238 replies to this topic

[NM87]

That'd be fair enough, but no one thinks of any bosses when Rauru says the line in question. We think of the Sacred Realm because that's what his previous lines were about, and of the temples because they're obviously the topic.

Yea, I am starting to see you point, I think its true enough that the temples could be entrances to the SR.

The bosses don? come from the SR, Ganondorf sends them there.

Huh, where do you get that from?!

Well?fuwahhh, uhmda, I always thought that Ganon had held these group sessions where they all sat down and talked about who should go where, ?Charlotte, spin your webs in the tree, you giant dinosaur go to the mountains, and the rotten eggplant looking thing can go to the watering hole?

The Chamber of Sages is located in the Temple of Light, which is the Temple of Time.

What the...?! Well, I'm tired of telling you you're wrong, so I'll just ask you to bring on game quotes!

When Link first awakes he is in the Chamber of Sages, and Rauru tells him that the last stronghold of defense against Ganondorf is the Temple of Light. So I put them both together to mean every time he went to the chamber he was going to the Temple of Light, which was the Temple of Time that Link was kept in for seven years. See where I was getting at? Of course, this could be wrong, but I was just thinking. Anyway, you didn?t make this claim, but maybe each temple has their own chamber? What I am trying to say is that I think you are right when saying the temples could be entrances to the SR, I?m just building on that by saying maybe the temples have their own chamber.

Definitely. I could as well have written "given" or "granted". It's just that "awarded" sounded better to me.

Well, it wouldn?t matter if they used any of those words, it would mean the same thing.

Keep in mind that the "divine prank" happened a short time after OoT's child ending, not hundred years later

Even better! I guess things do all occur because of destiny.

Edited by NM87, 22 May 2008 - 12:00 AM.

[Jumbie]

Yea, I am starting to see you point, I think its true enough that the temples could be entrances to the SR.

Cool.

The bosses don? come from the SR, Ganondorf sends them there.

Huh, where do you get that from?!

Well?fuwahhh, uhmda, I always thought that Ganon had held these group sessions where they all sat down and alked about who should go where, ?Charlotte, spin your webs in the tree, you giant dinosaur go to the mountains, and the rotten eggplant looking thing can go to the watering hole?

Ahhh, now I get it, you meant Ganondorf sent the bosses to the temples! I thought you said he sent the bosses "there", to the SR...
Well yea, the bosses were sent to the temples from somewhere. Since the point is that Hyrule was a peaceful land before Ganondorf's rule, this means that the bosses hail from his makai, the tainted SR. We could assume that Morpha, Bongo Bongo, and Phantom Ganon were created there, and it'd make sense for Volvagia to be revived from the makai (just like in AoL new troops are summoned from the makai).

When Link first awakes he is in the Chamber of Sages, and Rauru tells him that the last stronghold of defense against Ganondorf is the Temple of Light. So I put them both together to mean every time he went to the chamber he was going to the Temple of Light

That much is correct, no doubting that.

he was going to the Temple of Light, which was the Temple of Time

It's this part that I find baseless. Are you influenced by TP's Temple of Time dungeon resembling the Temple of Light?

Anyway, you didn?t make this claim, but maybe each temple has their own chamber? What I am trying to say is that I think you are right when saying the temples could be entrances to the SR, I?m just building on that by saying maybe the temples have their own chamber.

It's not necessary for there to be several Chambers of Sages. We always go to the same room. Each of the sages' crests on the floor could be a portal leading to the boss room of one of the Hyrulian temples.

[NM87]

Well yea, the bosses were sent to the temples from somewhere. Since the point is that Hyrule was a peaceful land before Ganondorf's rule, this means that the bosses hail from his makai, the tainted SR. We could assume that Morpha, Bongo Bongo, and Phantom Ganon were created there, and it'd make sense for Volvagia to be revived from the makai (just like in AoL new troops are summoned from the makai).

Thats a good explanation I can agree with.

It's this part that I find baseless. Are you influenced by TP's Temple of Time dungeon resembling the Temple of Light?

I definitely understand why you would think so. I equated the scene of Rauru talking to Link when he first awakens with the Temple of Light itself, since Rauru tells Link its the last stronghold. Which I then concluded that since Link was trapped in the Temple of Time for seven years and then wakes up in the Chamber of Sages, which I equated with the Temple of Light, I figured the Chamber of Sages was in the Temple of Light which was in the Temple of Time. (Although this may not be true) So I was arguing with you that every time Link goes in that portal in each dungeon, it was a portal to the Chamber of Sages, which was in the Temple of Light, which was in the Temple of Time?

It's not necessary for there to be several Chambers of Sages. We always go to the same room. Each of the sages' crests on the floor could be a portal leading to the boss room of one of the Hyrulian temples.

That's probably what it is.

[Jumbie]

Which I then concluded that since Link was trapped in the Temple of Time for seven years and then wakes up in the Chamber of Sages, which I equated with the Temple of Light, I figured the Chamber of Sages was in the Temple of Light which was in the Temple of Time. (Although this may not be true) So I was arguing with you that every time Link goes in that portal in each dungeon, it was a portal to the Chamber of Sages, which was in the Temple of Light, which was in the Temple of Time?

Ahh, so that was the difference in understanding lying beneath our debating all along!
Then, the one thing left to solve, is it really said somewhere that Link was trapped in the Temple of Time?

I've traditionally regarded the Temple of Light as being the SR equivalent of the Temple of Time (although one is in the centre and the other is in the north), but now that we know "sacred place" can also refer to Hyrule, it's not impossible that the Temples of Light and Time could be connected in a different way than that...

[MikePetersSucks]

*Technically they are slightly different because in TP they are always seen on their hands, and when they use their power the entire crest glows like a single triangle. Of course, such slight visual differences don't prove anything.

....and those are different from the Triforce-Ownership Crests...how?

Fine. What do you mean that the Triforce and Ganon are not the main focus on the plot, given that they are referenced in several places throughout the course of the game and Ganon is central to the game's ending? You can't just ignore something like Link's wolf transformation and the final boss battle.

We're not IGNORING it, for god's sake! We're just saying that matters such as Ganon and the Triforce are second priority to the Twili and the Shadow/Light dualism! It's called "theme".

Well, perhaps if theorists weren't so willing to jump into speculation with every new game, then timeline theorising wouldn't be such a mess. But instead, we have to debate the unflooding of Hyrule because ALTTP must follow TWW, and we have to debate Ganon magically travelling from the Four Sword to the Sacred Realm because FSA must lead into ALTTP. Perhaps if theorists looked at the evidence before the placement, we wouldn't have to debate stuff like this.

I agree. The fans can debate some pretty stupid shit.

As I said in my previous post, I can live quite happily with the trio possessing the Triforce in TP, because I agree that the similarities are visible enough to support the justification. My problem is with everything else that's being debated, like the back stories. I just don't understand why characters can't say exactly what they mean; theorists must always attach an arbitrary event that was said to occur in a previous game, and they then justify the absence of evidence with some ridiculous excuse like "It simplifies things".

And btw, Vaati is in TP, but he's not shown or mentioned in order to simplify the story (the developers didn't want Vaati to be the main focus of the game).

I agree that characters should say exactly what they mean, but they don't. Blame Nintendo for wanting to give the characters flowery dialogue.

If the Triforce was a well-recognised part of popular culture that everyone with a basic interest in film knew about (and parodied by the likes of Family Guy), I could agree with your comparison to Cloverfield. But it isn't; the large majority of people, especially newcomers to the series, might recognise the shape of the Triforce and connect that symbol with The Legend of Zelda, but they certainly aren't going to know how the Triforce works or understand the Triforce-splitting (especially in the context where no explanation for a split Triforce is provided). In order for the developers to assume that the player would understand these events, they would have to assume that the player had also played OoT, which becomes less and less reasonable as time goes by. The game is ten years old now; it's going to earn "retro" status soon if it hasn't already.

You're right; but the vast majority of fans will know all that. Didn't like...some developer, say....I don't know, something about unifying the plot and having faith in the players' senses?

And so for the people who haven't played OoT, they are left with plot holes, and this point in general contradicts a stated developer philosophy to make the individual storylines comprehensible for everyone. As the final boss, people are going to want to know where Ganondorf came from, and not explaining that properly is going to leave that part of Zelda's audience disappointed, which is not at all in the developers' best interests if they want to see more sales of future Zelda titles. Even Metal Gear Solid 4 is going to have in-game flashbacks to explain to new players what occurred in the previous three games, because the developers realise that not everyone who wants to play it will have owned a PS1 or PS2. I never played the NES Metal Gear games when I bought the Gamecube remake of MGS1, so thank god there was a section in the game that explained those stories to me.

"WAHH I DIDN'T UNDERSTAND THIS GAME BECAUSE I DIDN'T PLAY IT'S PREQUEL WAH WAH."

If they don't understand the story, but they enjoyed the gameplay, they'll probably go back and play the other games.

Fans aren't going to get upset if the Triforce is explained in yet another game, and that begs the question as to why Nintendo was apparently so ambiguous about it. Since it contradicts the basic principles of good storytelling, I firmly believe that these old conventions of the timeline have been dropped entirely. What the game says is what happens; simple as that.

Go ahead and try and enforce that rule. You're screwed.

I would agree normally, but given the current subject of discussion surrounding TP, I think the comparison is valid. Theorists look at the fact that TP is a sequel to OoT, but they ignore the fact that the game has no active narrative connections to OoT. It is an example of the timeline placement being used to determine the story, and that's in turn being used as a justification for rampant speculation. The fact is that Aonuma's Nintendo Dream interview still is the only definite piece of evidence connecting OoT to TP.

Just because there's no text saying that it's a sequel to OOT doesn't mean there isn't a shitload of other clues. There's more to understanding a story than reading the dialogue.

Zelda sent Link back with the Ocarina. That she was not supposed to do. WW tells us the Hero of Time was given the ToC to protect, but it departed from him when he "left through the flows of time". Why would the goddesses give him a piece to protect and then send him back in time to break it? Zelda OOT was the cause for all of this.

Sending him back in time was one thing, but that doesn't mean the timeline would split. What agency caused this to happen? Zelda didn't sing a "Time Split" song on the Ocarina.

That's very good to know! ..You could've told us a couple of years earlier

No one asks me, and before I get to a point where I can bring in something helpful, people have usually already reached the point of writing me off as not knowing what I'm talking about, like Impossible in that TMC debate. I admit I have a very short temper, so I usually try and leave debates before I get YELLING AND FUCKING CURSING AND SHIT AND CALLING YOU FUCKING NAMES and stuff.

I definitely understand why you would think so. I equated the scene of Rauru talking to Link when he first awakens with the Temple of Light itself, since Rauru tells Link its the last stronghold. Which I then concluded that since Link was trapped in the Temple of Time for seven years and then wakes up in the Chamber of Sages, which I equated with the Temple of Light, I figured the Chamber of Sages was in the Temple of Light which was in the Temple of Time. (Although this may not be true) So I was arguing with you that every time Link goes in that portal in each dungeon, it was a portal to the Chamber of Sages, which was in the Temple of Light, which was in the Temple of Time?

Actually, Link was sealed in the Sacred Realm. The Temple of Time is in Hyrule, but lifting the Master Sword creates a portal to the Temple of Light, which is in the Sacred Realm, where the Triforce is kept.

[Jumbie]

Fans aren't going to get upset if the Triforce is explained in yet another game, and that begs the question as to why Nintendo was apparently so ambiguous about it. Since it contradicts the basic principles of good storytelling, I firmly believe that these old conventions of the timeline have been dropped entirely.

I call it "artistic concealment". The Triforce was avoided by name because that was...an experiment. An annoying but artistic experiment.

No one asks me, and before I get to a point where I can bring in something helpful, people have usually already reached the point of writing me off as not knowing what I'm talking about, like Impossible in that TMC debate. I admit I have a very short temper, so I usually try and leave debates before I get YELLING AND FUCKING CURSING AND SHIT AND CALLING YOU FUCKING NAMES and stuff.

Well yea, but the nature of the sages' bloodline had been one of the greatest confusions already in davogones' times...

[Hero of Legend]

....and those are different from the Triforce-Ownership Crests...how?

Because in previous games, those crest did not possess the qualities I just described.

Edited by Hero of Legend, 22 May 2008 - 01:10 PM.

[CID Farwin]

If the Triforce was a well-recognised part of popular culture that everyone with a basic interest in film knew about (and parodied by the likes of Family Guy), I could agree with your comparison to Cloverfield. But it isn't; the large majority of people, especially newcomers to the series, might recognise the shape of the Triforce and connect that symbol with The Legend of Zelda, but they certainly aren't going to know how the Triforce works or understand the Triforce-splitting (especially in the context where no explanation for a split Triforce is provided). In order for the developers to assume that the player would understand these events, they would have to assume that the player had also played OoT, which becomes less and less reasonable as time goes by. The game is ten years old now; it's going to earn "retro" status soon if it hasn't already.

And so for the people who haven't played OoT, they are left with plot holes, and this point in general contradicts a stated developer philosophy to make the individual storylines comprehensible for everyone. As the final boss, people are going to want to know where Ganondorf came from, and not explaining that properly is going to leave that part of Zelda's audience disappointed, which is not at all in the developers' best interests if they want to see more sales of future Zelda titles. Even Metal Gear Solid 4 is going to have in-game flashbacks to explain to new players what occurred in the previous three games, because the developers realise that not everyone who wants to play it will have owned a PS1 or PS2. I never played the NES Metal Gear games when I bought the Gamecube remake of MGS1, so thank god there was a section in the game that explained those stories to me.

Fans aren't going to get upset if the Triforce is explained in yet another game, and that begs the question as to why Nintendo was apparently so ambiguous about it. Since it contradicts the basic principles of good storytelling, I firmly believe that these old conventions of the timeline have been dropped entirely. What the game says is what happens; simple as that.

Didn't I already talk about this as a major game flaw??
...

Yep, here it is.

But that's just it, it's completely dependent on those two games to even make sense. TP is a game that, supposedly, is easy for any person new to Zelda to pick up the game and not be dependent on prior knowledge of the series to understand.

Except it's not.

They went out of their way to do things like eliminate the word "Triforce" (which to my knowledge is never uttered) but at the same time it's obviously there, and obviously very important to the plot. The only reason Ganondorf's actions make sense is if he's after the Triforce, but the game implies he's not; he just wants to take over the world. Except he's obviously got the ToP (and Link and Zelda have ToC and ToW, respectively,) except it's not the 'Triforce', it's the 'Power of the Gods.' The game both relies on prior knowledge for the last part make sense, but at the same time makes no sense with knowledge of prior games.

TP on its own leaves plotholes. You pretty much said as much in your post. Don't whine at me, whine at Nintendo.

And anyway, I'm gonna watch the new Indiana Jones movie when it comes out. If I had no prior knowledge of the movies (You can't argue the same thing with this movie, last night at my job at Hollywood Video there were people who rented it so that they could "catch up" before they saw the new one.) I would probably be very confused and be left with plotholes so what would I do? watch the first three.

[NM87]

....and those are different from the Triforce-Ownership Crests...how?

Because in previous games, those crest did not possess the qualities I just described.

I see...so what does this mean, if the crests posses differences from the OOT and WW crests? If the whole Triforce glows, then it could mean that they each have a general power of the gods while the piece that relates most to that specific chosen one is always gold at any given time.

Sending him back in time was one thing, but that doesn't mean the timeline would split. What agency caused this to happen? Zelda didn't sing a "Time Split" song on the Ocarina.

We would have to discuss time travel. Since Zelda had displaced Link from her time and put him back the way he was supposed to be, this created another reality. Another reality in which history can be different while the future reality he was sent back from still existed.

[LionHarted]

Raian is underestimating Nintendo's ability to produce sequels to 10-year-old games so people who have never played them before will buy them, thus increasing Nintendo's profits.

NM87 is refusing to see alternate interpretations of "your original time," and "when you are supposed to be, the way you are supposed to be." Time travel does not have to involve alternate realities, and throughout the entire rest of OoT, it doesn't.

[MikePetersSucks]

Because in previous games, those crest did not possess the qualities I just described.

Um, yea, they did.

We would have to discuss time travel. Since Zelda had displaced Link from her time and put him back the way he was supposed to be, this created another reality. Another reality in which history can be different while the future reality he was sent back from still existed.

ZELDA TIME TRAVEL PHYSICS DOES NOT WORK THAT WAY! [/Morbo]

[Hero of Legend]

Um, yea, they did.

The crests did not glow as a single triangle, nor did they appear on their hands while innactive. Perhaps you should take your own advice and play the games so you don't make a fool out of yourself and waste all of our time with such petty ramble as this? Or perhaps you are just illiterate and/or lack basic deductive skills? That certainly would explain a lot...

[Raien]

And anyway, I'm gonna watch the new Indiana Jones movie when it comes out. If I had no prior knowledge of the movies (You can't argue the same thing with this movie, last night at my job at Hollywood Video there were people who rented it so that they could "catch up" before they saw the new one.) I would probably be very confused and be left with plotholes so what would I do? watch the first three.

Kingdom of the Crystal Skull doesn't follow the events in the previous movies at all. It is an independent series of events that simply features the main character from the previous movies. Since you will never find plot holes in two independent stories, that point doesn't work (wow, you're really unlucky with your film comparisons, huh?). But you're right that Kingdom of the Crystal Skull is comparable to Twilight Princess, but only because the narratives of both examples are disconnected from their predecessors.

Raian is underestimating Nintendo's ability to produce sequels to 10-year-old games so people who have never played them before will buy them, thus increasing Nintendo's profits.

What a ridiculous excuse to justify your argument. If people enjoy Twilight Princess enough to buy Ocarina of Time, they will do so because the game was fun, not because of the character back stories. Give Nintendo some credit, please.

[LionHarted]

What a ridiculous excuse to justify your argument. If people enjoy Twilight Princess enough to buy Ocarina of Time, they will do so because the game was fun, not because of the character back stories. Give Nintendo some credit, please.

People could just as easily buy any other Zelda game that is not OoT. Why buy OoT? Because it resembles TP.

How does OoT resemble TP? Because TP builds off of everything about it, including its art, atmosphere, and story elements.

[Raien]

People could just as easily buy any other Zelda game that is not OoT. Why buy OoT? Because it resembles TP.

How does OoT resemble TP? Because TP builds off of everything about it, including its art, atmosphere, and story elements.

So you're saying that people who have never seen or played the ten-year old OoT will know that TP shares the art, atmosphere and story elements? You're clearly confused; TP was built off OoT in order to attract the people who had already played and enjoyed OoT and thus actually understood what the art, atmosphere and story elements consisted of, and that's clearly not the group who need the plot details to understand what's supposed to be going on in TP's story.

But the real kicker that disproves your argument is the fact that if a new player was to read Lanayru's speech, as the developers wrote it, they wouldn't find anything ambiguous about what Lanayru said, and they wouldn't consider purchasing a previous game in order to explain any ambiguities. The existence of the Sacred Realm is, once again, only identifiable with the people who have already played OoT.

Here's a reminder of what Lanayru said, and remember to take it at face value, because that is what a new player would do:

The goddesses descended to the world of chaos where there was nothing at all, and created life and order.
They granted power equally to all who dwelt in the light, and then returned to the heavens.
The place where the goddesses first landed is called the holy land.
For a long time, the world was at peace, with people's hearts being deeply faithful…
But at length, a rivalry ensued over Hyrule, the holy land.
In the midst of the people, persons who excelled at magic appeared.
With powerful sorcery, they tried to rule the holy land.
But the goddesses sent us light spirits to seal away the gigantic magic of those people.
And that very sorcery is the black power… the Crystal Stone of Shadow.

Edited by Raian, 22 May 2008 - 07:44 PM.

[LionHarted]

So you're saying that people who have never seen or played the ten-year old OoT will know that TP shares the art, atmosphere and story elements?

1) Yes; there are multiple points of access between the creators and the gamers besides the games themselves, otherwise creator quotes might as well NOT be in any way canon.

2) Yes; people who play one game in a series and enjoy it will be interested in the others and look into them. This is how I first came to play the games released before OoT. Immediately upon seeing ALttP, my first impression was that OoT was its prequel, despite the inconsistencies. I played ALttP for the first time a year after the GBA rerelease came out, and by then I knew what a retcon was. The same could apply to a first time player of OoT who has already played TP.

You seem to be confusing me saying "people who play TP will recognize that OoT shares the art, atmosphere and story elements" with "people who play TP will recognize that OoT shares [these things] whether they have ever even heard of OoT or not."

But the real kicker that disproves your argument is the fact that if a new player was to read Lanayru's speech, as the developers wrote it, they wouldn't find anything ambiguous about what Lanayru said, and they wouldn't consider purchasing a previous game in order to explain any ambiguities. The existence of the Sacred Realm is, once again, only identifiable with the people who have already played OoT.

Of course it is.

The Sacred Realm that exists in a separate world from the Light world has nothing to do with TP.
The Sacred Realm as the resting place of the Triforce has SLIGHTLY more to do with TP, since this status is referenced by Zelda, although the exact nature of the Triforce itself as a wishing artifact has nothing to do with TP, either.

[Raien]

The point is that if Nintendo don't hint to a wider mythology in TP itself, then there is no promise of a wider mythology to act as a selling point for OoT. If what sells OoT is the potential for a similar experience to TP, as you said, then what isn't similar is something to be discovered upon purchasing OoT and the subsequent playthrough. Thus, the wider mythology only becomes significant to the new player once OoT has already been purchased and played, and that defeats your entire argument.

Edited by Raian, 22 May 2008 - 09:55 PM.

[LionHarted]

The point is that if Nintendo don't hint to a wider mythology in TP itself, then there is no promise of a wider mythology to act as a selling point for OoT.

It certainly does, though, through mere reference to the power of unnamed gods and the conquest of evil warlords and deeds of former heroes.

Since the Triforce, Ganon, and Link are obviously icons of the series, first-time Zelda players who start with TP will be keen on getting games with these familiar icons. OoT happens to have the closest relationship to TP, and holds the most similarities to it. Anyone who looks up other Zelda games can see the similarities between OoT and TP without ever picking up OoT, simply because of other icons like the same Hylian Shield, the same depiction of Ganondorf, etc. etc.

Sure, they may ALSO buy the game based on the brand name, but the first Zelda I bought after OoT was MM, then LA when I got a Game Boy Color, then OoS/OoA, then TWW, then FSA, etc. etc. I only bought the older games after I was exposed to FSA, and one can easily see how FSA is evocative of ALttP. As I played through the games, I pursued games that followed in a similar vein.

I may only be speaking for myself, but I think this is pretty common of gamers, to buy games that are most similar to the game they most recently played. Nintendo seems to realize this, based on their pattern of releases:

LoZ, then AoL
ALttP, then LA
OoT, then MM
LA DX, then OoS/OoA, then ALttP GBA + FS
TWW, then FS, FSA, and TMC,
etc.

Edited by LionHarted, 22 May 2008 - 10:09 PM.

[MikePetersSucks]

The crests did not glow as a single triangle, nor did they appear on their hands while innactive. Perhaps you should take your own advice and play the games so you don't make a fool out of yourself and waste all of our time with such petty ramble as this? Or perhaps you are just illiterate and/or lack basic deductive skills? That certainly would explain a lot...

What the holy fuck is your problem? Yes, the Triforce crests glow the same way, and they appear even on an inactive hand. You know, Ganondorf, Zelda, and Link all wear gloves a lot in OOT. Just so you know.

Kingdom of the Crystal Skull doesn't follow the events in the previous movies at all. It is an independent series of events that simply features the main character from the previous movies. Since you will never find plot holes in two independent stories, that point doesn't work (wow, you're really unlucky with your film comparisons, huh?). But you're right that Kingdom of the Crystal Skull is comparable to Twilight Princess, but only because the narratives of both examples are disconnected from their predecessors.

Dude, he hasn't even seen the movie yet, there's no need to fucking insult him.

[Raien]

It certainly does, though, through mere reference to the power of unnamed gods and the conquest of evil warlords and deeds of former heroes.

Since the Triforce, Ganon, and Link are obviously icons of the series, first-time Zelda players who start with TP will be keen on getting games with these familiar icons. OoT happens to have the closest relationship to TP, and holds the most similarities to it. Anyone who looks up other Zelda games can see the similarities between OoT and TP without ever picking up OoT, simply because of other icons like the same Hylian Shield, the same depiction of Ganondorf, etc. etc.

Then why is Nintendo being ambiguous with TP's story, if players are going to buy Zelda games based on the icons alone? If people are going to buy OoT to see Ganondorf, then they don't need ambiguity surrounding Ganondorf to purchase the game. You say that Nintendo would deliberately hurt a new player's enjoyment of TP's individual story in order to encourage them to buy OoT, and then you say it is the visible icons that attract the player's attention to OoT, which has absolutely nothing to do with the ambiguity you're trying to justify. Your argument is simply ridiculous.

Dude, he hasn't even seen the movie yet, there's no need to fucking insult him.

I didn't insult him; he pointed out two film comparisons and I rightly pointed out that they were not valid due to the aforementioned reasons. I haven't seen Crystal of the Kingdom Skull either, but I at least did the minimum research to make sure what I was presenting as a valid point was actually valid. If one doesn't make sure of that, then it looks ridiculous when the point turns out not to be true.

In most narratives, whether they be film, book or video game, the sequel will recollect events in its' predecessor so that new readers have better access to the stories. This is just common sense in the media industry, and Twilight Princess applies.

Edited by Raian, 23 May 2008 - 01:16 PM.

[Hero of Legend]

What the holy fuck is your problem?

Nothing. You on the other hand --- didn?t you admit you were retarded?

Not that that's an excuse to be a complete douche bag.

Yes, the Triforce crests glow the same way

They do not.

Ocarina of Time: Note the "dark-room-zoom-in" effect not present in any other game.

Twilight Princess: Note the fact that the crest does not behave like in OoT and TWW, in which it was just an unchanging mark, and that it shows all of the characteristics I have attributed to it.

and they appear even on an inactive hand. You know, Ganondorf, Zelda, and Link all wear gloves a lot in OOT. Just so you know.

Only, I was speaking of OoT and TWW, in which neither Link nor Ganondorf wear any gloves. Not to mention the fact that a lack of evidence on the contrary does not (in)validate an opposing position.

[CID Farwin]

Kingdom of the Crystal Skull doesn't follow the events in the previous movies at all. It is an independent series of events that simply features the main character from the previous movies. Since you will never find plot holes in two independent stories, that point doesn't work (wow, you're really unlucky with your film comparisons, huh?). But you're right that Kingdom of the Crystal Skull is comparable to Twilight Princess, but only because the narratives of both examples are disconnected from their predecessors.

Dude, he hasn't even seen the movie yet, there's no need to fucking insult him.

Thanks, and anyway, Raian, the second and third movies (which I have seen) don't really rely on the first and second(first, and first and second, technically, and respectively) movies to make sense. The most recent one of the three I've seen (Last Crusade) I watched on its own, without seeing the other two again first, and guess what? it doesn't follow the events of previous movies, either. It's in terms of backstory and the like that the others come into play. (you know, who are these people, why should I care, etc.

And anyway, back to Cloverfield: You said my comparison would work, if not for the fact that practically everyone knows the basic plot of a monster movie. So? I already knew (and thought I implied) that they were the same thing, but Cloverfield is obviously on a larger scale. Say monster movies weren't as big as they are, and had a following similar to the size of Zelda fandom. It would be exactly the same case. Anyone for whom Cloverfield is their first monster movie will be completely lost and have no idea what's going on(and, to be fair, most people in general had no idea what was going on.) The thing is, when I played TP as its own game, it left me with unanswered questions: "Who is this Ganondorf Guy?" "Who is this Zelda person, and why are she and Link getting along like they've been working together the whole time?" My case for comparison from Cloverfield is that in both cases one has to use information outside of the actual movie/game to piece together what most likely is going on.

[Raien]

The thing is, when I played TP as its own game, it left me with unanswered questions: "Who is this Ganondorf Guy?" "Who is this Zelda person, and why are she and Link getting along like they've been working together the whole time?" My case for comparison from Cloverfield is that in both cases one has to use information outside of the actual movie/game to piece together what most likely is going on.

If we were to assume TP was being ambiguous, then this comparison would be true, but the question we're supposed to be discussing here is whether developers have a reason to rely on outside information, as a strategy that enhances the reader's enjoyment of the story. Miyamoto once said that leaving a player confused with the story has a negative impact on their enjoyment. In Cloverfield, the audience was expected to be already aware of the outside information that comes from the general popularity of monster movies in the media, so there wasn't a real possibility that they would get confused by Cloverfield's story. But Nintendo could not expect new players to understand the Sacred Realm, because that is an identity specific to the Zelda universe, not popular culture. And thus, there is no reason for them to make TP deliberately ambiguous, and as we can see in the Japanese script, there is no hint of ambiguity there.

Edited by Raian, 23 May 2008 - 01:43 PM.

[LionHarted]

Only, I was speaking of OoT and TWW, in which neither Link nor Ganondorf wear any gloves. Not to mention the fact that a lack of evidence on the contrary does not (in)validate an opposing position.

Utter falsehood.

Adult Link wears gauntlets throughout the entirety of the game, and Ganondorf wears gauntlets as well.

Only in TWW do neither of these characters wear gloves.

[Hero of Legend]

Utter falsehood.

No, the only 'utter' anything here is your lack of reading comprehension. Observe the italicized and and realize that I was, quite obviously, placing the tonal weight on the inclusion of TWW, in which you admitted they did not wear gloves. This fact is made all the more apparent by the fact that MikePetersSucks only spoke of OoT. If you knew anything about proper English, you would know this makes my statement sound.

In the future, I would suggest you do not stick your ill-will nose into other people's arguments. It's enough to put up with you when you are not trying to actively insult me, failing as you may.

[LionHarted]

No, the only 'utter' anything here is your lack of reading comprehension. Observe the italicized and and realize that I was, quite obviously, placing the tonal weight on the inclusion of TWW, in which you admitted they did not wear gloves. This fact is made all the more apparent by the fact that MikePetersSucks only spoke of OoT. If you knew anything about proper English, you would know this makes my statement sound.

Pardon, I failed to read the "only" in your sentence, else I misread and misplaced it.

I actually misread it the same way the second time, too. (I was only speaking of... instead of "only, I was speaking of".)

In the future, I would suggest you do not stick your ill-will nose into other people's arguments.

I'm not trying to actively insult you.

However, you're trying to actively interpret my intentions.

[Hero of Legend]

Well then, 'utter falsehood' is not a term I associate with good-willed correction - though it might be my elitism (I admit) has validated such response.

Anyway, let's just leave the matter be.

[CID Farwin]

I didn't insult him;

Yeah, I just feel insulted for a reason completely unrelated to your post.

he pointed out two film comparisons and I rightly pointed out that they were not valid due to the aforementioned reasons. I haven't seen Crystal of the Kingdom Skull either, but I at least did the minimum research to make sure what I was presenting as a valid point was actually valid. If one doesn't make sure of that, then it looks ridiculous when the point turns out not to be true.

Yep, you're definitely going through hoops to make sure you don't insult me. What do I have to go off of with Indiana Jones 4? the trailer, just like practically everyone who will go see it. When I see the trailer, for on instance, I see a warehouse that looks a lot like the one at the end of Raiders of the Lost Ark, and if it really is, then that's going to have to require prior knowledge to make sense.

This sounds like something that came up earlier, "You can't compare the Ganondorf scene in TP with the last battles of OoT because it's a completely different situation." I didn't say that comparisons were perfect, or that everything was comparable.

In most narratives, whether they be film, book or video game, the sequel will recollect events in its' predecessor so that new readers have better access to the stories. This is just common sense in the media industry, and Twilight Princess applies.

Guess what? TP does not.

If we were to assume TP was being ambiguous, then this comparison would be true, but the question we're supposed to be discussing here is whether developers have a reason to rely on outside information, as a strategy that enhances the reader's enjoyment of the story. Miyamoto once said that leaving a player confused with the story has a negative impact on their enjoyment. In Cloverfield, the audience was expected to be already aware of the outside information that comes from the general popularity of monster movies in the media, so there wasn't a real possibility that they would get confused by Cloverfield's story. But Nintendo could not expect new players to understand the Sacred Realm, because that is an identity specific to the Zelda universe, not popular culture. And thus, there is no reason for them to make TP deliberately ambiguous, and as we can see in the Japanese script, there is no hint of ambiguity there.

I can't believe you're still spouting nonsense about how they must mean that the dark tribe was after Hyrule (regardless of visuals) because of a few lines of text. To say that the Triforce rests within Hyrule, the Sacred Realm, is not an incorrect statement.

You can spout nonsense about what Myamoto (who no longer is heavily involved in Zelda) thinks about making cohesive games, and about Nintendo's policy of such (Which I am quite aware of, thank you) but that does not change the fact that TP was not written to be for new fans of the series by any means. You say it was written for new players, and to come out with the Wii? No. It was written to be the last game on the Gamecube, which only hardcore Nintendo fans have anyway. Who will be buying TP? those who own a gamecube, and thusly those who have played at least one Zelda. It was only in the last year of development that Nintendo decided to have it come out with the Wii, and modified the game to play well on the Wii. One year, with making stuff work with Wii-mote, is by no means enough to change a game so that Half of it's entire freaking plot (which relies on prior knowledge of Zelda) is welcome to newcomers.

They made an effort, but ultimately failed in that regard.

I played TP with the assumption that it would explain itself and be cohesive like every other game, like you say it does, and I was sorely disappointed in that regard. The "Main parts" of the plot (Ganondorf/Zelda) felt randomly thrown in at the end in order to make the OoT fanboys wet themselves. I felt no desire to go save Zelda or fight Ganondorf at the end because I had already fulfilled what was being built up to the entire game: fighting Zant. But then he had to randomly go crazy and tell us of "his God" who turned out to be Ganondorf (Yet again, ho hum,) and so now, for no real reason at all, I get to go fight this random guy who I heard of in a cut-scene once and was told five minutes ago is the real bad guy-also through cut-scene. AND I get to get helped by some random girl I've met twice and seen in a cutsene once (Both the cut-scene and the first meeting expect a "ZOMG IT'S ZELDA" reaction from the player.)

Edited by CID Farwin, 23 May 2008 - 02:34 PM.

[Arturo]

Okay. I am honestly fed up of this. If you can't say nothing but insults, keep your mouth closed

And this thread is closed.

You have got me more lenient than usually. Action should have been taken before.

But I could have gotten you suspended now. And the people I am talking about know who they are.