User talk:The importer/1st Debate

The Concept of The Arcs on ZeldaWiki
I've read how Zelda Wiki formed Arcs around the Zelda games like the were Anime. Although I find this cute and useful since it's my believe that there is no simple timeline for all the Zelda games, I must put the formation of these Arcs into questioning.

I will not argue with the Four Swords Trilogy mainly because the concept makes sense and that I have not played either of the Four Swords games for more than 30 minutes.

I also agree that at the moment, there is not enough back story to place Twilight Princess in any of the Arcs.

Also, even if I believe that there are mistakes in the Time Traveling concept of Ocarina and Majora (to be discussed some other time), I will not argue with the Hero of Time and Hero of the Wind Arc.

Now for the fun part.

The importer 11:48, 2 January 2007 (CST)

The Arc that has been Named: AlttP/LA/(KnS) - LoZ/AoL
My issue with this Arc is why must the two 8bit games be in there? What concrete proof is there to state that the events of the first Legend of Zelda game took place after TriForce of the Gods/A Link to the Past?

I have reasons to believe that the first 2 8bits games take place even before Ocarina, despite what Miyamoto says, but that's another topic that I will make later on, so please do not talk about this now.

For now, tell me and show me proof why this Arc contains these games in that order.

The importer 11:48, 2 January 2007 (CST)


 * Without a doubt, the AlttP - LoZ/AoL connection have become increasingly difficult to demostrate over the past 15 years. At the release of AlttP in 1991, however, it was quite obvious.


 * The Japanese packaging billed Triforce of the God's characters as "The ancestors of Link and Zelda" (LoZ/AoL Link was the onyl possible reference at the time"), the English box translated this (a bit poorly) and called AlttP's characters the "predasessors" of Link and Zelda (Again, only one possible reference). The box art can be found at http://zs.ffshrine.org/album/link-to-the-past/boxart/back.jpg.


 * Properly translated, AlttP's manual states that "Indeed, the King of Evil Ganon, the one who has threatened Hyrule so, was born at this time." This could only reference the Ganon of LoZ and AoL.


 * ALttP is not truly connected to LoZ/AoL, but it was created as a prequel, it was billed as a prequel, the manual suggests its a prequel, and theres no canon at all to show its not a prequel. -PIE


 * My biggest concern with any of the Zelda games and possible timelines is the fact that they background story behind Zelda II states that the princess Zelda (sleeping princess) is that one for which every princess Zelda got named after and before she was put to sleep, the TriForce of Courage was hidden. That background story alone makes it hard to place most Zelda games after AoL since that piece of the TriForce is not available until the Link from LoZ recovers it in his 2nd quest. The importer 08:11, 20 January 2007 (CST)


 * Beleiving the AoL naming tradition to be sweeping, that is, to be the cause for Zelda's naming in every game reuires a number of beliefs. First, you must beleive AoL is continuous with every other game (ie you must beleive in a timeline) and secondly you must beleive that the AoL BS occurs before any other event in the timeline. You therfore have a choice either;


 * The AoL BS is sweeping and there is a complete timeline which begins with LoZ.
 * or


 * The AoL BS is not sweeping and many princesses were named Zelda for other reasons.


 * Choosing the first option means that the devlopers lied when they made AlttP and it is not truly AoL's prequel; that they lied when they made OOT and it was not the earliest game chronologically at it production; that they lied when they released a semi-official timeline upholding both of these tennants after the rlease of MM; that they lied when they said FS was first thought to be the timeline's oldest tale; etc. etc.
 * Choosing the second option makes infinitely more sence, whether you beleive in a timeline or not.-PIE


 * One could also believe that there was never meant to be a Timeline until Ocarina, giving us a 5 game timeline (OOT, MM, TP, WW, PH) and the rest of the games don't fit anywhere. The importer 18:25, 23 January 2007 (CST)


 * But why would one? AoL was clearly the sequel to LoZ, LA clearly the sequel to AlttP, and there is enough evidence to comfortably join the two arcs. In fact, OOT's story was created with the timeline in mind (as AlttP's IW).
 * I mean, I have no probelm with non-universalism;
 * (1) OOT/MM - TP - tWW/PH
 * (2) TMC - FS/FSA
 * (3) AlttP/LA - (OoX) - LoZ/AoL - (OoX)
 * Is a fine timeline... but it still follows the arcs.


 * Hmm, not sure if I would consider 2 or 3 games together as a timeline. I still don't consider AlttP/LA and LoZ/AoL to be related, to many contradictions. The importer 20:43, 24 January 2007 (CST)


 * Contradictions? Such as what? If the "Sleeping Zelda" legend isn't sweeping (and it is only assumption that makes it so) then is can easily be placed post LA... and I don't know of any other points of contradiction.


 * How about I name them one by one? The legend of the sleeping princess dates back from a long time according to Impa. So why does ALLTP seem to have a much more evolve civilization than in AoL? TP is suppose to take place about 100 years after OOT and MM, everything looks much more advance, so this sort of works. Considering that we have yet to see a game that would take place before the flood, who knows, perhaps the game that takes place before WW will feature electricity. The importer 22:13, 25 January 2007 (CST)


 * (1)The world map of LoZ covers by far the smallest of any zelda, only covering an area which has approximetaly the same width as death mountain. Compare it with the size of an average town on a AoL map, and you can begin to see how so small an area could be devoid of signs of true civilization.
 * (2) The world of LoZ ad just been utterly conquered by Ganon, as seen in the NES intructions books, cities were ravaged and burned. In such a time it would be perfectly natural for the majority of people to go into hiding underground.
 * (3) Whether we like it as timeline fact or not, LOZ, as a game, was limited by its release date. There wasn't a demand for such things in adventure games.


 * I'm not referring to civilization as term for large population, but rather on modern the towns look. Also, it's not like making larger towns and adding details was unheard of on NES games, Final Fantasy was quite detailed. If they are part of the same timeline, LoZ and AoL are clearly set to have taken centuries before ALTTP.


 * Now let's bring another important piece in this, the Master Sword. The blade has been used to defeat Ganon in every major (not counting 4 Swords+ and GBC Games) Zelda games except the first one. The blade also does not appear in AoL nor is it mentioned. If ALTTP took place before the first 2 titles, why would the sword be missing in LoZ and how could Link defeat Ganon without it? The importer 21:58, 26 January 2007 (CST)


 * Civilizations wax and wayne. Compare the works of pre-dark age empires to the average civilization in our 900s. No contest. Progress is not a constant upslope. Your just making assumptions.
 * Asking how Link could defeat Ganon without the Mastersword is completely pointless. Link obviously did the deed sans MS in LoZ, that's canon, so we can't question its possibility.
 * Why wasn't the MS in the first to games? Why should it be? Your assuming its importance with no canon to back you.


 * Please, progress does not go backward. Everything gets bigger and better, from houses to castles, you'll see improvements that could only come with years of progress. As for the Master Sword, how strange that in every epic Zelda title, it is always said that the Master Sword is the only blade that can repel the Ultimate evil (Ganon). I am very aware that Miyamoto did not think of the concept of the Master Sword until ALTTP, but still, placing LoZ and AoL after ALTTP brings a contradiction plain in simple, no use denying it.


 * Now let's bring another one to the pile. I was gonna save it for the end, but considering that your patience for this debate seems to be turning ugly, I'll just bring it out right now. You taking your theory that ALTTP takes place before the first 2 games because of what was written in the back of the North American box of the game. Now Miyamoto (who wishes us to believe that all the games are linked) has another order:


 * Miyamoto: Ocarina of Time is the first story, then the original Legend of Zelda, then Zelda II: The Adventure of Link, and finally A Link to the Past. It's not very clear where Link's Awakening fits in--it could be anytime after Ocarina of Time. http://www.miyamotoshrine.com/theman/interviews/111998.shtml


 * Obviously, putting OOT before or in the same timeline as the 2D Zelda games brings back some of the same contradictions I stated before, but ignoring that one, you'll see that LoZ and AoL takes place before ALTTP according to Miyamoto. The importer 08:48, 27 January 2007 (CST)


 * Lolz, don't worry about my patience, I'm enjoying this... I've been involved in 300-post discussions on whether or not the Zora became the Rito, this is nothing ;)


 * On progress moving backwards, read anything on Social Collapse or simply compare the Roman Empire circa 400 (working Sewage and water systems, middle class economics, art and cultural centers, general peace, general health) with the remains pf that empire across Germania circa 1300 (No infostruture, no middle class whatsoever, plauge, war). It happens, unfortunately...


 * Until you can offer me canon suggesting that the MS must be used to defeat Ganon (despite Ganon being defeated in LoA, FSA, and possibly, OoX without the Mastersword) then your second point remains nothing more than an assumption. That you feel the MS must be used after ALttP is fine, however, that feeling is not admissable as a timeline argument unless you can back it with canon. Consider one of AlttP's last lines; "And the Mastersword sleeps again... Forever!"


 * Ah, the Miyamoto order... Well developer quotes are tricky, you need to come up with your own epistemology for dealing with them. Basically, you have 5 options here.

Developer quotes are
 * True unequivically: Which is a stupid suggestion that leads to all sorts of conradictions (ie, TP is simultaneously before and after tWW). It would also mean that there is a timeline, despite all your arguments.
 * True until proven false: The common answers, which disqualifies Miyamato's order bvecause we can prove a placement for LA, in contradiction with his quote, and textual canon tells us AlttP is before LoZ.
 * Neither true nor false until proven so: My answer. It requires one to demostrate canonical proof of the Mitamoto order... which you have yet to produce.
 * False until proven true: A strange answer, but a possible one; again, it opposes the unprovable Miyamoto order.
 * False unequivically; which outright disqualifies the Miyamoto order.


 * Which basically removes any leg the quote had to stand on. The truth is, the Miyamoto order was one of 3 or 4 released by "official" Nintendo sources during the N64 era; all of which have their problems (will Link to article when ZL comes back online...). I've found that the only way to theorize is to regard canon, not the people who write the canon.


 * Lol, so to summarize what you just said in, you'll put aside what Miyamoto said and actual Zelda facts and events in order to support your own theories. This means that it puts you on equal ground with everyone else, meaning that you cannot deny other people's theory or confirm your own. The importer 07:55, 28 January 2007 (CST)


 * No, I said that I may not consider developer quotes to be true unless they are supported by canon and I will not consider them true if canon says something different. I have not yet put aside "actual Zelda facts", as you have not yet suggested any. Again, the second you show me a canonical quote that supports LoZ before ALttP, you've got a case... all you've given me so far is assumptions (On the extent of the Sleeping Zelda, on the direction of progress in society, on the necessity of the MS).


 * Well I could ask you the same thing in reverse, show me proof that ALTTP past takes place before the first two 8bit games (minus the back of the NA box art). The importer 12:07, 28 January 2007 (CST)

Dreaming Island/Link's Awakening
Although I personally believe (like most people) that the first Zelda GameBoy adventure was meant to be a sequel to the 16bit adventure, the game could easily fit after every game where the Hero in Green defeated Ganon.

So, what are your thoughts on that?

The importer 11:48, 2 January 2007 (CST)


 * Link's Awakening could even fit after TWW/PH, and if you regard the ocean scenario it makes sense too. I have not found any real arguments for the Alttp/LA arc yet. 84.136.198.50 02:17, 7 January 2007 (CST)


 * There's an article on this in the wiki. LA's Link must fulfill a prophecy, which rules out any FS link, TP link and OoX link. He must save Hyrule from Ganon, which rules out tWW link. Ganon must die, which rules out OOT Link. LA could make sence as a sequel to AoL, but stylistic eleetns (official art, bosses, gamplay, etc) as well as intent and release date, all point to to post AlttP.-PIE


 * Got a link for this? The importer 08:11, 20 January 2007 (CST)


 * Well, the article in the timeline series titled "Oracle Confusion" is no more in depth my last edit(though it will be updated... eventually). Everything I cited is taken directly form the first paragraph of LA's instruction manual which can be found at:

http://www.zeldalegends.net/files/text/manuals/zelda4/z4manual.txt


 * Well, unless this was made up by NOA (meaning that it's not the actual Japanese story), then this would hold water. The importer 18:27, 23 January 2007 (CST)

Nut of the Mysterious Tree/Oracle Games
This is more of a question that I wish to ask than something I wish to debate at the moment. When starting either of the games, one is lead to assume that this Hero as already been into an adventure involving the TriForce since not everyone should have access to them in the first place. Of course, every Zelda games involving the TriForce as included our Hero meeting Princess Zelda for the first time (minus the 2nd game where he meets the Sleeping Zelda). So how could our Hero know about and have access to the TriForce and have never meant Zelda before?

Could the introduction text in the English version simply be a type on the translator's behalf? Let me know if you have any comments on that or if you have the answer.

The importer 11:48, 2 January 2007 (CST)


 * TP Link was identified by the Light spirits as the "Hero chosen of the Gods", and by Midna as "The sublime beast"not because of what he had already done, but because he bore signs (The Triforce mark and his wolf form). In the same way, OoX's Link is marked, and is recognised as the Hero of destiny before he has done anything to fulfill that role. -PIE
 * Yes but still, how and why would he be allowed to see the TriForce. One would think that this thing would be heavenly guarded and that only authorized people would be allowed in there. The importer 08:13, 20 January 2007 (CST)
 * One would think so, but one's thoughts are personal interpretations without canonical basis. We can't argue our feelings, and there has never been canon dictating the rules for viewing the Triforce. Another possible interpretation, based on he theory that OoX and ALttP are only 3 or 4 generations removed, is that the family of the AlttP hero still holds a priviliged place in Hyrule. This is pure speculation of course, and, in that, no more or less valid then your speculation.-PIE


 * If only they would have made it that Link already knew about Zelda, Impa and Ganon, this would have fit perfectly after AoL since the TriForce is whole and in safe keeping. Perhaps it's a bad translation, wish someone could clarify this. The importer 18:28, 23 January 2007 (CST)