27th June 2008, 10:51 PM
Quote:I thought I explained all that in my posts above. It's all pretty much made clear. It's only them that's messing it all up. Never heard of that site before, but I tend to avoid the big guns about these things. Look what they did to the otherwise straightforward Warcraft continuity... They actually think Garona was half-Draenai at this point.
I'm sure you've heard of it before, it's the descendant of ZHQ.
As for Garona... well, she's a Half-Orc, but what is the other half? Fair question. :)
The point is, these points are definitely arguable. Some positions have less basis than others, but they are arguable. And the situation as far as the Zelda timeline goes is far from clear.
Quote:Have you played Four Sword Adventures? It's as clear as the OOT/MM and Zelda1/2 connection. The opening of the game actually is a synopsis of the events in the first Four Swords game. There's really no wiggle room at all.
Minish Cap has been officially stated to occur before the Four Swords games. Further, the storyline of that game makes it very clear. It's supposed to be Vaati's origin story.
Good points.
Quote:Regarding the Four Swords games, he may not have worked on them, but that's the best statement we have to go on and I have no reason to doubt it. They do fit the timeline after all. We could of course strike the Capcom games from the continuity if you like. However, the statements I've heard don't really justify that.
It does raise a definite question, though. I'd provisionally put them between MC and OoT, but not definitely...
As for striking the Capcom games though, yeah, it's really just Oracles that needs to go, storywise. Ironically, Oracles is by far the best of the Capcom titles gameplay-wise... but in story, it's pretty poor and very hard to place in the series.
Quote:That's why I came up with that timeline. I had very good reasons for sticking all that stuff where I did. The only stickler is LA after LTTP. How they managed to agree on that being after LTTP (which I readily admit is just my personal preference based on an old statement about it) while managing to dispute when OOT took place (which no one can honestly say isn't clearly supposed to be the imprisonment of Ganon mentioned in the very start of LTTP) is beyond me.
Well, I'd say it's pretty obvious that it goes after LttP... you are right that some people don't put it there, because technically it's not actually stated without any question, but like with your OoT-is-the-imprisoning-war argument, most would agree that it's a very clear intent. Same exact Link art, the backstory fits perfectly with the end of LttP, back then the relationships between the Zelda games seemed clear (2 goes after 1, 3 goes before 1, 4 goes after 3...)... so yeah you're right that some people dispute it, but anyone using anything like the standard you are, trying to focus on the intent of the creators as much as possible... there's no question that it's LttP.
Quote:The title and instruction booklet are hardly all I'm going on with LTTP. There's the fact that Zelda 1 and 2 CAN'T fit BEFORE the events in LTTP (as the Triforce is possessed by Hyrule before Zelda 1 starts). Even excluding that, official statements before LTTP came out in interviews in Nintendo Power sort of make it clear where they intended the story to fit. If they aren't after, they must be alternate universe stories too. One last thing. The title actually still matters. Even in a translation's title change, why do you think they would have changed it to that? It's not like they are going to make up something like it taking place centuries before Zelda 1 out of whole cloth. I'd say more than likely they added that because that was their original idea. It's still a valid point to point to the title then.
All that this proves is that the American story is known to be that LttP goes after OoT (Adult) and before LoZ. I don't think that anything you said there has any impact on what the Japanese setting is... I don't agree that what they said about the American release has anything to do with the original version. Perhaps Miyamoto had something to do with the new title choice, but do we know that? For all we know it could have been chosen by someone at NOA... same goes for the manual and any quotes in magazines at the time.
And the title did have to change, of course. "Triforce of the Gods"? Nintendo didn't allow religious references back then. The implication that Agahnim was a priest who had been sent to Hyrule by the gods (as the original version had) had to go, and the game's title too. So the question is, who wrote the new story... we just don't know.
You are right that a comment five years later doesn't necessarily reflect the intent of the actual game made years earlier, however, so that doesn't mean that I think Miyamoto's comment is certainly true. It just means that I don't think we can say which one it is for sure... but that doesn't affect the official American timeline, which is, we agree, pretty clear on LttP's placement. It is worth mentioning though.
Quote:I'll also note that in this timeline, they don't have to pay attention to future continuity at all for games set in the TP side, after TP. That gives them some freedom.
Indeed, that is true. A whole new timeline to follow! :)
Quote:I do have one question though. If TP takes place in an alternate world where Ganondorf's plans were stopped, how did he acquire the triforce of power?
Ganondorf is the immortal master of evil... I don't know. I could look it up, but... maybe later. I'm sure there is an explanation somewhere...