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

Acutally when Ganon says this he is not referencing the master sword at all in TP. He is infact referencing the ceremonial sword used to execute (or fail to rather) him by the sages, in the TP back story. It is also the sord he uses in final combat with link in TP. Its the White ethereal looking sword he wields.

Ganon and the master sword
it shoul be noted though, that the sword Ganondorf was referring to when he said "an impressive looking blade nothing more" in TP was infact not the master sword at all, but was infact the ceremonial sword used by the sages in the back story to execute (or rather fail to) him. It is also the sword he uses in final combat with link on TP


 * It should be proved first. Direct analysis of the video shows Ganon looking a Link brandishing his sword, speaking the "Looks only" line, then drawing his own sword, and adressing it with a dirrerent speech; "My wish for this sword".--PIE

The Split Timeline Triforces
At the bottom of the article (the one which this discussion page is on), there's a bit about how Ganon having the Triforce in Timeline A doesn't make sense. Technically, with the split timeline this is true, but at the end of Timeline B (the one which Link is sent to the past) there is no Triforce of Courage, yet Link (WW) manages to scramble it together. In the same way, Ganon is given the Triforce of Power in Timeline A because there is no Triforce of Power in Timeline A. So in a way, it is a 'divine prank' of the Gods. To stop a paradox from ensuing (sense both Hyrules only have two pieces of the Triforce) they gave the respective Triforces to Link and Ganon.

On a different note, I also noticed the placements of TP and MM. It is noted in TP that Link is a descendant of OoT Link. Therefore, either MM and TP happen around the same time, but in different 'time spans' as in the Narnia-Earth connection. The only problem with this is that it requires Link to have had a descendant before he left and several years/decades to take place in Hyrule while only three days passed in Termina. The second idea is that OoT Link comes back from MM and then a few decades pass, then he has some descendants and TP takes place a few decades after MM. There is also a problem with this theory though, Ganon must have taken decades to return to power after the Sages conflict or OoT Link never heard of his release. I don't think either theory explains enough though, so if anyone under this topic has any ideas to satisfy this problem, add to this page or contact me. Superraptor 23:54, 1 February 2009 (UTC)


 * I don't really see where the conflict with Ganon's Triforce of Power is. He had the Triforce at the end of the adult timeline in OoT, which TP is supposed to be the sequel to, no? Ganon says the hatred of the Twili bled across the dimensions, making him powerful and allowing him to escape, and the some time afterward was sentenced by the sages. About TP Link, when did it say he was a descendant of OoT Link? I don't remember that. Jimbo Jambo 03:14, 2 February 2009 (UTC)

TP takes place on the Child Timeline portion of OoT. Ganondorf never had access to the Sacred Realm in this Timeline because Link never drew the Master Sword (which allowed Ganondorf to travel to the Sacred Realm and steal the Triforce), so he never had it. And about the descendant connection, you are right, it never mentions that he is a descendant, but it is implied since the Triforce 'birthmark' appears on the back of his hand at the beginning of the game, not after something had been accomplished (as in OoT, WW, etc.), most likely meaning, it has been theorized that he was a direct descendant. It would make sense because according to the story, his mother and father are dead, he has no known relatives, and he (a) has the Triforce 'birthmark', (b) has a horse officially named Epona (which could be a possible connection, and (c) he lives in a treehouse in the location where Kokiri forest most likely was (a possible connection to his raising). However, even if this connection is correct, as I have said above, it raises as many questions as answers. Such as what happened to the Kokiri (many theories have been placed, like the monkeys from the Forest Temple, I agree with this, the monkey with the flower has shown certain attributes I attach to Saria), where Child Link from OoT had a kid and what happened to him and his wife. I assume his wife was Hylian (maybe Zelda, I don't know) and he was born likely after MM (although, the issue in my above post is still relevant) and therefore I assume that child Zelda from Timeline A is Zelda from TP since TP Zelda's origins ar never released. Then the big problem is what happened to OoT Link from Timeline A. I still don't have a single explanation, so the big issue is then how TP Link came to be, and if my theory is incorrect how a Hylian ended up in an Ordonian village (where Kokiri Village used to be) and has the Triforce of Courage. It makes no sense otherwise. Respond if you have a point to make or something makes no sense. Superraptor 20:10, 2 February 2009 (UTC)


 * Why are we assuming TP takes place in the child timeline? As you pointed out, Ganon did not have access to the Sacred Realm (and thus the Triforce) in that timeline, yet is in possession of the Triforce of Power in TP. He also describes how the hatred of the Twili made him powerful and allowed him to escape his imprisonment, presumably what happened to him at the end of the adult timeline in OoT. As for Link, I think the mark on his hand at the beginning of the game is just a tattoo, as it's pretty different from the actual shining golden triangle we see when the Triforce of Courage is "active." I'm not really sure what you're suggesting about Epona, since it's probably just because of the same coincidence/will of the Gods that she be named Epona as Link is named Link, unless you're suggesting it's the same horse, in which case she would be absolutely ancient, which makes it extremely unlikely. And while Ordon village is in the same general direction as Kokiri Forest, you can't really say they're actually close to each other considering how much stuff can move around on the map (case and point, Zora's Domain). It's not that hard to imagine how a Hylian could have been born and/or raised in a village surrounded by non-Hylians anyway, so it doesn't necessarily mean OoT Link must have decided to start his family there. Jimbo Jambo 08:22, 3 February 2009 (UTC)

First, it has been confirmed by Eiji Aonuma, that TP is in the child timeline, is confirmed on the page about TP on this website, plus on this website: []. Check it out if you don't believe me. The Epona connection is small one and I agree with you there and yes Ganondorf didn't have the Triforce as I pointed out in the first paragraph, it was a 'divine prank' of sorts. And no, I am not suggesting it is the same horse as in the confirmed placement of TP is 100 years after the child timeline. And yes according to my theory I stand by the fact Kokiri Forest and Ordon Village are in relatively the same place- I mean the treehouse, the Forest Temple, the absense of the Kokiri, all adds up to it in my mind. If you disagree, it's ok with me, but the above are facts. And the Hylian-Ordonian thing, it's like a Zora raising a Goron or a Sheikah raising a Gerudo; it doesn't happen. TP gives me reason to believe Ordonians are a considered a 'lesser' race than Hylians, so the chances of Link being there, parentless I might add, is slim. And the mark (tattoo) I did assume is the Triforce, but since the symbol (when it glows) is similar to the same one Ganondorf has, I assume they changed it slightly to fit the story or gameplay. Superraptor 00:16, 4 February 2009 (UTC)


 * Interesting, I was not aware of this interview. Checking it out, I can see there's obviously a conflict, but like you said, it could easily be the gods' doing for whatever reason. Yeah, I still do think the idea that Ordon Village is where Kokiri Forest used to be is a bit of a stretch; I'm not denying that it's in the south and close to/in the woods, but I think that's way too broad an area to draw anything definitive from. The Kokiri could easily just be in a place unexplored in TP. As for the Ordonians, it never really occurred to me that the people from Ordon were a distinct race of humans, no more than someone from California is from someone from New York. That is, they aren't Hylians, but they're no different from any other round-eared humans (which are not exclusive to to Ordon). There's no reason to assume that pointy-eared Hylians could not also be found in rural places like Ordon, and even if they weren't, then it's not incredibly hard to imagine how a Hylian could end up being raised there (there have been crazier situations. OoT Link was raised in a forest by children who live in trees). About Link's Triforce, the glowing mark which drives away the Shadow Beast after Link turns into a wolf is clearly the actual thing, but I don't think the black Triforce outline he has at the very beginning is anything special. Jimbo Jambo 06:54, 4 February 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for your input. The Kokiri-Ordon relation is a stretch but the Forest Temple keeps me to that theory. The Ordonian-Hylian thing is a connection to the Kokiri-Hylian raisings in OoT. Other than that I have no other complaints with your notes. Thanks for such a compulsive argument Superraptor 22:54, 4 February 2009 (UTC)

There are no Kokiri anymore! Remember, Link grew up in Kokiri Forest and had to visit one day with navy the great deku tree! But the tree was already infected with evil and eventually died after Link was told the legend of the goddesses and had beaten ghoma. One kokiri said, that if the tree dies, the kokiri will also vanish. Link then goes to visit Zelda, (travells back in time) and stops ganon at the castle before ganondorf can betray the king and lay his hands on the triforce. So there is a happy future for Hyrule except for the kokiri race. hero of courage

Timeline Conflicts section
I'm in favor of the deletion of this section. It contains speculation about the Imprisoning War and the possible creation of a land in the Great Sea by the Deku Tree. The official timeline negates both. Zeldafan1982 15:54, 30 December 2011 (EST)

Hyrule Historia on "Ganon vs. Ganondorf"

 * 「ガノン」はガノンドロフの愛称であるが、ここではガノンドロフが獣のような姿に変身したときの呼称. 巨大 な猪のような外見.
 * "Ganon" was a pet name for Ganondorf, a name given when Ganondorf transforms into the figure of a beast, which gives the appearance of a giant wild boar. (translation source)

I think that should settle the entire debate. Rather than speculating what the names are used for, speculation can now be devoted to why Ganon was used to refer to the Gerudo/Ganondorf to the beast, etc. -- Snorlax Monster  18:52, 10 November 2012 (UTC)
 * Glitterberri has translated this part a bit differently: "The Demon King, Ganon: “Ganon” is the nickname of Ganondorf. Here, it refers Ganondorf’s transformation into a giant, beast-like monster. He resembles a giant boar." (source). Given that the castle is called "Ganon's castle" I think that her translation is more accurate. I mean, if Ganon refers always to the beast form then the castle should probably have been named Ganondorf's castle. Zeldafan1982 20:17, 10 November 2012 (UTC)
 * I translate it as:
 * "Ganon" is the nickname of Ganondorf, and here, he is named this when Ganondorf has transformed into a beast-like form. He has the appearance of a giant boar.
 * The translation from Zelda Universe is a little off because it applies the past tense to the first clause instead of the second, which is where it is intended. The Glitterberri translation drops the past tense and "when" altogether and seems to be saying Ganon is the name of the act of transformation itself rather than him after transformation. The awkward pronoun use is due to the structure of Japanese grammar and I either had to have it that way or phrase it as "here, it is used when..." which would be removing the verb "to name/to be named". Also, the title does say "Demon King Ganon", but I didn't think it was important to my point. I can speculate why I think it is called Ganon's Castle, but I'm trying to focus on the information provided at the moment. -- Snorlax Monster  02:12, 11 November 2012 (UTC)
 * I wish I knew Japanese myself so that I wouldn't have to ask the translators for clarification :P Anyway, I think we should mention on Ganon's page that there are instances where both Ganondorf and Ganon are used to refer to the human form, whereas his beast form is always referred to as Ganon. Zeldafan1982 14:15, 11 November 2012 (UTC)
 * I think that's a good idea, although maybe if we could get quotes for each of the improper usages and cite them (plus mentioning Ganon's Castle). -- Snorlax Monster  15:07, 11 November 2012 (UTC)
 * The question is, should we take as canon that Ganon refers only to the beast form? The quote says "here" so I'm not sure if we should generalize it. Zeldafan1982 00:59, 12 November 2012 (UTC)

Archive section
I'm in favor of moving this page under an "Archive" section on the Timeline template as I mentioned and here. There are many points which are incorrect or unsupported. For example, the last two points on "Ganon vs Ganondorf" lack evidence. In the "Ganon's mortality" section the first two points are incorrect, Ganon does die in TWW and TP. Also the light arrows are obviously different from the silver ones, the former are only able to stun Ganon. Zeldafan1982 23:03, 10 November 2012 (UTC)