ThatObviousUser
ὠαἴÏÏιÏÏÎ¿Ï Ïαá¿Ï εἶ
viciouskillersquirrel said:
I don't. It's in its own universe.
-
Hey Guest. Check out your NeoGAF Wrapped 2025 results here!
Zelda timeline exists, Skyward Sword before Ocarina
- Thread starter EatChildren
- Start date
I don't. It's in its own universe.
DeathbyVolcano
Banned
I also don't, because its a fucking multiplayer game with a pasted-on story for shits.
Nintendo also made the BS Zelda games. Do you count that as canon?viciouskillersquirrel said:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Satellaview_games_from_The_Legend_of_Zelda_series
viciouskillersquirrel
Member
The Palace of the Four Sword (with the broken shards of the Four Sword) is in the latest release (not counting VC emulation) of ALttP. FSA at the very least is canon.
BS Zelda and Ancient Stone Tablets both happen directly after the events of ALttP and make reference to undertaking a voyage a la LA. If they're canon, they don't really affect much of anything, so it's up to you.RagnarokX said:
EmCeeGramr
Member
I dunno, that really seems like "hee-hee, bonus content for the GBA version" not serious story stuff.viciouskillersquirrel said:
usea said:
Bullshit. It's always subject to individual interpretation, and Zelda's canon is inarguably weak, but it's a completely valid concept. Proof by negation/inversion: DC's Elseworlds, Marvel's What If?, Alternate Universe fanfic, etc.
Canon is nothing more (or less!) than the common ground between author and audience about the assumptions that the story is allowed to make.
viciouskillersquirrel
Member
To me it always seemed like a retcon, like removing all mention of Ganon from the prologue.EmCeeGramr said:
I guess it doesn't really matter since none of the FS games are Triforce titles, but I like to think of them as sharing the same universe as the others.
EmCeeGramr
Member
Man, those Satellaview games were such interesting concepts. "Serialized" games. I hope Nintendo still has all the materials and data and rereleases them someday.viciouskillersquirrel said:
viciouskillersquirrel
Member
You wanna know what they best part is?EmCeeGramr said:
Those games featured voice acting.
tee hee
EmCeeGramr
Member
So did... Tetra's Trackers, of all games.viciouskillersquirrel said:
It seems Nintendo can only shell out for voice acting for Zelda when it's a spinoff or limited release that nobody will ever play.
viciouskillersquirrel
Member
Boney said:
Yeah. I so am.
For serious? That's awesome!EmCeeGramr said:
viciouskillersquirrel said:
The original SNES game and its manual followed two different narrations. In the manual it came right out and explained the backstory of the game and how Ganondorf got the Triforce and became Ganon (the manual was written by Koizumi).
In the game, you don't find out Ganon is behind everything until you reach the Palace of Darkness in the Dark World, and the word "Triforce" isn't used until then either.
The GBA version just follows the game's point of view.
The Minish Cap was made by Flagship, whose members later joined EAD to make Four Sword Adventures along with staff from A Link to the Past. (Later, the team went on to develop Phantom Hourglass.)
EmCeeGramr
Member
Ha! Caught you! There was some VERY minor voice acting in Wind Waker!AniHawk said:
Including Link himself!
ShockingAlberto
Member
Wind Waker was on the Gamecube.EmCeeGramr said:
EmCeeGramr
Member
SILENCE YOU!ShockingAlberto said:
Quality voice work for a game of Zelda's size costs more than Nintendo is willing to go, and they know fans will defend it and/or won't care because of nostalgia and some entirely false belief born from historical revision that the limited/nonexistent voice acting in NES/SNES/N64 games is due to some conscious design choice about "the nature of Zelda" and not memory and cost limitations.
viciouskillersquirrel
Member
Random trivia I picked up on the internetz (not sure if it's true). Allegedly:EmCeeGramr said:
OoT and MM had the same voice actor play Link
WW and PH shared the Link voice actor but they were distinct from the OoT/MM voice actor
ST had a new voice actor for Link
TP had a new voice actor for Link
WW and PH shared the Link voice actor but they were distinct from the OoT/MM voice actor
ST had a new voice actor for Link
TP had a new voice actor for Link
It's a little detail that nobody should ever notice, but apparently, Nintendo likes to keep the voice actor consistent across games that share the same Link.
Even if it's just about costs or whatever, I don't want VA in Zelda. Voice acting in games mostly sucks and Nintendo has no experience with it at all.EmCeeGramr said:
EmCeeGramr
Member
For all the story scenes? And with all the content on the cart? I don't know about that. RE2 wizardry aside and all, it would probably would have necessitated some cuts somewhere, and for such a hyped large production as OoT, Nintendo probably didn't want to pony up the money for voice acting of the quality and quantity to match that.AniHawk said:
viciouskillersquirrel
Member
For the record, I'm all for voice acting as long as it's Midna-gibberish or a made-up language. It'll provide subtle personality effects while at the same time smoothing over bad acting.
It'll also mean that they won't need to dub the game.
It'll also mean that they won't need to dub the game.
HylianScribe
Member
The no voice acting comment, while not as "final" as some outlets stated (he only specifically said he never wants to do a voice for Link, he wasn't as firm about other characters), really makes me disappointed. I mean, why bother animating the mouths like they did in Twilight Princess and probably Skyward Sword if they don't talk?
Certainly that concept exists, and is vital to stories. However, it's done implicitly. And it's done from within the story itself. For example a star trek book may come out which establishes pretty early on -- as most stories do -- what assumptions the audience should make about events that have and haven't happened. Then another book can come out which demands different assumptions from the audience. This takes place WITHIN each story, and can vary from one to the next.TwinIonEngines said:
Canon, as a concept, is different. It establishes the existence of a "real" universe which many stories take place. The author dictates what events factually happen and don't happen in this universe. This is a meta event, which does not happen within a story.
The thing is, there isn't one copy of a story. There is a copy in the head of each individual in the audience. The copy is owned by that individual, although it's a collaboration/cooperation between the audience and the author. The author communicates and the audience member interprets in their own way. The idea that there is an actual universe over which the author has a final say is ludicrous and I'm sad so many people subscribe to it.
Whether or not some event is "canon" is meaningless. There is literally no difference either way. Nothing changes. There isn't an actual universe out there to which membership is decided. Each story can frame itself in its own way. What is true in one story might not be true in the next. Free yourself from this drivel (not you specifically twinion, just people in general)
Inception spoilers:
Does the top keep spinning after the final cut? Or does it fall? Answer: Neither. Nothing is depicted after the final cut. If the writer/director came out and said "the top falls at the end" does that mean it fell? No. Each person owns their own copy of the story, and how they imagine events after the cut is up to them. Your imagination is not owned by authors. The only interaction they have with it should be directly through works.
If a sequel comes out where events imply the top fell, does that mean it fell? No. That means within the sequel, you make the assumption that it fell. It didn't actually fall. There is no "actual" universe.
If a sequel comes out where events imply the top fell, does that mean it fell? No. That means within the sequel, you make the assumption that it fell. It didn't actually fall. There is no "actual" universe.
Greek mythology. What's canon there? Which stories actually happened and which did not? How much of what you know about any old mythology comes from modern entertainment, and how much from the original works? The ideas about characters and general events are sort of nebulous things in your mind, in each person's mind. There isn't a standards board which dictates what is canon about how many girls Zeus fucked.
Sorry I'm rambling, and not making my thoughts very clear. But I feel pretty strongly about the subject and it seems like the world is in love with an idea I find absurd.
usea said:
It's interesting that you bring up Star Trek novels, because I'd argue that a certain amount of deference to explicit canon is necessary to maintain an acceptable level of internal coherence in the world-building of a large collaborative work between multiple authors. Or even for one author, when the text is large enough. After you've established a given assumption about events informing the story a few times, the audience is used to making that assumption. It shouldn't be changed without good cause, because it risks taking the audience out of the story and breaking the communication between them and the author.
This is true, but we are social animals. We want to have shared experiences, so it's a natural thing for us to find common ground and make connections between the copy that exists in my head and the copy that exists in my buddy's head. This is why people like to talk about movies after they watch them together. Canon is just formalizing this process to a certain degree.
I'd note that authorial fiat is not an intrinsic element of canon, or at least it's not given primary significance in all theories of canonicity. There are certainly people who argue that the Word of God is law, but there are others who place it below the text in the hierarchy of what defines canon, others who ignore it entirely, and still others, like you, who actively argue against it:
I largely agree, but realize that this is itself an argument of canonicity. Canon is not a binary, nor is it just a history of events. It's a process and an argument. And although it is valid to do as you do, and refuse to assign meaning to the canonicity of events, it is certainly not the only valid way to enjoy fiction. Dismissing other approaches as 'drivel' and telling people to free themselves from it runs directly counter to the idea that each person has ownership of their individual experience. Let them have that ownership and decide for themselves what meaning they want to attribute or not attribute to the idea of canon as it applies to a given story.
This argument begins to approach literary solipsism. I agree that if you have a text with an ambiguous ending, and a sequel that resolves the ambiguity, when you look at the original text by itself you not only can but should interpret the ending as ambiguous. It's improper to import events or knowledge from the sequel when evaluating it as it stands alone. It doesn't apply.
On the other hand, it's perfectly valid to consider an original and its sequel together as a single text. When evaluating that text, the resolution of the ambiguity needs to be considered to have actually happened in the text, even if it occurred "off screen".
There's rather a lot that's still canon even if you group God of War and Hercules: the Legendary Journeys in the same evaluation as the works of Homer. I hope we can all agree that Zeus is the king of the gods and throws lighting bolts, and that the gods are related by blood and live on Olympus.
It's thoroughly uncontroversial to say that canon doesn't speak to the exact number of Zeus' conquests. It certainly doesn't mean that there's no canon, nor is it even a particularly good argument about the relative strength of the canon. What I'm trying to get across here is that canon is not the idea that there's some sort of 'actual world' or universal reference book that rigidly defines every event that ever happened to everyone in a story. I'll grant that some people do think like that, but in a lot of cases it's just a desire to view multiple texts as part of a unified whole, and the hope that there aren't too many internal contradictions. And there's also a lot room in between those two points.
Well, at least it contributed a lot more than the post I initially responded to. This is a Zelda timeline theory thread. I.e., a zone for the low-impact mental masturbation of arguing over one of the weakest canons in the known world. I doubt that many of us care deeply about whether or not FSA is "canon", we're just trying to have fun debating how to include it in the same mental image of events as OoT and LttP in a relatively elegant and non-contradictory fashion. The people saying that it's not canon or not in the same canon as the other games are simply arguing that it can't be done, for one reason or another.
You may not agree with their reasons, and you may not like our game, but no-one is telling you you have to play - so if you want to look over the fence at us and say "that's a stupid game", don't be surprised if you're not welcome. It's not exactly news to us that the Legend of motherfucking Zelda isn't really real.
I sympathize with your desire to take a philosophical stand somewhere on this issue. But holy shit is this the wrong venue. We're not arguing about canon to further this or that literary interpretation of the text, we're arguing about canon for the sake of having arguments about canon.
.
.
.
I am generally opposed to VA in Zelda, because I'm just not that into the cinematic aspects of the series and don't want them to expand yet further.
I wasn't trying to tie my stance on canon into any sort of zelda-related commentary. I realize it's not really the primary point of discussion in this thread. I just felt like I had something to say about it since it sort-of came up and I follow the thread. I'm obviously not familiar with any formal study on canon, so really I guess I'm using the wrong terms. I'm arguing against some thing I see constantly all over the place.
It doesn't bug me when people discuss what things they see as true or consistent among a series of works. When this discussion involves both the audience and the author(s), that's great. However, it bothers me when an author dictates something about their 'universe' outside of works, and it bothers me that "canon" seems to always go hand-in-hand with "authority". As shared ideas about fiction canon is great. As an authority on fiction it's not. Sorry if I wasn't able to communicate that clearly.
To tie it to zelda, whether or not Nintendo HQ has a timeline document in a safe somewhere should imo have absolutely no bearing on how we interpret the games. The very idea is so ridiculous to me that I find it difficult to attempt sincere or level-headed discussion on the subject. Just because Aonuma says game X comes before game Y doesn't make it true. There is no true. The concept of true/false doesn't apply, the way I see it.
Thanks for responding in such a reasonable way.
It doesn't bug me when people discuss what things they see as true or consistent among a series of works. When this discussion involves both the audience and the author(s), that's great. However, it bothers me when an author dictates something about their 'universe' outside of works, and it bothers me that "canon" seems to always go hand-in-hand with "authority". As shared ideas about fiction canon is great. As an authority on fiction it's not. Sorry if I wasn't able to communicate that clearly.
To tie it to zelda, whether or not Nintendo HQ has a timeline document in a safe somewhere should imo have absolutely no bearing on how we interpret the games. The very idea is so ridiculous to me that I find it difficult to attempt sincere or level-headed discussion on the subject. Just because Aonuma says game X comes before game Y doesn't make it true. There is no true. The concept of true/false doesn't apply, the way I see it.
Thanks for responding in such a reasonable way.
usea said:
Like I said, your second attempt was much better. For myself, I don't want anyone telling me that I have to view statements made by the author outside the text as definitive, but on the other hand I can see why people would want to consider them important. If having your vision of the story to correspond as closely to the author's as possible is something you want, then certainly you should pay attention to anything they have to say about it.
Well, there are a fair number of people who agree with you, and reject author fiat as it applies to the Zelda timeline. The existence of a timeline document isn't even germane to that argument. However, there are also people who make the argument that authorial intent doesn't even exist for this series, and statements about a timeline document are evidence that it does. If you go look at the OP you'll see that's why it was brought up and this thread created in the first place.
You're welcome. The thread's kind of dead anyway, but it gave me something to write about.
I guessed this was the best thread in which to bring this up. Do you guys think the new zelda game's story has anything to do with that freaky cutscene in TP? I was playing the game just now and it's a really interesting scene. It would be cool to see the story of how it all happened in detail.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VKYyh8zi3aIDante23 said:
Tathanen
Get Inside Her!
apana said:
I had thought about that at some point. It is certainly possible! Maybe they'll tie it into the Master Sword origin story, make it so the girl-sword sacrifices herself into an eternally sealed state to lock off the Sacred Realm after those pre-Twili tried to get in.
Though it's usually best to NOT expect a game to be something that explains anything else, that's how I got myself disappointed in Twilight Princess['s plot]. And Spirit Tracks, to a degree.
Freeza Under The Shower
Member
Timelines, how do they work?
Kai Dracon
Writing a dinosaur space opera symphony
Zeitgeister said:
The Doctor knows, biatch, he got time in his bag.
viciouskillersquirrel
Member
You know they love doing it, but I don't think they like being painted into a corner by the continuity.AniHawk said:
By the way, just for kicks and giggles, my current idea of what the complete continuity looks like is:
...................(TBF->CCTBToL->FPTRR)
................../
.................WW/TT/PH->ST->TMC->FS/FSA->ALttP/AST/OoS/OoA/LA->LoZ-AoL
................/
SS->OoT<
................\
.................MM->TP/LCT
BS LoZ and Game & Watch Zelda were re-imaginings of LoZ, so I haven't included them here. If you think they're canon, substitute them for LoZ.
The Tingle games cause all sorts of problems, but since FPTRR obviously sits on the adult timeline, I have them branching off from there.
Tathanen
Get Inside Her!
Oh jesus I think I got eye cancer from those acronyms.
Also: these days I place the Oracles in their own distinct canon. They come off to me as one of those anime movies they release after a series ends that takes elements from the series but reshuffles them for a slightly different story. It's impossible to reconcile with anything.
Also: these days I place the Oracles in their own distinct canon. They come off to me as one of those anime movies they release after a series ends that takes elements from the series but reshuffles them for a slightly different story. It's impossible to reconcile with anything.
viciouskillersquirrel
Member
It's beautiful, isn't it?Boney said:
viciouskillersquirrel
Member
Not exactly. The Tingle games exist in both timelines but are still related to one another.Pappasman said:
viciouskillersquirrel
Member
After AoL. The games weren't made by Nintendo and probably aren't part of the timeline document, but they don't affect anything.Enk said:
Zelda's Adventure happens after both WoG and FoE have concluded.
POWERSPHERE
Member
It's official. Zelda makes peole crazy.
Similar threads
- Poll