1600 replies to this topic

[Lexxi Aileron]

So can we say it is at least suspected that the Royal Family's power comes from the Triforce in OoT?

[Duke Serkol]

Interesting observation.

[Lexxi Aileron]

Interesting observation.

Might explain the sleeping Zelda story.

[MikePetersSucks]

However, given the actual state of the Triforce, even if the Composer brothers suspect it, they're probably wrong. It's more likely to be the Light Force, for all we know.

[Raien]

So another random ambiguous quote has massive timeline implications when expanded and interpretated in a particular way?

*round of applause from Zelda Universe and Zelda Informer*

Teary-eyed timeline theorist: "Lex does it again!"

[Showsni]

I wouldn't say their powers come from the triforce. They "own" the triforce, but they don't use it. Instead, they keep it safely in the SR, holding onto the keys to open the realm and retrieve the triforce. They hold it in trust, and as such it's a mystical hereditary power of the family.

[Lexxi Aileron]

However, given the actual state of the Triforce, even if the Composer brothers suspect it, they're probably wrong.

I know they're wrong, because the Triforce is resting in the Sacred Realm, but the story of the Great King that says he "maintained peace in Hyrule using the Triforce" could be equally wrong.

[Fin]

However, given the actual state of the Triforce, even if the Composer brothers suspect it, they're probably wrong.

I know they're wrong, because the Triforce is resting in the Sacred Realm, but the story of the Great King that says he "maintained peace in Hyrule using the Triforce" could be equally wrong.

Well, given that the great king is supposed to be the one who hid the Triforce of Courage is the Great Temple, that's not too likely.

But then, him being to the one to do that is never explicitly stated. Oy.

[Impossible]

So another random ambiguous quote has massive timeline implications when expanded and interpretated in a particular way?

*round of applause from Zelda Universe and Zelda Informer*

Teary-eyed timeline theorist: "Lex does it again!"

Remember when that random PH quote proved something about ALttP... only it didn't? Yeah, it's just amazing how any random ambiguous quote can be tied to a completely different game which wasn't being referenced at all at any point.

[Raien]

Remember when that random PH quote proved something about ALttP... only it didn't? Yeah, it's just amazing how any random ambiguous quote can be tied to a completely different game which wasn't being referenced at all at any point.

The saddest thing is that the majority of theorists buy these arguments hook, line and sinker. Even when it seriously borders on fanfiction, people are happier to just accept the connection because of what they imagine it to be (some kind of awesome conspiracy where the little things connect if you look hard enough). Quite frankly, I don't see a point in timeline theorising if people aren't going to be realistic about the evidence, or won't question loose interpretations of the evidence. I haven't seen a solid proposition on the timeline for the last month now. I doubt I'll be doing much debating before the next game comes out.

Edited by Raien, 30 January 2009 - 07:19 AM.

[Lexxi Aileron]

Well, given that the great king is supposed to be the one who hid the Triforce of Courage is the Great Temple, that's not too likely.

But then, him being to the one to do that is never explicitly stated. Oy.

The AoL manual is purposely ambiguous, methinks.

Remember when that random PH quote proved something about ALttP..

No. Enlighten me.

The saddest thing is that the majority of theorists buy these arguments hook, line and sinker.

The saddest thing is that Nintendo doesn't give real references. The only ones that exist are too questionable to be truly real; however, given that they're all we've got, most people are content to accept them in lieu of real alternatives. Got any alternatives? No? Then shut up.

Edited by Lexxi Aileron, 31 January 2009 - 01:05 AM.

[Impossible]

No, the sad thing is that you don't understand that not every bit of timeline evidence is in the form of a direct reference to another game, and the people buying these arguments follow that lead.

This isn't the topic to say what I want to about the Sleeping Zelda story, let me do that somewhere else... >_<

[Raien]

The saddest thing is that Nintendo doesn't give real references. The only ones that exist are too questionable to be truly real; however, given that they're all we've got, most people are content to accept them in lieu of real alternatives. Got any alternatives? No? Then shut up.

Nintendo have given real references when they actually wanted to state a position on the timeline; 95% of the timeline is known due to concrete single-game timeline connections. The remaining 5% is not worth making up fanfiction for; if a quote carries no timeline connotations, then it obviously isn't a timeline reference.

And has been pointed out before, your sort of theorising leads to a double-standard:
-If a quote potentially supports your theory, then it is obviously a timeline reference.
-If a quote potentially contradicts your theory, then it cannot mean what it clearly says.
-If a quote is too ambiguous to support your theory, then add in your own suggestions until it does support your theory.

So I do actually have an alternative; don't assume quotes are timeline references and don't make shit up.

Edited by Raien, 31 January 2009 - 06:57 AM.

[Lexxi Aileron]

So I do actually have an alternative; don't assume quotes are timeline references and don't make shit up.

I don't "make shit up." I look at elements of the series that hold some direct resemblance, such as the naming of Tetra in TWW and the naming tradition in AoL (in both cases we see that the name Zelda seems to be compulsory for known princesses), and look for surrounding details that add to that context, such as the part of the Triforce in possession of Daphnes (we know that at some point a prince received "part" of the Triforce) and the hidden Triforce of Courage. I am constantly looking for details to add to or evaluate in order to bolster or dismantle my theories. I do try to make use of whatever information seems to extend beyond the scope of the game it comes from, like the Deku Tree's plans to unite the islands and following it to its logical conclusion as stated in TWW- the (metaphorical) awakening of "Hyrule"- and so on, but that doesn't mean I'm "making shit up." I'm being tremendously more imaginative than you are, that's for sure, but my entire timeline, or the pieces of it, has textual support for every guess I make.

Edited by Lexxi Aileron, 31 January 2009 - 02:04 PM.

[MikePetersSucks]

I don't "make shit up."

Everyone on this forum knows that's complete and utter bull.

[Lexxi Aileron]

Everyone on this forum knows that's complete and utter bull.

I interpret things differently from you, but that's not the same as "making shit up."

GameTrailers makes shit up. (Gustaf as the Hero of Men?)
W. Bush makes shit up. (WMDs in Iraq?)

I might take things beyond what you see as context, but that's not "making shit up," that's at its worst taking things out of context. And you don't decide what the context is in any case, so you can only scarcely say that.

[Raien]

Lex, the fact that you "look for surrounding details that add to that context" is exactly the problem. Any basic connection can be given undue significance or motivation if we select certain pieces of contextual information and introduce them in a certain way.

Let's say we have two men standing next to each other in a public place, who start talking. If we point out that one man comes from a neighbourhood where a local terrorist group was found, we could suggest a meeting between two terrorists. If we point out that one man was instructed to stand there by a psychic, we could suggest that destiny is involved in bringing the two together for some reason. But in these cases, the significance of the meeting is not dependent on the actual event; the talking men do not themselves suggest terrorism or destiny. The significance is created by the reader who decides what context to highlight.

This is where the double-standard comes into play. It is you, Lex, who chooses and emphasises contextual evidence, which is why it always supports your theory. The sources themselves do not suggest that this contextual evidence is actually significant to their meaning. As such, the contextual connections are the "shit" that you make up.

Edited by Raien, 31 January 2009 - 03:32 PM.

[Impossible]

You usually ignore the evidence that is given its own context within the game because, as I said in my last post, it's not a reference to another game. See: TWW's ending, most of TMC.

[Viral]

So, we shouldn't expand on idea's that the games introduce? We shouldn't try and put things together by expanding our views on the various contexts of the game, and the timeline? That is stupid. Talk about one-dimensional.

Hell, if we made timelines based on only on cold hard facts, we would have the basic split and then shit all.
If Lex see's something lining up, he has the right to point it out. Hell, he does a pretty damn good job of it too. And all you guys seem to do is flame him and have a good laugh about it. It's really quite sad.

[Arturo]

It's not flaming, it's strong criticism. Which I hardly employ, btw, but I won't censor it unless I feel it crosses the line.

And well, what one perceives as the objective of timeline theorizing is something personal. I'll just point out developers seem to share that 1-dimensional view, which is pretty much antiromantical, but as racionalistic as a timeline can be...

[Raien]

So, we shouldn't expand on idea's that the games introduce? We shouldn't try and put things together by expanding our views on the various contexts of the game, and the timeline? That is stupid. Talk about one-dimensional.

We shouldn't try to make up connections where there are none. It's fanfiction, which doesn't serve to explain the Zelda timeline.

If Lex see's something lining up, he has the right to point it out. Hell, he does a pretty damn good job of it too. And all you guys seem to do is flame him and have a good laugh about it. It's really quite sad.

Lex doesn't see things line up, he makes things line up. That has been the general criticism of him for the past three years. If you have a theory, and evidence contradicts it, you change your theory. When Lex has a theory, and evidence contradicts it, he stretches for new interpretations or finds other random quotes until it does fit. And if someone does make a point that Lex can't answer, he has been known to disappear and reappear pretending the defeat never took place.

Let me tell you my favourite example (and the reason why Lex's arguments royally pisses me off). About two-three years ago, Lex tried to argue that Ganon wasn't sealed in the Four Sword in FSA's ending; he was sealed away in the Dark World. Lex justified this with the quote saying that Ganon was "sealed away from the world". Now, most people would recognise that "sealed away from the world" was a metaphor for discommunication, which I pointed out to Lex. But it contradicted Lex's theory, so Lex wouldn't have it. It had to refer to a literal travel to another dimension. For two months straight (and I'm not fucking joking), I had to keep labouring this point constantly. Over that time, he twisted for new reasons to justify his argument, such as claiming that Ganon's soul was separated from his dark magic, and that the soul went to the Dark World (naturally that argument fell apart pretty quickly). The debate finally ended with Lex's argument in tatters, and then two years later, Lex brought it up again as if those two months never happened. This time, I just found a web reference of the term "sealed away from the world" and Lex disappeared again.

I admit, before TP, I was like Lex. I used to argue that there was a single timeline and that all the games were connected by random quotes. TP made me realise that the timeline is not developed that way, and that this fashion of theorising led to some fucking massive fallacies. Lex didn't learn this though, which is why he has more fans on Zelda Universe where no one has the experience to see the fallacies.

Edited by Raien, 31 January 2009 - 06:53 PM.

[Impossible]

Lex doesn't see things line up, he makes things line up. That has been the general criticism of him for the past three years. If you have a theory, and evidence contradicts it, you change your theory. When Lex has a theory, and evidence contradicts it, he stretches for new interpretations or finds other random quotes until it does fit. And if someone does make a point that Lex can't answer, he has been known to disappear and reappear pretending the defeat never took place.

Case in point, the TP-TWW single timeline. I like the FSA example you used as well (I remember that argument, but I can't remember where it was), but probably the worst was TP, it was just very brief so people didn't have the chance to get really annoyed by it. Remember when TP Link was the Hero of Time talked about in TWW, because he travelled back in time briefly to go to the Temple of Time? And when Ganondorf's death in TP could be interpreted as him being sealed, still with the ToP? And when the Triforce of Courage magically reformed and split for no reason or something... oh god, I can't even rationalise what that one was supposed to be, it makes my head hurt. This is why I avoid ZU completely now.

I brought this up a long time ago, but Lex generally sees things through the lens of his own timeline, and hence he will manipulate evidence to fit his timeline. Yes, the objective of timeline theorising varies between people, but can we at least agree that we're supposed to base our timeline on analysis of the evidence, not analyse the evidence in order to make it fit our timeline?

[Raien]

Case in point, the TP-TWW single timeline. I like the FSA example you used as well (I remember that argument, but I can't remember where it was), but probably the worst was TP, it was just very brief so people didn't have the chance to get really annoyed by it. Remember when TP Link was the Hero of Time talked about in TWW, because he travelled back in time briefly to go to the Temple of Time? And when Ganondorf's death in TP could be interpreted as him being sealed, still with the ToP? And when the Triforce of Courage magically reformed and split for no reason or something... oh god, I can't even rationalise what that one was supposed to be, it makes my head hurt. This is why I avoid ZU completely now.

I remember that. Ugh, to think that for a moment I tried to argue that case as well (single-timeline theorist, oigh). That was probably the breaking point, as much as Aonuma's quote.


I'm just searching my ZU topics now (in which Lex was then called LionHarted)...

OMG! Lex's "The Gerudo were committing incest" argument!

And here's the main debate (or at least one topic relating to it).

PS: Reading my old arguments is hilarious; to think how much more concise I've become since then. Aaaahh look, I put an extra "e" in "argument".

Edited by Raien, 31 January 2009 - 07:33 PM.

[Lexxi Aileron]

It's not flaming, it's strong criticism.

It's arguably libel.

Now, most people would recognise that "sealed away from the world" was a metaphor for discommunication, which I pointed out to Lex.

In my defense, most cases where the phrase is used as such do not involve things literally being sealed away, especially not magically. In fact, even when people are sealed inside objects, it is usually the case that they are in another world of sorts contained within the object. Naturally it would not have occurred to me that "sealed away" would be a metaphor when I knew that Ganon had literally been sealed away. I wouldn't argue that being sealed in the Four Sword sent him to the Dark World anymore (perhaps that the sword being sealed did, but I don't necessarily swear by this).

It seems the case that, similarly, others do not consider that "divine prank" is a metaphor when they know that Ganon possesses the chosen power of the literal gods. I see no difference, really. Common usage always shows "divine prank" as a metaphor for an unfortunate or ironic set of circumstances. In any case, we all considered a number of things far more literally than we would now. We've all grown in that respect, so don't pretend it's just me.

The debate finally ended with Lex's argument in tatters, and then two years later, Lex brought it up again as if those two months never happened.

That's utter bull, as I haven't even touched the "sealed away from the world" argument since I realized that the events of FSA are too unlike ALttP's backstory to be what it refers to anyway. Of course, this forum is full of people who argue the "divine prank" literally as if it's gospel despite common usage indicating absolutely otherwise, and no one lifts a finger.

Any basic connection can be given undue significance or motivation if we select certain pieces of contextual information and introduce them in a certain way.

To take the example of Tetra being named Zelda, we already know about a naming tradition that mandated that all royal ladies be called Zelda. When we see an instance where such is actually the case, where a royal lady who previously was not known as Zelda is christened by that name immediately upon discovery of her royalty, it is hardly "undue" to say that the latter is a consequence of the former, especially when there is no evidence for a third variable. (in storytelling, there are no unseen variables, making it even more suitable)

The significance would be undue and fallacious if there was a third variable that served to provide a different context. Since no such variable exists, and especially because the chronological timing of the naming tradition is questionable, considering that the naming of Tetra is a result of the naming tradition, and consequently that the naming tradition predates her, is perfectly acceptable in lieu of a better alternative.

In this case I'm not selecting "random quotes" and applying them arbitrarily, although I'm sure you believe that I am. Your skepticism is admirable and I don't fault you for it at all. I'm not entirely convinced of any timeline right now. I argue what theories I do, using the evidence I do, because frankly I find this way more interesting and more open for exploration and conversation. I find the skeptic way boring and closed to possibilities, and so I don't adhere to it. In the end, I'm either right or wrong. And contrary to yours and popular belief, I admit it when I'm wrong.

If we point out that one man comes from a neighbourhood where a local terrorist group was found, we could suggest a meeting between two terrorists. If we point out that one man was instructed to stand there by a psychic, we could suggest that destiny is involved in bringing the two together for some reason. But in these cases, the significance of the meeting is not dependent on the actual event; the talking men do not themselves suggest terrorism or destiny.

In storytelling, such details are not highlighted unless they are relevant. I merely choose to see Zelda adventures as an example of storytelling and not as a means of witnessing random events and conversations as happens in the real world.

Remember when TP Link was the Hero of Time talked about in TWW, because he travelled back in time briefly to go to the Temple of Time? And when Ganondorf's death in TP could be interpreted as him being sealed, still with the ToP? And when the Triforce of Courage magically reformed and split for no reason or something...

1) TP Link being the Hero of Time was not my idea.
2) If anything, I argued that Ganondorf's "revival" in TWW was after his death in TP.
3) Pics or it didn't happen.

I brought this up a long time ago, but Lex generally sees things through the lens of his own timeline, and hence he will manipulate evidence to fit his timeline.

Did it ever occur to you that my timeline has changed so drastically because of the things I have been arguing, and not vice-versa? I was staunchly against LoZ/AoL and OoX being before ALttP back then. I was also staunchly against TMC being anywhere but after TWW, and while I still tentatively keep it there I'm not completely decided and argue for both sides where appropriate. FSA is another story entirely- I like it best before ALttP but I honestly have only a loose idea of how it would relate to anything else. I like the idea of OoX explaining Ganon's comeback, mostly because I don't know what else to do with it, but I also like the idea of FSA being a prequel to LoZ (whatever that would mean).

The avenues I pursue now I pursue because they're the only ones I can find. I've been looking into "apocryphal" sources (besides the manga and CD-is) to see whether they shed any light, but even those only yield limited answers, and sometimes they confuse things even more.

Edited by Lexxi Aileron, 31 January 2009 - 07:56 PM.

[Arturo]

It's not flaming, it's strong criticism.

It's arguably libel.

I don't think it hasn't crossed the line... yet. But please Raien, criticism is admitted, laughing about someone, isn't.

[Raien]

In my defense, most cases where the phrase is used as such do not involve things literally being sealed away, especially not magically. Naturally it would not have occurred to me that "sealed away" would be a metaphor when I knew that Ganon had literally been sealed away. It seems the case that, similarly, others do not consider that "divine prank" is a metaphor when they know that Ganon possesses the chosen power of the literal gods. I see no difference, really. In any case, we all considered a number of things far more literally than we would now. We've all grown in that respect, so don't pretend it's just me.

We were shown Ganon sealed in the Four Sword, which established the immediate context for the term "sealed away from the world", hence the argument won.
We were never shown how Ganondorf acquired the ToP, which thus established no immediate context for the term "divine prank", hence the argument is split.

That's utter bull, as I haven't even touched the "sealed away from the world" argument since I realized that the events of FSA are too unlike ALttP's backstory to be what it refers to anyway.

I googled "sealed away from the world" and posted a link to an article about a kidnapped swedish girl. Do not fucking tell me that this did not happen.

To take the example of Tetra being named Zelda, we already know about a naming tradition that mandated that all royal ladies be called Zelda. When we see an instance where such is actually the case, where a royal lady who previously was not known as Zelda is christened by that name immediately upon discovery of her royalty, it is hardly "undue" to say that the latter is a consequence of the former, especially when there is no evidence for a third variable. (in storytelling, there are no unseen variables, making it even more suitable)

The significance would be undue and fallacious if there was a third variable that served to provide a different context. Since no such variable exists, and especially because the chronological timing of the naming tradition is questionable, considering that the naming of Tetra is a result of the naming tradition, and consequently that the naming tradition predates her, is perfectly acceptable in lieu of a better alternative.

In this case I'm not selecting "random quotes" and applying them arbitrarily, although I'm sure you believe that I am. Your skepticism is admirable and I don't fault you for it at all. I'm not entirely convinced of any timeline right now. I argue what theories I do, using the evidence I do, because frankly I find this way more interesting and more open for exploration and conversation. I find the skeptic way boring and closed to possibilities, and so I don't adhere to it. In the end, I'm either right or wrong. And contrary to yours and popular belief, I admit it when I'm wrong.

I can concede that in some cases, there is reasoning behind your connections. But in many others, such as your recent observations of the Composer Brothers translation, I have found myself headdesking myself wondering what was going through your mind that you thought the developers would have intentionally made such disparate connections with so little suggestion.

In storytelling, such details are not highlighted unless they are relevant. I merely choose to see Zelda adventures as an example of storytelling and not as a means of witnessing random events and conversations as happens in the real world.

Fallacy. The Zelda timeline is not one story; it is a collection of mostly separate stories. If a detail is highlighted because it is relevant to one story, it cannot be assumed to be relevant to all stories. That is unless the timeline was developed as one continuous progression, which all developer accounts say the Zelda timeline isn't, thus refuting that argument.

Edited by Arturo, 31 January 2009 - 08:10 PM.
Censoring. I told you.

[Impossible]

That's utter bull, as I haven't even touched the "sealed away from the world" argument since I realized that the events of FSA are too unlike ALttP's backstory to be what it refers to anyway.

I watched you attempt to do this argument again, and it sure as hell wasn't on ZU, because I'd never go near the place, and wasn't that long ago (last year I believe). In fact, I think it was on this board and many here can attest to that. So yes, you did bring it up again. And don't act like you don't do this all the time, I've criticised you frequently on your tendency to bring up arguments of yours that were disproved months ago and pretend it never happened. The last one I remember was the "roots pushed up the land" nonsense. Poor debating and theorising technique is bad enough, don't also lie.

And you've got to love the straw man in your divine prank garbage that has nothing to do with the argument behind it. (Given that nobody literally says that it's a prank, nor is that the basis for the argument at all.)

Random side note: What's with the change in name spelling? I think Raian is aesthetically more pleasing, but maybe that's just me. More people are familiar with it, anyway, and it's not like Raien fixes some problem it has. >_>

Edited by Arturo, 31 January 2009 - 08:11 PM.
Censoring. I told you.

[Lexxi Aileron]

We were never shown how Ganondorf acquired the ToP, which thus established no immediate context for the term "divine prank", hence the argument is split.

We were in OoT, but that's another can of worms.

You fucking liar. I googled "sealed away from the world" and posted a link to an article about a kidnapped swedish girl. Do not fucking tell me that this did not happen.

Two years later (2008)? Two years later my arguments about FSA were altogether different and had everything to do with the crystal seal and nothing to do with the wording. If I'm wrong, do correct me. That seems too recent for what you are saying to have been the case.

EDIT: I just checked. We mentioned those quotes, and both I and Impossible specifically referenced the "separated from the world" argument I had made [in the past], but I never argued that interpretation again.

But in many others, such as your recent observations of the Composer Brothers translation, I have found myself headdesking myself wondering what was going through your mind that you thought the developers would have intentionally made such disparate connections with so little suggestion.

They are only suggestions. I haven't gone and proclaimed to the world "oh, the composer brothers say the royal family had the Triforce, that means they must have had it prior to OoT," or any such thing. I've only made the casual suggestion, "oh, the composer brothers think the royal family had the Triforce, what if the same belief was part of the mythos of the AoL backstory?"

If a detail is highlighted because it is relevant to one story, it cannot be assumed to be relevant to all stories.

It cannot be assumed not to be relevant, either, can it?

That is unless the timeline was developed as one continuous progression, which all developer accounts say the Zelda timeline isn't, thus refuting that argument.

In this case, I'm arguing that TWW has been the only progression of that part of the AoL backstory, and that all other games have more or less ignored it. Not that the AoL backstory has been part of "one continuous progression." The developers sometimes come back and pick up old stories, but most of the time they leave them alone. OoT happens to be picked up most often, and debatably ALttP is the runner-up. I try to look at all the ways in which old stories and elements are picked up so as not to leave anything out because honestly I can't be sure in trying to distinguish what elements are intended to show progression and what elements are not.

I'm on the fence right now as to where to put those blasted 2D games for that very reason. But it'd be kind of pointless to try to argue in favor of a child-timeline 2D world since all the arguments have already been made for me.

Given that nobody literally says that it's a prank, nor is that the basis for the argument at all.

Then what is the basis, pray tell?

Edited by Lexxi Aileron, 31 January 2009 - 08:15 PM.

[Impossible]

Oh geez, I don't know, why don't you read any of the last five posts I made on the subject and work it out? I never said anything about a divine prank, I was merely reasoning what actually must have happened for there to be any logic to it. And I've justified the divine prank/"hiccup" idea in my document, remembering that since then, we've had new text found in TP that virtually confirms the reason I theorised.

Say, about that Gerudo incest thing (LOL)... Wouldn't it be cool to have translations for those lines from OoT hinting at the two half-Gerudo? >_> (And is there a reaction from Malon with the mask on?)

Edited by Impossible, 31 January 2009 - 08:25 PM.

[Lexxi Aileron]

I never said anything about a divine prank, I was merely reasoning what actually must have happened for there to be any logic to it.

But this is exactly what you/Raien/everybody here faults me for!

Say, about that Gerudo incest thing (LOL)... Wouldn't it be cool to have translations for those lines from OoT hinting at the two half-Gerudo? >_> (And is there a reaction from Malon with the mask on?)

1) You think the existence of harems is funny?
2) You think I didn't know about the two potential half-Gerudo?