96 replies to this topic

[SOAP]

First of, Impossible, you might want to tone down on the F bombs. I'm not a prude or anything but I don't find such an excessive of the word "fuck" to be impressive. It just makes you seem immature and shows a serious lack of restraint. It's not a way to get respect around here.

Secondly, these are your opinions not facts. If you can't see the same similarities as you do well thats' because you have a different point of view. I can respect a different point of view but I won't respect someone who says their point of view is the only the only valid one everyone else is wrong by default. Understand that some people like to draw parallels between different things in the Zeldaverse because it gives a sense of continuity and bridges gaps between games. creators often reuse old ideas and themes and reimagine them in new light to keep things fresh. That alone isn't proof that certian items, places, or people are the same but it does show how some ideas evolved from older concepts. Kinda like how Malon and Taron may have been based off Marin and Tarin from Link's Awakening. Now Malon and Marin are obviously different people as they existed at different times and one only exists as part of the Windfish's dream. But saying they're not related at all is just as wrong of an assumption.

Look at it this way: In ALttP, they make a passing reference to a Dark Tribe. We also introduced to concept of daulistic Light and Dark Worlds and magical mirror that allowed travel back and forth between the two.

In OoT we have the sheikah who are called a Dark Tribe in the Japanese version but as far as we know they're portrayed as benefactors of Hyrule and mostly extinct by that time. The Sacred Realm is mentioned but we never see it, we only haer of it's curruption into a Dark World by Ganon's evil influence from Sheik.

In MM, we again hear about a Dark Tribe and their hexing rituals.

In Oracles we haer about Dark World (or Dark Realm) spraeding it's borders to other kingdoms.

In TWW, Ganon is described as being the ruler of the Dark Realm and seeks to make Hyrule a part of it.

In FSA, we see another incarnation of Dark World, this one less menacing than the one in ALttP as children freely play in it without much harm coming to them. We also hear more about a Dark Tribe and their imprisonment in a Dark Mirror. That same mirror creates evil twins of whoever's reflection is cast upon it.

In TP, we're introduced to the Twili, people skilled in dark magic, who were sealed a shadowy world parallel to Hyrule. In the US version that world is called the Twilight Realm. In every other version it's called the Shadow Realm. The Twilight Mirror acts as doorway into this world.

Now you can say all these dark/shadow/twilight worlds/realms and all these magic/dark/twilight mirrors are all different and thats fine. And as far as we know they probably are unless the creators come out and say otherwise. It's not even important that any of them are the same. But from I can see it does at least show a continuous them of of dualistic worlds of light and darkness and some sort of mirror that acts as a key or a gateway between the two. It's not anything new either and is very common trope for most fantasy adventures to the point it's almost cliche. But it's a good trope to fall back on and works within the Zeldaverse.

[CID Farwin]

Impossible said

Evidence that FSA is after TWW. Which this is not.

Me said

I'm not using it as any sort of proof of game placement. Just asking, "could these mirrors be the same?" that's all.

LionHarted said

And I never said it was evidence. I argued that that the Mirror of Twilight appears to have been so closely based on the Dark Mirror that there is a good chance they might be the same,

.......

Quote

First of all, I'll call it the Mirror of Twilight because that's it's English name. It's not WRONG, it only has one name in any one language. Who cares what the literal Japanese translation is? The game's name is Twilight Princess, even in Japanese.

You were giving the Mirror the Properties of the Twilight Realm, so I referred to the Mirror of Twilight by a name that doesn't suggest anything of the like.

Quote

Secondly, no, the Mirror of Twilight isn't evil, because it's a portal to the Twilight Realm, which is not evil either. The mirror may have a corrupting power, but that depends on who uses it - it doesn't affect Link at all. The mirror was left so that light and shadow would meet. Shadow isn't the same as evil, which is what Ganon represents.

This is why I referred to it as the Mirror of Gloom, because it is evil. A possible interpretation of the game text says that it contains the malice(or grudge) of those executed in Arbiter's grounds, which would be where it gets its evil power from for, as you've said plenty, the Twilight Realm isn't evil.

Quote

Because the Mirror of Twilight is purely a portal, and does not CREATE things like the Dark Mirror does, it would imply that anything to come out of the mirror was inside the Twilight Realm already.

So...Evil Yeta, Armoghoma, and the dragon were all in the Twilight Realm, then? Since the mirror itself has no dark power, according to you.

Quote

And that's just absolutely false, if you apply it to the Dark Mirror. While Ganon may have caused Shadow Links to come out of the mirror, they come out by themselves, without anyone doing anything.

It's been a while since I've played it, so I guess that's on your word...

Quote

And why wouldn't it be used for that purpose in TP? That would benefit Ganondorf, right?

Because he's too busy taking over the world to think of it?

[Jumbie]

SOAP said

In ALttP, they make a passing reference to a Dark Tribe.

That's not correct. Agahnim and the maidens speak of the Demon Tribe, which is Ganon's gang (those who entered the Sacred Realm with him, those who fought with the Hyrule Knights, and those who later roam the Dark World).

Impossible said

If the Mirror of Twilight was so filled with evil power, it would have been severed away from the world.

Ehm, I actually posted that for a reason yesterday:

Jumbie said

Twilight Princess said

世界と隔たれた砂漠・・・そこに取り残された鏡と死人の怨念・・・
The desert which was separated from the world… left behind at that place were the mirror and the grudge of the deceased…

Quote

The sages are there. Link and Midna go there. It never does anything in that time. It's not separated from human contact, period.

What do you think is the purpose of the white shrine maiden in FSA? She is a *shrine* maiden, obviously guarding the Temple of Darkness since it's near her forest.
Besides, you can walk straight into the Temple of Darkness and go to the Mirror resting place. Now try that at the Desert Execution Place - you won't ever get to see the Mirror unless you bring the Spinner with you. The Mirror is sealed deep below the sand, in case you forgot.

Quote

First of all, I'll call it the Mirror of Twilight because that's it's English name. It's not WRONG, it only has one name in any one language. Who cares what the literal Japanese translation is? The game's name is Twilight Princess, even in Japanese.

What the..?! I take that to mean you have no interest in any more translations. If we're not gonna use the original names, there's no point in me doing all that.

Did you even notice that "gloom" is almost synonymous to "darkness", whereas "twilight" isn't at all?

[Raien]

I think Gloom is more synonymous with Twilight, because "gloom" is used to refer to an area with a faded light (which is what Twilight is).

[LionHarted]

It's more a matter of NoA trying to be more cohesive.

[Impossible]

LionHarted, on Apr 13 2008, 02:43 AM, said:

Impossible, on Apr 12 2008, 08:44 AM, said:

How is it that you ALWAYS miss the point?

Because it's not the point?

It's your point?

...Er, yeah, but in this case, you're arguing with my point, and yet missing it entirely, so your argument is irrelevant.

Quote

The Dark Mirror is a 2D sprite.
The Mirror of Twilight is a 3D sprite.

That suffices to explain THIS difference. *rolls eyes*

No it doesn't. The design is completely different. Even NES-level 2D wouldn't produce a Mirror of Twilight that looks like the Dark Mirror does, and never mind that this is a GameCube game. It's a deliberate design difference

Quote

No, we really don't. We only know that it is, and that it can be used as a portal.

We know more than that. We know that it was left by the goddesses as the last link between the two worlds.

Quote

Quote

You're contradicting FSA, as well as TP. Blatantly. And repeatedly.

I've yet to see a concrete example of this!

That's because you refuse to acknowledge concrete evidence. Anyone can see that FSA saying the dark tribe was imprisoned is a concrete example. You're just reinterpreting it because you can't see that you may be wrong.

Quote

Quote

TP says that there's an evil power in the mirror, yes. But I didn't say that there wasn't.

Quote

Secondly, no, the Mirror of Twilight isn't evil

That's what you said.

Yay, taking me out of context, just like you do with in-game quotes. I'm honoured.

Quote

Quote

You don't seem to get it. At all. THE MIRROR DOES NOT PRODUCE MONSTERS. Monsters appear at Snowpeak because the mirror is there, but the mirror does not fucking make monsters.

YES. IT. DOES.

Midna says that the Armogohma is a product of the Mirror.

...She doesn't say that the mirror created anything. The mirror contains power, it doesn't contain monsters. It's a portal, those monsters would have to be in the Twilight Realm. It's certainly not a function of the mirror. Armogohma is probably a corruption just like Blizzeta.

Quote

Quote

The mirror CORRUPTS Yeta, but its powers are in no way comparable to the Dark Mirror's.

"Corrupts", or "brings the evil in her to life"?

Because I clearly see it being based on the second.

Who gives a damn about your stupid semantics arguments? One thing that should be clear from all the recent debates is that nobody besides you does. The mirror didn't create Blizzeta, it turned Yeta into Blizzeta. Yeta was drawn to it by its power. The same goes for monsters. If the complete Mirror of Twilight never produced a single goddamn thing, I'm really doubtful that a shard of one will. It just changed and corrupted things, turning them into the bosses we fight.

Quote

The rest of your arguments simply amount to "I'm right, you're wrong."

I wonder if there's a reason for that. No further statement is needed in any of my other arguments.

If you've changed your mind, as you now claim to, have have decided that this isn't evidence of anything, then this is a useless argument. It creates more flaws in your timeline, but I don't really give a damn about that, and I'm happy to add it to the ever-increasing list of things that result in impossible continuity between TWW-TMC-FSA-ALttP (like the completely randomly timed appearances and DISAPPEARANCES of knowledge of things in old Hyrule). It's just like TMC, really. TMC creates more flaws after TWW in your timeline than you seem to realise, to the point where I would be FAR more accepting of a post-TWW placement of FSA and ALttP if TMC were NOT there, and yet somehow, TMC is the main reason for your timeline. (Even though nothing in TMC suggests that it's after TWW.)

Quote

What do you think is the purpose of the white shrine maiden in FSA? She is a *shrine* maiden, obviously guarding the Temple of Darkness since it's near her forest.
Besides, you can walk straight into the Temple of Darkness and go to the Mirror resting place. Now try that at the Desert Execution Place - you won't ever get to see the Mirror unless you bring the Spinner with you. The Mirror is sealed deep below the sand, in case you forgot.

That doesn't mean that anyone in FSA was ever near the Dark Mirror. The mirror is hidden in TP, but it's not during Ganondorf's execution, and Zant has no trouble getting to it, either. It's still no threat to the sages. No monsters, no evil clones, and for the umpteenth time, those two are not the same anyway.

Quote

What the..?! I take that to mean you have no interest in any more translations. If we're not gonna use the original names, there's no point in me doing all that.

Did you even notice that "gloom" is almost synonymous to "darkness", whereas "twilight" isn't at all?

No, my point is that correcting me for using the English name of something is utter nonsense. Are we going to use the Japanese names for every character and place in the series? I somehow doubt that.

The funny thing is that all we're doing is arguing over one or two of the reasons why the mirrors simply aren't the same. None of this is going to create more reasons for them to be the same. It's a lot like no matter how much Lex argues over why the counterarguments to some his placements have the possibility of not being true, none of it will produce a shred of evidence FOR his theory (like the Hyrule nonsense), and he'll never be able to erase the clear contradictions.

Edited by Impossible, 13 April 2008 - 01:34 AM.

[MikePetersSucks]

Is it possible that the Twilight Mirror shards turned INTO their respective monsters, aside from Blizzeta?

[LionHarted]

Impossible: For someone who jabbers about context, you seem to never want to accept any context that would favor anyone else's theory over yours. Apparently my theories least of all.

MikePetersSucks, on Apr 13 2008, 01:03 AM, said:

Is it possible that the Twilight Mirror shards turned INTO their respective monsters, aside from Blizzeta?

No.

It's implied that ALL the monsters plaguing the Snowpeak Ruins have something to do with the Mirror.

And, by proxy, the monsters plaguing all the other hidden temples.

Edited by LionHarted, 13 April 2008 - 02:16 AM.

[MikePetersSucks]

I meant the boss monsters, the ones that shattered into black bits that seemed to reform into the mirror fragments. Not the generic, meager dungeon monsters.

[LionHarted]

It's really just a cinematic, I think.

The same thing happens with the Fused Shadows.

[Raien]

It looks to me like the boss monsters are manifestations of the Fused Shadows and Twilight Mirror respectively. As opposed to just being created, they are the forms that the items take.

[LionHarted]

Well, based on Fyrus and Argorok, it seems like the bosses might be normal monsters that happened upon the artifacts and were bonded to them.

[Fyxe]

Isn't the whole Fused Shadow and boss connection explained at one point, presumably after fighting Diababa? Not sure about the Twilight Mirror, but I think the events with Yeta explain that well enough.

[Raien]

LionHarted, on Apr 13 2008, 09:31 PM, said:

Well, based on Fyrus and Argorok, it seems like the bosses might be normal monsters that happened upon the artifacts and were bonded to them.

In the cases in which the item bonds to a character, we see that character return to normal with the defeat of the boss. In the cases in which no bonding is visible, I think it would be easier to assume it is just a manifestation of the item.

Edited by jhurvid, 13 April 2008 - 05:15 PM.

[LionHarted]

In those cases, you're trying not to kill the character...

[MikePetersSucks]

Even though you treat them exactly the same as all the other monsters? It's not like Link has a Sailor Moon magic healing wand that undoes possession and evil corruption.

[Raien]

When we see characters freed from the evil of the Fused Shadows/Mirror, the dark magic of the item appears to come off them like a cloak, before it reforms into the item. When there's no character involved, the monster in question just disintegrates into the same dark magic, before reforming into the item. There's no doubt that the monsters are manifestations of the items.

Edited by jhurvid, 14 April 2008 - 04:04 AM.

[Hero of Legend]

All monsters explode when you kill them. Characters don't. Why should bosses behave differently?

Edited by Hero of Legend, 14 April 2008 - 04:34 AM.

[Raien]

Hero of Legend, on Apr 14 2008, 10:32 AM, said:

All monsters explode when you kill them. Characters don't. Why should bosses behave differently?

The bosses don't explode and disappear into a puff of smoke (like normal monsters). They explode into dark matter/mirror shards which then reforms into the Fused Shadows/Mirror Shards. That more than anything tells us the nature of the boss monsters.

[Fyxe]

I repeat, isn't there a quote in the game that clearly explains the Fused Shadow's relationship to the bosses? Seriously, that's someone's cue to go find out, rather than speculating endlessly.

[Hero of Legend]

jhurvid said

The bosses don't explode and disappear into a puff of smoke (like normal monsters). They explode into dark matter/mirror shards which then reforms into the Fused Shadows/Mirror Shards. That more than anything tells us the nature of the boss monsters.

That doesn't tell us anything. If the monsters explode into nothingness, as is the norm in Zelda games, then it is not surprising that the Fused Shadows/Mirror Shards are all that is left once they die. Those artifacts are supposed to corrupt things anyway, so I assume that's what they did, but hey, we can't tell.

Fyxe said

I repeat, isn't there a quote in the game that clearly explains the Fused Shadow's relationship to the bosses? Seriously, that's someone's cue to go find out, rather than speculating endlessly.

No, it just says Darbus and Yeta were corrupted by them. It is implied they create/summon monsters as well, but it's also possible Zant sent them.

Edited by Hero of Legend, 14 April 2008 - 07:39 AM.

[FDL]

I'd like to add to this silly debate that there are many monsters that have no relation to the Mirror of Twilight in TP. These monsters have very few differences stylistically between them and the monsters that appear near the Twilight Mirror. I'd say that's another notch against Lionharted's theory. In FSA the creatures that came out of the Mirror of Darkness were very different compared to any other monsters. The Dark Links were very CLEARLY different. No other monster was anything like them.

Not only that, but if you say FSA is in the adult timeline because the Mirror of Twilight is destroyed in the child branch, then you also have to say that ALttP is in the child. The Master Sword is buried under an ocean in the adult timeline, which has even more finality than the Mirror being shattered.

[LionHarted]

The Master Sword was also forged/found by the Zoras in OoA.

[Raien]

LionHarted, on Apr 14 2008, 05:48 PM, said:

The Master Sword was also forged/found by the Zoras in OoA.

*whispering noise*

Do you hear that? It's the sound of Lex's credibility floating out the window...

Edited by jhurvid, 14 April 2008 - 01:39 PM.

[LionHarted]

jhurvid, on Apr 14 2008, 01:39 PM, said:

Do you hear that? It's the sound of Lex's credibility floating out the window...

Because I'll accept a reference that you won't because it won't fit with your theories?

[Raien]

LionHarted, on Apr 14 2008, 07:44 PM, said:

Because I'll accept a reference that you won't because it won't fit with your theories?

Because you'll accept a reference that has no context within the timeline (especially in relation to TWW) for the purpose of forcing through your theory. Seriously, this latest proposal has me stunned (and considering how long I've been debating with you, it takes a lot to stun me). It's like you've given up trying to construct a realistic timeline theory that the developers would actually consider, and instead you're just throwing in any old crap just so you can say "It's in the Zelda canon and it supports my theory!". For goodness fucking sake...

Edited by jhurvid, 14 April 2008 - 02:16 PM.

[FDL]

LionHarted, on Apr 14 2008, 12:48 PM, said:

The Master Sword was also forged/found by the Zoras in OoA.

This is the most ridiculous thing I've ever seen but the Master Sword would have been obliterated by an entire ocean falling on it. It would not just be split in two like it is in OoA. Oh yeah, and Labrynna's a completely different land and Zoras are the Rito in TWW.

LionHarted, on Apr 14 2008, 02:44 PM, said:

jhurvid, on Apr 14 2008, 01:39 PM, said:

Do you hear that? It's the sound of Lex's credibility floating out the window...

Because I'll accept a reference that you won't because it won't fit with your theories?

By reference you mean "easter eggy thing that is in a game that was released long before TWW was", right?

jhurvid, on Apr 14 2008, 02:52 PM, said:

LionHarted, on Apr 14 2008, 07:44 PM, said:

Because I'll accept a reference that you won't because it won't fit with your theories?

Because you'll accept a reference that has no context within the timeline (especially in relation to TWW) for the purpose of forcing through your theory. Seriously, this latest proposal has me stunned (and considering how long I've been debating with you, it takes a lot to stun me). It's like you've given up trying to construct a realistic timeline theory that the developers would actually consider, and instead you're just throwing in any old crap just so you can say "It's in the Zelda canon and it supports my theory!". For goodness fucking sake...

See? This is the first time I've ever seen jhurivd be anything less than even tempered. Quite an accomplishment.

[DarkZero24]

jhurvid, on Apr 14 2008, 06:52 PM, said:

LionHarted, on Apr 14 2008, 07:44 PM, said:

Because I'll accept a reference that you won't because it won't fit with your theories?

Because you'll accept a reference that has no context within the timeline (especially in relation to TWW) for the purpose of forcing through your theory. Seriously, this latest proposal has me stunned (and considering how long I've been debating with you, it takes a lot to stun me). It's like you've given up trying to construct a realistic timeline theory that the developers would actually consider, and instead you're just throwing in any old crap just so you can say "It's in the Zelda canon and it supports my theory!". For goodness fucking sake...

Wow, I seriously thought it was Impossible that wrote this post at first. I've never seen jhurvid get so ticked off.

Seriously, though, that was a pretty dumbfounding thing to say. You really will stoop to any low, won't you, Lex? You remind me of dogmatic free-market fanatics and religious nutjobs nowadays, seeking to justify your beliefs with any evidence you can get your hands on, and twisting around facts that really should not help your case into doing so by some weird stretch of the mind.

It's not even about different interpretations anymore. It's about sacrificing the integrity of the games themselves for some unknown ideal of yours, one which you can't even seem to communicate effectively without confusing some of us, and piss off the rest. Maybe that's your goal? I cannot say for sure.

I just can't defend you anymore, though, like I used to do in the past. You're taking this way too far, and going into territory most of us have since abandoned, because, you know something? We're well past the days when a timeline theory was whatever you made of it however you saw fit, when no one gave a damn what the creators thought or what the games themselves meant to convey within their proper context, and we could endlessly abstract quotes and facts as we pleased. That stuff no longer flies, but it seems you either have not changed with the times, or you do not care to do so. Whatever it is, you're on an entirely different paradigm now, and I cannot imagine how you can expect to make meaningful contributions if you're just gonna resort to tactics such as abstracting obvious easter eggs into canonical evidence.

Maybe it is like you once told me, that you wanted to go against the status quo. I can dig that, considering my political beliefs. But not when it involves dismantling the fabric of reasonable debate, and going into the realm of dishonest abstractions to attempt to prove the possibility of the utterly unfeasible.

[LionHarted]

DarkZero24, on Apr 14 2008, 08:48 PM, said:

That stuff no longer flies, but it seems you either have not changed with the times, or you do not care to do so.

It's the latter.

[Raien]

LionHarted, on Apr 15 2008, 04:52 AM, said:

It's the latter.

So what is your goal in timeline theorising? You refuse to accept the wisdom of others, so I can only presume you choose to take a different path.