LowlyPeasant

@SLIGEACH_EIRE Her personality?

@PtM Let me ask you a question then, genius. Do you and your delusion mind somehow actually believe that a total of $5 million dollars is needed to fund all of this crap? Do you actually somehow believe that a good portion of this money is not somehow going into their pockets and into some strip club in God knows where? Allow me to put this in a way that someone as simple as you can understand.
Yooka - Laylee. A game that would no doubt be MUCH more complicated to make than this, was funded a total that was significantly less than $5 million and they still managed to crap out a Switch port.
Mighty no. 9 despite being the massive turd it is still managed to put out a Wii U port, a console that is no doubt much more difficult to make a port for. Less than $5 million and you STILL want me to believe that this particular company needs a total of $5 million to get this all done?
Is this at all sinking in for you as being just a tad bit shady?
I'm fully aware of how kickstarters work and that's all the more reason to be weary of this project. I don't give a crap about whether or not they decide to change up or "prioritize" the Switch port now. The fact that they even asked for $5 million dollar Switch goal which they most likely don't even need was ridiculous enough as it is.

@PtM 1.1 million in order to finance a PS4 AND PC port and somehow they want me to believe that they initially needed $5 million to make a Switch port. Let's not also forget that many developers have already made statements saying how easy it is to develop games for the Switch. I don't care if they change up their goals now, the fact that they were already initially willing to make a Switch goal of $5 million despite being able to lower the goal is already shady enough.

If the Switch goal could've been lowered so easily in the first place then why was the goal even initially $5 million dollars? This project is already sounding really fishy to me, so I think I'll just stick to Shovel Knight.

@evosteevo Not really. If you follow the Zelda timeline as intensely as I have over the past decade or so, referencing and explaining it almost becomes second nature to me. More to the point, I can understand why a person would prefer to see the Zelda games as their own separate story, as I'm sure that a good number of people prefer a simple story as opposed to a long complex one like the Zelda timeline. The only point I'm trying to make here is that there is a definite Zelda timeline that is canon. Whether or not you choose to care for its existence, or simply take the Zelda series at surface value is entirely up to you.

@evosteevo
Fallen Hero Timeline

• Oot Link dies.
• Skip to the events of ALBW.
• Link defeats Ganondorf again, and is able to retrieve the triforce of power.
• Events of Zelda for the NES happens and Ganon steals the triforce of power.
  It's the same Ganondorf as OoT.
  Change in geography is mostly a gameplay choice. Nintendo changes up the environment of Hyrule in order to keep the world fresh and new. Most of the Zelda games have managed to be consistent with its geography albeit with slight shifts in locations. I assume that the Adventure of Link's map is the one you're referencing. Let me remind you that the AoL's timeline is situated at the end of one of the timelines, and that in the span of that time, something could have occurred that resulted in the change of Hyrule's geography. And, while a large scale geographical shift in the Zelda universe seems a bit far fetched, can you honestly tell me that with all the absurd things that are accepted as logic within the same universe, a geographical shift, and explanation behind why one occurred is impossible? As for the four swords, what about them? They're different stories of a different Link facing off against a different villain, and their placement within the timeline has already been explained.
  On a different note, I would like to throw this in. I doubt Nintendo had any idea that the Zelda timeline would come to be during the early stages of Zelda. However, do you honestly think that something as expansive as the Zelda timeline could have been created in one sitting? The answer is no, but that does not suddenly prevent Nintendo from adding more depth to Zelda's story. The very existence of the timeline itself was introduced as early as Wind Waker, which referenced one of the split timelines itself. AGAIN, I ask you, if NIntendo themselves stated that there is indeed a Zelda timeline, and DIRECTLY makes a reference to to one of the split timelines in Ocarina of Time, which goes to show that the Zelda games are canon, why would anyone have to accept the Zelda games as non-canon?

@evosteevo Have you ever even looked at the official timeline?
Zelda 1 and 2 are situated at the END of one the split timelines, meaning that Ganon being destroyed has no conflict with any of the other Zelda games' story. Also, how does Ganon being introduced as a monster in the first few games suddenly contradict his humans form. I don't recall reading anything at all in the first two Zelda games that stated, "Ganon - Just beast, absolutely not a man/gerudo." Finally, the triforce will not always be in Link's hand. In some cases where he is a predestined hero it is, but in certain cases where he's not; Link would have to go and collect/find the triforce, himself (Wind Waker).

@evosteevo Okay? The idea of all/most Zelda games being canon is brought forth throughout the more recent games. Nintendo themselves said that A Link Between Worlds takes place in the distant future after A link Between Worlds. Again, if Nintendo themselves stated that there is a Zelda timeline, why would anyone have to accept the Zelda games as non-canon?

@evosteevo Why would anyone have to accept Zelda as non-canon when Nintendo themselves created a timeline for the series?

Wow Nintendo. With such a large selection for games from the N64, DS, GB, NES, SNES, and Wii, the best you can give us is Pac-Attack. Thaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaanks...