340 replies to this topic

[LionHarted]

The Missing Link, on Apr 26 2007, 09:32 PM, said:

LionHarted, with all due respect, that's as meaningless a post as "oh yeah, me too!" I don't need you to tell me that someone else made a decent point. :Þ

I smell a double-standard. Of course, I cite this point as general consensus, you give me the "consensus means diddly squat" crap; someone else says the same thing, and it's magically a decent point.

[Sentient]

Fierce Deity Link said

Okay, fine Lionhearted, never EVER use any real world examples when trying to argue the GDT thing again. Because you're being a fucking hypocrite if you act like there's any way a DAMN OCEAN being dropped on a country wouldn't destroy it in real life.

No ocean dropped onto Hyrule, it slowly poured onto it through those waterfalls we see when Daphnes makes his wish. If an ocean had just dropped onto Hrule in one go, then yes, practically everything would have been destroyed and washed away, however, because the floodng of Hyrule at the end of TWW was gradual, I'd say it's fairly likely that a lot of things weren't destroyed by the ocean, but did over time fall into ruin due to erosion and whatnot.

[The Missing Link]

LionHarted, on Apr 26 2007, 07:46 PM, said:

I smell a double-standard. Of course, I cite this point as general consensus, you give me the "consensus means diddly squat" crap; someone else says the same thing, and it's magically a decent point.

This is not about whose opinion it is. This was about you making a meaningless post that pretty much says "I agree!" without expanding upon the previous post or adding anything worthwhile. I certainly don't do it; if I'm just going to be saying, "Hear hear! Keep going!" I don't post.

[LionHarted]

The Missing Link, on Apr 27 2007, 12:58 AM, said:

This was about you making a meaningless post that pretty much says "I agree!" without expanding upon the previous post or adding anything worthwhile.

But I don't agree; hence, you obviously misunderstood basically everything I've said for the past... four/five posts?

FDL said

Because you're being a fucking hypocrite if you act like there's any way a DAMN OCEAN being dropped on a country wouldn't destroy it in real life.

I would be a hypocrite if I was saying that the flood itself worked differently than other flood myths. In none of those is the "land" (that is, the physical places) destroyed; just the civilization that was built upon it. Expanding on an idea as to what might happen next based on an in-game comment and a somewhat similar real-world phenomena is an entirely different ballpark.

Edited by LionHarted, 27 April 2007 - 01:10 AM.

[Arturo]

LionHarted, on Apr 26 2007, 08:15 PM, said:

Really?

Trinen: So we did do the English translation in the European version of Minish Cap, and then Europe, they actually, I think, were going from Japanese to their other languages. But, I would recommend waiting for the US version, because the text in the US version is going to be a lot better.

PGC: So you're actually fixing it up beyond what's going in the European version?

Trinen: Yeah, we did fix it up beyond the European version.

English=/=American English

And that particular text you showed is exactly the same in both version, so they can't be TOO different.

[FDL]

Sentient, on Apr 27 2007, 01:06 AM, said:

No ocean dropped onto Hyrule, it slowly poured onto it through those waterfalls we see when Daphnes makes his wish. If an ocean had just dropped onto Hrule in one go, then yes, practically everything would have been destroyed and washed away, however, because the floodng of Hyrule at the end of TWW was gradual, I'd say it's fairly likely that a lot of things weren't destroyed by the ocean, but did over time fall into ruin due to erosion and whatnot.

But the water then does fall completely on them, it happens right at the end. I'd say it's possible the Triforce/gods were just giving the kids a chance to leave as that's what the King desired. It's possible those bubbles were actually part of the wish.

LionHarted, on Apr 27 2007, 02:08 AM, said:

I would be a hypocrite if I was saying that the flood itself worked differently than other flood myths. In none of those is the "land" (that is, the physical places) destroyed; just the civilization that was built upon it. Expanding on an idea as to what might happen next based on an in-game comment and a somewhat similar real-world phenomena is an entirely different ballpark.

Well, that's what I mean. You're saying that it's possible that some things survived so people could rediscover Hylian history for ALttP and I'm saying I doubt it for the reasons I've stated.

[Vertiboy]

The Missing Link, on Apr 18 2007, 01:02 AM, said:

Since here.

I understand that the Minish timeline relevance debate is over, and I am not trying to start it again. I am questioning the concept of what is canon in general.

I understand that the article TML wrote proves that some information given possibly isn't canon. It is, however, far from a formula which you solve for X in order to determine whether or not said info is canon.

That is why I think that the article is consistent with the unspoken golden rule of canon: everything is canon unless a reasonable explaination can be given otherwise. TML proved that the Song of Storms is not consistent with OoT. He specifically proved that.

I do not think that is an excuse, though, that can be whipped out in a debate to say that something isn't canon just to win the debate. That is what is seems like to me. I guess the reason it seems like that to me, though, is because even before that article, I understood that everything isn't canon. I just always thought that if you cannot prove that something isn't canon, then there is no reason to believe that it isn't, if that isn't too confusing.

As I have said before, it is like Tingle from TWW. The game say that Tingle is 35 years old. That is something that has no timeline relevance. Whether Tingle is 35 or 105, TWW still officially happens hundreds of years after OoT, in the adult timeline. (I am not here to start a split vs. single debate, either. I realize that there are some people that believe that official or not, the split is not the greatest explaination. I am not debating about what is best but about what is official and canon.) Even though it doesn't affect the timeline, Tingle is still officially 35 in TWW. There is no reason to believe otherwise because nothing suggest that it is not canon.

I think that applies to every piece of information if nothing contradicts it. Whether or not Malon wishing that a knight in shining armor will sweep her off her feet has timeline relevance, there is nothing contradicting that, so there is no reason to believe otherwise. Whether or not the Minish hiding items around the world has timeline relevance, there is nothing contradicting that, so there is no reason to believe otherwise. Whether or not the Goron Tunic being red has timeline relevance, there is nothing contradicting that, so there is no reason to believe otherwise.

That is why I don't think that the article automatically debunks canon. It debunks strict canon, where every single piece of information ever given in a Zelda game is canon no matter what, but it doesn't debunk the right to say that Tingle is 35, that Minish hide items around Hyrule, that Malon likes the knights, or that the Goron Tunic is red, and that all of those statements are canon.

That is why I don't think that the article is the ultimate be-all, end all, timeline/canon revelation that TML believes it to be. It just proves that the Song of Storms is not consistent OoT. That's it.

I might actually post some more information on the thread that the link above leads to, even though it is an older thread.

Edited by Vertiboy, 28 April 2007 - 08:50 PM.

[The Missing Link]

Vertiboy, on Apr 28 2007, 05:03 PM, said:

That is why I don't think that the article automatically debunks canon. It debunks strict canon...

You hit the nail on the head. Bravo.

Although it still was a tongue-in-cheek reference.

Vertiboy, on Apr 28 2007, 05:03 PM, said:

[T]he unspoken golden rule of canon: everything is canon unless a reasonable explaination can be given otherwise.

I agree with the premise of what you're going with, but I disagree with the actual implementation.

I view the whole story as this great balancing act. On one side of the balance you have canon... and on the other side believability. (You can replace this with an ounce of simplicity if you want, but the concept is the important thing.) Now often times, the two play rather nicely together. Canon and believability frolic through the fields and traipse through the tulips, and all is good. However, there are times when they are at odds with one another. For example:

- The duplication of the Master Sword over the two timelines
- Fitting A Link to the Past post-Ocarina
- The age of Link in the official artwork
- References to other Zelda games within a specific game
- The Minish putting rupees and hearts in the grass
- etc.

None of those are explicit contradictions of canon. However, canon plays a major role in making each of those things "difficult." In some manner, canon suggests that each of the above should have a given answer, but yet each of those run into difficulties when analysed at a deep level. Going the canon line makes some of these things "difficult to believe," making it such that we stretch our story to the point of snapping. Legal by canon? Yes. Believable story? No.

My prime directive is an alteration of yours: Everything is canon until a more believable explanation is proffered, regardless of said explanation's canonicity. And as a corollary: In the case of the latter situation, then it becomes an open question.

I realise that my viewpoint isn't exactly going to be a popular one; however, many people use this without realising it (i.e., the Minish putting rupees in the grass) for relatively small and unimportant plot points.

Edited by The Missing Link, 29 April 2007 - 12:26 PM.

[Vertiboy]

Quote

Legal by canon? Yes. Believable story? No.

To be fair, though, when has anything in the Zelda canon been believable? If what you mean is believable within the Zelda universe, though, then I somewhat see what you mean.

We still have to acknowledge the fact that the Zelda universe is fictional (which I know that you don't have problems with, but others do) there will be plotholes and inconsistencies in some parts of the Zelda universe. How do the Master Sword and Triforce of Courage split into both timelines? (Well, I personally think that the time travel logic of MM helps explain that, but that's a different debate.) They just do. How did the Minish find an infinite amount of rupees and items to place all around the world? They just did. How can OoT be the Imprisoning War when Ganon has the ToC in one and the entire Triforce in another? It just is.

Whether the writers didn't notice some plotholes, they didn't care, or they just hoped that we wouldn't notice, sometimes the best explaination is just 'cuz.

That is why a certain plot point doesn't need to be believable. It is just fiction (again, you have no trouble with this but some others do). It would be excellent if every single piece of canon worked together, and there were no contractions or plotholes, but writers are not perfect. They might get tired of explaining unbelievable events and just leave the explaination to be just 'cuz.

That is why, in my opinion, believability isn't as important within the Zelda universe as some might think. Sometimes just 'cuz is good enough.

Plus, you are assuming that believability is generally the same to everyone. What may be believable to you may not be believable to another. One may think that the MS and ToC duplicating themselves into two timelines is more believable than you do. On the other hand, you may think that the single timeline is more believable than one does. IMO, a child beating the King of Evil is unbelievable, no matter what universe it happens in. IYO, the Minish having infinite items to place all over the world is unbelievable, no matter what universe it happens in.

However, in the writers of OoT's opinion, it might be believable that Ganon magically obtains the remaining two Triforce between OoT and ALttP. In the writers of TWW's opinion, it might be believable that the ToC and MS duplicate themselves into two timelines.

I think that what we must ask ourselves is what is believable to the creators? That is what matter most, since they are the ones that put this information into the Zelda universe, not us. Even then, their belief in what is happening may not even matter much. How many times do you think that Miyamoto, Aonuma, or etc. thought Well, I'm going to leave an unexplained plothole or two in the game, and I'll just hope that nobody notices? Sometimes the information may not even be believable to the writers, yet they put it in the game, anyway, which is why I don't think that believability accounts for much in forming a timeline theory.

[The Missing Link]

Vertiboy, on Apr 29 2007, 12:57 PM, said:

To be fair, though, when has anything in the Zelda canon been believable? If what you mean is believable within the Zelda universe, though, then I somewhat see what you mean.

More or less, that is what I mean.

Vertiboy, on Apr 29 2007, 12:57 PM, said:

Whether the writers didn't notice some plotholes, they didn't care, or they just hoped that we wouldn't notice, sometimes the best explaination is just 'cuz.

That's a perfectly valid statement, and is likely the cause of the Song of Storms being the finicky thing it is in Ocarina of Time. But in the case of an oops, I don't see why it would be horrible to assume the contrary if it didn't fit... and in the case of an artistic decision, I don't see why it would be so horrible to go with the spirit of the creators and be creative, just like they were doing. Because if we're going to get right down to it, it's not exactly the creator's intent (perhaps sans Aonuma, especially recently) to mandate a timeline; we do so because we get some value out of it, so why not make it fun at the same time?

Vertiboy, on Apr 29 2007, 12:57 PM, said:

Plus, you are assuming that believability is generally the same to everyone.

Actually, I don't., because I've always been an advocate of making the timeline personal rather than strictly analytical. Because inevitably, even if its your golden rule instead of mine, people still disagree about certain points and choose their own interpretations of quotes, regardless of other opinions. And since it's required to some degree because of retconning, I see no reason why it shouldn't apply to needless fluff and other such "artistic" decisions.

Again this is my rule and isn't necessarily standard. I don't expect people to like it as a hard policy. But most likely we've all used it at some point, even if we fail to realise it.

That's all I'm going to say about it though. I politely agree that you have the right to disagree.

Edited by The Missing Link, 29 April 2007 - 09:58 PM.

[Vertiboy]

TML said

That's all I'm going to say about it though. I politely agree that you have the right to disagree.

I think I understand what you mean now.