Talk:Ganon Conflicts

the line "an impressive looking blade... nothing more" is probably meant to show gannon's arrogance.--Spirit of the Legend 22:01, 12 January 2007 (CST)

Personally, I agree However, the wiki must maintain a neutral position, and "Ganon doesn't know the Mastersword" is a common interpretation... -PIE

No timeline at all
There shouldn't even be any debate... there is really no timeline in the zelda games... Miyamoto says there's one but it is obvious that each game was made as a separate isolated game not connected with the others... I'd like to think each game is more like a new interpretation of the Legend of Zelda; thus, the use of the same characters, enemies, and bosses, and because each interpretation comes years after the previous game, that is why we see new things everytime. If Miyamoto had a timeline it would have been clear since "Ocarina of time". We have to remember that "The Legend of Zelda (NES 1986)" was not suposed to be a series; however, since it had too much success, the obvious and lucrative idea of a series came to mind. Earlier, Miyamote did establish a timeline as follows:

From:

The Legend of Zelda - 1986 NES Zelda II: The Adventure of Link - 1987 NES The Legend of Zelda: A Link to the Past - 1991 SNES The Legend of Zelda: Link's Awakening - 1993 GB

1. A Link to the Past 2. Link's Awakening 3. The Legend of Zelda 4. The adventure of Link

It is clear that "The Adventure of Link" is a sequel to "The Legend of Zelda" and it is known as the "black sheep" of the series because the gameplay was drastricly changed. Then the Super Nintendo came and producers knew they had to return to basics in order to please the gamers, thus resulting in a prequel to "The Legend of Zelda" that became one of the best video games in history by the name of "The Legend of Zelda: A Link to the Past" (Notice that Miyamoto abandoned the Numerical titles from Zelda II: The Adventure of Link in favour of The Legend of Zelda as a main title and A Link to the past only as a subtitle).

With the arrival of the Game Boy Nintendo brought Zelda to the handheld with a sequel to "A Link to the Past" in "Link's Awakening" instead of a sequel to "The Adventure of Link" completely ignoring the firts two games due to the success of "A Link to the Past".

After a long period of 5 years Nintendo finaly brought Zelda to the 3D world through the Nintendo 64 in the form of "The Legend of Zelda: Ocarina of Time" considered to be the best game of all time by most critics. With this game it is very very very very very posible that Miyamoto only recycled characters, enemies, and bosses; forgot about all the previous games and created a completely new story.

This game did get it's corresponding sequel (Majora's Mask - 2000 N64); however, the following games seem to have different been created as seperate stories altogether.

This is why we don't have a clear timeline, and, eventhough, Nintendo is trying to connect the dots, it has failed.

It's fun to imagine things, though.

Rebuttal/Agreement
Nintendo did not make a Timeline. They made connections;

LoZ was first. AoL referenced it. AlttP refered back to the first couplet. LA sequeled it. OOT connected to the AlttP Backstory MM referenced it. OOX was another ALttP reference TWW continued on OOT. FS/FSA shot back to AlttP for a thid time. TMC was a FSA/FS prequel. TP continued on OOT again.

Is that a timeline? Not even close. But it is continuoity. There is thread Linking every game to he main jumble. We sort out the real threads (Timeline Principles) and then have fun with the rest... so yeah, nothings perfect, especially when Gameplay is considered before storyline, but, beleive or not, things get clearer all the time.

Remember that Miyamato has never had crreative control of the storyline. He's the Gameplay guy, we can't blame him for anything. Alo, LoZ was always intended to have atleast one sequel; the Triforce of Courage storyline was left wide open.

And yeah, tis fun.--PIE