Talk:Eiji Aonuma

Chris; As to not start an edit war here, I'll have you elaborate right here why that would have any relevance? Aonuma has been around since at least before Ocarina of Time, and has displayed an much wider interest in the chronology than Miyamoto. He has also stated that he thinks the story is important, while Miyamoto has openly displayed that he don't really care about it.

See example.

Shigeru Miyamoto: For every Zelda game we tell a new story, but we actually have an enormous document that explains how the game relates to the others, and bind them together. But to be honest, they are not that important to us.

Eiji Aonuma: To me storyline is important, and as producer, I am going to be going through, and trying to bring all of these stories together, and kind of make them a little bit more clear. Unfortunately, we just haven’t done that yet.

And as seen in another interview, Miyamoto didn't even understand the split timeline at the time, which could be interpretated as he doesn't really care either. So there, please do elaborate why Aonuma "had not been on board for a good portion of the series" has any relvance in this? Obviously it has none.

And again, this about Aonuma's cotribution to the timeline, not Miyamoto's. If you wanna bring them up, do so on his page. Also, Aonuma doesn't need a back-up confirmation from Miyamoto. I mean, seriously? Miyamoto has alredy expressed his disinterest in the story, and Aonuma is like the second biggest head in the Zelda series after Miyamoto. Whether or not Miyamoto made an previous statement regarding OoT is really irrelevant here as Aonuma more recent statement would overrule that. And as proven with the split timeline, Aonuma has authority to make such claims. And, this was about general fans controversy on Aonuma statement. Not YOUR controvery on it, which has absolutley nothing to do with Aonuma actually. Nerushi 08:41, 25 April 2010 (UTC)


 * And there is not one thing wrong with mentioning those facts. For all games prior to Ocarina, Aonuma was not even in the picture, and he didn't have that big of a role in Ocarina itself either. He did not become really deeply involved until later games. And yes, Miyamoto does carry weight as he is the creator, not Aonuma. He has been there since the beginning, not Aonuma. Therefore, there is nothing wrong with mentioning that Miyamoto never endorsed nor confirmed said statement of Aonuma's. This is not personal at all Nerushi, this is just facts. Link87 08:44, 25 April 2010 (UTC)


 * Miyamoto is an developer, just as Aonuma. And Miyamoto's involvement in the series has declined with the years, while Aonumas has increased. And Miyamoto has also openly expressed a disiniterest in the story, perfectly explaing such matters. Aonuma is large figure enough not to have Miyamoto back up everything he says. But if you insist, maybe I should put these facts in the article as well?Nerushi 08:52, 25 April 2010 (UTC)
 * Actually Miyamoto has to ok everything Aonuma does in development, for example Miyamoto had to force Aonuma to keep quiet about the upcoming game. Aonuma answers to Miyamoto, and Miyamoto has been there since the beginning. His comments were never endorsed by Miyamoto, and there's nothing wrong in mentioning that. Link87 08:56, 25 April 2010 (UTC)
 * I'm all for discussion of conflicting points, so keep it cool and actually work towards a compromising addition to the article rather than trying to win the other side of the dispute over. Bc in all honesty, that never happens and the longer the dispute goes on the more entrenched people become in their views. So as long as you both can recognize which statements ARE true and worthy points, you'll do fine. Good luck. 09:00, 25 April 2010 (UTC)


 * Chris, if thats the case, then its very likley that Miyamoto had 'acknowlegded' Aonuma placement of the FS series as the oldest tale, since he HAVE to 'ok' everything or else Aonuma wouldn't have openly stated that it was so . There is nearly no reason for Miyamoto to do it in an interview, duh. Nerushi 09:08, 25 April 2010 (UTC)

Miyamoto never endorsed such a statement, and he has had to put a leash on Aonuma before. It's obvious they haven't always been on the same page and I see nothing wrong with mentioning those things. It's perfectly impartial to note that Miyamoto never publicly endorsed Aonuma's statement. Link87 09:15, 25 April 2010 (UTC)
 * If you say so. But that hardly relevant here anymore. If we keep out fan controvery out of here it'll be fine. Feel free to advocate Miyamotos statement where ever you want, just no here since this article is about Aonuma and his statements, not our controversy regarding it.Nerushi 09:23, 25 April 2010 (UTC)
 * Eh, I was reading and trying to make sense of all of the links provided, but then the thought occurred to me, "Why are we bothering with Timeline stuff at all on this page?" I actually don't have the energy to make sense of it now. 11:52, 25 April 2010 (UTC)


 * Well, this isn't as much of a timeline stuff as it is Aonuma statements on the timeline which could work alright without any controversy on whether someone thinks it is wrong or not. I thought this page could be fleshed out a little, but I guess I should have seen this coming.
 * I guess we could just remove it, although it would be good to have a comprehensive list of developers statements somewhere. Preferable without any individual opinion on them. I don't think the Timeline quotes article fulfills that.Nerushi 12:04, 25 April 2010 (UTC)
 * Okay, look, this timeline stuff really doesn't belong on this page. It's about Aonuma, not about how he contributes to the timeline. What you should be doing is linking to his statements in the appropriate theory sections on the appropriate pages. Readers may not even understand what the timeline is when it's out of context like this. I think the section needs to be removed and the references used for the appropriate sections of the pages containing the theories. What do you think? 15:40, 25 April 2010 (UTC)