220 replies to this topic

[Vertiboy]

What I am about to say may not seem relavant, but just trust me that it will make sense eventually. A coin has two sides, heads or tails. When flipping a coin, there is a 1/2 chance that it will land on heads. If I wanted to see what the odds of getting heads both times on two flips, I'd take 1/2 times 1/2, since that's how many times I'm flipping the coin, and I'd have a 1/4 chance. For three flips, I'd take 1/2 times 1/2 times 1/2, and I'd have a 1/8 chance of getting heads all three times. It goes on and on like that. Basically, the more the coin is flipped, the smaller the chance becomes that it will land on heads every single time.

Now obviously there are theories about the Zelda universe that cannot be proven to be 100% fact. We have theories on OoT and the IW, the single or split timeline, ALttP or the Oracles and LA, etc. Sometimes we use theories to speculate on aspects of Zelda that are facts (for example, Miyamoto, Aonuma, and company probably know if OoT is the IW, but we all can't come to a unanimous agreement on it). Anyway, in order for a theory to work, certain leaps of faith must be taken. For example, in order for the theory that OoT is the IW to work, one must assume that the IW legend is altered over time from the events of OoT to the version we hear in ALttP. In order for the single timeline to work, one must assume that Link and Tetra actually find a new Hyrule (not to start a debate, but she never actually said she was going to go look for one after the King said that the land would not be Hyrule), that the Triforce is found, that Ganon is reborn or unfrozen, and that the Master Sword is recovered and placed in the Lost Woods (or wherever). Anyway, the point is that a theory can only work if certain assumptions are true. If in Phantom Hourglass, Link and Tetra are struck by lightnining and die, then obviously the assumption that they find a new Hyrule would be untrue. If a game comes out that takes place after OoT, and it is reveiled that the events of adult OoT are remembered by no one but Link and Navi, but they didn't share those events with anyone, then it screws with an assumption.

Most assumptions can be asked in the form of a yes or no question. Does Hyrule return after TWW? Does the IW legend change over time? Is the Triforce found after TWW? If you look at it this way, there is a 1/2 chance that the assumption is correct. The answer is either yes or no. Here's where the coin flipping comes into play. If the more one flips a coin, the less of a chance one has of getting heads every time, then wouldn't it be true that the more assumptions one's theory makes, the less of a chance one's theory has of being correct? That makes sense.

What I am about to say isn't the topic of debate in this thread, try to stay on subject. This is the exact reason why I don't believe in the single or split timelines. They make more assumptions than my "what if" theory, where TWW is just an alternate version of what could happen after OoT, which only makes one assumption. Anyway, what do you think about the coin flip idea?

[Paviel]

Anyway, what do you think about the coin flip idea?

I can't think of a better way of explaining Ockham's Razor. It's a good idea.

For the record, Ockham says that no more assumptions should be made to explain something than are absolutely necessary, and the explanation that requires the fewest assumptions is probably the correct one.

Edited by Paviel, 09 November 2006 - 10:18 AM.

[Fyxe]

I think any sensible person should, yes, not bog themselves down to one side. The 'what if' theory is good because we simply do not *know* how the games connect at the moment. TWW has no direct sequel but we know it will have, and Twilight Princess is stuck right in the middle of two of the most major games in the series.

So making assumptions towards a split or a single timeline at the moment is pointless.

[Raien]

As far as I'm concerned, context is the key to analysing evidence. To achieve the correct context, we must take into account all information that is relevant to the text in question.

1) Look at the literal evidence, both written and visual.

2) Apply any possible commonly-used expressions and Zelda-only themes to the text.

3) Take into account the gameplay functions of particular features/quotes and whether they apply purely to the gameplay or to the timeline as well.

4) Look at developer intentions as to what emotions the script is trying to transmit to the player (through interviews with developers).

5) Observe core policies that Nintendo have in the making of each game (such as making the general content suitable for all ages).

As long as evidence is provided for the relevant points to a text, we can avoid most speculation in establishing the meanings of texts.

Edited by jhurvid, 09 November 2006 - 11:36 AM.

[Fyxe]

Oh come on. It's a video game, not an essay on quantum physics. Sometimes this thing called 'common sense' comes into play. ¬.¬

[Raien]

Oh come on. It's a video game, not an essay on quantum physics. Sometimes this thing called 'common sense' comes into play. ¬.¬

But then how do you define common sense? How do you stop people from just speculating out of their asses and then claiming common sense? Although it is not perfect, the rules minimise the need for speculation and eliminate the excuses for speculation.

[Fyxe]

The rules you've displayed are abritrary and ambiguous. Someone can speculate and just claim they've looked into those rules. You can't force people to stop speculating, and they never will stop. Common sense is a much stronger way of stopping it, because it means you simply ignore the most outlandish theories.

We don't need to produce seven levels of back up and citations just to say 'Ganon died at the end of ALttP'. It's common sense that he died, yet without common sense you could get anyone using those vague rules to claim that he didn't die and that they have the evidence.

[Raien]

The rules you've displayed are abritrary and ambiguous. Someone can speculate and just claim they've looked into those rules. You can't force people to stop speculating, and they never will stop. Common sense is a much stronger way of stopping it, because it means you simply ignore the most outlandish theories.

We don't need to produce seven levels of back up and citations just to say 'Ganon died at the end of ALttP'. It's common sense that he died, yet without common sense you could get anyone using those vague rules to claim that he didn't die and that they have the evidence.

What if I was to say that Hyrule being resurfaced from the flood by magic was common sense? You wouldn't be able to disprove me since I could just explain everything with magic. Also, you misunderstood me when I raised those points. Only the points that are relevant need to be displayed. If a developer never made a comment about the Great Flood then it doesn't need to be raised.

Let me use an example. Only a while back, LionHarted was claiming that the Gerudo all mate with Ganondorf to populate the Gerudo race, despite this being incest. His argument is that one male ruling over a society of women represents a harem. So how do we argue against this using the five rules?

-No literal evidence to show sexual relationship between Ganondorf and the Gerudo.
-No commonly-used expressions or Zelda-only themes to imply sexual relationship.
-The concept serves no gameplay function.
-No developer intentions have been stated about the concept.
-The theory goes against the "all ages" policy.

In short, there is no positive evidence within the game to prove this particular theory. There is possible evidence that can be interpreted to disprove the Hylian alternative, but not to actually prove this theory.

Edited by jhurvid, 09 November 2006 - 03:07 PM.

[Fyxe]

What if I was to say that Hyrule being resurfaced from the flood by magic was common sense? You wouldn't be able to disprove me since I could just explain everything with magic.

I don't think you understand common sense. Making stuff up is not common sense.

Also, you misunderstood me when I raised those points. Only the points that are relevant need to be displayed. If a developer never made a comment about the Great Flood then it doesn't need to be raised.

That isn't what I was getting at either.

Let me use an example. Only a while back, LionHarted was claiming that the Gerudo all mate with Ganondorf to populate the Gerudo race, despite this being incest. His argument is that one male ruling over a society of women represents a harem. So how do we argue against this using the five rules?

Thing is you, don't NEED the five rules. You can just say that it's never stated and therefore it's *made up*. Plus there is actual evidence to the contrary, with that stone that tells people that Gerudos go to Hyrule Castle Town to look for boyfriends.
AND Ganondorf has no children.

It's common sense. We don't need all those rules. I mean...

-No commonly-used expressions or Zelda-only themes to imply sexual relationship.

Personally, I don't really understand that rule. o.o

-The concept serves no gameplay function.

So? Loads of things don't.

-No developer intentions have been stated about the concept.

Why would there be?

-The theory goes against the "all ages" policy.

So? Fire Emblem heavily implies that the occasional villianous characters are rapists and actively involves characters getting together and having children. And those games are all-ages. But it's all about the implications.

In short, there is no positive evidence within the game to prove this particular theory. There is possible evidence that can be interpreted to disprove the Hylian alternative, but not to actually prove this theory.

No, but common sense is enough to tell us it's just a speculative theory. The rules don't stop speculation, if anything it just patronises it and even panders to it. Most speculation doesn't require rules to prove either way.

If I speculated that the Poe Salesman was actually Bongo Bongo, common sense would say he clearly isn't. We don't need to pick it apart.

[Raien]

You obviously haven't tried to debate this issue with LionHarted. You'd understand how frustrating it is to prove the case when the opposing argument is almost equally speculative.

You said that it was never stated Ganondorf has sex with the Gerudo? Using the same argument, where is it stated that the Gerudo are using the Hylians for procreation?

With examples of Hylian-Gerudo half-breeds in OoT, how can the Hylians logically sire pure Gerudo?

The point is that in some areas of debate with vague points of interpretation, you need to establish some ground rules so that you aren't left with an unreliable "common sense" argument that simply won't hold with the person you're debating with.

[Vertiboy]

These are a list of the leaps of faith taken when dealing with the different theories regarding TWW.

Single Timeline Theory
1. Do Link and Tetra find a new Hyrule?/Does Hyrule come back after TWW?
2. Is the Triforce recovered after TWW?
3. Is Ganon revived/reborn after TWW?
4. Is the Master Sword recovered after TWW?

Split Timeline Theory
1. Does the Triforce of Courage somehow get cloned so it can exist in both the child and adult timelines?
2. Is the Legend of the Fairy non-canon?

My "What If?" Timeline Theory
1. Does one event happen differently after OoT (like Ganon escaping the Sacred Realm, etc.) that would lead to TWW instead of another game, like ALttP?

I know not everybody will agree with these. Some people are almost so confident in the single timeline theory that they will claim it is 100% a fact that Link and Tetra find a new Hyrule. If it is, there is no evidence in the game to suggest it's 100% true. Yes, things suggest it might happen, but not that it does happen.

[Fyxe]

You obviously haven't tried to debate this issue with LionHarted. You'd understand how frustrating it is to prove the case when the opposing argument is almost equally speculative.

Trust me, I've debated things with him, he is an exceptional case. I just don't get into debates with him anymore.

You said that it was never stated Ganondorf has sex with the Gerudo? Using the same argument, where is it stated that the Gerudo are using the Hylians for procreation?

It says they go to Hyrule Castle Town for boyfriends. It does not need to be explicitly said. Common sense. Argument over.

With examples of Hylian-Gerudo half-breeds in OoT, how can the Hylians logically sire pure Gerudo?

They don't. Gerudo genes are clearly just dominant. The Gerudo race wouldn't of survived if a male human was only born every 100 years and he was the only source of breeding. What if he died at a young age? Bam, entire race gone. Common sense says no.

The point is that in some areas of debate with vague points of interpretation, you need to establish some ground rules so that you aren't left with an unreliable "common sense" argument that simply won't hold with the person you're debating with.

I think it held up pretty well there.

[Raien]

It says they go to Hyrule Castle Town for boyfriends. It does not need to be explicitly said. Common sense. Argument over.

Evidence?

They don't. Gerudo genes are clearly just dominant. The Gerudo race wouldn't of survived if a male human was only born every 100 years and he was the only source of breeding. What if he died at a young age? Bam, entire race gone. Common sense says no.
I think it held up pretty well there.

Evidence? How do we know that Gerudo males don't live longer than normal males?

See my point? How much did common sense actually prove your argument?

Edited by jhurvid, 09 November 2006 - 06:35 PM.

[MikePetersSucks]

Doesn't address the possibility of the Gerudo King dying long. And I don't care how long you live. One man can't sure an entire generation of an ENTIRE species.

[Fyxe]

Evidence?

What? Seriously, what?

Listen, common sense is the evidence. There is no evidence but that. Nothing else is needed. Sorry to fall on my Fire Emblem examples again, but in those games, characters fall in love and pair up and later you see their children. It's never *said* that they have sex but they clearly *did*.

Evidence? How do we know that Gerudo males don't live longer than normal males?

Actually, I'd say they probably do, but that wouldn't stop them being killed. They're not immortal. Common sense.

How much did common sense actually prove your argument?

Plenty. Calling 'evidence' doesn't remove the common sense argument, it's just being blind.

[Raien]

Listen, common sense is the evidence. There is no evidence but that. Nothing else is needed.

So is Christianity or Aethiesm common sense and why?

[Fyxe]

Because that's comparible.

And this is where the argument would end. Because if the other person needs to resort to arguments like that, then it's over, and it's pointless to continue. If people won't respond to common sense then what makes you think they'll respond to some vague rules, and not just twist them and misinterpret for their own theories?

[Raien]

Because that's comparible.

And this is where the argument would end. Because if the other person needs to resort to arguments like that, then it's over, and it's pointless to continue. If people won't respond to common sense then what makes you think they'll respond to some vague rules, and not just twist them and misinterpret for their own theories?

Common sense is opinion. Christians think that the Bible is logical and sensible. Aethiests think science is logic and sensible. Common sense is unique, it's highly opinionated and cannot be used as evidence. The argument fails as soon as you try.

Why does 2+2=5? Because it's common sense.

[LionHarted]

It says they go to Hyrule Castle Town for boyfriends. It does not need to be explicitly said. Common sense.

Common sense also says that when Gerudo mate with Hylians, we shouldn't get offspring that have all of the Gerudo traits, as would have to be the case for the Gerudo to use the Hylians for procreation. We see that Malon has a Gerudo mother when you speak to Talon with the Gerudo mask on, so that more than suggests that when Hylians breed with Gerudo, we get a blending of traits.

So, no, you're going to need more than that.

Gerudo genes are clearly just dominant. The Gerudo race wouldn't of survived if a male human was only born every 100 years and he was the only source of breeding. What if he died at a young age? Bam, entire race gone.

Nope. All Gerudo traits--red hair, red skin, etc., etc.--are recessive. The single male being the only source of breeding does not necessarily imply that they cannot carry on if he dies--we don't know how long males live; only that one is born every hundred years. Also, if the Gerudo male dies, the "dark rites of the Gerudo" could revive him. This seems to serve as an explanation as for why Twinrova is closely tied to necromancy in the Oracle series--if their King died, they'd need to find a way to reproduce. The revival of their king through blood sacrifice would serve this purpose.

Edited by LionHarted, 09 November 2006 - 08:14 PM.

[Paviel]

We don't need to produce seven levels of back up and citations just to say 'Ganon died at the end of ALttP'. It's common sense that he died, yet without common sense you could get anyone using those vague rules to claim that he didn't die and that they have the evidence.

Well, there are two options, given that aLttP happens before LoZ, and yet Ganon appears in both. Either he didn't die at the end of aLttP, or he was resurrected some time before LoZ.

Of course, given the plot to resurrect him in AoL, there might have been a similar plot in LoZ, which would give some more credibility to the idea that he died at the end of aLttP.

Edited by Paviel, 09 November 2006 - 08:03 PM.

[Fyxe]

Ooookay, this is clearly insane. Some of you guys operate on a completely different plain of logic. Lay off the mushrooms. Especially you, LionHarted, you said so many nonsensical things in that post it's unbelievable. I don't want to even begin to comment.

And you, jhuthingie, I am disappointed in the way you completely ignore any flaws I come up with YOUR method yet you keep attacking common sense just because some people have no idea of what's 'sensible' when it comes to a SODDING VIDEO GAME. You can't help these people. Let them speculate wildly. Your rules just pander to it all.

Edited by Fyxe, 09 November 2006 - 08:45 PM.

[LionHarted]

any flaws I come up with YOUR method

That's the beauty of it.

Just because your method says something different doesn't invalidate our method.

My method is hardly different than yours. I place even less value in assumptions than anyone else I've seen in debate, that's all. What you chalk up as "common sense" may or may not be so--I choose not to assume as much.

yet you keep attacking common sense just because some people have no idea of what's 'sensible' when it comes to a SODDING VIDEO GAME.

No. We just don't care what your idea of what's sensible in a "sodding video game" is.



*gasp*
Fyxe disagrees with our method! All is lost!
Yeah, um. How about no? The extent of what I'm getting from you is "STFU, you're stupid", which means nothing in a debate setting. If you're not refuting my points, you're not refuting my points. Consider that an invitation.

Edited by LionHarted, 09 November 2006 - 11:02 PM.

[Jumbie]

Lol, LionHarted pulls a big one again And jhurvid, I hope you're only devil's-advocating him?
Anyway, that's too low for me. I'd rather dedicate some attention to what our newcomer said:

These are a list of the leaps of faith taken when dealing with the different theories regarding TWW.

Single Timeline Theory
1. Do Link and Tetra find a new Hyrule?/Does Hyrule come back after TWW?
2. Is the Triforce recovered after TWW?
3. Is Ganon revived/reborn after TWW?
4. Is the Master Sword recovered after TWW?

Split Timeline Theory
1. Does the Triforce of Courage somehow get cloned so it can exist in both the child and adult timelines?
2. Is the Legend of the Fairy non-canon?

My "What If?" Timeline Theory
1. Does one event happen differently after OoT (like Ganon escaping the Sacred Realm, etc.) that would lead to TWW instead of another game, like ALttP?

Good approach, Vertiboy! I like how well the Split Timeline theory gets away - you observed only 2 assumptions in it, that's pretty close to the perfect theory, isn't it?

But in fact, let's try to do away with these two questions as well.

1. Does the Triforce of Courage somehow get cloned so it can exist in both the child and adult timelines?

The ToC is really no exception that 'gets cloned'. See, the ToC is just a little piece that lies in a box, the box named timeline. Now put everything into that box: Hyrule, its inhabitants, the Triforce - but leave the Goddesses out of it (they stand above everything).
Now point a cloning ray on that box - and vóilà, the box gets duplicated! Now take a look inside both boxes: there's one ToC in each box.

2. Is the Legend of the Fairy non-canon?

You think that Splitters generally dismiss the Legend of the Fairy as non-canon because, if acknowledged as canon, it would seem to be evidence for a Single Timeline? Well, for me this is not so. I think the LotF is a well written and funny connection towards Termina. Termina, existing in a Single Timeline, would have to be linked to either Hyrule timeline, so Tingle travelling from there would end up in either Child or Adult Hyrule, no telling. Thus, I can fully accept the LotF as canon without it destroying the possibility for a Split Timeline.

[Showsni]

Using just Vertiboy's rules, my single timeline has no assumptions.

Clearly, a theory with fewer assumptions is better than one with more. That's like a rule of timeline debate; it doesn't really merit a thread to itself...

And you have to use common sense when you're arguing, or the whole thing is pointless. Arguing by reducing your point to ridiculousness:

1. We can't use common sense.
2. We can't prove anything that isn't explicitly stated.
3. For example, it's unknown whether or not Link defeats Volvagia in OoT - he could merely be teleporting away, leaving his old body behind.
Link could well be blind - we can't tell for sure he isn't.
It's possible that Malon is seventy years old. It's a bit ahrd to prove she isn't.

See? If you ignore common sense, you get massively more assumptions. We need to minimise assumptions; we can't afford to throw out common sense.

[Fyxe]

That's the beauty of it.

Just because your method says something different doesn't invalidate our method.

WAKE UP and quit being so arrogant, I gave reasons why the 'rules' are just as flawed which were subsequently ignored, and since when is it YOUR method now, eh?

No. We just don't care what your idea of what's sensible in a "sodding video game" is.

Thankfully, most people here do because they have some grip of reality.

*gasp*
Fyxe disagrees with our method! All is lost!
Yeah, um. How about no? The extent of what I'm getting from you is "STFU, you're stupid", which means nothing in a debate setting. If you're not refuting my points, you're not refuting my points. Consider that an invitation.

I've been down that road. LionHarted, you know very well that arguing with you leads to some very, very endlessly circular arguments. I cannot be bothered to waste my time arguing with you. I will argue with anyone else here, but I refuse to get into an argument with you anymore, because it's just utterly rediculous and you have no ability to admit any fault.

And again, since when is it your method? Are you and jhurhowthehelldoispellthatdamnname joined at the hip or something now? Sounds to me like he designed the method specifically because arguing with you is insanely difficult without hammering you with logic from all angles.

I'm arguing for common sense because many of us just don't have the TIME for pointless, pointless arguing just to get the point across to one person.

Oh, thanks to Showsni for backing me up a little so I don't go completely insane.

Edited by Fyxe, 09 November 2006 - 10:05 PM.

[LionHarted]

Clearly, a theory with fewer assumptions is better than one with more. That's like a rule of timeline debate; it doesn't really merit a thread to itself...

Gerudo reproducing through Hylians is an assumption.

1. We can't use common sense.

You can't *define* what is and is not common sense.

2. We can't prove anything that isn't explicitly stated.

We can't rule out anything that isn't explicitly stated, either.

3. For example, it's unknown whether or not Link defeats Volvagia in OoT - he could merely be teleporting away, leaving his old body behind.

Dad and you destroyed the dragon together, didn't you!

Not a positive confirmation, since, of course, you don't actually fight alongside Darunia, but we can at least determine intent.

See? If you ignore common sense, you get massively more assumptions. We need to minimise assumptions; we can't afford to throw out common sense.

That Gerudos reproduce through Hylians is not common sense. Especially since they only "sometimes" travel to Hyrule to find boyfriends, and the Hylians "don't see many Gerudo around these parts." In-game text suggests that they don't have much contact with Hylians at all. Anything that suggests something to the contrary can hardly be "common sense".

Edited by LionHarted, 09 November 2006 - 10:19 PM.

[Chaltab]

That Gerudos reproduce through Hylians is not common sense. Especially since they only "sometimes" travel to Hyrule to find boyfriends, and the Hylians "don't see many Gerudo around these parts." In-game text suggests that they don't have much contact with Hylians at all. Anything that suggests something to the contrary can hardly be "common sense".

On this topic, could it not be that Gerudos are simply more long-lived or perhaps more fertile than humans? The implication I got from the game was that one man, the King, reigns over the whole nation for 100 years, and then a new one is born. The king dies as the new male finishes puberty, and then the new male becomes king. Each new king takes all the adult Gerudo women as their concubines.

Granted, I could be wrong about this since I was only 11 or 12 when I first played through Ocarina of Time.

[LionHarted]

On this topic, could it not be that Gerudos are simply more long-lived or perhaps more fertile than humans? The implication I got from the game was that one man, the King, reigns over the whole nation for 100 years, and then a new one is born. The king dies as the new male finishes puberty, and then the new male becomes king. Each new king takes all the adult Gerudo women as their concubines.

This is the idea that I endorse. Except... they're not so much concubines, but concubines and wives. This system was used in ancient Arabia, and is called the harem system.

The Gerudo are influenced both by the Arabian harems (mostly females, dominated by a single male) and the Amazons (warrior-based female culture).

Elements of Arabian [harem] culture in Gerudo culture:

* Male head, to whom all females are subordinate.
* Majority of those who dwell in the household of the head of the culture are females.
* Arabian garb/dwelling/symbology/worship/physical appearance.
* Arabian-style weaponry and fighting style.
* Warrior-based culture.
* Spirit Temple background music has a decidedly Eastern influence.
* No males permitted in their lands, save the kinsmen of the head of the culture.
* They live in a desert area.
* The only females to live there take on the roles of servants, attendants, slaves, or guards (NOTES: this is inevitable, since all of them are women except for the King; 'servants' would include, in this case, the guards).


Elements of Amazon culture in Gerudo culture:

* Primarily females.
* Warrior-based culture.
* They live on the edges of the known world, on the edge of Hyrule.
* No men permitted in their country.
* Gerudo Valley background music has a primarily Latin influence.
* They leave the country to find men.

[Fyxe]

For goddess's sake. What if the male dies. Is killed. Or dies during birth, even. It's sodding nonsense. It just wouldn't work. THAT is common sense. Why do you keep completely *ignoring* that fact?

[LionHarted]

For goddess's sake. What if the male dies. Is killed. Or dies during birth, even. It's sodding nonsense. It just wouldn't work. THAT is common sense. Why do you keep completely *ignoring* that fact?

Hello? The "dark rites of the Gerudo" can bring him back! Why do you think they even have revival rituals?

Edited by LionHarted, 10 November 2006 - 10:36 AM.