Hey, Snow, since you tend to know everything about the series... (SPOILERS)

#11KeryAdamsPosted 12/12/2012 11:04:23 AM
No relation.
---
GT/PSN: Owngineer
Currently playing: Legend of Zelda II, Resident Evil 3, Castlevania: SotN, Rocksmith
#12Czar_YoshiPosted 12/12/2012 2:55:14 PM
KeryAdams posted...
No relation.


That was a really compelling argument there, pal. Ever heard of the timeline?
#13KeryAdamsPosted 12/12/2012 2:59:23 PM
Yes, I don't put any stock in retcons or metafiction. The name "Demise" appears in no game featuring Ganon and Ganon is only ever stated to be a resurrected or reincarnated form of... wait for it... Ganon.

Why they didn't just use Ganon for the origin story is beyond me.
---
GT/PSN: Owngineer
Currently playing: Legend of Zelda II, Resident Evil 3, Castlevania: SotN, Rocksmith
#14Czar_YoshiPosted 12/12/2012 5:59:45 PM
KeryAdams posted...
Yes, I don't put any stock in retcons or metafiction.


Good, because that's a very different thing from the timeline, which has been confirmed many times by the creators of the series and has been published into a book.
#15pokemega32Posted 12/12/2012 6:03:33 PM
KeryAdams posted...
Yes, I don't put any stock in retcons or metafiction. The name "Demise" appears in no game featuring Ganon and Ganon is only ever stated to be a resurrected or reincarnated form of... wait for it... Ganon.


Well, yeah. When you resurrect someone, they tend to be the same person they were before they died.

Also, he was never stated to be a reincarnation anywhere until Hyrule Historia came out.

Saying that you don't accept Demise being Ganon's predecessor is like saying that you don't accept Ganon originally being a Gerudo named Ganondorf because the NES games made no mention of his backstory.
---
When life gives you melons, you know you're dyslexic.
#16RygonPosted 12/12/2012 6:25:46 PM
KeryAdams posted...
Yes, I don't put any stock in retcons or metafiction. The name "Demise" appears in no game featuring Ganon and Ganon is only ever stated to be a resurrected or reincarnated form of... wait for it... Ganon.

Why they didn't just use Ganon for the origin story is beyond me.


Ganon was mortal in OoT before obtaining the Triforce. He wouldn't be born in a game before that. I hope isn't beyond you to understand.
---
http://backloggery.com/war_lion108
#17KeryAdamsPosted 12/13/2012 7:16:27 AM
Czar_Yoshi posted...
KeryAdams posted...
Yes, I don't put any stock in retcons or metafiction.


Good, because that's a very different thing from the timeline, which has been confirmed many times by the creators of the series and has been published into a book.


A fiction book written about another fictional story = metafiction.

Attempting to wedge a new plot element (the hatred of Demise) into a finished story (any other Zelda title) which never made mention of it = retcon.

Yeah. "Very different."
---
GT/PSN: Owngineer
Currently playing: Legend of Zelda II, Resident Evil 3, Castlevania: SotN, Rocksmith
#18KeryAdamsPosted 12/13/2012 7:39:39 AM
Rygon posted...
KeryAdams posted...
Yes, I don't put any stock in retcons or metafiction. The name "Demise" appears in no game featuring Ganon and Ganon is only ever stated to be a resurrected or reincarnated form of... wait for it... Ganon.

Why they didn't just use Ganon for the origin story is beyond me.


Ganon was mortal in OoT before obtaining the Triforce. He wouldn't be born in a game before that. I hope isn't beyond you to understand.


Ganon had the Triforce of Power at the start of LoZ, which was a finished story until it was retconned. Link defeated Ganon, then set out on another adventure to stop Ganon from being revived. Same Link, same Ganon, a direct sequel that made sense. The only question it raised was why he had to save another princess with the same name, and the writers gave a decent enough reason: it's tradition for all the princesses in this kingdom to be given the same name. This is realistic enough and acceptable. At this point the timeline is simply 1-2. There was no need to guess about it. Nintendo decided to essentially retell the same story of the first game by making LttP, but labeled it a prequel. No one really cared about the story because it was a fantastic game. But some confusion was introduced because now we have another Link, another Zelda, another(?) Ganon, and no explanation as to why these different characters have the same names. Another sequel featuring only a Link (and not clarifying which Link) began the real muddling of the series. Following that with another prequel with yet another Link, yet another Zelda, and another(?) Ganon sealed the deal.

At this point I think Nintendo should have just decided to say that each Zelda game stands alone as a reimagining of what is essentially the same story. I don't think any fans would have been upset about that. Instead, they decided to leave it ambiguous. Eventually, after several more sequels and prequels, they decided to try and shoehorn everything into a timeline that was not a factor in the development of any game to that point. That is the very definition of a retcon. They used the timeline to demonstrate a continuity that the games themselves do not establish.

What is beyond me is why one would try to explain the origin of a recurring character by not featuring that character in the story at all. This pointless speculation could have been avoided if they had simply put Ganon in the game instead of Demise. I can only assume the writers enjoy letting this speculation go on and are probably laughing at our efforts to make sense of it.

The main thing is, who cares? Just (try to) enjoy each game for what it is - a generally fun and lighthearted romp where the story takes a back seat to the gameplay. Unfortunately, Nintendo themselves decided to focus more on the story with SS, and more unfortunately, the writing is still awful. Nintendo needs to let the story take a back seat again, or they need to fix it properly. At this point it's so badly butchered that a reboot is likely the only solution.

!!!SPOILERS FOLLOW!!!

The origin of the Master Sword is... some other sword that now needs an origin story.
The origin of Link is... uh... well, he was at the academy. We don't know how or why. Or where his family is. Whatever. The green tunic is arbitrary.
The origin of Ganon is... the reincarnation of some other guy who's basically a Ganon clone and is never mentioned in any of the Ganon games.
The origin of Zelda is... a goddess. But not one of the 3 goddesses we've had since OoT, just some new goddess.

Nothing is explained. Everything is retconned. Garbagesauce.
---
GT/PSN: Owngineer
Currently playing: Legend of Zelda II, Resident Evil 3, Castlevania: SotN, Rocksmith
#19CatMutoPosted 12/13/2012 8:13:24 AM
The main thing is, who cares? Just (try to) enjoy each game for what it is - a generally fun and lighthearted romp where the story takes a back seat to the gameplay.


That's basically what I do with each game.
I don't care if the Zelda game I'm playing belongs to the Origin Timeline, Child Timeline, Fallen Child/Hero Timeline, Adult Timeline or even from Pot-Land Timeline.
The point of the game is the fighting and puzzle solving. And staring at graphics if you like them so much.

C-A
---
Cloud and Sephiroth - battling each other since '97 for your amusement
Give it a rest already!
#20SnowBrigadierPosted 12/13/2012 8:27:31 AM
At this point I think Nintendo should have just decided to say that each Zelda game stands alone as a reimagining of what is essentially the same story. I don't think any fans would have been upset about that. Instead, they decided to leave it ambiguous.

That's factually incorrect. Nintendo has always been very clear that the games connect to one another, and usually how. Changing that to them not connecting would have been a retcon, maintaining what they'd established wouldn't. Moreover, ALttP is far from a retelling of the first game and it quite obviously wasn't intended as such either.


Eventually, after several more sequels and prequels, they decided to try and shoehorn everything into a timeline that was not a factor in the development of any game to that point.

This is just bad logic on your part. You've accepted that the games fit in to a timeline from the very beginning of the series and yet now you say that the timeline which was always there is somehow being shoehorned into itself?


That is the very definition of a retcon. They used the timeline to demonstrate a continuity that the games themselves do not establish.

But the games quite obviously do establish them. Nothing was changed; there's no retcon to speak of here.


What is beyond me is why one would try to explain the origin of a recurring character by not featuring that character in the story at all. This pointless speculation could have been avoided if they had simply put Ganon in the game instead of Demise. I can only assume the writers enjoy letting this speculation go on and are probably laughing at our efforts to make sense of it.

It really isn't that hard to make sense of. Demise is the god from which Ganon originated. How exactly would Ganon's presence explain the origins of Ganon anyway? All that would do is push said origins further back.

Your post doesn't really have anything to do with the topic at hand in the first place. You're essentially just whining about the creators not writing the story the way you would have liked it to be written, which is irrelevant to both the topic and your original post.
---
And the flesh you so fancifully fry is not succulent, tasty or nice
It's death for no reason, and death for no reason is murder