320 replies to this topic

[Vertiboy]

False. Link and Zelda never wanted the Master Sword - they never even knew it was there. Their plan was simply to get the triforce before Ganon could, to keep it safe. (Sure, it doesn't change the gist of your argument, but I'm pedantic).

I forgot about that. You are right that it doesn't affect my arguement, though.

You are arguing from the "Aonuma speaks truth, split timeline is right" perspective, though. From a single timeline, then when you say that since Ganon is being given the ToP as before nothing will change, they can say exactly. OoT happens in it's entirety.

I see no reason to disregard his comment. He directed the game. He went into great detail. He should know what he is talking about. If I were Aonuma, and I directed a game and went into great detail about its timeline placement, only to have people disregard my comment, I would be offended. If we don't ever trust creators' comments, how will we ever know creator's intent? Keep in mind that sometimes evidence accidentally gets into the game that contradicts creator's intent, so "the in-game evidence" isn't the answer to that question. The day that the man who directed the game is dead wrong about timeline details is the day that there is no Zelda timeline.

If you choose to disregard the in-depth comments that the director of Twilight Princess made about, well, Twilight Princess, then I cannot stop you. If I have to prove that he, again the director, is not lying, then I guess I lose this debate. If people will stop and think for a moment, though, and stop assuming that the director's comment is wrong just because a few comments have been wrong before (but they weren't anywhere near as elaborate or confident), then we wouldn't have to debate about what Aonuma, the director of Twilight Princess, has said.

Yes, I had to repeat the fact that he was the director to emphasize my point.

Zelda being in Hyrule Castle isn't too much of a difficulty. The castle clearly hasn;t surrendered after Zelda left - their are still soldiers there. Security's tightened, in fact, making it even safer to return once Ganon's gone. And as for Link getting in, that's just a gameplay mechanic.

Are you going to believe what you see or what is said, as far as a fictional universe is concerned? If you play OoT, Impa clearly says, "...they surrendered a short time after..." in referring to HC. That isn't word play, either. I just can't remember the entire quote, and I don't want to misquote Impa. Also, in A Link to the Past, guards are still at HC, even though Agahnim has taken over. One could interpret Impa's quote and the guards' unwillingness to let Link into the castle to mean that Ganondorf has them under a similar spell.

Also, gameplay mechanic or not, it is canon. Link's in-game inability to reach the courtyard is still a plothole that needs to be explained if Link arrives after the Triforce split. What would make that time any different than another time in the game?

The guards are there to prevent Link from getting as far as he did in the castle before. I have used 73h h@x before, and if you jump the guards inside the castle, Zelda is still in the courtyard. She says the same dialogue that she says pre-HC escape, though. I really don't think that is canon. Anyway, as you have said, the gaurds are a gameplay mechanic to prevent Link from getting to the courtyard later in the game.

I could, however, just as easily say the same about the Door of Time. I could say that it is a gameplay mechanic that exists to prevent the player from getting to the Master Sword too early. I could, too, in that way, make that plothole "excusable."

That is why, if the Door of Time being open counts against the "before meeting Zelda" theory, then the guards in Hyrule Castle blocking the way to the courtyard counts agains the "after the Triforce split" theory. It is only fair.

Edited by Vertiboy, 02 May 2007 - 08:50 PM.

[LionHarted]

Q: How did Ganondorf get the Triforce of Power in Ocarina of Time?
A: He entered the Sacred Realm and placed his hand on it. Since he was not balanced, the Triforce split, giving him the Triforce of Power.
Comment: Yep.

Q: How did Ganondorf get into the Sacred Realm in the first place?
A: Link removed the Master Sword from the Pedistal of Time, which opened the gateway to the Sacred Realm.
Comment: Yep.

Q: How did Link reach the Master Sword?
A: He gathered the Spiritual Stones and the Ocarina of Time, placed the Stones in the shrine in front of the Door of Time, played the Song of Time on the Ocarina, and the Door of Time opened.
Comment: Yep.

Q: Why did Link want to get the Master Sword in the first place?
A: He was going to use it to stop Ganondorf from getting the Triforce.
Comment: Link didn't. He was planning to take the Triforce himself.

Q: Whose idea was it for Link to use Master Sword to stop Ganondorf?
A: It was Princess Zelda's idea.
Comment: See above.

Q: Since all of the information above is true, does that mean that Link and Zelda were ironically responsible for Ganondorf getting the Triforce of Power?
A: Yes, it does.
Comment: Yep.

Q: At the end of the game, we see Link sneaking into Hyrule Castle Courtyard to see Zelda. Aonuma said that they had a talk, and as a result of that talk, Link and Zelda decided to leave Ganondorf alone. Let's say that, theoretically, Link arrived before he originally met Zelda. If this theoretical scenario is true, what effect would leaving Ganondorf alone have?
A: Ganondorf would not get his hands on the Triforce of Power as easily because Link would not practically lead him to it this time around. Any attempt of Ganondorf to get the Triforce would be stopped, or at the very least, delayed.
Comment: We don't know whether he was sneaking. We don't know what "leaving Ganondorf alone" entails. The only reason Hyrule was plunged into darkness in OoT was because the sages were unable to awaken to seal Ganondorf.

Q: How did Zelda and Impa know about the attack on Hyrule Castle?
A: A dying Hylian soldier in back alley of Hyrule Castle Town said that she predicted that an attack would happen, so she took Zelda, hopped on her horse, and rode off.
Comment: Yes.

Q: Could Impa have taken Zelda back to Hyrule Castle after the attack was over?
A: No, Impa says that Hyrule Castle surrendered shortly after being attacked.
Comment: And then Ganondorf and his men chased after Zelda. What then?

Q: Based on the information above, if Impa predicted one attack, and if Hyrule Castle surrendered, do you think that it is very likely that Zelda ever made it back to Hyrule Castle?
A: It is not very likely.
Comment: Ganondorf and his men chased after Zelda. Solders still occupy the castle.

Q: What happens when Link tries to sneak into Hyrule Castle after he see Impa and Zelda riding away?
A: Hyrule Castle is guarded more heavily. The guard at the front gate cannot be bribed to let Link in, as he could earlier in the game.
Comment:

Q: Can you make it to Zelda at this time (without 73h h@x)?
A: No, Link can only make it so far. He can make it to the first room inside the castle on the path to the courtyard. He cannot actually make it to the courtyard, where Zelda was earlier in the game.
Comment: For gameplay purposes. Zelda and Impa are not in the Courtyard anymore.

Q: Let's say that, theoretically, Zelda is back in Hyrule Castle after the attack, despite the evidence in a the questions beforehand. Let's also say, theoretically, Link arrives in his childhood after the Triforce had split. How does Link get into Hyrule Castle at the end of the game if he cannot do it in-game?
A: There is no explaination. It is just a plothole.
Comment: "At the end of the game" =/= "in-game."

Q: Despite the evidence above, let's say that, theoretically, Link is able to sneak into the courtyard and see Zelda after the Triforce has split. What, again, did the Aonuma quote say that Link and Zelda decided to do?
A: They decided to leave Ganondorf alone.
Comment: Yep.

Q: Does that mean that they will not interfere with Ganondorf?
A: Yes, leaving him alone means that they will not interfere with him
Comment: Until they do interfere, when it is decided that he should be executed, which Aonuma also says.

Remember, the point of sending Link back in time was for him to relive his life, not to stop Ganondorf. If Ganondorf was stopped, it was a nice supplement.

Q: What plothole is involved if Link arrives before he met Zelda?
A: The Door of Time is open before Link opened it.
Q: Is that it?
A: Yes, it is.
Comment: Triforce mark on Link's hand. Link's possession of whatever shield you had last time you pulled the Master Sword (not when you first met Zelda). Etc. etc. etc.

End of debate.

That is why, if the Door of Time being open counts against the "before meeting Zelda" theory, then the guards in Hyrule Castle blocking the way to the courtyard counts agains the "after the Triforce split" theory. It is only fair.

The guards exist to prevent people from accessing Hyrule Castle.
The Door of Time exists to prevent people from entering the Sacred Realm.

The Door of Time was not open before you met Zelda; the Spiritual Stones were in the hands of their respective owners.
The guards may or may not exist after the end of the game. We don't know. None of us have seen it.

Wow. I really thought that you would know what I meant. I didn't know that you distinguish so differently between years and several years. Excuse me for being a little lazy.

You misunderstand. I was distinguishing between the invasion and the execution. The execution is several years later. The invasion is never mentioned in the interview.

Edited by LionHarted, 02 May 2007 - 11:59 PM.

[Arturo]

The problem with that is that both Zelda and Impa clearly imply they didn't come back to Hyrule Castle after leaving.

[LionHarted]

The problem with that is that both Zelda and Impa clearly imply they didn't come back to Hyrule Castle after leaving.

Zelda is in the Temple of Time when you return from the Sacred Realm, which, in OoT, was in Castle Town.

So, yes, Zelda does return.

[Arturo]

Oh my God....

You have the same level of understanding of a computer. Okay, I will say it more clearly.

It's implied by Zelda that once she left the castle, she didn't return, until she was kidnapped by Ganondorf.

And, by the way, Hyrule Castle is not the same as Hyrule Castle TOWN.

[LionHarted]

It's implied by Zelda that once she left the castle, she didn't return, until she was kidnapped by Ganondorf.

When and where is it implied?

[Arturo]

Impa:

We Sheikah have served the
royalty of Hyrule from generation
to generation as attendants.
However...
On that day seven years ago,
Ganondorf suddenly attacked...
and Hyrule Castle surrendered
after a short time.
Ganondorf's target was one of
the keys to the Sacred Realm...the
hidden treasure of the Royal
Family...The Ocarina of Time!
My duty bound me to take Zelda
out of Ganondorf's reach.
When last I saw you, as we made
our escape from the castle, you
were just a lad...
Now I see that you have become
a fine hero...

Zelda:

I saw you as I was escaping
from the castle with my
attendant, Impa.

NO mention to an hypothetical return, something taht would be expectable. And it seems very unlikely that they would come back to Hyrule Castle if it "surrended after a short tiem". It is also interesting how she says that the attack interrumpted her service for the Royal Family as a whole, since she had to help Zelda escape.

I KNOW that they don't say "And we never went back to Hyrule Castle". But you must take the context. Do you think that if they HAD actually seen Ganondorf's second attack they would talk about it? Because they don't.

[Fyxe]

Artuno, Impa is talking about Ganondorf's initial attack - the castle may have surrendered, but then Ganondorf leaves and chases after Zelda, before going into the Scared Realm. If you enter Hyrule Castle after all that, you can clearly see it's still occupied and has not surrendered (anymore). Therefore Impa's words are rendered moot.

[Arturo]

Does this have anything to do with it?

The very thing that the castle surrendered so soon means that it's not a safe place.

And how is what you said relevant at all?

Let me make it clearrer. The very thing that they only mention one attack, the initial one, and say that Hyrule Castle surrended shortly after mkeans that they DIDN'T see the other one.

[Fyxe]

No. When she's talking about the surrender, she's specifically talking about Ganondorf's attempt to get the Ocarina of Time. She's not talking about the events that occured after that, she's talking specifically about the events that led to their escape.

Edited by Fyxe, 03 May 2007 - 09:14 AM.

[Arturo]

Why does no-one understand me today!?

I KNOW SHE'S SPEAKING ABOUT GANONDORF'S ATTEMPT TO GET THE OCARINA!

I SAY THAT HIS NEGLECTANCE TO MENTION THE ATTACK AFTER SHE ESCAPED THE CASTLE MEANS THAT AFTER THEY ESCAPED, NONE OF THEM WENT BACK TO THE CASTLE.


Tell me you were just acting bitchy and acting as if you didn't understand me. Tell me that, please.

Edited by Arturo, 03 May 2007 - 09:39 AM.

[Fyxe]

I perfectly understand you, I just don't see how her not mentioning an event that clearly happened means she knows nothing about it. Are you seriously telling me she didn't notice the fact that Ganondorf left the castle to chase after her, or that he entered the Sacred Realm and got the Triforce of Power? She doesn't mention Ganondorf's second attack, does that mean the second attack doesn't happen? No.

She's specifically talking about the escape that Link saw. She is NOT talking about anything else. Why would she mention anything else? Why would she say 'oh, and afterwards Ganon attacked again and destroyed the castle'. We *know* this happened. We do not need to know if they went back, were mere witnesses or were not there at all. She's not talking about that.

Also, I hope you're not calling me a bitch, because if you mean that in anything other than a good way, I don't take kindly to it, it's extremely rude.

Edited by Fyxe, 03 May 2007 - 09:31 AM.

[Arturo]

o____O

I didn't call you a bitch, I just was asking whether you were misunderstanding me on purpose, hence acting bitchy. And it wasn't supposed to be a serious question.

You know it's not my style insulting people that way.

It is clear she knows of a second attack. But it seems very likely from the context, from the way she said it that she wasn't around then. But it's clear she knows Hyrule was attacked more times.

[Hero of Legend]

Um, where is the evidence Hyrule Castle was attacked more than once? In ALttP, Agahnim took over the Castle, killed the King, and turned the soldiers into his loyal followers. I see no reason to believe Ganondorf did not do the same.

[LionHarted]

Um, where is the evidence Hyrule Castle was attacked more than once?

Ganondorf attacked the castle to steal the Ocarina of Time and then he and his men chased after Zelda.
Castle Town is not in ruins until sometime after he returns from the Sacred Realm with the Triforce of Power. This is clear evidence of a second attack. It is presumed that this was averted through the actions of Link and Zelda in the past.

Impa is referring strictly to the events that surrounded the pursuit from the castle by Ganondorf, when she last saw Link. She must take Zelda out of Ganondorf's reach, because he seeks to steal the Ocarina of Time. Says nothing about what happens after he gets into the Sacred Realm. It seems clear that Ganondorf marks Zelda as a "traitor", which suggests that she has been working against him since he became the King of Evil, in my opinion.

NO mention to an hypothetical return

Would a hypothetical return make any difference with respect to the main plot of the game? No?
Then that's why it wasn't mentioned.

Edited by LionHarted, 03 May 2007 - 01:18 PM.

[Hero of Legend]

Ganondorf attacked the castle to steal the Ocarina of Time and then he and his men chased after Zelda.
Castle Town is not in ruins until sometime after he returns from the Sacred Realm with the Triforce of Power. This is clear evidence of a second attack.

A second attack, or Ganondorf returning from the Sacred Realm and destroying the Castle Town to demonstrate his power (it must have been to set an example, since he didn't rebuild it)? I see no evidence against the latter.

Edited by Hero of Legend, 03 May 2007 - 01:33 PM.

[LionHarted]

A second attack, or Ganondorf returning from the Sacred Realm and destroying the Castle Town to demonstrate his power (it must have been to set an example, since he didn't rebuild it)? I see no evidence against the latter.

How does he "destroy the Castle Town" without attacking it?
Moreover, wouldn't "destroying Castle Town" constitute an attack in and of itself?

Edited by LionHarted, 03 May 2007 - 01:35 PM.

[Hero of Legend]

So by that definition, deconstruction work counts as an "attack"? Please, return with evidence of a fight. At least I know Ganondorf evidently let the sitizens move to and live in Kakariko, which tells us that the "attack" was not sudden at all, nor was its purpose to kill the population of the town.

[Fyxe]

The fact that the citizens left the town means they had to have been attacked. Nobody leaves a castle and town just because someone asks nicely.

Besides, there are skulls surrounding Hyrule Castle, the king and most of the soldiers are nowhere to be seen, and the castle is destroyed. Do you think Ganon did that just by saying 'hi, I have the Triforce, do you mind destroying your own castle with such force that it opens up a hole in the crust of the earth?'.

And it's not 'deconstruction work'. What happened to the town was not a careful and planned destruction, it appears to be an entirely random series of attacks.

[Hero of Legend]

The fact that the citizens left the town means they had to have been attacked. Nobody leaves a castle and town just because someone asks nicely.

Well, Ganondorf evidently did destroy the town, probably killing a lot of people. That doesn't mean he attacked it with an army or something, however. Besides, if he?d already invaded the castle, killed the king and driven of the princess, it?d be more like a purging than an attack.

Besides, there are skulls surrounding Hyrule Castle, the king and most of the soldiers are nowhere to be seen, and the castle is destroyed. Do you think Ganon did that just by saying 'hi, I have the Triforce, do you mind destroying your own castle with such force that it opens up a hole in the crust of the earth?'.

Non-human skulls. And yes, I expect so, given that they apparently abode to him afterwards.

And it's not 'deconstruction work'. What happened to the town was not a careful and planned destruction, it appears to be an entirely random series of attacks.

Like you'd know. As far as I'm concerned it seems Ganondorf simply put the town on fire and left it to rot. Not that it matters or anything.

[LionHarted]

attack (n.) : to set upon in a forceful, violent, hostile, or aggressive way, with or without a weapon

Yes. Ganondorf did attack Hyrule. He did so throughout the seven years, and continues to do so when you arrive in the future, hence everyone being so fearful of his followers.

Besides, if he’d already invaded the castle, killed the king and driven of the princess, it’d be more like a purging than an attack.

A purging is an attack. :/

As far as I'm concerned it seems Ganondorf simply put the town on fire and left it to rot.

Which constitutes an attack.

Edited by LionHarted, 03 May 2007 - 02:47 PM.

[Hero of Legend]

Yes. Ganondorf did attack Hyrule. He did so throughout the seven years, and continues to do so when you arrive in the future, hence everyone being so fearful of his followers.

Those are different from an attempt to conquer a kingdom and usurp the throne, however.

A purging is an attack. :/

Not in the way you want it to be. We were originally discussing whether Ganondorf launched an armed assault on Hyrule Castle following his return from the Sacred Realm, and I'm saying there is no evidence of such an attack.

Which constitutes an attack.

Complete bullshit. I can burn down my property without it being an attack. So can Ganondorf.

[LionHarted]

Those are different from an attempt to conquer a kingdom and usurp the throne, however.

Conquering a kingdom and usurping the throne constitutes an attack also.

Not in the way you want it to be. We were originally discussing whether Ganondorf launched an armed assault on Hyrule Castle following his return from the Sacred Realm, and I'm saying there is no evidence of such an attack.

No. That's what you're discussing.

I'm discussing that rather large crater where the castle used to be, all the places that became ruined, and all the monsters that have appeared. All of which seem to be attributed to him by characters in the game (namely Malon).

Complete bullshit. I can burn down my property without it being an attack. So can Ganondorf.

Ganondorf isn't burning down property. He's leveling an entire city.

Edited by LionHarted, 03 May 2007 - 02:57 PM.

[Hero of Legend]

Conquering a kingdom and usurping the throne constitutes an attack also.

A different kind of attack.

No. That's what you're discussing.

Then why are you arguing with me?

I'm discussing that rather large crater where the castle used to be, all the places that became ruined, and all the monsters that have appeared. All of which seem to be attributed to him by characters in the game (namely Malon).

What the fuck is there to discuss about that? He did it. End of story.

Ganondorf isn't burning down property. He's leveling an entire city.

His city. Since he's King and all.

Edited by Hero of Legend, 03 May 2007 - 03:33 PM.

[LionHarted]

A different kind of attack.

Exactly.

His city. Since he's King and all.

It's still an attack if you level your own city, especially if it displaces your citizenry.

Edited by LionHarted, 03 May 2007 - 03:35 PM.

[Hero of Legend]

Exactly.

Which proves? It has nothing to do with the destruction of Hyrule Market.

It's still an attack if you level your own city, especially if it displaces your citizenry.

No, its not. That is what you might call an extermination. As long as there are not two opposing parties, it is not an attack.

This is besides the point anyway. A defended Hyrule Castle was not attacked by Ganondorf twice. That's all I've been saying.

Edited by Hero of Legend, 03 May 2007 - 03:42 PM.

[LionHarted]

Which proves? It has nothing to do with the destruction of Hyrule Market.

Okay. So he attacked at least two times. What's your point?

As long as there are not two opposing parties, it is not an attack.

You're thinking of a battle. An attack just has to have two things, and aggressor, and a target. No retaliation is necessary.

[Hero of Legend]

Okay. So he attacked at least two times. What's your point?

Again, that the Hyrulean Soldiers offered little to no resistance.

You're thinking of a battle. An attack just has to have two things, and aggressor, and a target. No retaliation is necessary.

Then there are more appropriate words than 'attack'.

Edited by Hero of Legend, 03 May 2007 - 03:57 PM.

[LionHarted]

Again, that the Hyrulean Soldiers offered little to no resistance.

No shit. None of them have the blade of evil's bane. What could they possibly do?

Then there are more appropriate words than 'attack'.

"Attack" is still an appropriate word. Name your alternative. "Slaughter", "massacre", "extermination". Forgive me for not being specific.

[Fyxe]

You're making the assumption that there was no 'attack' involved.

WE DON'T KNOW WHAT HAPPENED. But given the situation, and given the fact that OoT was intended to be a retelling of the Imprisoning War, there was probably some attacking going on.

He destroyed the castle, presumably killed the king and many soldiers and wrecked the town. If that isn't an attack, NOTHING IS.