225 replies to this topic

[Impossible]

And, yes, there is a reference to the Deku Tree's words, in the end, for Daphnes says he has "scattered the seeds of the future."

Once again, you're ignoring context and intended meaning. It's a metaphor. Only a fucking idiot would see that as a reference to the Deku Tree. IN CONTEXT, it's clear that he's referring to the fact that he's given the future a new hope beyond Hyrule, because that was the point of that entire scene. For him to be randomly bringing up the Deku Tree's plan, which he may not even have known about, is ridiculous. No fucking remotely decent narrative would have such a total non-sequitur, COMPLETELY CONTRADICTING everything the King just said. The only way your interpretation makes sense is if you entirely remove it from the context. It's simply not acceptable, you can't just deny that intended meaning matters. You did exactly the fucking same thing with the mirror; looking for a meaning that doesn't exist, by manipulating the wording.

No it's not. It's just artsy and happens to tell us things the intro text does not.

It is most certainly part of the plot, it's telling the backstory of the game, and was deliberately written for that purpose. It creates TWW's initial context.

It was nice of you to completely ignore my entire post. I wrote that in a last ditch attempt to be civil, but since you're going to ignore me, it obviously won't work. You didn't even answer my question about Ganondorf, although I didn't expect you to.

I'm not saying you're retarded, I'm saying you're abusing and ignoring context in order to create a different meaning to the one intended, because you fail to understand this context. Out of context, the hat is absolutely meaningless, but the reason why it's strong evidence is because of everything TMC establishes. I, unlike you, take the individual plots of games over anything else. And do you know why I do that? Because that's what the developers do, and the entire point of timeline debate is to work out what the developers were thinking!

I'm almost certain you DON'T understand Ganondorf's dying line, because you don't understand the context of TWW. If you did, you would not ever favour the possibility of Hyrule returning. So let me explain it to you - this is something not at all about the timeline, but about TWW's story alone, which is why I consider it so important to determining the meaning of TWW's story with respect to the timeline.

TWW's main underlying theme is change. The game is essentially about two things: letting go of the past, and accepting the future. Link and Zelda symbolise the future, Ganondorf, the King and Hyrule symbolise the past (OMG symbolism actually being important, I must be mad). The main motif of this story is wind. Wind symbolises change. Link is the Hero of Winds, because he's the hero who represents this change that is central to the game's plot. TWW's story is so beautifully done because it works this change theme into the gameplay itself, having you control the wind in order to reach the future.

The ultimate goal, then, is to set the world on a path to a better future. The King realises this at the end, which is why his wish with the Triforce was to permanently destroy Hyrule, and to create a hope for future generations. The two are CLEARLY mutually exclusive in the text, and so your interpretation of the final line of the game is not valid. Out of context, perhaps, but in context it's very clear what he means - which is why I'm trying to teach you the importance of context, so that you don't misunderstand vital dialogue. Anyway, the end result is that the King, Ganondorf and Hyrule, who are all symbols of the past, die. And each of them realises the importance of change, and realise that fate intended for this to happen. So what does Ganondorf say when he dies?

Ughnn... Heh heh...
The wind...
It is blowing...

Suddenly, this makes a lot of sense. Wind symbolises change. Ganondorf's statement reflects the fact that as he dies, he finally comprehends that things must change, and that the future is headed on a different path to the past. The King also realised this, which is why he destroyed Hyrule. The important thing was letting go of the past. In their inability to do that, the King and Ganondorf were the same - the King even says this himself, so this is in no way hidden in the subtext. That's why the King represents something "bad", even though he's good. TWW is his attempt to make amends and restore hope.

See what context helps us to understand that individual quotes do not? This is just one example. It's something that you need to look at the games as individual stories to understand. As I said, we're trying to work out what the intent of the creators was, and for the creators, game plot is much more important than timeline plot. That's why TMC's game plot reasons to be first far outweigh anything else.

Edited by Impossible, 10 April 2008 - 01:30 AM.

[LionHarted]

Once again, you're ignoring context and intended meaning. It's a metaphor.

Obviously it's a metaphor. I didn't say it wasn't.

Only a fucking idiot would see that as a reference to the Deku Tree. IN CONTEXT, it's clear that he's referring to the fact that he's given the future a new hope beyond Hyrule, because that was the point of that entire scene. For him to be randomly bringing up the Deku Tree's plan, which he may not even have known about, is ridiculous.

I never said he knew about it. I said it was a reference. You're the one who took that to mean that I was saying that the King was talking about the Deku Tree's plan. Rather, his words simply line up with one of the hopes for the people of the Great Sea in a sort of irony.

I'm not saying you're retarded

You just called me a "fucking idiot."

I'm saying you're abusing and ignoring context in order to create a different meaning to the one intended, because you fail to understand this context.

No, I don't. I simply don't lend a needlessly literal edge to it.

TWW's main underlying theme is change. The game is essentially about two things: letting go of the past, and accepting the future. Link and Zelda symbolise the future, Ganondorf, the King and Hyrule symbolise the past (OMG symbolism actually being important, I must be mad). The main motif of this story is wind. Wind symbolises change. Link is the Hero of Winds, because he's the hero who represents this change that is central to the game's plot. TWW's story is so beautifully done because it works this change theme into the gameplay itself, having you control the wind in order to reach the future.

The ultimate goal, then, is to set the world on a path to a better future. The King realises this at the end, which is why his wish with the Triforce was to permanently destroy Hyrule, and to create a hope for future generations. The two are CLEARLY mutually exclusive in the text, and so your interpretation of the final line of the game is not valid. Out of context, perhaps, but in context it's very clear what he means - which is why I'm trying to teach you the importance of context, so that you don't misunderstand vital dialogue. Anyway, the end result is that the King, Ganondorf and Hyrule, who are all symbols of the past, die. And each of them realises the importance of change, and realise that fate intended for this to happen. So what does Ganondorf say when he dies?

Ughnn... Heh heh...
The wind...
It is blowing...

Suddenly, this makes a lot of sense. Wind symbolises change. Ganondorf's statement reflects the fact that as he dies, he finally comprehends that things must change, and that the future is headed on a different path to the past. The King also realised this, which is why he destroyed Hyrule. The important thing was letting go of the past. In their inability to do that, the King and Ganondorf were the same - the King even says this himself, so this is in no way hidden in the subtext. That's why the King represents something "bad", even though he's good. TWW is his attempt to make amends and restore hope.

The king did permanently destroy Hyrule. He destroyed the country that he built and ruled. Any country that will be built by Link and Zelda will not be the country that Daphnes destroyed. Saying it can't be called "Hyrule," be built on the same landmass, et cetera, is a non-sequitur, as none of it is implied in the text. Daphnes himself qualifies that he was clinging to his "kingdom of old," which any kingdom that Link and Zelda build will not be.

The "kingdom of old" and "your land" ARE mutually exclusive, regardless of name or location. There is a change, a transition, from Daphnes's old world to Link and Tetra's new world. The defeat of Ganondorf and the ultimate flooding of Hyrule take the fate of the people out of Daphnes's hands and place it in the people's hands.

Edited by LionHarted, 10 April 2008 - 03:20 AM.

[Impossible]

Once again, you're ignoring context and intended meaning. It's a metaphor.

Obviously it's a metaphor. I didn't say it wasn't.

Yes, but you fail to understand the fact that this makes it completely irrelevant, because you're taking it out of context.

Only a fucking idiot would see that as a reference to the Deku Tree. IN CONTEXT, it's clear that he's referring to the fact that he's given the future a new hope beyond Hyrule, because that was the point of that entire scene. For him to be randomly bringing up the Deku Tree's plan, which he may not even have known about, is ridiculous.

I never said he knew about it. I said it was a reference. You're the one who took that to mean that I was saying that the King was talking about the Deku Tree's plan. Rather, his words simply line up with one of the hopes for the people of the Great Sea in a sort of irony.

Not deliberate, not evidence, not ANYTHING. In context, there's no meaning. I'd love to see the Japanese version, which is probably completely different.

I'm not saying you're retarded

You just called me a "fucking idiot."

That depends on whether or not you really believe this nonsense.

I'm saying you're abusing and ignoring context in order to create a different meaning to the one intended, because you fail to understand this context.

No, I don't. I simply don't lend a needlessly literal edge to it.

You're the only one taking things too literally. That's a consequence of ignoring context.

The king did permanently destroy Hyrule. He destroyed the country that he built and ruled. Any country that will be built by Link and Zelda will not be the country that Daphnes destroyed. Saying it can't be called "Hyrule," be built on the same landmass, et cetera, is a non-sequitur, as none of it is implied in the text. Daphnes himself qualifies that he was clinging to his "kingdom of old," which any kingdom that Link and Zelda build will not be.

The "kingdom of old" and "your land" ARE mutually exclusive, regardless of name or location. There is a change, a transition, from Daphnes's old world to Link and Tetra's new world. The defeat of Ganondorf and the ultimate flooding of Hyrule take the fate of the people out of Daphnes's hands and place it in the people's hands.

1. You don't know what a non-sequitur is.

2. ALttP's Hyrule and history are by and large the same as OoT's Hyrule and history. That is NOT letting go of the old kingdom and moving forward to the future, which is what TWW is about. It's trying as hard as possible to go back to exactly how things were before, defeating the purpose of the ending. It IS the country that Daphnes destroyed. And he does say it won't be called Hyrule, anything else is your interpretation, and your interpretations generally prove very unreliable because you fail to use any context. You only come up with these interpretations because you're LOOKING for a way to make your theory possible, not because any person playing the game would actually have that interpretation naturally. And that means it's not something Nintendo were conveying, it's you ignoring context. Even the name Hyrule has great symbolic value.

3. None of this, however, even implies or proves the existence or possibility of a new Hyrule. It's not evidence, it's you denying the importance of context in the King's dialogue. Even if your interpretation were valid, it's not evidence, it's just protecting your own theory's very vulnerable ass. None of that makes it true. Hell, I don't even need to speculate about a new Hyrule at all to put games after TP, so showing the possibility that a land or Hyrule could exist after TWW proves shit all for you. I can prove that Hyrule exists after TP, does that make my timeline true? Well, kind of, but only by elimination of the alternative where there's no real evidence.

Edited by Impossible, 10 April 2008 - 05:07 AM.

[Raien]

Impossible, I applaud you for flawlessly explaining the significance of Hyrule's destruction in the ending to TWW. I honestly could not have done a better job myself.

[LionHarted]

Yes, but you fail to understand the fact that this makes it completely irrelevant, because you're taking it out of context.

I'm merely putting it in perspective.

You're the only one taking things too literally. That's a consequence of ignoring context.

You're taking "wash away this ancient land of Hyrule" to the extreme.

1. You don't know what a non-sequitur is.

2. ALttP's Hyrule and history are by and large the same as OoT's Hyrule and history. That is NOT letting go of the old kingdom and moving forward to the future, which is what TWW is about. It's trying as hard as possible to go back to exactly how things were before, defeating the purpose of the ending. It IS the country that Daphnes destroyed. And he does say it won't be called Hyrule, anything else is your interpretation, and your interpretations generally prove very unreliable because you fail to use any context. You only come up with these interpretations because you're LOOKING for a way to make your theory possible, not because any person playing the game would actually have that interpretation naturally. And that means it's not something Nintendo were conveying, it's you ignoring context. Even the name Hyrule has great symbolic value.

3. None of this, however, even implies or proves the existence or possibility of a new Hyrule. It's not evidence, it's you denying the importance of context in the King's dialogue. Even if your interpretation were valid, it's not evidence, it's just protecting your own theory's very vulnerable ass. None of that makes it true. Hell, I don't even need to speculate about a new Hyrule at all to put games after TP, so showing the possibility that a land or Hyrule could exist after TWW proves shit all for you. I can prove that Hyrule exists after TP, does that make my timeline true? Well, kind of, but only by elimination of the alternative where there's no real evidence.

1) Sure it is; it's a conclusion that doesn't follow from its premises. If Daphnes is destroying his ancient kingdom, making any claims about any other kingdom is a non-sequitur, since you're taking the argument out of context.

2) Are they? Aside from things related to the Imprisoning War, what history are you talking about?

As for the form of Hyrule, they share a number of place names, but referring to countries of origin is common when people migrate or settle. But TMC, FS, FSA, and ALttP don't have any of the same buildings as OoT or TP, aside from Hyrule Castle and arguably the church in the graveyard. If the Deku Tree is terraforming a new landmass from the existing islands, it should be expected that that landmass would somewhat resemble Hyrule. (Details will be discussed in another thread, so as to avoid forcing mods to split this topic.)

As for the name, saying that a new land won't be Hyrule is not the same as saying it cannot or won't be called Hyrule. Not anymore than me saying a son won't be his father means that he can't be named after his father. Or that a mother naming her son after his father when his father died before the son was born means that the mother can't let go of the father. It would simply mean that Hyrule's legacy is being remembered and revered. Is this out of context with TWW's ending? Are the children to forget their heritage? I do not think Nintendo would place that particular message in any of their games.

The old kingdom, however, now lies at the bottom of an ocean. The Hyrule of Daphnes has just been effectively wiped out. Even if the new country is named Hyrule, it will not be Hyrule. It will be similar to HyruleThat you fail to understand this is not an error on my part. The context is set up to suggest that the goddesses intend for Hyrule to be "awakened"; the King of Red Lions takes this literally and believes that it means his kingdom should eventually be unsealed. It doesn't.

3) You need to speculate on a slew of other things to put games after TP, though, including the reunion of the Triforce prior to either LoZ or ALttP, whichever you place first, that a different IW exists that doesn't take place at the time it declares itself to exist (although jhurvid and I agree that you either have to ignore this or ignore the original intention that Ganon be the same entity between the IW and ALttP), . My point is that TWW establishes as an inevitability that a new kingdom will be built, from the Deku Tree's words all the way to the end of the game, and whether or not that new kingdom is called Hyrule is really inconsequential to TWW's plot, since all it hinges on is letting old things die. You simply think that the destruction of Hyrule means that the intent of the goddesses to "awaken Hyrule" has now been eradicated, too, while I take a more liberal view. I'm kind of curious as to whether Tetra says "next Hyrule" in the original Japanese, or something else.

Edited by LionHarted, 10 April 2008 - 09:57 AM.

[Raien]

Lex, what meaningful differences are there between Hyrule in OoT and FSA/ALTTP? Is Hyrule not still the centre of the world? Is it not still governed by the Triforce? Is it not still coveted by Ganon? Wasn't the entire purpose of wishing for Hyrule's destruction to stop the people from becoming victims to the greed of Ganon and other evildoers?

The King of Hyrule wished for change, but change for a purpose. Hyrule brought the people prosperity, but it also attracted evil due to it being a representation of power in the world. Hyrule was destroyed so that the people would find a new land that they could find peace in without those who had greed for power. Resurrecting Hyrule would be tempting evil to claim it, thus defeating the entire point of flooding the kingdom in the first place.

Seriously, if the King knew Hyrule was going to be resurrected by the Deku Tree, then why did he even bother to flood the kingdom? The people on the Great Sea would be rediscovering their ancestors' history whether or not it was resurrected by the Deku Tree or the King of Hyrule. The King's actions in flooding Hyrule would have achieved nothing.

Edited by jhurvid, 10 April 2008 - 02:55 PM.

[LionHarted]

Lex, what meaningful differences are there between Hyrule in OoT and FSA/ALTTP? Is Hyrule not still the centre of the world? Is it not still governed by the Triforce? Is it not still coveted by Ganon? Wasn't the entire purpose of wishing for Hyrule's destruction to stop the people from becoming victims to the greed of Ganon and other evildoers?

1) The Hyrule in FS/A and ALttP makes no references to the Hyrule of OoT, beyond telling of a kingdom surrounded by mountains and forests, in telling of its people, the Hylians, and the conquest of the Sacred Realm. The former reference refers to a decline of the Hylian race, which TWW could easily represent, as you yourself even admit and theorize.

2) I don't know if Hyrule's still the center of the world.

3) The ENTIRE WORLD is governed by the Triforce.

4) Of course it is. He goes after it almost every time he is revived.

5) Isn't this the entire purpose of defeating Ganon in every game?

The King of Hyrule wished for change, but change for a purpose. Hyrule brought the people prosperity, but it also attracted evil due to it being a representation of power in the world. Hyrule was destroyed so that the people would find a new land that they could find peace in without those who had greed for power. Resurrecting Hyrule would be tempting evil to claim it, thus defeating the entire point of flooding the kingdom in the first place.

Seriously, if the King knew Hyrule was going to be resurrected by the Deku Tree, then why did he even bother to flood the kingdom? The people on the Great Sea would be rediscovering their ancestors' history whether or not it was resurrected by the Deku Tree or the King of Hyrule. The King's actions in flooding Hyrule would have achieved nothing.

The King's actions put an end to Ganondorf's threat. The people were able to live in peace and build a new country.

And since when did I say either of them knew what the other was doing? The Deku Tree has been working to do something that is entirely unnecessary if the King plans to simply raise Hyrule with the Triforce.

Also, the King would have resurrected the old kingdom exactly as it was. The Deku Tree intends to start completely fresh. That is the difference between what the two seek to accomplish.

Evil will seek whatever land his descendants build; so it's really a non-issue whether it's called Hyrule again or not.

Edited by LionHarted, 10 April 2008 - 03:10 PM.

[Raien]

Isn't this the entire purpose of defeating Ganon in every game?

The purpose of the Hero is to prevent evil from taking Hyrule. But with the context of TWW's back story in mind, the King could see that evil never stops because a Hero appears, and the entire kingdom had to be flooded to prevent Ganondorf from taking it. The King of Hyrule saw that as long as Hyrule exists, someone will always want the power that the kingdom represents, and the people will never have true peace. This is the main representative of change; the King has put an end to the cycle of villains and heroes.

And since when did I say either of them knew what the other was doing? The Deku Tree has been working to do something that is entirely unnecessary if the King plans to simply raise Hyrule with the Triforce.

You said the line "I have scattered the seeds of the future." was a literal reference to the seeds of the Deku Tree.

Also, the King would have resurrected the old kingdom exactly as it was. The Deku Tree intends to start completely fresh. That is the difference between what the two seek to accomplish.

You dodged the point. How is the new Hyrule in any meaningful way different from the old Hyrule? What actual benefits are there to connecting the islands, as opposed to removing the floodwaters?

Evil will seek whatever land his descendants build; so it's really a non-issue whether it's called Hyrule again or not.

Why would evil seek to control any land the descendants build? Hyrule was the capital of the world, it was blessed with prosperity by the goddesses and it was home to the power of the gods; the Triforce. How can any other country compete with that?

Edited by jhurvid, 10 April 2008 - 03:19 PM.

[LionHarted]

The purpose of the Hero is to prevent evil from taking Hyrule. But with the context of TWW's back story in mind, the King could see that evil never stops because a Hero appears, and the entire kingdom had to be flooded to prevent Ganondorf from taking it. The King of Hyrule saw that as long as Hyrule exists, someone will always want the power that the kingdom represents, and the people will never have true peace.

As long as ANY society exists, someone will seek the power it represents.

You seem to fail to understand this. It doesn't matter whether the new land is Hyrule, is called Hyrule, or isn't either. Evil will still threaten it. We see this in PH, and there isn't even a new land yet.

[Raien]

You seem to fail to understand this. It doesn't matter whether the new land is Hyrule, is called Hyrule, or isn't either. Evil will still threaten it. We see this in PH, and there isn't even a new land yet.

That was a wholly different evil to Ganon. Bellum did not covet the land; his only motivation was the sacred life force of the islanders.

And you still haven't explained how the Deku Tree's Hyrule would be any different to the original Hyrule.

Edited by jhurvid, 10 April 2008 - 03:21 PM.

[LionHarted]

And you still haven't explained how the Deku Tree's Hyrule would be any different to the original Hyrule.

Because the original Hyrule was destroyed?

Of course, I don't really see why this matters, since:

1) Ganon is dead.
2) Ganon expressed a desire to rule the "cosmos," not just Hyrule.

Edited by LionHarted, 10 April 2008 - 03:25 PM.

[Raien]

Because the original Hyrule was destroyed?

And why did he destroy it?

EDIT: Ganon specifically says he coveted the land of Hyrule. The power of Hyrule represents the world; by conquering Hyrule, Ganon conquers the world.

Edited by jhurvid, 10 April 2008 - 03:26 PM.

[LionHarted]

And why did he destroy it?

Because he wanted to let go of the old world and let his people build their own.

The power of Hyrule represents the world; by conquering Hyrule, Ganon conquers the world.

Nice. Who said the power of Hyrule represented the world?

Oh wait.

That's you.

[Raien]

Because he wanted to let go of the old world and let his people build their own.

Then why is there a country that for all intents and purposes is identical to the original kingdom? That's not change, that's sticking firmly to tradition.

Nice. Who said the power of Hyrule represented the world?

Oh wait.

That's you.

The kingdom of Hyrule is central to the Zelda mythology. It is blessed by the goddesses, it is home to the chosen people of the goddesses, and it is in Hyrule that we find the resting place of the sacred power of the gods; the Triforce. Hyrule is, for all intents and purposes, a holy land. It's the equivalent of Jerusalem or Mecca. That makes it the centre of the world, and if you take the holy land, you're sending a message that you control the world. Hyrule is a clear representative of power.

Edited by jhurvid, 10 April 2008 - 03:36 PM.

[LionHarted]

Then why is there a country that for all intents and purposes is identical to the original kingdom? That's not change, that's sticking firmly to tradition.

It's not.

According to the Jewish faith, what is the centre of the world? Jerusalem.
According to the Muslim faith, what is the centre of the world? Mecca.

The kingdom of Hyrule is central to the Zelda mythology. It is blessed by the goddesses, it is home to the chosen people of the goddesses, and it is in Hyrule that we find the resting place of the sacred power of the gods; the Triforce. Hyrule is for all intents and the purposes, a holy land. That makes it the centre of the world, and if you take the holy land, you're sending a message that you control the world. Hyrule is a clear representative of power.

The plots of OoT and TP disagree with you. Ganondorf had control of Hyrule in both of these games, and world conquest was still beyond his grasp.

[Raien]

It's not.

Elaborate please. I've asked you the same fucking question four times in a row now and you are still trying to dodge the point. What evidence of meaningful change to Hyrule is there in the Deku Tree's resurrection of the kingdom?

The plots of OoT and TP disagree with you. Ganondorf had control of Hyrule in both of these games, and world conquest was still beyond his grasp.

Ganondorf didn't have complete control of Hyrule in OoT; as long as the Triforce pieces of Wisdom and Courage were out in the world, someone could appear to dethrone him.
Ganondorf didn't have complete control of Hyrule in TP, because the Light Spirits were revived to bring Light back to the kingdom.

Edited by jhurvid, 10 April 2008 - 04:30 PM.

[LionHarted]

Elaborate please. I've asked you the same fucking question four times in a row now and you are still trying to dodge the point. What evidence of meaningful change to Hyrule is there in the Deku Tree's resurrection of the kingdom?

I give a long list of ways in which both the continent and the pantheon of temples in the 2D games differs from those of the 3D games.

Ganondorf didn't have complete control of Hyrule in OoT; as long as the Triforce pieces of Wisdom and Courage were out in the world, someone could appear to dethrone him.
Ganondorf didn't have complete control of Hyrule in TP, because the Light Spirits were revived to bring Light back to the kingdom.

Ganon doesn't get complete control of Hyrule in LoZ, for the same reason he does not in OoT.
Ganon doesn't get complete control of anything in Oracles, because he never leaves the chamber in which he is revived.
Ganon doesn't get complete control of Hyrule in FSA, because Link destroys the barriers sucking the life force out of the land and stops the flow of monsters from the Dark Mirror.
Ganon doesn't get complete control of Hyrule in ALttP, because he was unable to return to the world of light without breaking the sages' seal, by which time Link had already risen to defeat him.

The general pattern seems to be that Ganon is always able to be defeated.

The general pattern is also that Ganon is always revived, but neither the king nor the people building any new country that might spring up would know that yet, would they?

Ganon should be dead, so he shouldn't be able to threaten the peace of Hyrule again... but that doesn't mean he won't.

[Raien]

I give a long list of ways in which both the continent and the pantheon of temples in the 2D games differs from those of the 3D games.

I said meaningful change, not aesthetic change. I'm quite confident the developers did not intend to flood the kingdom and resurrect it just so that the temple locations could move around.

The general pattern seems to be that Ganon is always able to be defeated.

The general pattern is also that Ganon is always revived, but neither the king nor the people building any new country that might spring up would know that yet, would they?

Ganon should be dead, so he shouldn't be able to threaten the peace of Hyrule again... but that doesn't mean he won't.

I don't understand why you're referring to events that aren't relevant to TWW. The point to TWW's storyline is that evil almost destroyed Hyrule because the land was coveted by dark forces. As long as Hyrule exists, neither the forces of Light nor the forces of Darkness will be able to let that kingdom go (hence the King of Hyrule compares himself to Ganondorf). So the King of Hyrule sacrificed Hyrule to give the people peace; the forces of darkness do not covet the islands of the Great Sea.

And as said previously, destroying Hyrule is not a guarantee there will be no evil in the world ("hope", by definition, is never a guarantee), but it at least breaks the cycle of villains and heroes fighting over the holy land.

Edited by jhurvid, 10 April 2008 - 05:07 PM.

[LionHarted]

I said meaningful change, not aesthetic change. I'm quite confident the developers did not intend to flood the kingdom and resurrect it just so that the temple locations could move around.

What meaningful change could possibly be made? There's a question I'd like you to answer.

I don't understand why you're referring to events that aren't relevant to TWW. The point to TWW's storyline is that evil almost destroyed Hyrule because the land was coveted by dark forces. As long as Hyrule exists, neither the forces of Light nor the forces of Darkness will be able to let that kingdom go (hence the King of Hyrule compares himself to Ganondorf). So the King of Hyrule sacrificed Hyrule to give the people peace; the forces of darkness do not covet the islands of the Great Sea.

And as said previously, destroying Hyrule is not a guarantee there will be no evil in the world ("hope", by definition, is never a guarantee), but it at least breaks the cycle of villains and heroes fighting over the holy land.

Hyrule doesn't exist. It is destroyed and at the bottom of the ocean.

What's the problem?

[Raien]

Hyrule doesn't exist. It is destroyed and at the bottom of the ocean.

What's the problem?

My problem is that you are citing superficial differences to dodge the bullet. If I bin a VHS and buy the DVD, the film might look different, but the story doesn't change and it doesn't create new meanings. In every meaningful way related to the story, Hyrule in FSA/ALTTP is identical to OoT.

In order for change to have impact on the audience, it has to be contrasting and life-changing; this is a basic fundamental for storytelling. To have one character destroy the kingdom, and then another character create a new identical kingdom, is not a stark contrast or life-changing experience for anyone on the Great Sea. And most important, it has no meaning related to the symbolism of the story; if anything it contradicts that meaning. If the King of Hyrule floods the kingdom and the Deku Tree does not establish a new Hyrule, then we have contrast which ultimately affects the future for everyone on the Great Sea, since they will not be returning to Hyrule.

Edited by jhurvid, 10 April 2008 - 07:03 PM.

[CID Farwin]

Kudos to Impossible for helping me understand TWW on a whole new level!

Although, I do have one problem, and that's Ganondorf's quote. It needs to be taken in context with what he says before the fight.

My country lay within a vast desert.

When the sun rose into the sky, a burning wind punished my lands, searing the world. And when the moon climbed into the dark of night, a frigid gale pierced our homes.

No matter when it came, the wind carried the same thing...death.

But the winds that blew across the green fields of Hyrule brought something other than suffering and ruin.

I coveted that wind, I suppose.

I always assumed that it was the wind of Hyrule to which Ganondorf was referring, meaning that in death he finally found peace.

As to the rest of the point: The way I understand Hyrule, the Triforce, etc. I cannot accept that TWW is the end. I won't post all my opinions on the matter just yet, but it has to do with this argument, how any new kingdom, by nature, would be Hyrule.

but...I've written too many well-thought out responses too quickly; It's time to give my brain a break.

[Impossible]

Yeah, Ganondorf hated the wind because it brought him nothing but misery. He comes to terms with both that wind (the changes in the world) and his death at the very end. Darken Poltergeist pointed out something really fascinating to me about this, actually. TWW gives complete and utter closure, to both Hyrule and Ganondorf. TP does NOT. TP's Ganondorf in no way accepts his death. There is absolutely no closure here:

Do not think this ends here...
The history of light and shadow will be written in blood!

He makes it clear that he will return in some form. He doesn't come to terms with anything (this is really crucial), he doesn't move on, and the history of Hyrule will continue to be written, with him throughout it. It's a pretty sharp contrast to TWW. In TWW, Ganondorf's last words are about the changes, the end of his story and of Hyrule's. He sees that it's all over for both him and the land he wanted so much. In TP, Ganondorf foreshadows the future, as the story is far from over. Only TWW provides any closure. This also relates to what you were saying before:

If you kill a character and then say "Lol, he's back to life now.", that would ultimately defeat the impact of the character's death. Apply this to Hyrule.

Kind of like Ganon dying in TWW/TP, but being alive in FSA.

There's a big difference between their deaths, isn't there?

Even if a new kingdom were Hyrule, it would NOT be anything like the old Hyrule. But ALttP's Hyrule pretty much remains completely true to OoT's, contradicting the ending. You can't seriously be saying "it's ONLY the Sacred Realm, and the Triforce, and the creation, and all the history, and explicit, specific references to events in old Hyrule in a way that contradicts TWW"... Those are ALL of the most important things. The landscape and place names are identical, too, and a Deku Tree formed Hyrule does not account for this at all.

Lex, please, actually read what I said about context again. This is important, especially for you, because most of your mistakes in the past have been due to context. Nintendo have never explicitly proven me wrong, which may be because I understand their intent and how they give meaning to each line in a game - through context. Remember how you said that TP Link was the Hero of Time, because Rauru says only the Hero of Time can draw the Master Sword? It's the same damn principle. You took Rauru's quote out of context. Rauru also suggests that it's necessary to be an adult to wield the Master Sword, and TWW shows that that's not true. It's only the case in OoT's specific context. TP Link is obviously not the Hero of Time, and he was never once called that.

Your problem here is that you're STILL looking only at the text; the quotes, the literal words. The rest of us are not. We're looking at the context, the storytelling, the MEANING. Meaning is, without question, more important than anything in the timeline - when Aonuma confirmed the split, he was telling us about the MEANING of OoT, MM, TWW and TP. The context is extremely implicit in Hyrule being gone, and never coming back. You don't know how to interpret meaning, and you've never successfully assessed it. That's why you go bringing up meaningless arguments. I'm still yet to see YOU post any reason why TMC can't be first.

Edited by Impossible, 11 April 2008 - 03:39 AM.

[LionHarted]

There's a big difference between their deaths, isn't there?

This is actually one of the major reasons why I'm still open to the possibility of the 2D games succeeding ALttP. I just see more reasons related to past games: the Imprisoning War as Adult OoT's story, the decline of the Hylian race and Hyrule referenced in ALttP and LoZ, respectively, following nicely from the apparent declines of both Hylian culture and the kingdom itself in TWW (as opposed to from TP). There are others, but as far as looking between the 3D and 2D games, these seem to be the strongest ways in which they're linked, and I'm a little hesitant to sever those links before I'm absolutely positive that the games go after TP.

In any case, Ganon can easily be referring to a successor, and, indeed, we see that Zant seems to still be active in his death scene.

We can't say what the context of his statement is, since the story cuts off there... for now.

Even if a new kingdom were Hyrule, it would NOT be anything like the old Hyrule. But ALttP's Hyrule pretty much remains completely true to OoT's, contradicting the ending. You can't seriously be saying "it's ONLY the Sacred Realm, and the Triforce, and the creation, and all the history, and explicit, specific references to events in old Hyrule in a way that contradicts TWW"... Those are ALL of the most important things. The landscape and place names are identical, too, and a Deku Tree formed Hyrule does not account for this at all.

First of all, how different could it possibly be?

Second of all, why should the knowledge of the most important events throughout history be an anomaly to you?

Thirdly, what events in Old Hyrule are you talking about? I can maybe see the wars for the Sacred Realm being obscure enough for people on the Great Sea not to know them, but they're just as obscure in OoT and TP (only the players involved show any evidence of knowing anything specific).

Of course it does. That's how terraforming works. It's a process by which a landscape is mimicked. It's usually applied to making other planets similar to our earth, which in this case would mean turning the sea into land.

The place names are more or less like character names--they don't matter so much, but they're fun to theorize about. They're going to be reused because that's what good ol' Ninty does.

Nintendo effectively admitted that they don't really care about place names when they described the process for creating Kakariko Village in TP.

Nintendo have never explicitly proven me wrong, which may be because I understand their intent and how they give meaning to each line in a game - through context.

Remember how I proved to you that FSA was a direct sequel to FS, and that meant that FS wasn't first?

Rauru also suggests that it's necessary to be an adult to wield the Master Sword, and TWW shows that that's not true.

Wasn't that the point of the trials in the Tower of the Gods--to prove that Link was worthy? And I thought he had come of age, in any case.

Your problem here is that you're STILL looking only at the text; the quotes, the literal words. The rest of us are not. We're looking at the context, the storytelling, the MEANING.

Meaning is, without question, more important than anything in the timeline - when Aonuma confirmed the split, he was telling us about the MEANING of OoT, MM, TWW and TP.

Oh, definitely. The meaning is derivable from the source, but the premises for the meaning are not. Aonuma provided these missing premises. The missing context.

TMC's series context is primarily its environment, which, as I see it, favors a later placement as opposed to an earlier one. It makes very few real moves to make storyline references, and these are mostly limited to Vaati and the Four Sword, both of which are internal aspects of the Four Swords games, and arguably the Light Force. In addition, I argue is that the Light Force is not significant enough to prove anything. Like most of the other symbolic stories in the series (Sleeping Zelda, Legend of the Fairy, Link's hat, hiding things in jars and grass), it is never shown to have significance outside of the game in which it originates.

You could argue that the presence of three symbolic stories proves that TMC is first, and I can't argue with your logic. I just think that symbolic stories and moral lessons are internal to the stories from which they originate--to their context.

The context is extremely implicit in Hyrule being gone, and never coming back. You don't know how to interpret meaning, and you've never successfully assessed it. That's why you go bringing up meaningless arguments.

You're looking purely at the end of the game, at what one of the characters has surmised about his own life's ventures, and presuming it sweeps across the entire series.

I'm still yet to see YOU post any reason why TMC can't be first.

Of course TMC CAN be first. The developers have shown that they're not above including references for kicks. Of course, the developers also really don't care much about vague ending quotes ("The Master Sword sleeps... forever!").

Edited by LionHarted, 11 April 2008 - 07:09 AM.

[Raien]

I think you're both looking at the subject too deeply.

If all the Hyrulians on the Great Sea found a new land to call their own, I dare say that they would still farm and work as they did back in old Hyrule. There might even be a castle for Zelda's descendants to live in. But there would be a general absence of magic in this new kingdom. No Triforce, no elemental magic or elemental deities, no holy associations to covet. It's a peaceful place to live, but not one that dark forces would especially want to dominate. This is, as far as I can see it, the most amount of change one can realistically expect to see from TWW's ending.

This is contrasting with the supposed resurrection of Hyrule, which would ultimately bring no meaningful change to the people. The suggestion of Hyrule's resurrection is a complete turnaround from everything that TWW was building up to. You have all the characters thinking towards the future, with the winds representing change, and then the Deku Tree brings the kingdom back and everything returns to more-or-less exactly how it was before the flood? I don't believe this.

Edited by jhurvid, 11 April 2008 - 07:25 AM.

[LionHarted]

But there would be a general absence of magic in this new kingdom. No Triforce, no elemental magic or elemental deities, no holy associations to covet. It's a peaceful place to live, but not one that dark forces would especially want to dominate. This is, as far as I can see it, the most amount of change one can realistically expect to see from TWW's ending.

... Until the Light Force comes around.

[Or until the Triforce is used to christen a new kingdom, depending whether LoZ/AoL or TMC is first.]

Edited by LionHarted, 11 April 2008 - 08:03 AM.

[Raien]

... Until the Light Force comes around.

That the Light Force has any effect related to the story of TWW is complete speculation. And furthermore it assumes a post-TWW placement for TMC, which has yet to be proven beyond reasonable doubt. And it STILL defeats the point of change in TWW.

[LionHarted]

That the Light Force has any effect related to the story of TWW is complete speculation.

That the Light Force is related to ANYTHING is complete speculation.

And, again, you have not supplied an answer to my question of what would symbolize a meaningful change in the new kingdom.

[CID Farwin]

Alright, now I've been able to do some thinking, and I've come up with something:

As I said in my previous post, There's some reasons why I've got the views that I do. Most of this relates to the Triforce, and how it works. To my knowledge, the Triforce wasn't destroyed at the end of TWW; it just flew off to who-knows-where.

Now, to my understanding, the land of Hyrule is not only tied to the Triforce, but it exists because of the Triforce. It is my opinion (and theory) that the Triforce, having fulfilled the king's wish of destroying Hyrule, goes and finds a 'new Hyrule,' somewhere new that it can go and bless the lives of the people. It would make sense that, since the Hylian blood never dies out completely, that the remaining Hylians would be drawn to this new land. Most especially Link and Tetra.

This brings me to another point, that if Link and Tetra do find a new land (which the ending implies that they will), and make it their own, then that land by nature will be Hyrule. Tetra is Zelda, the pirates are the royal court, and Link is...Link; The Triforce aside, these are enough to make Hyrule.

If these two were combined, if Link and Tetra found the new land of the Triforce, (or maybe the Triforce comes to them, they are two people who have held it's pieces,) then that land would definitely be Hyrule, it would just look different, or be somewhere else.

Yes, Daphnes Nohansen says "but child, that land will not be Hyrule." The thing is, it won't be his Hyrule; The Hyrule that he was trying to resurrect. If Hyrule is reborn, then I don't see why that would contradict TWW's ending. After all, the flood story of our world was about starting over, about washing the slate clean and trying again. I apply that to TWW's flood (as I assume that the developers at least in part were inspired by said flood story.)

And before Impossible says anything, ALttP doesn't have to go anywhere after TWW in all that. (That's the main beef, right?)

[Raien]

That the Light Force is related to ANYTHING is complete speculation.

Well, the Light Force is spread around Hyrule, and it's said to guide Link and Zelda in future stories. That would suggest that it has a positive effect on Link and Zelda's abilities when they are fighting the forces of evil in Hyrule.

And, again, you have not supplied an answer to my question of what would symbolize a meaningful change in the new kingdom.

The problem with the old kingdom was that it went through several invasions by the forces of Darkness, because they wanted the Triforce and the conquest of Hyrule; the holy land. Thus, a meaningful change would be to break that cycle of wars. Hyrule is the incentive for which Darkness attacks, so by destroying Hyrule, the King hopes that the people will be able to live without fear of evil. That's not a guarantee that evil will never threaten the people again, but it is a hope.


And to CID Farwin, do you know what I see with the destruction of Hyrule? I see the Triforce returning to the heavens (where it came into existence) and Zelda becoming the form of Tetra. In other words, two of the most recognisable symbols with Hyrule apparently disappear along with the kingdom. To me, that just symbolises the destruction of Hyrule, along with the rise of the floodwaters.

Edited by jhurvid, 11 April 2008 - 03:41 PM.

[MikePetersSucks]

Well, the Light Force is spread around Hyrule, and it's said to guide Link and Zelda in future stories. That would suggest that it has a positive effect on Link and Zelda's abilities when they are fighting the forces of evil in Hyrule.

Wait, wait, who said the Light Force is spread around Hyrule? Last I checked, a third is in Zelda, and Vaati got the other two third, which apparently died with him.