96 replies to this topic

[LionHarted]

Creativity.

[Impossible]

This debate is already descending into the irrelevant and idiotic, as expected, but I'll add a few more comments.

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.

That's kind of what I've been pointing out. The Mirror of Twilight and Dark Mirror simply don't have the same function. The monsters that appear in Snowpeak Ruins aren't Twilit monsters, they're ordinary enemies seen around the game. They weren't produced by the mirror, and even if they were, that's nothing like the Dark Mirror's power. And that should have been the end of that discussion. One mirror has a corrupting power, but is never shown to be capable or producing monsters - which would make no sense anyway, because it's a PORTAL. The other mirror is never seen to have the power to transform people into monsters, while it produces a specific type of evil being and nothing else.

Creativity.

Fan fiction. Thanks for playing, see you never.

[Raien]

Fan fiction. Thanks for playing, see you never.

This response was completely expected. I was going to write "inb4Impossiblesezfanfiction", but I thought better of it.

But the fact is, you're absolutely right. Lex's "creativity" stems from ignoring (or at least, overlooking) the evidence that appears in a symbolic or metaphorical context. The moment you base theories on the ignorance of evidence, you might as well be making up fanfiction right there.

[LionHarted]

But the fact is, you're absolutely right. Lex's "creativity" stems from ignoring (or at least, overlooking) the evidence that appears in a symbolic or metaphorical context. The moment you base theories on the ignorance of evidence, you might as well be making up fanfiction right there.

It's not ignorance of evidence. For crying out loud, I just don't see how you people can honestly say that Nintendo doesn't restrict themselves to a timeline then turn around and come up with such a strict interpretation of evidence that you'd have to believe precisely the opposite.

Edited by LionHarted, 15 April 2008 - 06:47 AM.

[Raien]

It's not ignorance of evidence. For crying out loud, I just don't see how you people can honestly say that Nintendo doesn't restrict themselves to a timeline then turn around and come up with such a strict interpretation of evidence that you'd have to believe precisely the opposite.

What do you mean "we say Nintendo doesn't restrict themselves to a timeline"? Of course Nintendo restricts themselves to a timeline; Aonuma revealed last year that there's a Word document with the timeline written down in Nintendo HQ. We haven't figured out exactly what that timeline is, but that's the goal of theorising in this forum.

Edited by jhurvid, 15 April 2008 - 07:34 AM.

[LionHarted]

What do you mean "we say Nintendo doesn't restrict themselves to a timeline"?

This has been your argument for at least a few of your ideas, and Miyamoto and Aonuma have both said it themselves.

Of course Nintendo restricts themselves to a timeline; Aonuma revealed last year that there's a Word document with the timeline written down in Nintendo HQ.

He didn't "reveal." He said.

We were TOLD the timeline years ago, but, according to you, we got unreliable information.

[Raien]

This has been your argument for at least a few of your ideas, and Miyamoto and Aonuma have both said it themselves.

Oh, I see what you mean. New Zelda games add to the timeline; they don't change the timeline. When a title is added to the timeline, it remains steadfast in that placement. The relationship between games might change depending on context, but the placements don't. So although the Zelda franchise moves both backwards and forwards through the timeline, it still follows the same structure of relating to a single past title (as if it were moving continually forwards in the timeline).

And during game development, the timeline is a secondary consideration to the in-game storyline. This is well-known, and that's why a simple relationship between two games is easier to justify than a series of complicated plot threads that stretch over several games. Such theorising is contradictive of the context of game development, and as a consequence, we can deduce that certain timeline proposals wouldn't have been intended by the developers, even if they are relatively possible. It's like discussing adult themes in a Mario game; you might be able to find them if you look hard enough, but that doesn't mean we can't deduce that the developers didn't intend those themes to exist.

He didn't "reveal." He said.

We were TOLD the timeline years ago, but, according to you, we got unreliable information.

It depends on the source and context in which it appears. TWW shattered the original relationship between OoT and ALTTP, and for that we have to account that quotations prior to TWW aren't going to account for a flood. And given the amount of change TWW brings to the land of Hyrule, it's relatively impossible to argue that it has absolutely no effect on that original developer quotation.

As for the Miyamoto Order, put it like this. If you want an accurate explanation of chemical bonding, would you ask your English teacher? Miyamoto has generally shown disinterest and a lack of real understanding of the Zelda timeline; it's not the area of Zelda development that interests him. His interest is in the gameplay and making sure that the final product is fun to play. As a result, it's not surprising no one accepts the comment he made about the timeline. There's no evidential reason to believe it should be accurate. Perhaps he placed ALTTP after AoL because he didn't value the importance of ALTTP as an origins story. After all, if the Triforce was complete in both games and Ganon was a pig in both games, it wouldn't be obvious to someone with no real understanding of the timeline. But since Ganondorf is human in OoT, it's existence as a prequel becomes much more obvious.

Edited by jhurvid, 15 April 2008 - 09:15 AM.