Johnny

@MasterDex: I honestly don't find Opeth's singer to be anything special. In comparison, Maynard has one of the most immediately recognizable and unique voices in the music industry.

Possibly the best male singer currently active in music.

The pessimist in me is pretty certain that each company's pursuit of individual profit won't allow for platform convergence any time soon. The guy with the upper hand will always refuse. It would, however, be pretty neat.

Directed at the above discussion: I'm still amazed every time I find anyone but the most extreme fanboys giving a damned about the final score. Please, people, I expect better from most of you. I hate to compare and contrast to movies and music, but I don't remember the last time I heard anyone critizise a film or music critic being slammed for the SCORE he gave a title; instead, people tend to focus on what is actually being said. Why can't we do this in gaming?

I think, p4, a lot of it has to do with money. Picking up a Wii just for the few games I feel are worth my money... just isn't worth the money. xD If I had more money to spend, then sure, such a purchase would be more viable.

Well, you could have links to all the posts on the first page, but that would also require someone to go through all the pages =P

I pretty much agree with Ethan's feelings on the subject.

That's the problem, though, isn't it? Even though it's bad (and in some places, it's REALLY bad...), examining certain parts of the games - particularly Ganondorf's story thread - leaves little doubt that the games are connected. That it's badly done doesn't mean it isn't there.

I'm with GunFlame on this. Whatever a word is supposed to mean, if it is actually used differently in practice, to me it's the "in practice" that counts. Dictionaries are used to catalogue language, they do not decide how language is actually used in practice, or how it evolves. For that matter, if Final means there are NO issues... well, then no game is Final. Hell, according to the list ThursdayNext posted, most games I've played are really Alpha, because bugs keep getting discovered years after the games are released.

I miiiight need a haircut. Possibly. Near-colourless photo because that's what happens when I try to take indoor photos with my phone. Too strong wind outside today.

While calling Skyrim pre-alpha is obviously bullshit, it's not like the definitions are as set in stone as you make them sound, Dean. For reference, I've never played a Blizzard beta with all of the planned features implemented. For other examples, see Minecraft's beta.

@Yantelope: I just get tired of arguing with people who provide no arguments and clearly doesn't know jack shit on the subject. @TheMightyEthan: Once again, there is actually nothing in the games to suggest that it's the case. @Mason: I'm not convinced either way with the hero's shade thing. It's too ambigious what it could mean. @Atomsk88: Yep, that's pretty much how I view the Links as well.

You would be wrong to assume that Ganon's are different. But you would already know that if you had actually read this massive two-page thread.

The Links in different games are (with a few exceptions) completely different, unrelated people. The Zeldas are also not the same person. It's explained in Zelda 2 (or rather, Zelda 2's manual) that it's tradition for the princesses of Hyrule to be named Zelda. Wind Waker's intro talks about a previous boy hero clad in green who defeated Ganon. This is the Hero of Time - the Link from Ocarina of Time*. Twilight Princess, roughly halfway through, explains what happens to Ganon after the "child" ending of Ocarina of Time. I don't know what more to say, if the games directly talking about events that transpired in other games, or the word of the developers themselves, do not convince you. *I am aware I said it was the link from A Link To The Past in my post on the first page. That was dumb of me, and I will revise that post later.

How's the split timeline theory crazy? It feels quite unfair of you to belittle the reasoning I'm using without backing it up. Developer intent seems to matter to you, and the split timeline theory has been acknowledged by the developers... Wether they originally intended it, that's now what they are themselves calling canon. Honestly, why are you even posting in this thread if you're not interested? You're just coming off as a troll.

Terminator 2 Mulan Ghost In The Shell The Big Lebowski Se7en Grave of the Fireflies The Social Network Dark City Tokyo Godfathers 12 Angry Men Pan's Labyrinth Million Dollar Baby No Country For Old Men Snatch Lock Stock & Two Smoking Barrels Porco Rosso

No god damn it Yantelope, that is not what you were arguing. You were arguing there is exactly 0 connection. Not that the connection isn't important. You can't just change your tune and pretend that that's what you've been saying all along. Furthermore, Miyamoto is NOT the only creator. He doesn't care much, but other people on his team does. Eiji Aonouma seems to be in charge of that whole deal, judging from interviews with Miyamoto and Aonouma, where Miyamoto seems to refer to Aonouma when the timeline is being asked about. That's all well and fine. I agree that what is in the games is the only completely solid "evidence" when trying to argue things like this. As for A Link To The Past: It is my opinion that Ocarina of Time is expanding on what's seen in the intro for LTTP, and sort of a retcon. This leaves a few plot holes in regards to Ganon's plot thread throughout LTTP, but fewer than any suggested alternatives. In the entirety of the Legend of Zelda, Ganon/Ganondorf has been the one near-constant character. It's always been the same guy, while it's been different Zeldas and Links. Tracing his story thread is in my opinion the most solid way to determine the connection between the different "arcs" in the franchise. Everything expands outwards from Ocarina of Time becuase that's Ganondorf's origin story. Any other game featuring him must take place after Ocarina of Time.

I am not overlooking it. 1) Miyamoto has been shown many times (as the quote you just pulled from the zelda wiki says) to not care about the timeline. He cares about the gameplay, not the story. 2) That the connections are badly done and confusing does not mean that they aren't there, or aren't canon. How do you explain the two other games that reference Ocarina of Time; LTTP and Twilight Princess?

Which is entirely contradicted by the games themselves and the developers. How does this work? As you can see in my post above I find what I consider pretty clear evidence within the games themselves that the arcs are connected. Wind Waker is probably the most "in your face" about it out of all of them. It's quite true that it's a legend; it explains among other things why the hero always happens to be a guy in green clothes with similar equipment that is known as Link. If I were interested in glossing over Nintendo's plot holes, I would argue that it also excuses those. But that would just be an excuse not to think, as I see it. However, once again, that each game is just a retelling of the same story is not supported by the games themselves.

I remember reading that the official explanation for Ganon in TP is that the twilight realm is actually the same thing as the golden/sacred realm. Which is kind of retarded, but there it is.

Having a character with the same name as a completely different character appear is an easter egg. Having a that explains what happened to ganondorf after the child ending of Ocarina of Time is not. Making two games (The Four Swords saga) explaining where Ganon got the Trident is not. Then making a prequel to those games explaining who the hell Vaati is, is not. etc. This is mostly true. It sounds a lot like most of their games are developed first with a focus on the game itself, isolated from the rest of the franchise, and then having some context worked into at the end. For good and ill. I don't take this zelda timeline stuff very seriously. It's just a fun exercise I run through my head sometimes when I'm bored, trying to figure out what fits into where. Like a sort of abstract puzzle that doesn't QUITE fit perfectly no matter what solution you throw at it.

If that was the case, there wouldn't be story bits tying games together.

The most common argument for putting Minish Cap in the beginning is that "it explains how link got his hat", which is to me a pretty silly reason. Anyone putting Adventures before Ocarina can't actually have played the games considering Ganon is in Adventures.