141 replies to this topic

[LionHarted]

FDL: Why would they stay on the mountaintops if the land is unflooded?

[Showsni]

Because they live there? Would you leave home and move to the ocean bed if the Atlantic was suddenly drained? The land would be all salt, apart from anything else, and it would be impossible to grow anything.

[LionHarted]

Because they live there? Would you leave home and move to the ocean bed if the Atlantic was suddenly drained?

If my island was as small as a small mountaintop?

Probably.

Then again, looking at the context of literally all other flood myths, absolutely none of the effects presumed to be tied to the Wind Waker flood by the community here even apply. Flood myths unanimously symbolize a purging of evil and a rebirth of the age of goodness. And I'm pretty sure no real flood myth ends with a permanent flood; why does everyone think this one will?

Edited by LionHarted, 25 April 2007 - 09:47 PM.

[CID Farwin]

Overcomplication, circular arguments, and adverse logic.
The three things that keep these forums alive.

...I'm speechless. Was there any reason for this big argument? Did anybody even read my previous post? anybody? Because it was an attempt to prevent the 30 hour argument that I just had to read through!!!!!

Well apparently Fyxe read my post:

No, because it's CALLED the Master Sword in every game. Ganon's trident only recieved a name in FSA. Before then it was just a nameless trident. Obviously some of the tridents are the same because they look practically identical, but we can't say they're all the same, especially not Phantom Ganon's one.

Either you completely missed my point, or I wrote that wrong. it was supposed to be something like, "So by your logic the Master sword is a different sword each time" because it's flagrantly different. the one in TWW is even half the size of the rest! It's BLUE in ALttP! I'm not even going to get into the "shooting sword" stuff. By the logic of that argument, Hyrule must be a different place every time, because it is completely different in some cases.
THIS IS RIDDICULOUS!

WHY is every trident the same? BECAUSE GANON, OR HIS OTHER FORM OF GANONDORF(including phantom ganon), HAS IT! IT HAS NO SUBSTANTIAL IN-GAME RELEVANCE! Phantom Ganon has a trident as an excuse of the developers to have it in OoT.

I apologise for the inflammatory ranting nature of my post, but I do not like when people use little nitpicky arguments that have no actual backing, or even reason to them.

It's getting late, so this is all I'm going to talk about now. I was going to talk about so much more, but I really need to stop now.

Edited by CID Farwin, 25 April 2007 - 11:41 PM.

[Sentient]

Different computer monitor, too, since there's a picture of him right at the top of this page, and he most definitely is not green.

I've played TP on numerous televisions, and looked at that image on several different moniters, and he always looks green to me, albeit a dark green. Ganon is meant to be a pig incarnation of Ganondorf in TP, so tell me why he would retain his hair colour but change his skin colour?

"Green =/= blue" =/= Intelligent.

The ability to distinguish between two colours is not a sign of intelligence, however basic?

[Fyxe]

Oh, for god's sake, in Twilight Princess he's a very very dark blueygreen.

[Arturo]

Apart from the Deku Tree's dream that he will connect all the islands together, and is already trying to do so. Why would the Deku Tree attempt something that is unachievable? Doesn't sound like the behaviour of an incredibly wise forest deity to me.

We don't know whether he achieves it, but assuming he does, how do you know this land will be called Hyrule? what proofs do you have to back your belief that he raises the sunken Hyrule? I don't say it doesn't make sense. Just that it is fan fiction, because no where it is said or implied that all the events you believe in ever happened.

I am no expert in colours, but I think it's a dark blue, no a dark green.

Edited by Arturo, 26 April 2007 - 08:42 AM.

[LionHarted]

Arturo, it's not fan-fiction to interpret an idea using evidence.

"Interestingly, on the Deku Tree point, the Deku Tree's dream is to connect the islands together. However you believe this will happen, it inevitably involves some landmass taking on the physical space where Hyrule used to be, and something happening to the seawater. He emphasizes that Ganondorf is attempting to prevent this dream from coming to pass; his Koroks emphasize that the withering of the trees has been caused by Ganondorf's curse, with the holy Forest Water being able to make them flourish despite the curse. That they are surprised at this suggests that it is a relatively new phenomenon.

Considering that monsters have apparently appeared in the Great Sea only recently, I would wager that the curse is on the sea itself, and that the reason that the trees die is that they are unable to flourish off of the cursed seawaters, and so they wither. This lends a bit of credence, if correct, to the idea that the trees exist to slowly drain the Great Sea, connecting the islands together in that way.

The old kingdom is destroyed either way; whatever remains of it lies in ruins (according to general consensus) so this would in no way violate the King's wish."

If any game is to be placed after TWW (which many people believe), then the land will be called Hyrule (obviously). That's one of those necessary consequences of that placement, as opposed to speculation outright. Considering the above, that there is a plan in place to connect the islands, and the much smaller scale (highlighted for people who didn't understand last time) on which trees actually can make islands larger in real life (which seems to have been the inspiration for the idea), one could reasonably interpret the details as pointing to the Great Sea being drained.

[Arturo]

Again, it's perfectly possible, but it's nowhere implied or stated that would happen. I don't say that can't happen, just that that it is never said to have happened.

[provehito]

It's implied by the Great Deku Tree and the Koroks that it's underway. It's never really implied that it was successful or not, however.

Same with Ganondorf throughout the series. It's usually implied that it's the same one, time after time. However, it's never shown how he continuously comes back from the dead. We're supposed to speculate on what happens between the games and find out how to connect them, because all of the in-game evidence in the world will never perfectly align.

For someone to disagree with the fact that a plan was spoken in the game to reconnect the remains of Hyrule, when if it wasn't relevant they wouldn't have chosen to put it in the game most likely (at least not in text from such an important character), is kinda weird. I'm not saying it's wrong, I just don't see the logic. This isn't the real world. We can't necessarily say that the entire idea of the Great Deku Tree's plan will hold no bearing in the future because we haven't seen it yet. This was most likely written into the text because it holds importance, not to reference to some futile plot for the good of Hyrule that will hold no bearing in the future or the timeline as a whole.

It's got as much basis as that of Ganondorf's continuous reincarnations, especially when all of the games (except FSA) seem to imply that it's been one, constant Ganondorf.

Edited by provehito, 26 April 2007 - 09:41 AM.

[FDL]

FDL: Why would they stay on the mountaintops if the land is unflooded?

Because they've adapted to live on the mountains and those are now their homes?

If my island was as small as a small mountaintop?

Probably.

Then again, looking at the context of literally all other flood myths, absolutely none of the effects presumed to be tied to the Wind Waker flood by the community here even apply. Flood myths unanimously symbolize a purging of evil and a rebirth of the age of goodness. And I'm pretty sure no real flood myth ends with a permanent flood; why does everyone think this one will?

I think if you look at the ending it's implied. Rebirth is a theme of TWW, but in a completely different way. The theme is not to dwell on the past, but to look to the future and Hyrule's destruction symbolizes beginning anew. If you unflood Hyrule that's different.

It's implied by the Great Deku Tree and the Koroks that it's underway. It's never really implied that it was successful or not, however.

Same with Ganondorf throughout the series. It's usually implied that it's the same one, time after time. However, it's never shown how he continuously comes back from the dead. We're supposed to speculate on what happens between the games and find out how to connect them, because all of the in-game evidence in the world will never perfectly align.

For someone to disagree with the fact that a plan was spoken in the game to reconnect the remains of Hyrule, when if it wasn't relevant they wouldn't have chosen to put it in the game most likely (at least not in text from such an important character), is kinda weird. I'm not saying it's wrong, I just don't see the logic. This isn't the real world. We can't necessarily say that the entire idea of the Great Deku Tree's plan will hold no bearing in the future because we haven't seen it yet. This was most likely written into the text because it holds importance, not to reference to some futile plot for the good of Hyrule that will hold no bearing in the future or the timeline as a whole.

It's got as much basis as that of Ganondorf's continuous reincarnations, especially when all of the games (except FSA) seem to imply that it's been one, constant Ganondorf.

You're wrong because the Deku Tree never once mentions Hyrule in that dialogue. If he did and I were arguing against it I'd see your point but that isn't how it is, and the way he says it doesn't imply draining Hyrule in my opinion, it implies connecting the mountaintops together into a new country. I'm not sure, but I think he even calls it a new country/land.

[The Missing Link]

Arturo, it's not fan-fiction to interpret an idea using evidence.

Virtually everything post-Wind Waker is fanfiction by definition because there's no known title that logically proceeds it due to the lack of existence of Hyrule, therefore making evidence in very short supply.

[MikePetersSucks]

Then again, looking at the context of literally all other flood myths, absolutely none of the effects presumed to be tied to the Wind Waker flood by the community here even apply. Flood myths unanimously symbolize a purging of evil and a rebirth of the age of goodness. And I'm pretty sure no real flood myth ends with a permanent flood; why does everyone think this one will?

Because it's not a proper flood myth, and there's the whole "LOL NEW LANDZ"

[LionHarted]

Because they've adapted to live on the mountains and those are now their homes?

They live on islands.

Mountaintops surrounded by water may be islands, but mountaintops way high up above a continent are not.

I think if you look at the ending it's implied. Rebirth is a theme of TWW, but in a completely different way. The theme is not to dwell on the past, but to look to the future and Hyrule's destruction symbolizes beginning anew. If you unflood Hyrule that's different.

How is it different? All the people from the old kingdom are long gone, including Ganondorf, who was the primary motivation for both floods in the first place. The people are going to "join hands, and together, create a better world", if the Tree's plan is successful (which I'm going to assume is the case, since it's being carried out throughout the game).

You're wrong because the Deku Tree never once mentions Hyrule in that dialogue. If he did and I were arguing against it I'd see your point but that isn't how it is, and the way he says it doesn't imply draining Hyrule in my opinion, it implies connecting the mountaintops together into a new country. I'm not sure, but I think he even calls it a new country/land.

Yes.

Hyrule is a "country."

That is, a territory inhabited by people and ruled by a king. The king is gone; gone with him is his ancient kingdom. Any kingdom built there now will be a "new country."

And, looking at the bolded, unless he's really going to make land appear on top of the water (which I find highly unlikely), connecting islands would involve making the water between them disappear.

Islands aren't these floating things on top of the sea; they're underwater mountains that extend above the sea surface. There's already earth connecting them; that earth is submerged.

Edited by LionHarted, 26 April 2007 - 01:21 PM.

[FDL]

They live on islands.

Mountaintops surrounded by water may be islands, but mountaintops way high up above a continent are not.

Um, okay? It's still a way of life which would be completely ruined if the sea was unflooded.

How is it different? All the people from the old kingdom are long gone, including Ganondorf, who was the primary motivation for both floods in the first place. The people are going to "join hands, and together, create a better world", if the Tree's plan is successful (which I'm going to assume is the case, since it's being carried out throughout the game).

Because your perception is that Hyrule idea is revived and mine is that it isn't.

Yes.

Hyrule is a "country."

That is, a territory inhabited by people and ruled by a king. The king is gone; gone with him is his ancient kingdom. Any kingdom built there now will be a "new country."

And, looking at the bolded, unless he's really going to make land appear on top of the water (which I find highly unlikely), connecting islands would involve making the water between them disappear.

Islands aren't these floating things on top of the sea; they're underwater mountains that extend above the sea surface. There's already earth connecting them; that earth is submerged.

Gaaahh, read the quote again. You're seeing it how you want to see it, which is in a way that implies ALttP is after it. That quote doesn't imply that at all.

[LionHarted]

Um, okay? It's still a way of life which would be completely ruined if the sea was unflooded.

Pshhh. Like there weren't ways of life ruined when it was flooded.

Gaaahh, read the quote again. You're seeing it how you want to see it, which is in a way that implies ALttP is after it. That quote doesn't imply that at all.

I read the Biblical flood story, too, upon which this one was heavily based, which stated outright that God was going to destroy the Earth.

Then it happened.

And then the floodwaters receded and Noah and his followers built a new country. xP

Edited by LionHarted, 26 April 2007 - 03:09 PM.

[FDL]

Pshhh. Like there weren't ways of life ruined when it was flooded.

Difference is they were forced to adapt in one case and are needlessly made to do so in another.

I read the Biblical flood story, too, upon which this one was heavily based, which stated outright that God was going to destroy the Earth.

Then it happened.

And then the floodwaters receded and Noah and his followers built a new country. xP

No, this isn't neccesarily based on the Biblical flood at all. Also, you're basically making the ending of TWW fucking worthless for the sake of a quote that you don't even have to see. Why do the pirates go to find another country if the gods plan was to unflood the land in a couple years? It goes against the King's wish, too. Really, I don't see how you could debate this, the game never relates the GDT's new country with Hyrule at all and the pirates search for a land which is said by the game to be the new Hyrule(even if it isn't in name). Sometimes people need to realize that the individual stories of each game are just as important and we shouldn't fuck them up just to shoehorn other games in our fake timelines.

[LionHarted]

Difference is they were forced to adapt in one case and are needlessly made to do so in another.

I hope I don't actually need to respond to this. =/

No, this isn't neccesarily based on the Biblical flood at all.

*laughs*
No. It's based on a hodge-podge of flood myths.

All of which end the same way.

Also, you're basically making the ending of TWW fucking worthless for the sake of a quote that you don't even have to see.

You mean by making it like all the other flood myths the game's premise was derived from?

Yeah, I'm not exactly sorry about that.

Why do the pirates go to find another country if the gods plan was to unflood the land in a couple years? It goes against the King's wish, too.

Why is the King lamenting if there is a new land to find? I'm of the opinion that there is no "other country", since it seems the whole damn world was flooded. He's simply humoring them. Why? Because he just wished for them to have hope. What do you think he's going to do, say "sorry, you're screwed"?

Really, I don't see how you could debate this, the game never relates the GDT's new country with Hyrule at all and the pirates search for a land which is said by the game to be the new Hyrule(even if it isn't in name).

1) The idea of connecting islands (by land, no doubt) would most logically involve removing the sea between them. I see no other remotely logical way that you could make land appear where there once was sea besides *raising* the land beneath above the water level, which would accomplish about the same thing. The Deku Tree isn't going to magically conjure a new continent on top of the Great Sea. Not gonna happen. Common sense, my friend. Islands don't form that way. They form by land rising above the water level, or the water level dropping. Basic geography.

2) They're going to name the land Hyrule no matter what it is. Tetra makes that rather clear. Given the Deku Tree's plan works, they'll name the raised land/drained sea basin Hyrule, too.

[The Missing Link]

*laughs*
No. It's based on a hodge-podge of flood myths.

All of which end the same way.

Yeah. They all end with fanfiction because they go after Wind Waker.

[LionHarted]

Yeah. They all end with fanfiction because they go after Wind Waker.

Anything going after Twilight Princess is obviously less of a fanfiction. :/

[The Missing Link]

Anything going after Twilight Princess is obviously less of a fanfiction. :/

The moment that Nintendo specifically references the after-effects of the flooding of Hyrule is the very moment (and not before) that anything post-Wind Waker becomes non-fanfiction.

[LionHarted]

The moment that Nintendo specifically references the after-effects of the flooding of Hyrule is the very moment (and not before) that anything post-Wind Waker becomes non-fanfiction.

The moment that Nintendo specifically references the reuniting of the Triforce post-TP is the very moment (and not before) that anything post-Twilight Princess becomes non-fanfiction.

I can play this game, too.

Edited by LionHarted, 27 April 2007 - 07:00 AM.

[The Missing Link]

The moment that Nintendo specifically references the reuniting of the Triforce post-TP is the very moment (and not before) that anything post-Twilight Princess becomes non-fanfiction.

I can play this game, too.

Then there is no perfect timeline as LttP cannot be merged into either timeline. Therefore fanfiction is required to unify all of the games together. Thus, no idea you can come up with is fact (which means that someone else can have a different idea from you and not be wrong).

I have no problem with that conclusion. You're arguing that point with the wrong theorist.

Edited by The Missing Link, 27 April 2007 - 11:04 AM.

[FDL]

I hope I don't actually need to respond to this. =/

You do, because while I phrased it in an odd way it's true. The people had to adapt to the sea because Ganondorf needed to be sealed away. In this other, theoretical, case you say that the gods would unflood the world for kicks.

*laughs*
No. It's based on a hodge-podge of flood myths.

All of which end the same way.

As far as I know, all flood myths involve the gods punishing people. In this case, they're forced to flood the land. It's not a test.

Why is the King lamenting if there is a new land to find? I'm of the opinion that there is no "other country", since it seems the whole damn world was flooded. He's simply humoring them. Why? Because he just wished for them to have hope. What do you think he's going to do, say "sorry, you're screwed"?

Well, I guess we don't have to argue this because you're simply wrong. All references to flooding only mention Hyrule and nowhere else. Plus, I can't see the King telling the kids to find a land just so they can travel looking for one for the rest of their lives. He's not that much of an asshole.

1) The idea of connecting islands (by land, no doubt) would most logically involve removing the sea between them. I see no other remotely logical way that you could make land appear where there once was sea besides *raising* the land beneath above the water level, which would accomplish about the same thing. The Deku Tree isn't going to magically conjure a new continent on top of the Great Sea. Not gonna happen. Common sense, my friend. Islands don't form that way. They form by land rising above the water level, or the water level dropping. Basic geography.

"Connect" doesn't mean that, though. It could very well be a bridge formed of roots, which would make it more literally connected.

2) They're going to name the land Hyrule no matter what it is. Tetra makes that rather clear. Given the Deku Tree's plan works, they'll name the raised land/drained sea basin Hyrule, too.

The last line in the entire game tells us it won't be Hyrule. And the GDT never says anything about the new country having anything to do with Hyrule.

[LionHarted]

The people had to adapt to the sea because Ganondorf needed to be sealed away.

Why did there have to be a flood?

In this other, theoretical, case you say that the gods would unflood the world for kicks.

Because it's a universal of every real flood myth, and Hyrule's myth is clearly based on real flood myths.

As far as I know, all flood myths involve the gods punishing people. In this case, they're forced to flood the land. It's not a test.

Most flood myths involve the gods purging the world of evil. This one is no different.

All references to flooding only mention Hyrule and nowhere else.

How, pray tell, would a flood that covers all but the mountaintops be only local?

Connect" doesn't mean that, though. It could very well be a bridge formed of roots, which would make it more literally connected.

"Earth and grove."

The last line in the entire game tells us it won't be Hyrule. And the GDT never says anything about the new country having anything to do with Hyrule.

It will be their land, which they're probably going to name Hyrule, and which may/may not be in the same place, just because this is the Zelda series, which more often than not takes place in Hyrule.

[Sentient]

Well, I guess we don't have to argue this because you're simply wrong. All references to flooding only mention Hyrule and nowhere else. Plus, I can't see the King telling the kids to find a land just so they can travel looking for one for the rest of their lives. He's not that much of an asshole.

Except he never told them to find a new land, that was fully Tetra's idea.

The last line in the entire game tells us it won't be Hyrule. And the GDT never says anything about the new country having anything to do with Hyrule.

So because he doesn't say it, it means it's impossible?

[FDL]

Why did there have to be a flood?

Didja play the game?

Because it's a universal of every real flood myth, and Hyrule's myth is clearly based on real flood myths.

No, Hyrule's myth is clearly based off the fact that Aonuma wanted a sailing-based game.

How, pray tell, would a flood that covers all but the mountaintops be only local?

It's a good point, but a wrong one. The damn game never mentions the rest of the world being flooded, it only says that Hyrule disappeared. Don't you think it would say something different when it says the "kigdom" disappeared if the whoel world was? Like say all of civilization disappeared? But, no, they only say Hyrule is gone. Plus, when the barrier covering Hyrule disappeared wouldn't the water level decrease rapidly? Yes, but it didn't.

It will be their land, which they're probably going to name Hyrule, and which may/may not be in the same place, just because this is the Zelda series, which more often than not takes place in Hyrule.

Well, in my mind, TWW's ending as well as the idea of a split timeline was there so we could get rid of Hyrule for future games.

Except he never told them to find a new land, that was fully Tetra's idea.

But he encouraged it, didn't he? He's shown as being very knowledgeable, do you think he'd really et the kids go off on some wild goose chase? No, I'll say it again, he's not an asshole.

So because he doesn't say it, it means it's impossible?

No, but it means that in canon the two things are never connected.

Edited by Fierce Deity Link, 28 April 2007 - 10:11 AM.

[MikePetersSucks]

Because it's a universal of every real flood myth, and Hyrule's myth is clearly based on real flood myths

There didn't have to be a rescue of two of every animal, the entire world wasn't flooded, there's more than two people rescued, THERE'S ISLANDS...

Any connection is very, very minimal at best.

How, pray tell, would a flood that covers all but the mountaintops be only local?

The same way the Deku Tree can connect islands with trees. The same way an ocean can fall on Hyrule and not reduce the water level of the Great Sea. The same way Everything in Zelda takes place.

Magic.

[Sentient]

There didn't have to be a rescue of two of every animal, the entire world wasn't flooded, there's more than two people rescued, THERE'S ISLANDS...

Any connection is very, very minimal at best.

This is all assuming that the only flood myth in existance is that of Noah, which is incorrect, as there are many flood myths, and Lex has cleared referenced many flood myths, not just that one.

[The Missing Link]

This is all assuming that the only flood myth in existance is that of Noah, which is incorrect, as there are many flood myths, and Lex has cleared referenced many flood myths, not just that one.

Just because there's a real-world reference doesn't necessarily mean that there's cause and effect. You've heard how Miyamoto's brain works; he gets inspired by the most tangential of ideas.