At 11/2/10 05:58 PM, Auz wrote:
I don't know, it seems to me like they really never had much in mind to begin with.
Well, they really didn't, but that article was not a personal message from Nintendo. When you attempt to e-mail them with the words "Zelda" and "timeline" in the message, it automatically gives you that message. All it really means is that there isn't enough evidence to come up with a definite timeline, which is why there's so much debate about it anyway, and that the developers don't care about it enough to piece together a timeline for fans. Besides, that message was obviously created to stop the flood of emails they get about this shit.
But yes, Skyward Sword's "timeline placement" by Nintendo is fanservice and epic trolling to people who debate about this. All this debate about the timeline is really just for fun, and it's a way to see how Link's adventures are chronicled. I mean, the Squall-is-dead theory is definitely plausible, but it's blatantly obvious Square didn't intend for that to be the case. It just conveniently pieces together to make a theory that honestly makes sense. So whether Nintendo intended it to have a timeline or not, I find it fun to debate about it anyway.
Is Super Mario Galaxy 2 good? I loved the first one. I played the shit out of it, 3-playthroughs over. But everyone says it sucks.