28th June 2008, 12:59 AM
The interviews I'm talking about weren't with translators (well okay in a manner of speaking), they were with the creators. They are the ones who originally intended it to take place back then. Religious references aside (seriously, that angel statue in Zelda 2 is a "trophie", riiight... even as a kid I thought it was a religious icon, though I didn't know that icon meant anything other than windows 3.1 desktop thing).
The thing is, there is a major story element that also forces LTTP to take place before Zelda 1. As I said, the triforce is nowhere to be found until Link himself finds it in Ganon's possession, and the story indicates that before that, it was never controlled by Hyrule. So, there's no place between OOT and LTTP for Zeldas 1 and 2 to take place, as a major story point in THOSE games is that Hyrule HAS been in possession of the triforce for a long time. Either it takes place after LTTP, or we have to strike that story from the record. It seems pretty clear that LTTP was meant as an explanation of, on top of where Ganon came from, also how Hyrule came to control the Triforce.
That said, there are some niggling issues with other story points. I mean Four Swords (and Four Swords Adventures mentioning the events of Four Swords) talk about how the first time Vaati emerged, he kidnapped "many maidens", but in Minnish Cap the only person he kidnaps at all is Zelda herself. Also a number of details of the imprisoning war seem "off" from the OOT telling. Knights fighting to the last to defend the sages as they cast their spells? A king getting the sages together instead of Link? The Master Sword being "forged" during the war to combat the triforce? None of that ever happened in OOT. The intent is clear, and the storyline really doesn't allow for much if any wiggle room in where all these stories are placed (I still say LA has the most wiggle room of all of them as it being placed after any of the games doesn't really contradict any major story points, but I prefer after LTTP as that was original intent). However, these details should be handled. The only thing I can figure is that a number of lines in LTTP talk about time shrouding the past, so we can perhaps assume that certain details changed in each new telling. Instead of just Zelda, the legend makes him out to kidnap all sorts of women. Surely many soldiers and the king himself ended up dead in the war to stop Ganon when he gained Number1 Triforce Power (to use the bad english of the Zelda 2 intro scroll). Retellings might have obscured that. The problem with this explanation is we know exactly how retellings obscured that story from Wind Waker, which didn't talk about a king or sages, just a young lad in green clothes who travelled through time. It would seem odd that over time all details except the green hero would be lost and then after even more time THOSE details would be lost but the rest in some form would suddenly be restored. Then again, one thing we know for sure. In MOST of these stories, all hints of a past Link are somehow erased from history, and in any cases where a previous Link is acknowledged, the name of that hero is lost.
The thing is, there is a major story element that also forces LTTP to take place before Zelda 1. As I said, the triforce is nowhere to be found until Link himself finds it in Ganon's possession, and the story indicates that before that, it was never controlled by Hyrule. So, there's no place between OOT and LTTP for Zeldas 1 and 2 to take place, as a major story point in THOSE games is that Hyrule HAS been in possession of the triforce for a long time. Either it takes place after LTTP, or we have to strike that story from the record. It seems pretty clear that LTTP was meant as an explanation of, on top of where Ganon came from, also how Hyrule came to control the Triforce.
That said, there are some niggling issues with other story points. I mean Four Swords (and Four Swords Adventures mentioning the events of Four Swords) talk about how the first time Vaati emerged, he kidnapped "many maidens", but in Minnish Cap the only person he kidnaps at all is Zelda herself. Also a number of details of the imprisoning war seem "off" from the OOT telling. Knights fighting to the last to defend the sages as they cast their spells? A king getting the sages together instead of Link? The Master Sword being "forged" during the war to combat the triforce? None of that ever happened in OOT. The intent is clear, and the storyline really doesn't allow for much if any wiggle room in where all these stories are placed (I still say LA has the most wiggle room of all of them as it being placed after any of the games doesn't really contradict any major story points, but I prefer after LTTP as that was original intent). However, these details should be handled. The only thing I can figure is that a number of lines in LTTP talk about time shrouding the past, so we can perhaps assume that certain details changed in each new telling. Instead of just Zelda, the legend makes him out to kidnap all sorts of women. Surely many soldiers and the king himself ended up dead in the war to stop Ganon when he gained Number1 Triforce Power (to use the bad english of the Zelda 2 intro scroll). Retellings might have obscured that. The problem with this explanation is we know exactly how retellings obscured that story from Wind Waker, which didn't talk about a king or sages, just a young lad in green clothes who travelled through time. It would seem odd that over time all details except the green hero would be lost and then after even more time THOSE details would be lost but the rest in some form would suddenly be restored. Then again, one thing we know for sure. In MOST of these stories, all hints of a past Link are somehow erased from history, and in any cases where a previous Link is acknowledged, the name of that hero is lost.
"On two occasions, I have been asked [by members of Parliament], 'Pray, Mr. Babbage, if you put into the machine wrong figures, will the right answers come out?' I am not able to rightly apprehend the kind of confusion of ideas that could provoke such a question." ~ Charles Babbage (1791-1871)