Talk:Eiji Aonuma

Chris; As to not start an edit war here, I'll have you elaborate right here why that would have any relevance? Aonuma has been around since at least before Ocarina of Time, and has displayed an much wider interest in the chronology than Miyamoto. He has also stated that he thinks the story is important, while Miyamoto has openly displayed that he don't really care about it.

See example.

Shigeru Miyamoto: For every Zelda game we tell a new story, but we actually have an enormous document that explains how the game relates to the others, and bind them together. But to be honest, they are not that important to us.

Eiji Aonuma: To me storyline is important, and as producer, I am going to be going through, and trying to bring all of these stories together, and kind of make them a little bit more clear. Unfortunately, we just haven’t done that yet.

And as seen in another interview, Miyamoto didn't even understand the split timeline at the time, which could be interpretated as he doesn't really care either. So there, please do elaborate why Aonuma "had not been on board for a good portion of the series" has any relvance in this? Obviously it has none.

And again, this about Aonuma's cotribution to the timeline, not Miyamoto's. If you wanna bring them up, do so on his page. Also, Aonuma doesn't need a back-up confirmation from Miyamoto. I mean, seriously? Miyamoto has alredy expressed his disinterest in the story, and Aonuma is like the second biggest head in the Zelda series after Miyamoto. Whether or not Miyamoto made an previous statement regarding OoT is really irrelevant here as Aonuma more recent statement would overrule that. And as proven with the split timeline, Aonuma has authority to make such claims. And, this was about general fans controversy on Aonuma statement. Not YOUR controvery on it, which has absolutley nothing to do with Aonuma actually. Nerushi 08:41, 25 April 2010 (UTC)

And there is not one thing wrong with mentioning those facts. For all games prior to Ocarina, Aonuma was not even in the picture, and he didn't have that big of a role in Ocarina itself either. He did not become really deeply involved until later games. And yes, Miyamoto does carry weight as he is the creator, not Aonuma. He has been there since the beginning, not Aonuma. Therefore, there is nothing wrong with mentioning that Miyamoto never endorsed nor confirmed said statement of Aonuma's. This is not personal at all Nerushi, this is just facts. Link87 08:44, 25 April 2010 (UTC)

Miyamoto is an developer, just as Aonuma. And Miyamoto's involvement in the series has declined with the years, while Aonumas has increased. And Miyamoto has also openly expressed a disiniterest in the story, perfectly explaing such matters. Aonuma is large figure enough not to have Miyamoto back up everything he says. But if you insist, maybe I should put these facts in the article as well?Nerushi 08:52, 25 April 2010 (UTC)

Actually Miyamoto has to ok everything Aonuma does in development, for example Miyamoto had to force Aonuma to keep quiet about the upcoming game. Aonuma answers to Miyamoto, and Miyamoto has been there since the beginning. His comments were never endorsed by Miyamoto, and there's nothing wrong in mentioning that. Link87 08:56, 25 April 2010 (UTC)

I'm all for discussion of conflicting points, so keep it cool and actually work towards a compromising addition to the article rather than trying to win the other side of the dispute over. Bc in all honesty, that never happens and the longer the dispute goes on the more entrenched people become in their views. So as long as you both can recognize which statements ARE true and worthy points, you'll do fine. Good luck. User:Axiomist/sig 09:00, 25 April 2010 (UTC)

Chris, if thats the case, then its very likley that Miyamoto had 'acknowlegded' Aonuma placement of the FS series as the oldest tale, since he HAVE to 'ok' everything or else Aonuma wouldn't have openly stated that it was so . There is nearly no reason for Miyamoto to do it in an interview, duh. Nerushi 09:08, 25 April 2010 (UTC)

Miyamoto never endorsed such a statement, and he has had to put a leash on Aonuma before. It's obvious they haven't always been on the same page and I see nothing wrong with mentioning those things. It's perfectly impartial to note that Miyamoto never publicly endorsed Aonuma's statement. Link87 09:15, 25 April 2010 (UTC)

If you say so. But that hardly relevant here anymore. If we keep out fan controvery out of here it'll be fine. Feel free to advocate Miyamotos statement where ever you want, just no here since this article is about Aonuma and his statements, not our controversy regarding it.Nerushi 09:23, 25 April 2010 (UTC)

Eh, I was reading and trying to make sense of all of the links provided, but then the thought occurred to me, "Why are we bothering with Timeline stuff at all on this page?" I actually don't have the energy to make sense of it now. User:Axiomist/sig 11:52, 25 April 2010 (UTC)

Well, this isn't as much of a timeline stuff as it is Aonuma statements on the timeline which could work alright without any controversy on whether someone thinks it is wrong or not. I thought this page could be fleshed out a little, but I guess I should have seen this coming.

I guess we could just remove it, although it would be good to have a comprehensive list of developers statements somewhere. Preferable without any individual opinion on them. I don't think the Timeline quotes article fulfills that.Nerushi 12:04, 25 April 2010 (UTC)

Okay, look, this timeline stuff really doesn't belong on this page. It's about Aonuma, not about how he contributes to the timeline. What you should be doing is linking to his statements in the appropriate theory sections on the appropriate pages. Readers may not even understand what the timeline is when it's out of context like this. I think the section needs to be removed and the references used for the appropriate sections of the pages containing the theories. What do you think?User:Justin ZW/sig 15:40, 25 April 2010 (UTC)

I'm in agreement to completely remove it as well, as this page is supposed to be about Aonuma personally, not his involvement with the timeline. All it has done has been to generate a lot of controversy. So yes Justin, I agree with you on that. It appears Mandi is wanting to once again take Nerushi's side however in keeping the more biased wording in place. Link87 17:46, 25 April 2010 (UTC)

I think that a section concerning Aonuma's involvement with the Zelda storyline should be kept. TP and TWW at least were designed by Aonuma to have clear throwbacks to OoT. Continuity nods this blatant were not as frequent before Aonuma came on board. He also threw in references to ALttP and the NES games in OoT, because it was supposed to be a prequel to those games. He's pretty much been the author of the Zelda storyline since OoT. I recall an interview where he talked about his work with OoT and its relevance to the storyline. His work with the Zelda storyline is very relevant to his directorial style. Ganondorfdude11 17:55, 25 April 2010 (UTC)

This article is about Aonuma himself and what work he has done, not his views on the timeline so much. He has contradicted the very games he's created before (i.e. saying TWW takes place a hundred years after OoT despite DNH stating that many centuries had separated the flood from TWW). If it is to be kept, it should not slant toward either support or condemnation of Aonuma's position but it should also not attempt to just disregard Miyamoto's involvement or authority either. Link87 17:58, 25 April 2010 (UTC)

What? He never contradicted himself. Japanese doesn't have a distinction between singular and plural. Those were two different translations of the same statement. User:Triforce of the Gods/sig 18:02, 25 April 2010 (UTC)

Actually he did, go to quotes about TWW. He said it took place about a hundred years after OoT, and that was proven false by the king in the game itself. Sorry to disagree with you. And this is not going one way or the other here, it's merely acknowledging that there are those that do doubt Aonuma's assertion without confirmation from Miyamoto. You don't speak for him or them alone. Link87 18:03, 25 April 2010 (UTC)

Okay, Chris. If its not supposed to be slant, why is your controversy still there? I am fine with the actual reason for the dispute over the oldest tale to be there, but its just wrong when one person is referred to 'some' as if it was several people questinoning because of that reason. Nerushi 18:06, 25 April 2010 (UTC)

Okay Nerushi, you are getting all your buddies here to make it look like nobody questions it, but when someone does (and believe me there are others you merely aren't hearing from) you're attempting to block out any question to such an assertion. You also wanted to put such things into the King Gustaf page saying "Some don't believe it without concrete proof." The same holds here. I'm simply the "first" to bring up such an issue but certainly not the only one out there that does question this b/c of this. Link87 18:10, 25 April 2010 (UTC)

Way to totally not read what I said, Chris. Him saying hundred and him saying hundreds were THE SAME THING TRANSLATED DIFFERENTLY! Japanese does not distinguish between singular and plural. User:Triforce of the Gods/sig 18:23, 25 April 2010 (UTC)

Way to go with reading what I told you TotG, I said that Aonuma stated about "a hundred years" specifically. The king says "many centuries". The two don't add up, regardless of your translation argument. Link87 18:47, 25 April 2010 (UTC)

It seems that Link87 is applying overly-narrow criteria to justify throwing out Aonuma's statement. Aonuma has never contradicted the games, and has been very involved in developing them, along with Miyamoto. This is not a question of two creators contradicting each other, because they haven't. You're taking Miyamoto's silence on one issue as disapproval, when it is not. All of Miyamoto's statements about OoT being the first were made back before the FS series came out, so obviously they've been overridden. The chief motivation behind disregarding the statement does not seem to be that it contradicts the games in any way, but that it contradicts a particular timeline theory. To say that a statement is not true unless Miyamoto said it is to throw out stuff like the split timeline, which Aonuma came up with. Ganondorfdude11 18:37, 25 April 2010 (UTC)

GD11, this has never been about throwing anything out anywhere, this has been about representing all views on the issue. You seem to wish to discredit Miyamoto's credit on everything and to want to throw out anything that questions Aonuma's statements. I'm merely wanting to make clear that there are those out there that do take what he says with a grain of salt and why. That's not "throwing out" anything, that's merely representing all views on the issue just as we did with King Gustaf before, where it was stated that there are others that don't believe it without "concrete proof", well the same principle holds here. There's really no "concrete proof" to back up Aonuma's statement, not in the games and no confirmation or comment from Miyamoto to reverse his earlier position. Link87 18:41, 25 April 2010 (UTC)

I never discounted Miyamoto's statements about OoT. They were true when he made them. However, I consider concrete proof of that to be Eiji Aonuma saying that a newer game goes before OoT. A contradiction would be Eiji Aonuma saying that OoT went after ALttP or something. A new game was made, set before OoT. This thus renders Miyamoto's statements outdated. Take it this way, when Miyamoto said in 1999 that OoT led into AlttP, did MM coming out the next year make him a liar? No. It just made his statement outdated because now there was another game set in between OoT and ALttP. Same with the Four Sword series. And yes, I understand that the statement is controversial, but only because it seems to contradict people's theories about FSA. Some think it happens after TWW and don't like it for that reason, some think it happens before ALttP and don't like it for that reason. However, there is no evidence in-game to support any conclusive timeline placement for the game, and so Aonuma is the strongest evidence we have for putting it before OoT. Ganondorfdude11 19:00, 25 April 2010 (UTC)

GD11, I have read your statements, but please understand that not everyone considers Aonuma to be mistake-proof, he's made mistakes before and at times has had to be overruled by Miyamoto. Miyamoto made his comments earlier yes, but he never reversed them, nor did he ever affirm Aonuma's statements. That is all I wish to make clear is that yes, Aonuma said these things, but not everyone agrees with his assessments b/c of his past and b/c Miyamoto has not been in sync with him obviously on everything. And Aonuma's statements are about as good as King Gustaf's, would you not agree? Gustaf was actually in a game, Aonuma's comments were not. And his comments have in the past been rendered moot by in-game material. This is not to say your view is wrong at all, you're very much entitled to give whatever approval you have to Aonuma's word and it's understandable that you do. But please understand that not everyone is so quick to jump on that bandwagon of Aonuma's b/c it's not foolproof. My whole point all along is that there is in-game evidence in TMC that in a way contradicts Aonuma's assertion, and that is why some do not give so much weight to what he says. Miyamoto has also, as said before, not been in sync with Aonuma, and that has given people like me further reason to take what he says with a grain of salt. Link87 19:10, 25 April 2010 (UTC)

Page Locked

This page has been locked to prevent counter productive edit warring. User:Mandi/sig 18:18, April 25, 2010 (UTC)

I'm perfectly willing to allow the section to remain, provided that both sides are given equal say on the matter. That means that sure the information can remain, but I feel that, as with King Gustaf, both sides should be accounted for as there is no "concrete proof" to support Aonuma's statement, and that is all I wish to see here b/c there are those that take things Aonuma says with a grain of salt. I'm willing to negotiate, but the other side doesn't seem to want any question to Aonuma's arguments to be present at all. Link87 18:21, 25 April 2010 (UTC)

So you think Miyamoto's words don't need proof, but Aonuma's does? New flash: Aonuma has more control over the series and he is the one who cares about story. Miyamoto is more likely to say something wrong since he doesn't care. User:Triforce of the Gods/sig 18:23, 25 April 2010 (UTC)

Newsflash: Miyamoto is the ultimate authority over the entire series, even if he does not have as much day-to-day activity with it as he once did. And yes, Aonuma ultimately answers to him. Heck Aonuma had to be shut up about the new game by Miyamoto not long ago. Aonuma does not supersede Miyamoto, and Aonuma has not been around nearly as long as Miyamoto. So yes, Miyamoto's words are indeed final as he is the series creator, and it appears that Miyamoto does in fact hold sway over the actions of Aonuma as seen in that interview. Link87 18:25, 25 April 2010 (UTC)

I think, regardless of what we each think of this page's content, it's time to leave this topic alone to give everyone time to reflect and consider. This page will still be here, and it's not the end of the world if this isn't decided immediately. Chris, you're already on a final warning, so I'd advise you to choose your next target with great care. And Nerushi, I'd urge you to consider Axiomist's suggestion of compromising in future to avoid further edit wars, as repeated involvement in these can result in a temporary block. —Adam ^{[ talk ]} 18:28, 25 April 2010 (UTC)

Adam, I appreciate your patience with these issues (unlike certain others), and I am merely making known that the page, as it is, does not reflect the views of all Zelda fans as there are those that question Aonuma's statements for good reasons. I have been willing to compromise from the beginning, and have repeatedly attempted to in the past with Nerushi, to no avail. My closing argument for this page however is this: I don't mind such information being included provided it's made clear that there are those that question it and specifically why. We did that for other pages before this time and Nerushi and others were content with it then, I see no reason why they shouldn't be now. To me that seems only fair to be neutral to both sides. I hope this is understandable to you and once again thank you for your time and patience in these matters. Link87 18:36, 25 April 2010 (UTC)