what does anyone think of this theory concerning the Zelda games?

Well, excuuuuuuuuuuuse me, princess!


well the comic does seem to add more to the continuity of the series than the game did.

Yeah, but so does all of those fanfics out there. My point is where do you draw the line? Should we consider those American Serialized Comic Books made using only the first two games that had been given a late 80’s level of localization? How about those Phillips CD-i games made with only a license and those afore mentioned comics as inspiration? Or would you consider that Robot Chicken sketch to be the more accurate ending than the poorly described game’s ending?

My point is that you can’t take some random scraps found on the side of history and use them as an excuse to concoct some kind of wild and senseless theory as a means to explain them, or vice-versa.

Also, since you seem to understand the series better than I can why don’t you try explaining where this fits in the Zelda timeline.

I was a little disappointed that Ganon didn’t bust a move at the end of the video.

You weren’t the only one, that’s for sure.

Zelda therories are stupid bullshit obsessed nerds come up with because they have nothing else to do than invent things that make no sense when they don’t want to admit the games are separate and just rehash different materials over and over and over.

But Zelda is so awesome!!!

:noway:Yeah, but the theories are completely absurd.:no2:

nowhere, neither does that Robot CHicken thing fit in whatever it was, the Phillips CD-i games I know nothing of.

the theory wasn’t based soley off the comic, I had been pondering it for a couple of years after the theory popped into my head, and it does make sense in a weird way if you think about it.

:hint:Kind of, but I don’t think so cause of the fact that the theory lists Zelda games in a completely random order, I don’t think Nintendo intended that theory.

just like Square never intended the theory that in Final Fantasy 8 Rinoa is Ultimecia.