Legend of Zelda Zelda Discussion Thread

[LexCorp]

No apparently he jerked off to the graphical experience, not the girly posters

Hmm sounds like a great guy.....

I think the graphics on TP were great fun more than anything, felt very free running around the landscape.

 

[SuBe]

Hmm sounds like a great guy.....

I think the graphics on TP were great fun more than anything, felt very free running around the landscape.

I hope that doesn't mean you go all Asteriod-Man when you ride over Eldin Bridge.

 

[Spidey-Bat]

I'm basing my theories on what happens in the game. The king says it will not be Hyrule and Ganondorf dies without the Triforce which is the only thing that prevented him from ever dying. You say they name the new land Hyrule (after the game implies it won't be) and Ganondorf comes back...because they should? That is just to help YOUR theory (which I disagree with). There is no basis for that in WW and apparently PH, either. You just think it should without any real reason. Sorry, but I think we'll have to agree to disagree.

The King says it won't be Hyrule as in the one that is flooded at the end of TWW. There is nothing that indicates the new land cannot be named Hyrule.

As for Ganondorf, you said this earlier:

"And after his "death" in TP, he says he will be back as long as he has the power of the Triforce. That seems to fit pretty well in between OOT and WW."

Did you even play the game? You see the Triforce fade from his hand. You're contradicting yourself. You say Ganondorf cannot comeback after TWW because he loses the Triforce of Power. However, he loses it in TP. According to you, when he loses it he can't come back. So how can he die, lose it in TP but come back in TWW as you suggest?

Also, in AoL, Ganon's followers try to resurrect him by having Link's blood on his ashes. This, along with Twinrova in the Oracle cames, indicates there are ways to resurrect him.

They're the same thing. Until there is a game that takes place before Ocarina of Time, the Hero of Time will continue to be the first and "ancient" hero.

Link is the ancient hero in the child timeline but the Hero of Time in the adult timeline.

 

[DACrowe]

Ganondorf did not lose the Triforce of power in TP. It fades from his hand because he "dies," in that he was defeated and Zant was no longer around to bring him back. But he will be back, as he promises because the Triforce of power still rests in him, even if his physical form is dying (hence the fading of the triforce) it is still with him. He lost his body at the flashback in the middle of the game but as a cloud of spiritual energy he could still appear before Zant and use him to return. He still has the Triforce and cannot die. In WW, he loses the triforce. There is no continue after that.

 

[Spidey-Bat]

However, in Four Swords Adventure, a new Ganondorf is born. They even call him "the ancient demon reborn".

 

[DACrowe]

Yes, he is back in the sense that he has been reborn in physical form as he still has the Triforce of power at this time.

 

[Spidey-Bat]

So there goes your theory that TWW is the end.

 

[hippie_hunter]

There's no way that the Wind Waker can be the last game in the series. It has the Master Sword in it and the last time the Master Sword is supposed to be used is in A Link to the Past.

That and it has Ganondorf when he was still sane when in the Wind Waker. Something he clearly lacked it in pretty much all of the 2D games.

 

[LexCorp]

I hope that doesn't mean you go all Asteriod-Man when you ride over Eldin Bridge.

I don't know that guy.

But yeah it rocks to free run in games

 

[DACrowe]

So there goes your theory that TWW is the end.

No....he LOST THE TRIFORCE IN WW. IT IS GONE. He cannot come back without the triforce. Hence, he dies and cannot return.

 

[DACrowe]

There's no way that the Wind Waker can be the last game in the series. It has the Master Sword in it and the last time the Master Sword is supposed to be used is in A Link to the Past.

That and it has Ganondorf when he was still sane when in the Wind Waker. Something he clearly lacked it in pretty much all of the 2D games.

I said 2D and 3D were on opposite timelines.

 

[Spidey-Bat]

No....he LOST THE TRIFORCE IN WW. IT IS GONE. He cannot come back without the triforce. Hence, he dies and cannot return.

But he does return in a new form in FSA.

 

[StrainedEyes]

How could any of the games be anything after WW when Hyrule is flooded? Apart from the new one that is a direct sequel to WW.

 

[LexCorp]

How could any of the games be anything after WW when Hyrule is flooded? Apart from the new one that is a direct sequel to WW.

Good point

 

[Spidey-Bat]

How could any of the games be anything after WW when Hyrule is flooded? Apart from the new one that is a direct sequel to WW.

Because at the end of WW, Link and Zelda go off to find a new land and establish a New Hyrule.

 

[hippie_hunter]

I said 2D and 3D were on opposite timelines.

But the 2D and 3D games are not on opposite timelines.

Ocarina of Time is in both timelines. That alone disproves your theory.

 

[hippie_hunter]

How could any of the games be anything after WW when Hyrule is flooded? Apart from the new one that is a direct sequel to WW.

Because as Spidey-Bat said Link and Tetra go off to find a new "Hyrule."

It provides an explaination on why the geography of the Hyrule from Ocarina of Time/Twilight Princess is so different than that of A Link to the Past and the first game.

 

[DACrowe]

But he does return in a new form in FSA.

Which takes place before WW. GET IT? He does take a new form because he still HAS THE TRIFORCE. Therefore, if they are in the same continuity Four Sword Adventures has to be BEFORE WW. In WW he loses the Triforce and dies. There is no returning. The King says Hyrule is finished and not to name the new land after it. The story is over. The godesses take the triforce back. Ganondorf is dead and Hyrule is gone. Finto.

 

[DACrowe]

But the 2D and 3D games are not on opposite timelines.

Ocarina of Time is in both timelines. That alone disproves your theory.

How do you know OOT is in both timelines? Last time I checked, Link had not been seen by Ganon before in LOZ on NES. That was their first encounter. ATTP is a direct sequel to the NES games down the line in a new generation.

How can OOT be the beginning with no reference to it in LOZ? Because...wait for it...THEY'RE NOT THE SAME TIMELINE.

 

[Spidey-Bat]

Which takes place before WW. GET IT? He does take a new form because he still HAS THE TRIFORCE. Therefore, if they are in the same continuity Four Sword Adventures has to be BEFORE WW. In WW he loses the Triforce and dies. There is no returning. The King says Hyrule is finished and not to name the new land after it. The story is over. The godesses take the triforce back. Ganondorf is dead and Hyrule is gone. Finto.

Wait...

You say Ganondorf in OoT is the same from TP. The Ganondorf in WW HAS to be the same from OoT because he recognizes Link and talks of the Hero of Time.

However, according to you, Ganondorf was reborn between TP and WW in FSA? That makes no sense.

The King never says "No! You can't name your land Hyrule". He just says it won't be the same Hyrule as the old one.

How do you know OOT is in both timelines? Last time I checked, Link had not been seen by Ganon before in LOZ on NES. That was their first encounter.

It's a different Link.

ATTP is a direct sequel to the NES games down the line in a new generation.

LTTP comes before LoZ-AOL. FSA has to come shortly before LTTP because that's how Ganondorf receives the Trident of Power which you admit comes before WW. This doesn't make sense because the georgraphy is completely different.

How can OOT be the beginning with no reference to it in LOZ? Because...wait for it...THEY'RE NOT THE SAME TIMELINE.

Or because LoZ came out over 10 years before OoT.

 

[hippie_hunter]

How do you know OOT is in both timelines? Last time I checked, Link had not been seen by Ganon before in LOZ on NES. That was their first encounter. ATTP is a direct sequel to the NES games down the line in a new generation.

How can OOT be the beginning with no reference to it in LOZ? Because...wait for it...THEY'RE NOT THE SAME TIMELINE.

1. The Link of Ocarina of Time/Majora's Mask is a completely different Link who killed Ganon in the Legend of Zelda/Adventure of Link.

2. A Link to the Past occurs before the Legend of Zelda.

3. Because the Legend of Zelda was made 10 FREAKING YEARS BEFORE OCARINA OF TIME!!!

Ocarina of Time is considered the first game chronologically in the series by both the fans and Nintendo.

If you go under the split timeline theory, the timeline was split by Link's adventures of Ocarina of Time and Zelda allowing Link to have his childhood at the end of the game. Not by 2D and 3D presentation.

If you want to use that logic than we can say that Metroid has a split timeline between the regular Metroid games and the Metroid Prime games.

 

[DACrowe]

1. The Link of Ocarina of Time/Majora's Mask is a completely different Link who killed Ganon in the Legend of Zelda/Adventure of Link.

2. A Link to the Past occurs before the Legend of Zelda.

3. Because the Legend of Zelda was made 10 FREAKING YEARS BEFORE OCARINA OF TIME!!!

Ocarina of Time is considered the first game chronologically in the series by both the fans and Nintendo.

If you go under the split timeline theory, the timeline was split by Link's adventures of Ocarina of Time and Zelda allowing Link to have his childhood at the end of the game. Not by 2D and 3D presentation.

If you want to use that logic than we can say that Metroid has a split timeline between the regular Metroid games and the Metroid Prime games.

I am using in game references. You say because of Four Swords that WW cannot be the end (which makes NO SENSE WHATSOEVER). I mention LOZ. Ganon does not recognize Link in it. Thus how is OOT the beginning? Because collective fan thinking it is. OOT is as much a remake or cannonizing of the basic legend as anything else. It is the perfect mold of previous ideas and stands apart from them. All the 3D games since OOT fit perfectly in a timeline with that game. The 2D games do not, and you only try and force the square pegs into the round holes because you want them to. Nintendo said there are two timelines, they never said what they were. My theory could be just as apt as any thusly. However, my theory allows the games in both timelines to exist with cohesion and little confusion. By mixing the 2D and 3D games you run into a series of contradictions that cannot be explained and are simply ignored.

In WW the king says "No it will not be Hyrule, it will be your land!" which is the game saying that this is not Hyrule but something new. You want it to be Hyrule so it can accomdate your theories, but the game implies it isn't. Does it spell it out? No. But Nintendo seemed to imply pretty heavily that it will not be Hyrule and the only people who suggest they find a new land that seems eerily similar to the one in OOT are fans trying to squeeze it in. The line is open to interpretation, but the reading the creators intended for the text is that there would not be another Hyrule. Fans want it to be so it makes sense for themselves.

That's not the case.

 

[LexCorp]

Because at the end of WW, Link and Zelda go off to find a new land and establish a New Hyrule.

But there is no way of knowing what this new hyrule looks like.

 

[hippie_hunter]

I am using in game references. You say because of Four Swords that WW cannot be the end (which makes NO SENSE WHATSOEVER). I mention LOZ. Ganon does not recognize Link in it. Thus how is OOT the beginning? Because collective fan thinking it is. OOT is as much a remake or cannonizing of the basic legend as anything else. It is the perfect mold of previous ideas and stands apart from them. All the 3D games since OOT fit perfectly in a timeline with that game. The 2D games do not, and you only try and force the square pegs into the round holes because you want them to. Nintendo said there are two timelines, they never said what they were. My theory could be just as apt as any thusly. However, my theory allows the games in both timelines to exist with cohesion and little confusion. By mixing the 2D and 3D games you run into a series of contradictions that cannot be explained and are simply ignored.

In WW the king says "No it will not be Hyrule, it will be your land!" which is the game saying that this is not Hyrule but something new. You want it to be Hyrule so it can accomdate your theories, but the game implies it isn't. Does it spell it out? No. But Nintendo seemed to imply pretty heavily that it will not be Hyrule and the only people who suggest they find a new land that seems eerily similar to the one in OOT are fans trying to squeeze it in. The line is open to interpretation, but the reading the creators intended for the text is that there would not be another Hyrule. Fans want it to be so it makes sense for themselves.

That's not the case.

1. Ocarina of Time is first because Nintendo themselves said it was first.

2. I've never mentioned about Four Swords. I personally consider the games not developed by Nintendo out of continuity. Most of all they weren't developed by Nintendo, they were developed by Capcom (Four Swords trilogy and the Oracles games). Second, they tend to make things messy sometimes when it comes to the timeline.

I also tend to follow the timeloop theory because Nintendo has made so many contradictory remarks about the timeline that until a game specific says there's a dual timeline or Nintendo releases an official timeline that I prefer one timeline.

3. Of course he says it won't be Hyrule. Ancient Hyrule was destroyed and is never coming back, but they can still go off into a new land and name it Hyrule which is what they most likely did.

 

[Spidey-Bat]

But there is no way of knowing what this new hyrule looks like.

Yes. You can place MC after WW and assume that the Hyrule of MC is the new Hyrule Link and Zelda found at the end of WW/PH.

I am using in game references. You say because of Four Swords that WW cannot be the end (which makes NO SENSE WHATSOEVER).

How does it not make sense?

I mention LOZ. Ganon does not recognize Link in it.

It's a New Link.

Thus how is OOT the beginning? Because collective fan thinking it is. OOT is as much a remake or cannonizing of the basic legend as anything else. It is the perfect mold of previous ideas and stands apart from them.

OoT isn't a remake. Nintendo even acknowledges it being the beginning of the timeline and predates the NES games.

All the 3D games since OOT fit perfectly in a timeline with that game.

Except TP doesn't fit with one of the endings of OoT and WW.

The 2D games do not, and you only try and force the square pegs into the round holes because you want them to. Nintendo said there are two timelines, they never said what they were. My theory could be just as apt as any thusly. However, my theory allows the games in both timelines to exist with cohesion and little confusion. By mixing the 2D and 3D games you run into a series of contradictions that cannot be explained and are simply ignored.

Have you played LttP? The prologue is the events of OoT. That disproves your idea that the 3D and 2D games are separate.

In WW the king says "No it will not be Hyrule, it will be your land!" which is the game saying that this is not Hyrule but something new. You want it to be Hyrule so it can accomdate your theories, but the game implies it isn't.

Yeah, something new as in a new land. There is nothing to indicate that the new land cannot be called Hyrule.

Does it spell it out? No. But Nintendo seemed to imply pretty heavily that it will not be Hyrule and the only people who suggest they find a new land that seems eerily similar to the one in OOT are fans trying to squeeze it in.

The new land they find is the one in LttP which is nothing like the OoT Hyrule.

The line is open to interpretation, but the reading the creators intended for the text is that there would not be another Hyrule. Fans want it to be so it makes sense for themselves.

That's not the case.

As I've said, there is NOTHING to indicate the new land cannot be named Hyrule.

2. I've never mentioned about Four Swords. I personally consider the games not developed by Nintendo out of continuity. Most of all they weren't developed by Nintendo, they were developed by Capcom (Four Swords trilogy and the Oracles games). Second, they tend to make things messy sometimes when it comes to the timeline.

They don't make it messy. It goes (in the adult timeline) OoT-WW-PH-MC-FS-FSA-LTTP. FSA HAS to be before LTTP because that is the game where Ganondorf is reborn and gets the Trident of Power which we see him use in LTTP.

Also, the Minish Cap makes reference to the Triumph Forks (aka Triforce) and the Hyrule in that game is in an ocean (see a screencap I posted a page or 2 ago). This suggests it takes place after WW/PH.