was talking about FS/FSA, mentioning FS as the first story and FSA as a sequel.

I'm going to make this blunt and simple:

Originally Posted by Nerushi

What am I talking about then? Obviously, you just want me to not talk at all.

When did I do anything else than that? It's not my fault that someone had to rush a post just to prove a point against me, despite that point being unfounded and completely misleading, also acting as if it was a fact. What's important is that it could have been avoided.

Besides, what do you think you know? I am not staging anything. I am just trying to explain the reason why people choose to disregard a perfectly sound developer quote. Because there is something else than reasoning involved in this.

Aren't you the one doing just that. Apparently, you're the only one who actually responded to it in the first place. You haven't even repsonded to anything that's on-topic. Obviously you're encouraging this, and the only one to do so too. Your only chance at sensible post for this week, perhaps?

You know, I haven't spent as much as even a fraction theorizing in that place, in comparison to this place. Just what makes you think that place has anything to do with the reasoning I use here. Or did you just feel like putting the blame on someone else? Or perhaps just curse them for the heck of it...

Aside from what is on topic, I'm pointing out your attitude problem. This is a 'hobby', not a battleground for some survival of the fittest cleshay: AT vs CT "Let's see which one can hash out the other first so we can inflate our ego/dominance."

I don't want to stir around hate, because I'm simply tired of seeing the meaninglessness and pettiness behind it all. But in order to convey over the core of what I'm getting at, I must use examples. LA as an example, dislikes ZI and ZU's majority bias - as is natural to expect of anyone on the left or right train of thought. There spectrum of opinion is different than ours as much as yours, Nerushi, is to peoples opinions here. Its because of a few very influential individuals within the LA Theory Boards (and myself at one time on the opposite side) that continue to attache their personal hatred to their bias when looking at those whom believe in the AT majority placement - thus coming to their own conclusions that the "New Hyrule" Concept does NOT have the right to be a theory... at all. That's exactly where they stood, and the majority of other communities that agreed with their spectrum of thought, when it was Linearism vs. Splittism. Never mind they were right (yay-claps quickly for them), the principality remains the issue; the ethics and civility that should, and can be maintained in debate without provoking ad hominen responses (AKA: Hating your opponent because of how they think). What happened to ZU a few years ago, in this board, was about opposing a popular belief FOR THE SAKE OF DEBATE. It was done brutally and handled irresponsibly on my part because I had a hatred for those that hated my way of thinking - not to far from matters that have begone to be paralleled in not only this thread. I am putting out this fire before it spreads, and I want newbies to ignore the idiosyncrasies of the past which veterans bring up from time to time (including me after this post). That is the only way things will get better: If we just debate. Simple.

My overall concern to you, Nerushi, and others, is that this is a "hobby" - not a battleground. It would show better upon everyone's caliber if we stop the petty accusations (calling people an elitist - for recent example in this thread), thus find that mutual understanding and appreciation for others opinions - while at the same time learning from the faults in our logical process, making us stronger; NOT defining us. I have learned this, and I will try better myself to have less and less of these rants. I know how personal bias can allow emotions to blind one's logic process (Impossible is right on that about ZU). It takes maturity to over come that - this which is best exemplified by people like Average Gamer, Lex, Erimgard, Smertios, bitterlime, Hombre, and a few others that try to be consistent despite the immaturity shown in-between heated debates from time to time - personal qualms which should be disputed behind the scenes of debate in PMs (which is something I would do better upon, starting now).

Again, please change your perspective or you'll just end up very callous in the long run.

That is all I have to say to you and others, aside from PMs.

Originally Posted by Nerushi

2. Obvious ties are rather non-obvious when you look at how much closer FSA really could be i.e. textdumps missing ingame shows signs of FSA actually being IW, however, that idea was scratched.

marked some keywords for you

Nothing in FSA suggest that there even an need for it to happen directly before ALTTP

Nearly identical castle
Nearly identical geography
Theive's hideout
eh, what else... precense of Moon Pearls

3. As FSA itself proves, OoT Ganon ≠ FSA Ganon

I just wanna know... Since FSA Ganon is sealed in the Four Sword. Does he die to be reborn/whatever in OoT or are there 2 Ganons?

Viral, Historian, I've known you guys for a while now and really you're both overreacting a little. Though I have not been very active in the Zelda community recently, even as a reader, and have thus seen little of Nerushi's posts in other threads I can say that in the context of this thread you are being much too aggressive. Such personal remarks should be made directly to the person via PM rather than pushing the thread off topic.

I don't give a damn what you think of Nerushi. I don't give a damn what Nerushi thinks of you. All I want to know is where people place FSA in the timeline and why. Is that too much to ask?

Originally Posted by Hombre de Mundo

Nearly identical castle
Nearly identical geography
Theive's hideout
eh, what else... precense of Moon Pearls

They could very well be left overs from the 'scratched' idea, which is what i think. Remember that they were quite rushed because of the upending of tea table. From what we see from the 'missing text dump' - FSA used to be much more identical to ALTTP, and connected by story.
If we go by story now, there are very few things that can be related between FSA and ALTTP...

Originally Posted by Hombre de Mundo

I just wanna know... Since FSA Ganon is sealed in the Four Sword. Does he die to be reborn/whatever in OoT or are there 2 Ganons?

My opinion, there is two of them. They are both specified to be born to the Gerudo as their special child born every 100 years. Because of conflicting BS they can't be the same person. I don't have any problem with two Ganon's existing at the same time, ( one is sealed in the Four Sword after all ), however some argue that the Ganon have to be the same. By reincarnation or whatever. I don't know the basis or evidence for this though... Doubt there is any...

Apart from the developer interview and evidence via TMC, do you have any other evidence that points to the Four Sword saga being first, Nerushi?

Originally Posted by Double C

Apart from the developer interview and evidence via TMC, do you have any other evidence that points to the Four Sword saga being first, Nerushi?

Plenty. I'm too tired to state them all so I'll just quote myself from LA.

There are several reason why FSA could, and should come before OoT.

State of the Triforce;
It seem like there's no general knowlegde about it. Only the Royal Family ( or Zelda ) knows about it, as we see a single Triforce in the end of FSA. What's interesting is that despite the Triforce lack of use in FSA they still want to show it in the ending, with Zelda looking at it. This completely lacks a purpose in FSA, unless they wanted to foreshadow something.

Master Sword;
It's just not there. Which is fine if FSS is before OoT since games after OoT seem to use it all the time ( WW, TP, ALTTP etc. ). I am aware that the MS had a role in FSA according to the text dump. All the more reason to wonder why it was removed.

Lost Wood;
We're show the orgin of the Lost Wood in FSA, from being the Forest of Light. What makes this really interesting becuase of a quote by the Deku Scrub. - "But we're trying to build an underground road that will let us go anywhere..." - Sounds awfully familiar with the Lost Wood in OoT, as it had underground roads which could take you far away.

Ganon;
New Orgin. One could argue that this Ganon can come either after or before OoT equally since there is no previous knowlegde about any Ganon before that ( applies to both OoT and FSA ). However, I would give FSA the egde here since it's a newer game. OoT can't reference FSA. FSA however, can reference OoT. Which it didn't.

Gerudo;
You can laugh at the AT and say that it's ridiculous that the Gerudo and their culture would last the flooding, which is shows in WW/PH. However, it would be biased to say that they were any better off on the CT. Especially since TP perfectly ignored the Gerudo. The only hint of them in TP is Ganondorfs 'band of thieves' as they were described in OoT. It IS possible that they was executed along with Ganondorf in the Arbites Ground, just to explain their lack of presence. I don't see this problem if placing FSA before OoT though, as they had to exist before in order to exist afterwards.

Dark Mirror-Twiligth Mirror;
To be honest, I am not too keen on arguing for this one, because I used to argue against it. All I can say is that wheter or not they're the same isn't a concern if FSA is placed before TP, since the mirror wasn't destoryed in FSA. One must admit though, that there are as many similarities as there are differences.

Oldest Tale;
Last, but not least.

Seriously, this is probably the most revealing chunk of evidence that Aonuma has ever expressed ( Aside of the Split ). Ironically, it's also one of the most disregarded evidence. By AT and CT theorist alike. AT theorist ignores it becuase it goes against their timeline in general, as they just has to have every game after WW for a reason that's completely beyond me. CT theorist, or at least most of them, seem to have no problem with placing TMC before OoT, yet they don't follow through FS, which was actually confirmed to be the oldest tale.

If we go by the this timeline TMC-OOT/MM-TP-FS/FSA-ALTTP, then Vaati would first appear, get sealed, then he is suddenly forgotten in OoT and TP until he appear again in FS and then it's Ganon from OoT that's forgotten and everyone knows about Vaati again.
I honestly don't se why TMC-FS/FSA-OoT/MM-TP-ALTTP can't work the same way. TMC happens, and Zelda is aware of him in FS, he gets destoryed and Trident Ganon appear. That Ganon gets sealed in the Four Sword. Now, probably because of the wars that happens inbetween, that Ganon plus Vaati is forgotten before OoT, and a new one is born. OoT Ganon eventually dies in TP. Suddenly we're all set up for ALTTP. Blue Ganon is still sealed, perfectly alive in the Four Sword, just the way Vaati would be in this timeline. TMC-OOT/MM-TP-FS/FSA-ALTTP.

There's also the problem that FSA becomes separted from ALTTP, but I don't see that as a problem since they're still on the same branch ( never flooded ) and any reference to ALTTP in FSA are minor ones, or just the geography. But I think that ALTTP, OoT, TP, FSA all have the same geography so w/e.

Yeah, I agree: I have more respect for TMC-FS/FSA-OoT than for TMC-OoT---FS/FSA.

State of the Triforce;
It seem like there's no general knowlegde about it. Only the Royal Family ( or Zelda ) knows about it, as we see a single Triforce in the end of FSA. What's interesting is that despite the Triforce lack of use in FSA they still want to show it in the ending, with Zelda looking at it. This completely lacks a purpose in FSA, unless they wanted to foreshadow something.

FSA used the same style as ALTTP and ALTTP wasn't filled with Triforce symbols. Plus most of the game was played in the countryside not in castle more towns where one would expect to see such a symbol. I don't think the Triforce symbol above the arch in the castle in the credits means anything, but that's my opinion.

Lost Wood;
We're show the orgin of the Lost Wood in FSA, from being the Forest of Light. What makes this really interesting becuase of a quote by the Deku Scrub. - "But we're trying to build an underground road that will let us go anywhere..." - Sounds awfully familiar with the Lost Wood in OoT, as it had underground roads which could take you far away.

I don't remember that. I must have missed it. However, I do remember they wanted to spread the darkness and thus the forest, turning the whole land into the lost woods. Mind linking me to the text dump you found that quote in?

Apart from that, everything you stated before works just fine. I put some importance on the insular nature of FSA Hyrule as it's a pretty big design choice. That's the biggest reason why I place it post-WW and all the other games follow after that. Having the entire FS saga first fixes unexplained return of the Master Sword in an AT placement and the unexplained return of the Four Sword in TMC-OoT---FS/FSA.

If you think OoT/TP and FSA/ALTTP are all the same Hyrule I can respect that and understand why.
If you think FSA's ocean is unimportant or merely unseen in the other games, I can respect that and understand why.
If you dismiss all geography as unimportant even, I can respect that and understand why.

It's all a matter of personal opinion as it revolves around guessing what the developers priorities are.

Originally Posted by Nerushi

They could very well be left overs from the 'scratched' idea, which is what i think. Remember that they were quite rushed because of the upending of tea table. From what we see from the 'missing text dump' - FSA used to be much more identical to ALTTP, and connected by story.
If we go by story now, there are very few things that can be related between FSA and ALTTP...

So let me get this straight... If FSA was meant to be the SW and be very close to ALttP, wouldn't that mean that ALttP would come before OoT as well?

some argue that the Ganon have to be the same. By reincarnation or whatever. I don't know the basis or evidence for this though... Doubt there is any...

I think Aonuma said Ganon, Link and Zelda were reincarnated/reborn multiple times. Not sure.

Also, I must say I find it hard to believe that nobody in OoT (especially the Royal Family trusted Ganondorf if the same individual (or a second one) threatened to destroy Hyrule earlier.

So let me get this straight... If FSA was meant to be the SW and be very close to ALttP, wouldn't that mean that ALttP would come before OoT as well?

Not really. Why would you think that? That's the whole tea-table thing: FSA was placed before OoT. (in Nerushi's mind. I think)

Also, I must say I find it hard to believe that nobody in OoT (especially the Royal Family trusted Ganondorf if the same individual (or a second one) threatened to destroy Hyrule earlier.

Who knows how much time separates the two games. Besides, it's just a name. The Pope's called Benedict and I don't hear Americans distrusting him for sharing a name with an infamous historical figure.

Originally Posted by Double C

Who knows how much time separates the two games.

True

Besides, it's just a name. The Pope's called Benedict and I don't hear Americans distrusting him for sharing a name with an infamous historical figure.

In a world where people seem to believe in historical figures returning (like HoT before the flood or Ganon waiting for the HoT reborn), it's not a farfetched concept.

Originally Posted by Hombre de Mundo

So let me get this straight... If FSA was meant to be the SW and be very close to ALttP, wouldn't that mean that ALttP would come before OoT as well?

No. I don't think FSA was originally meant to be the oldest tale. It was forced there after Miyamoto involvement, though. As FSA no longer fill the role of IW, it doesn't have to happen directly before ALTTP,

Originally Posted by Hombre de Mundo

I think Aonuma said Ganon, Link and Zelda were reincarnated/reborn multiple times. Not sure.

Also, I must say I find it hard to believe that nobody in OoT (especially the Royal Family trusted Ganondorf if the same individual (or a second one) threatened to destroy Hyrule earlier.

Same reasoning goes for FSA. I find it very hard to belive that they would forget a key figure as Ganon. I.e. There is no information about Ganondorf in FSA other than him being a Gerudo, told by the Red Maiden. She couldn't belive that someone would worship a desert nomad or that he would be the king of darkness.

Originally Posted by Double C

Who knows how much time separates the two games. Besides, it's just a name. The Pope's called Benedict and I don't hear Americans distrusting him for sharing a name with an infamous historical figure.

If the pope's name was Adolf or Benito, however, it would probably be different. Just like how people got "scared" for a little while because Obama's middle name is Hussein. Seriously? I hate people.