340 replies to this topic

[LionHarted]

That's clearly a game device, because, obviously that part can't be destroyed if Link and Zelda are there.

They're in bubbles, floating to the surface. Ganon's Tower is still standing.

Here is a point many people tend to ignore about TMC's placing. In teh French and teh German versions of the game it says Which means something like "it's this way that Link's first adventure comes to end", while the German version says: , which roughly means "thus, ends the first adventure of Link".

Could just mean, however weird it seems, that all the FS Links are the same, this one being first. After all, this Link never goes on any other journeys that we know of.

Edited by LionHarted, 25 April 2007 - 08:35 AM.

[Arturo]

Well, "always" doesn't usually mean "just in teh FS trilogy". Also, the Light Force is notably absent at FS and FSA, which performs the Triforce at teh Ending.


And saying TMC Link=FS/FSA Link are the same is going against what teh manual states. And cheap way of avoiding even considering TMC could go first.

Edited by Arturo, 25 April 2007 - 08:39 AM.

[LionHarted]

Well, "always" doesn't usually mean "just in teh FS trilogy". Also, the Light Force is notably absent at FS and FSA, which performs the Triforce at teh Ending.
And saying TMC Link=FS/FSA Link are the same is going against what teh manual states. And cheap way of avoiding even considering TMC could go first.

1) I don't even understand your first point.
2) Capcom stated in an interview about TMC that it was their intention to pursue the story of Vaati being sealed.

[Arturo]

1) You would if you read the quotes at the ending of the game. You know, tehy are interesting. I will put it easier for you. The different translations claim that Link (and Zelda sometimes) will ALWAYS be there to protect Hyrule. And always means always. Not just in FS.

2)What does that even have to do with what I said? Moreover, nowhere in TMC is Vaati sealed. And Capcom stated as well that TMC came first in the overall timeline.

Edited by Arturo, 25 April 2007 - 09:22 AM.

[LionHarted]

1) "Thus did Link's quest come to an end. But surely this is not the end of Zelda and Link's adventures in Hyrule. The legend will continue as long as the power of the light force echoes throughout the ages."
My version of the game doesn't use the word "always" at all. Tell me, do I have to use yours? Mine happens to be the more recent, if I remember correctly.

2) They said that TMC was a "very old" tale; Vaati's fate is never described to us.

Edited by LionHarted, 25 April 2007 - 09:41 AM.

[The Missing Link]

"it's this way that Link's first adventure comes to end"

Two possible interpretive choices:

(1) "It's this way that [this particular] Link's first adventure comes to an end."
(2) "It's this way that [the first ever] Link's first adventure comes to an end."

As far as I'm concerned, those two interpretations can easily derive from the same sentence; therefore, it's ambiguous at best.

But it wouldn't be the first time the German verison is right while the others are wrong (for example, the Minish Woods are called both in Japanese and German Pycolite Woods).

That's not an issue of right and wrong, Arturo, and you know it. It's an issue of transliteration versus complete localisation.

Moreover, all the translations of the agme seem to communicate the feeling that Link's adventure will never end as long as the Light Force is around. This would emzan two things:

1. The Light Force is the Triforce, because it's what guides Link's adventures in the rest of the agmes

And the Master Sword sleeps forever. Oh wait... but it doesn't. :Þ

Flowery text is always an option. 'Nuff said.

2.This is Link's first adventure. If this wasn't true, why is it necessary adding the part that Link will ahve many more adventures in teh future and will always stay to protect Hyrule? Doesn't it make much more sense if TMC comes first?

No. Just no.

This statement talks about the future. Not the past. From a denotative interpretation of the sentence, the statement that adventures will continue so long as the Light Force is around says nothing about what happened before. Consider the following sentence: "So long as I have you, my wife, I shall be happy forever." Does this imply that I was never happy before I said the sentence? Absolutely not. It merely implies that I currently am happy and that said happiness will continue ad infinitum. It doesn't place any restrictions on anything happening prior.

Again, Ganon's Tower?

I could easily go into deep logic and specify that how showing that one object didn't get destroyed for some very small amount of time doesn't equal the statement that nothing got destroyed over the whole duration of being submerged, but I shan't. Instead, I will address this specific point technically.

Consider the Twin Towers during the 9/11 attacks. A jet liner flies into both of the Twin Towers. Does the jet liner bring it down? No. Therefore, by your logic, since it didn't happen right away, the Twin Towers should still be standing. But we know the contrary is true; something else caused it to fall, a gradual weakening of the structural integrity.

So therefore, can you prove that Ganon's Tower doesn't fall, oh, say an hour after the flood, after the full weight of the water and the huge amount of water pressure at that depth could possibly crush or implode it? No, you can't. Similarly, I cannot prove that it does. Such lack of proof in both cases stems from the fact that we don't see anything.

Therefore, it's an open question.

Edited by The Missing Link, 25 April 2007 - 11:16 AM.

[LionHarted]

Consider the Twin Towers during the 9/11 attacks. A jet liner flies into both of the Twin Towers. Does the jet liner bring it down? No. Therefore, by your logic, since it didn't happen right away, the Twin Towers should still be standing. But we know the contrary is true; something else caused it to fall, a gradual weakening of the structural integrity.

Actually, the persisting fires melting the steel frames is what inevitably caused the Twin Towers to collapse, according to most reports. Unless there was a persisting flood or some continuing factor that degraded the structural integrity after the tower was already completely underwater, the main stressing factor on Ganon's Tower no longer becomes the flood itself (the general idea is that the flood crushes the kingdom; the tower is still standing after being covered in water, so this is out for obvious reasons), it becomes the erosion over time, which would have to take place over some thousands of years, most likely, and, as you said, the pressure (although that didn't seem to matter before).

[Raien]

As far as TWW's ending is concerned, Hyrule was destroyed. Because of this, it would make sense that most buildings and structures did not survive, which can possibly include Ganon's Tower. But the destruction does not have to be absolute anyway; important books are usually kept in secure locations, and this could have revealed the Hylian civilisation to their descendants.

[Sentient]

Why would you assume TWW is in the adult timeline, though? I mean, that quote from ALttP's manual is one of the things that makes it impossible to assume it. If you go by the intent of TWW and the ending's implications it's unlikely that anything from old Hyrule would survive.

If nothing in old Hyrule were to survive, then why was Ganon's Tower totally unphased by the water raining down upon it?

2)What does that even have to do with what I said? Moreover, nowhere in TMC is Vaati sealed. And Capcom stated as well that TMC came first in the overall timeline.

Nowhere has it ever been said that TMC is first. The only thing close to that is the heavily outdated and contradicted "FS is oldest" statement, which now has so many flaws that I find it hard to believe that it's still canonical.

[MikePetersSucks]

Speaking of which guys, do you think Link pulls up stuff (Triforce shards in particular) from the dry land below the suspended water, or from the water filled are on the mountains upper walls?

There's no way the hookshot can reach down several meters of water.

[Sentient]

Grappling Hook, not Hookshot .

[Vertiboy]

1. The Light Force is the Triforce, because it's what guides Link's adventures in the rest of the games.

It could also mean that the light force was there all along guiding the Heroes in all of the other Zelda games. It may not neccisarily mean that it is the Triforce. Basically, it could be a retcon that says, "It has been there all along, we've just never mentioned it until now." It's like the Light Spirits in TP. If you believe that the interlopers were sealed during the fierce war, then that would mean that the Light Spirits existed before and during OoT. Even though they weren't mentioned in that game, the retcon in TP says that they were there.

[FDL]

I don't remember anything being destroyed when the water flowed over Hyrule post-wish, namely Ganon's Tower, the thing you'd expect to see collapse.

Well, first of all, it's a gameplay mechanic, but also it disappears under the water when they're floating away. Plus if you want to go by real-life when arguing how the GDT connects Hyrule then you have to it with this. It would be destroyed.

If nothing in old Hyrule were to survive, then why was Ganon's Tower totally unphased by the water raining down upon it?

See above.

[LionHarted]

Well, first of all, it's a gameplay mechanic

A cutscene is a gameplay mechanic? How do you figure?

[Showsni]

The King wished for hope for the children and for Hyrule to be washed away. Obviously the tower couldn't collapse whislt they're on it, or they'd have no hope of surviving. But after they've gone it can get washed away too. We don't see it collapse or not collapse; with lack of evidence, go by the king's wish which says the whole of Hyrule will be washed away.

[D~N]

If we are going to go off of the Twin Towers example, I would like to add that, similar to the steel frames melting in the intense heat, the tower's metal frame would rust away in the water, and the tower would collapse eventually, had it not been crushed by the flood. If the tower were made of wood (which isn't likely), then the wood would rot away in a similar fashion, leaving the tower to colapse without the support.

Of course, it is my personal beleive that the tower is pretty much destroyed at the time of the final flood at the end of the game. Perhaps not entirely, but it'd take a pretty nasty hit.

[The Missing Link]

Actually, the persisting fires melting the steel frames is what inevitably caused the Twin Towers to collapse, according to most reports.

Which is what I said if I'm not mistaken. It wasn't the planes that brought down the towers; however, they were the catalyst. Thus, the initial flooding thus, in my analogy, might not be the thing that crushed the tower... but could very well be the little catalyst that could.

the general idea is that the flood crushes the kingdom

There's no general idea about it. See, you're applying your interpretation to what you saw. You believe that the purpose of the flood was to crush the kingdom and destroy it... but you're also not literally quoting the king. He wanted Hyrule "washed away," not crushed. Even beyond that, whether or not that meant literally speaking or metaphorically speaking is another question even beyond that. There's nothing that says that says that the king truly wished for the memory of Hyrule to be washed away with the sea (in addition to the physical washing away). Therefore, if the tower crumbles under the sheer weight of the water instead of the initial plunging of water upon them, that actually would fit the alternative interpretation.

and, as you said, the pressure (although that didn't seem to matter before).

What "before"? Unless there was a second flooding of Hyrule that I'm not aware of, there was no "before".

[LionHarted]

Which is what I said if I'm not mistaken. It wasn't the planes that brought down the towers; however, they were the catalyst. Thus, the initial flooding thus, in my analogy, might not be the thing that crushed the tower... but could very well be the little catalyst that could.

Okay. Well, judging by what 99% of the people who debate that the flood crushed/destroyed Hyrule say, it's the crashing down of all that water that destroys things, not anything else.

There's no general idea about it. See, you're applying your interpretation to what you saw.

1) Yes there is, otherwise I couldn't challenge it.
2) I'm not applying my interpretation; I'm applying the general interpretation.

He wanted Hyrule "washed away," not crushed. Even beyond that, whether or not that meant literally speaking or metaphorically speaking is another question even beyond that.

That entire dialogue is filled with metaphors.

"Wash away this ancient land", "ray of hope shining on the future of the world", "scattered the seeds of the future", "bound to Hyrule", "path of hope", etc. etc.

What "before"? Unless there was a second flooding of Hyrule that I'm not aware of, there was no "before".

Although I forgot to take into account that there's probably an atmosphere inside that bubble Hyrule's inside. But, still, Hyrule's already "under water" (per se) before that final flooding.

[Arturo]

1) "Thus did Link's quest come to an end. But surely this is not the end of Zelda and Link's adventures in Hyrule. The legend will continue as long as the power of the light force echoes throughout the ages."
My version of the game doesn't use the word "always" at all. Tell me, do I have to use yours? Mine happens to be the more recent, if I remember correctly.

You don't have to use mine, because there's no such a version. I use FOUR different versions. I ask you, if four independent versions say the same, aren't they more likely to be correct?

And your version is not newer, at least that text. It's straight from the British version, which I have just checked.

2) They said that TMC was a "very old" tale; Vaati's fate is never described to us.

A very old tale.

Right.


And therefore it's impossible for it to be the first Zelda, right?

Because very old means that it's the last game.

Two possible interpretive choices:

(1) "It's this way that [this particular] Link's first adventure comes to an end."
(2) "It's this way that [the first ever] Link's first adventure comes to an end."

As far as I'm concerned, those two interpretations can easily derive from the same sentence; therefore, it's ambiguous at best.

That sentence is ambiguous, but not the whole context. Especially when it says that Link and Zelda will always be there to protect Hyrule.

That's not an issue of right and wrong, Arturo, and you know it. It's an issue of transliteration versus complete localisation.
And the Master Sword sleeps forever. Oh wait... but it doesn't. :Þ

I accept this, taht's why I use multiple versions. I think this will be made clearer once Beno translates the text. But until then, the best thing we have are the six different and independent (they are too different to depend on each other) translations of the game, that is, the English version (the difference between the American and the European version are slight at best. I have yet to find one), the German version, the French version, the Spanish version and the Italian version.

[LionHarted]

You don't have to use mine, because there's no such a version. I use FOUR different versions. I ask you, if four independent versions say the same, aren't they more likely to be correct?

It's highly possible.

Then again, my version came later.

It's straight from the British version, which I have just checked.

TMC came out in Europe before America, and the English versions of the game were translated after the other language versions.

So, yes, my version is newer.

A very old tale.

Right.
And therefore it's impossible for it to be the first Zelda, right?

Because very old means that it's the last game.

It's not the last game in anybody's timeline, as far as I know. In mine, at the time they made that statement, it was the third. Out of... 10+? That's still pretty old.

Edited by LionHarted, 26 April 2007 - 08:39 AM.

[Arturo]

It's highly possible.

Agreed

Then again, my version came later.

But again, the text is exactly the same, at least for that quote. I have checked.

TMC came out in Europe before America, and the English versions of the game were translated after the other language versions.

The UK is in Europe. The English version was done at the same time as the others.

So, yes, my version is newer.

Yes, but the game text has hardly any difference with the European English, if any.

It's not the last game in anybody's timeline, as far as I know. In mine, at the time they made that statement, it was the third. Out of... 10+? That's still pretty old.

You catch the meaning.

[FDL]

A cutscene is a gameplay mechanic? How do you figure?

No, but the fact that the tower is the only part of Hyrule not covered in water just so you can fight Ganon IS. Look on the sides of the tower during the fight, you can't even see anything. As for people who say that it wouldn't neccesarily be destroyed, you're kidding yourself. If an entire ocean was suddenly dropped on a country said country would be completely destroyed. This is very different than a normal flood, this is an ENTIRE OCEAN dropped on Hyrule. Nothing in our world, not even a tidal wave, can be compared to the incredible destruction that would be caused.

Edited by Fierce Deity Link, 26 April 2007 - 10:33 AM.

[The Missing Link]

Okay. Well, judging by what 99% of the people who debate that the flood crushed/destroyed Hyrule say, it's the crashing down of all that water that destroys things, not anything else.

99% of people also believed that the Song of Storms lined up perfectly with Ocarina of Time. Consensus means diddily squat in this universe... because consensus isn't evidence.

That said, as I said before, you don't know diddly squat about what happened to Hyrule proper after the flood. At best, you see Ganon's Tower for a whopping five seconds post-flood. You don't see it long enough to be destroyed; you don't see it long enough not to be destroyed. Secondly, other than Ganon's Tower, you see nothing else getting destroyed or not destroyed. Your whole "general idea" is based upon one point of evidence that is analysed for perhaps the smallest amount of time possible. Therefore, you really don't have much of a basis for taking that small bit and applying your blanket theory over everything and calling it fact, LionHarted.

Because, y'know, you can only say Hyrule was crushed if... there's actually evidence that stuff WAS crushed.

That entire dialogue is filled with metaphors.

Exactly the reason why it can (and should!) be interpreted in multiple ways.

Although I forgot to take into account that there's probably an atmosphere inside that bubble Hyrule's inside. But, still, Hyrule's already "under water" (per se) before that final flooding.

By magic, no less. Let us not forget that the goddesses established this shield to protect Hyrule... not to merely save the people and then let the laws of physics have their way with the promised land.

That sentence is ambiguous, but not the whole context. Especially when it says that Link and Zelda will always be there to protect Hyrule.

Ah Arturo, need I point out the sentence construction "will always". That's future tense, is it not? Thought so. Still doesn't apply to the past.

[MikePetersSucks]

Grappling Hook, not Hookshot

D'oh.

And Hyrule was destroyed, get over it.

[LionHarted]

99% of people also believed that the Song of Storms lined up perfectly with Ocarina of Time.

It doesn't?

Because, y'know, you can only say Hyrule was crushed if... there's actually evidence that stuff WAS crushed.
Exactly the reason why it can (and should!) be interpreted in multiple ways.

Replace the word "crushed" with "destroyed", "removed" or whatever else it is that anybody's been saying.

The UK is in Europe. The English version was done at the same time as the others.

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.

[FDL]

99% of people also believed that the Song of Storms lined up perfectly with Ocarina of Time. Consensus means diddily squat in this universe... because consensus isn't evidence.

That said, as I said before, you don't know diddly squat about what happened to Hyrule proper after the flood. At best, you see Ganon's Tower for a whopping five seconds post-flood. You don't see it long enough to be destroyed; you don't see it long enough not to be destroyed. Secondly, other than Ganon's Tower, you see nothing else getting destroyed or not destroyed. Your whole "general idea" is based upon one point of evidence that is analysed for perhaps the smallest amount of time possible. Therefore, you really don't have much of a basis for taking that small bit and applying your blanket theory over everything and calling it fact, LionHarted.

Because, y'know, you can only say Hyrule was crushed if... there's actually evidence that stuff WAS crushed.

That's just stupid. If we go by logic and the fact that the King wanted all trace of Hyrule washed away then Hyrule was destroyed.

[BourgeoisJerry]

You know, in all this talk of the Light Force being or not being evidence for The Minish Cap coming first, I think there's something that needs to be pointed out.

A long, long time ago...

when the world was on the verge of being swallowed by shadow...

The tiny Picori appeared from the sky, bringing the hero of men a sword and a golden light.

With wisdom and courage, the hero drove out the darkness.

When peace had been restored, the people enshrined that blade with care.

Now, throw in the argument Vertiboy was using but swap out the first arrival of the Minish with the creation of the Light Force, and the line about the Minish being responsible for items under rocks and in grass with the implication that the Light Force is responsible for Link and Zelda (almost) always showing up when Hyrule is in danger. It doesn't necessarily prove that The Minish Cap comes first, but it's evidence.

[LionHarted]

That's just stupid. If we go by logic and the fact that the King wanted all trace of Hyrule washed away then Hyrule was destroyed.

See what I'm talking about TML? :/

[FDL]

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.

[The Missing Link]

See what I'm talking about TML? :/

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

Perhaps my meaning got obscured here, so let me try again. I would be willing to say that, say, a wood and grass hut would be easily destroyed by the crushing force of the water. Provided, of course, that water did fall on it before it became fully submerged. Water didn't fall everywhere at once (as noted by the fact that the top of Ganon's Tower stays high and dry during the battle with the big G-man). I would say it's perfectly safe to say that those houses are gone... whether it's by the water crushing or the water sweeping away. Believe me when I say it: I fully believe that Hyrule was properly laid waste to.

However, what we're talking about is Ganon's Tower, and you were pointing this as evidence as "things that were not destroyed in the flood". I am saying that you don't know that because you don't know what happened to it in the short term post-flood. It theoretically could have collapsed due to the weight of the water, and I hope that I have given a good case as to why that could possibly happen.

What I basically said was that you don't know for certain whether anything managed to survive the flood because you don't see it stay the test of time.