78 replies to this topic

[Impossible]

This is dangerous. It's a little risky.

If you're wondering what I'm talking about, it's the goddamn biggest thing you've ever seen. </Sakurai>

It's bigger than Twinmold. It's bigger than Hyrule Castle.

Hell, no, I'm not even NEARING the proper scale here. It's bigger than Termina's Moon and Death Mountain. Put together.

No, that's still not big enough... Ah, I've got it. It's bigger than the combined egos of every one of the UWM. That's more like it. (I wonder what that's going to say about me after actually producing this, particularly with the tone I chose for some things. >_<)

Impossible's Zelda Timeline Analysis V1.0, maps and images included

It's the end result of me compiling evidence and arguments since somewhere around 2005. It started as my attempt to just have my own timeline to post for people to see, but it evolved into something much bigger when I decided it needed to have EVERYTHING. Some things twice. Try to read as much of it as possible, because there's even important evidence about TWW and TP that is uncovered via other games, and I don't go into as much detail about some of that again (like the FSA Ganon stuff).

And definitely read the beginning section - despite the fact that I almost never refer to my timeline in that introduction, I believe that through it, the way in which I make my choices becomes so clear that you could actually use it to determine my entire timeline, based on those principles. Which is why I don't chalk peoples' personal timelines up to pure random interpretation... It's all about how we apply principles such as those, particularly with context, developer intent and speculation.

Don't even ask how long this took... Most sections there have either been written at least twice, or were written for the first time recently. I decided to finally finish it and write up all the missing arguments and discussions in roughly the past month, so most of it should be up to date, but it's possible that I've missed something that shouldn't be there. (Aside from extremely new translation stuff, which I'm aware of.) And if there's something I've failed to address, I can certainly add that, as I'm sure this will never really be finished.

I'll have to find a more permanent place to host this, too.

And finally, remember... It's just for fun. Enjoy it. It just shows what kind of insane lengths we can take these things to at times.

Edit: Looks like there is one screw-up in there... I forgot to italicise the Aonuma quote at the start. I'm not going to bother reuploading it right now for that, but it really annoys me, so just know that it should be like the others. >_> If you see any typos, etc. in there, make sure you let me know. There were heaps of times where I accidentally used an acronym for the wrong game, and there may still be a couple of those floating around, so if something doesn't make sense, that would be why.

Edit 2: Fixed a couple of embarrassing mistakes. If you see any more, please tell me, and replace your file with the newest one.

Edited by Impossible, 25 April 2008 - 11:27 PM.

[MikePetersSucks]

I must say, this is a very, very good theory, and I enjoyed reading it. I don't really agree with your use of geography, but atleast you didn't do something balls-stupid with it, and you already know I disagree with your Four Swords trilogy placement. Your section on TWW did make me question MY placement of the Four Swords trilogy, though, so now I'm kind've boned on where to put them, because the other common placements don't mesh well with me at all.

I do, however, believe that the Deku Tree combines the islands into one land, but it's not a replacement for Hyrule, it's just a new land, and Ganondorf interfered because the Deku Tree's land would get in the way of reviving the true Hyrule.

As for the "divine prank" issue, I'm pretty sure that, since Link technically opened the Sacred Realm and allowed the Triforce to split even for a little bit, that Ganondorf was able to seize the Triforce of Power and so forth. Obviously, in the Child Timeline, they were able to stop him. I see your reasoning for all of these points, though, and agree with your logic, just not the conclusions reached. Kudos to you.

Also, where did FSA birdseye.bmp come from? Is that fan art or what? And what does beanstalk.png have to do with anything? I don't recognize it.

[Hero of Legend]

Well, that was pretty comprehensive, from what I've read (which I admit was far from everything - I skimmed most of it and focused mainly OoT and TWW since those are the interesting parts).

Can't say I agree with you about OoT's ending, though that's problematic no matter how you slice it. The Triforce mark on Link's hand could be explained away, yes, but if it is like in TWW, it's most likely a retcon, and you should at least mention that. As for how people got their Triforces in TP, I guess we don't know that for sure, but if Link was sent back to after he pulled the sword, that's one less mystery (though it doesn’t explain how Link inherited his piece). The Master Sword? It was sent back with Link by Zelda. So, what, did it disappear from the adult story? Obviously not, but the fact remains that it was with Link when he was sent back, so it's a plot hole either way.

I don't know if you said anything about that somewhere, but I at least don't know of any decisive argument against this theory.

As for TWW, I can't say I agree with you about that ending either. For one, the "Wind Blowing" signifies a lot more than you say it does; like fate. Ganondorf tried to defy fate; it's obvious he though the gods were trying to screw him. So, Ganondorf's line could have a lot of meanings; if you ask me, it's the "wind of death" that tormented his people that he's referring to.

Anyway, about the real ending; The King says the new land won’t be Hyrule. Yeah, you're right in that it means Hyrule won't return, but his words are weaker than you want them to be - any new land would not be HIS Hyrule; that's the only thing that sentence says. Deny it all you want, but it true: it's about the King not wanting to follow Link and Zelda in search of a new land - which they did go in search for. Things could go either way here, though I agree it would be weird for the developers to go back on their word and resurrect Hyrule or something. I certainly hope they don’t.

Can’t go into detail on each game: everyone disagrees about those.

Also, where did FSA birdseye.bmp come from? Is that fan art or what? And what does beanstalk.png have to do with anything? I don't recognize it.

The FSA map is the "background" from the Realm of the Heavens level. The Beanstalk is from TMC. I am somewhat surprised Impossible did not mention the Oceanic view from the Palace of Winds - though I agree TMC is first, so it does not matter much.

Edited by Hero of Legend, 19 April 2008 - 02:42 PM.

[LionHarted]

I think you go a bit too far in-depth into the Triforce of Courage being seen at the end of OoT. (Actually, I think you go a bit too far in-depth on a lot of things in order to prove they're meaningless, which seems sort of contradictory.)

First of all, you remark on its absence in the Temple of Time scene and in MM as being stronger evidence than its inclusion in the ending scene. Forget that the Triforce of Courage is not part of either Child or Adult Link's character models, or that it's irrelevant to MM, or that TWW says it was lost when he left on his journey anyway; the fact that it's added to his character model for the very last scene is obviously meaningless.

Secondly, as for the TWW comments on this subject, I do agree that it's now set in stone that TWW's Triforce split is meant to be completely independent from MM, but the seemingly-random and unseen details about the hero that were shown in TWW screamed a reference to the game. The age of the hero was age 12, when Adult Link was at least 17. MM does qualify as a journey "into the flows of time." That and having Link lose the Triforce of Courage after OoT seems to be an effort on the developers to cover their asses with respect to the inconsistency.

And, of course, I think you misplace the emphasis of the last scene in TWW on the destruction of Hyrule and not enough on the undertones of rebuilding.

I also agree with MikePetersSucks that Link going back in time at the end of OoT to close the door between times only really makes sense if the door between times is open in the time he's being sent back to. i.e., if him pulling the Master Sword initially was part of the Child timeline's history.

I do like the theory, despite that I disagree with it at present. I have no problems with ALttP coming after TP besides the ones that would damage things regarding OoT, which I think most people can agree has now become the reference point of the entire series (and is therefore more important).


I also agree with Hero of Legend with regards to TWW. That seems to be the obvious interpretation of Ganon's last words.


All in all, though, it's an in-depth presentation of your interpretations and objections.

Edited by LionHarted, 19 April 2008 - 02:46 PM.

[Raien]

Question for Hero of Legend and LionHarted: If you take apart a Lego castle and rebuild it exactly as it was, do you consider the rebuilt castle to be different from the original castle? More importantly, what would be the point in taking apart the Lego castle if you're just going to rebuild it as it was?

Hyrule in ALTTP is, for all intents and purposes, identical to Hyrule in OoT. This nullifies the reason for which the King destroyed Hyrule at all. If the King had chosen to unflood Hyrule, then we would still see Hyrule in ALTTP. The theory defeats the point of TWW's ending.

Hyrule was always a battleground for the forces of Light and Darkness, represented by the King of Hyrule and Ganondorf in TWW. The King chose to give the people peace by destroying Hyrule. This is the significance of change in TWW's ending, and the main reason I don't think we see Hyrule after TWW.

Edited by jhurvid, 19 April 2008 - 03:31 PM.

[Hero of Legend]

Question for Hero of Legend and LionHarted: If you take apart a Lego castle and rebuild it exactly as it was, do you consider the rebuilt castle to be different from the original castle? More importantly, what would be the point in taking apart the Lego castle if you're just going to rebuild it as it was?

From the developers perspective: None. I don't expect them to bring Hyrule back. But the King himself does not say that.

Using your anology: If you had built a huge Lego castle and were very proud of it, and someone broke it and offered to build a new one just like it, would it be the same 'thing'? Not likely - for one you didn't build it - which is exactly what the King is saying. Zelda could still call the land Hyrule, that's not what the King is objecting against; it simply would not be THE Hyrule, no matter how similar it was.

Hyrule was always a battleground for the forces of Light and Darkness, represented by the King of Hyrule and Ganondorf in TWW. The King chose to give the people peace by destroying Hyrule.

If peace was achieved by destroying Hyrule, what the hell was the deal with Bellum?

Edited by Hero of Legend, 19 April 2008 - 04:03 PM.

[Raien]

Using your anology: If you had built a huge Lego castle and were very proud of it, and someone broke it and offered to build a new one just like it, would it be the same 'thing'? Not likely - for one you didn't build it - which is exactly what the King is saying. Zelda could still call the land Hyrule, that's not what the King is objecting against; it simply would not be THE Hyrule, no matter how similar it was.

But that sentence doesn't come into the King's wish. The King did not wish to destroy Hyrule because it was broken and he didn't like it anymore. He wished to destroy Hyrule as a means of giving people hope. If the circumstances of the people haven't changed, then what was the point of unflooding Hyrule?

I disagree, and if peace was achieved by destroying Hyrule, what the hell do you think the fight with Bellum was all about?

They're different forms of evil with entirely different motivations. Bellum was animalistic in nature, his only drive was the life force which the people possessed. Ganondorf had human motivations; he coveted Hyrule because it was the chosen land of the gods (in other words, a holy land). Conquering Hyrule would be symbolic of his power in the world, which is why he fights for it.

The King's wish was driven by the knowledge that evil would be motivated to dominate over Hyrule. By destroying Hyrule, the King ensured that evil wouldn't be attracted to that part of the Great Sea. And remember, the King wished for hope of peace, not a guarantee of peace.

Edited by jhurvid, 19 April 2008 - 04:17 PM.

[Hero of Legend]

But that sentence doesn't come into the King's wish. The King did not wish to destroy Hyrule because it was broken and he didn't like it anymore. He wished to destroy Hyrule as a means of giving people hope. If the circumstances of the people haven't changed, then what was the point of unflooding Hyrule?

That's not what I said. The King knew he had to destroy Hyrule. He didn't want to go on (living) without it. That's all.

They're different forms of evil with entirely different motivations. Bellum was animalistic in nature, his only drive was the life force which the people possessed. Ganondorf had human motivations; he coveted Hyrule because it was the chosen land of the gods (in other words, a holy land). Conquering Hyrule would be symbolic of his power in the world, which is why he fights for it.

The King's wish was driven by the knowledge that evil would be motivated to dominate over Hyrule. By destroying Hyrule, the King ensured that evil wouldn't be attracted to that part of the Great Sea. And remember, the King wished for hope of peace, not a guarantee of peace.

Well, first, only you believe in your theories, jhurvid. I don't accept that "fact" about Hyrule anymore than I accept your ideas about the Sheika, or Darkness, or whatever. Second, how do we know Bellum was so animalistic anyway? He doesn't talk, but neither did Vaati in FSA. Third, I don't see a difference either way. What matters is if Nintendo intends to make more games - which will have more villains. And it appears that they will.

Edited by Hero of Legend, 19 April 2008 - 04:45 PM.

[Raien]

That's not what I said. What's your point anyway? The King knew he had to destroy Hyrule. He didn't want to go on (living) without it. That's it. That's all I've said.

Let me ask you a question. How do you think the destruction of Hyrule would benefit the people on the Great Sea, in contrast to unflooding the kingdom?

First, only you believe in your theories, jhurvid. I don't accept that "fact" about Hyrule anymore than I accept your ideas about the Sheikah, or Darkness, or whatever. Second, how do we know Bellum was so animalistic anyway? He doesn't talk, but neither did Vaati in FSA. Third, I don't see a difference either way. What matters is if Nintendo makes intends to make more games - which will have more villains. And it appears that they will.

Ideas about the Sheikah and Darkness? Out of interest, do you remember what those ideas were? To try and second-guess you:
1) I still believe that the Sheikah Eye represents the fight against evil. The eye itself is on evil things, and the tear represents evil being hurt. It's come up a few times on this board and others and I think it's strongly supported.
2) I don't believe that Darkness and Chaos are equivalents. I dropped that idea a long time ago and I've decided to take an open-minded stance on the understanding of Creation in the Zelda series.

On topic, Vaati has an evil laugh in FSA, he was referred to as a mage, which connotes human sorcery, and he apparently had aspirations as the King of Darkness (hence he was attributed the title before Ganon appeared).
Bellum made squelching noices and was established as a malevolent being who was driven only by his desire to feed on life force. Bellum had no human characteristics or sympathies or desires. He was evil, but he was not humanly evil.

If evil has a human source, such as greed and malice, then the King of Hyrule could stem that evil by destroying what men covet; the kingdom and its magical power. It won't destroy evil that covets something else, but it does stop evil from becoming attracted to the islands above Hyrule.

Edited by jhurvid, 19 April 2008 - 05:04 PM.

[Hero of Legend]

Let me ask you a question. How do you think the destruction of Hyrule would benefit the people on the Great Sea, in contrast to unflooding the kingdom?

Ah, I get it now. Well, frankly, the two don't have to be linked. The King decided to destroy Hyrule because it had already been destroyed long ago; he just hadn't accepted it. He knew the future lay with Link and Zelda, not beneath the sea. Is that not a good enough reason to 'wash away the past' and start over?

Ideas about the Sheikah and Darkness? Out of interest, do you remember what those ideas were? To try and second-guess you:

No, you got them. I shouldn't have brought it up. The reason I doubt conquering Hyrule represents conquering the world is because Zelda made a distinct difference between the two in OoT, and Ganondorf has never desired Hyrule anyway, except in TWW.

On topic, Vaati has an evil laugh in FSA, he was referred to as a mage, which connotes human sorcery, and he apparently had aspirations as the King of Darkness (hence he was attributed the title before Ganon appeared).

Bellum made squelching noices and was established as a malevolent being who was driven only by his desire to feed on life force. Bellum had no human characteristics or sympathies or desires. He was evil, but he was not humanly evil.

Bellum was smart enough to use the Ghost Ship to lure people into his trap, take over the Temple of the Ocean King and created Phantoms and other monsters to serve and protect him. Of course, I still don't believe Nintendo will let the destruction of Hyrule stop them from creating a new, human villain.

If evil has a human source, such as greed and malice, then the King of Hyrule could stem that evil by destroying what men covet; the kingdom and its magical power. It won't destroy evil that covets something else, but it does stop evil from becoming attracted to the islands above Hyrule.

That's true, but I doubt future TWW-sequels would take place in that area.

[LionHarted]

Hyrule in ALTTP is, for all intents and purposes, identical to Hyrule in OoT.

This is where we disagree.

[Mad Scrub]

I don't think Link having the ToC at the end of OoT is that big of a problem. The only problem is you do have to use some fan fiction to explain it. If Link was chosen to be the HoT and have the ToC as an adult, why not be chosen to have it as a child too? If he had his respective piece then so would Zelda and Ganondorf. Link and Zelda would only be aware of their pieces because they would resonate when they're in close proximity and they would most likely discuss Ganondorf's plans to take over Hyrule. Zelda or the King or whoever would send the sages to capture Ganondorf who is unaware of his piece and the sages would attempt to execute him. When Ganondorf is stabbed in the chest the abilities of the ToP are awakened, the ToP resonates and it's ability to keep it's host alive is activated. The only way Ganondorf can die with the ToP now is by Master Sword. That would change Hyrule's future.

TP does talk about bloodline's quite a bit too so you could say that the ToC and the ToW in OoT are past down until they eventually reach TP Link and Zelda. The Triforce didn't split into eight shards in the child timeline when Link went to Termina, it split in the adult timeline when Zelda sent Link to the past so that works too.

Just a thought.

[Impossible]

As for the "divine prank" issue, I'm pretty sure that, since Link technically opened the Sacred Realm and allowed the Triforce to split even for a little bit, that Ganondorf was able to seize the Triforce of Power and so forth. Obviously, in the Child Timeline, they were able to stop him.

Yeah, obviously you know why I don't like that, though. With my reasoning of OoT's time travel, there's no opportunity for the Triforce to split, and if Ganondorf had the ToP, I believe events would have progressed exactly the same as on the Adult Timeline.

Also, where did FSA birdseye.bmp come from? Is that fan art or what? And what does beanstalk.png have to do with anything? I don't recognize it.

The FSA one came from a topic on this forum, actually. The beanstalk and two others are backgrounds from TMC.

Can't say I agree with you about OoT's ending, though that's problematic no matter how you slice it. The Triforce mark on Link's hand could be explained away, yes, but if it is like in TWW, it's most likely a retcon, and you should at least mention that.

Good point, I'll do that next time.

As for how people got their Triforces in TP, I guess we don't know that for sure, but if Link was sent back to after he pulled the sword, that's one less mystery (though it doesn’t explain how Link inherited his piece).

It creates lots of other problems, though. As I said before, I don't see how the Triforce could be split at that time, because Ganondorf failed to conquer Hyrule. Anyway, if Link went back to after drawing the Master Sword, things would be pretty messed up. Why wouldn't Zelda send him back to before he touched it? It was when he first drew the MS that everything went wrong, and it would just be idiotic of Zelda to allow Ganondorf to succeed.

The Master Sword? It was sent back with Link by Zelda.

That's certainly not what I see happen in OoT's ending. Link appears in the Temple of Time, and the Master Sword is already resting in its pedestal.

For one, the "Wind Blowing" signifies a lot more than you say it does; like fate. Ganondorf tried to defy fate; it's obvious he though the gods were trying to screw him. So, Ganondorf's line could have a lot of meanings; if you ask me, it's the "wind of death" that tormented his people that he's referring to.

And yet that still carries the same connotation - Ganondorf accepted fate, rather than trying to defy it. Ganondorf in TP was still defying fate, you might say. That's a good point, though.

his words are weaker than you want them to be

They're in huge letters. >_>

any new land would not be HIS Hyrule; that's the only thing that sentence says.

I addressed that, too... I think it was under 2a or 2b or something. ALttP's Hyrule IS basically the same as OoT's Hyrule. It's not some vastly different kingdom, it's a recreation of the old one. It has all the reasons the first one did for Ganondorf to want to ruin it. And certainly, Link and Zelda finding a new Hyrule accounts for virtually none of the similarities and shared objects.

I am somewhat surprised Impossible did not mention the Oceanic view from the Palace of Winds - though I agree TMC is first, so it does not matter much.

I did. That background is included as well, and I wrote a paragraph on it in the TMC section. I think I may have mentioned it again when I was talking about geography and oceans in the "new" Hyrule. I did debunk its relevance entirely, though.

I think you go a bit too far in-depth into the Triforce of Courage being seen at the end of OoT. (Actually, I think you go a bit too far in-depth on a lot of things in order to prove they're meaningless, which seems sort of contradictory.)

There's kind of a reason why it ended up like that, because of how I originally wrote and structured some of that part. And it's necessary to prove that things are meaningless if people like you are going to try and bring them up against me.

First of all, you remark on its absence in the Temple of Time scene and in MM as being stronger evidence than its inclusion in the ending scene.

Did I? What I said is that its appearance isn't stronger than its absence, because there was no effort made to be consistent. I didn't say its inclusion was stronger.

The age of the hero was age 12, when Adult Link was at least 17. MM does qualify as a journey "into the flows of time."

I really don't think anyone cares about the age. What if they're referring to the age when OoT Link BEGAN his journey? And no, MM is not a journey into the "flows of time". That's ridiculous. It's another world, any time travel there is both irrelevant and known only to Link. And was seven years before he saved Hyrule (on another timeline). The fact is, immediately AFTER Link saved Hyrule, he left. This was when he went back in time, which the people perceived as his departure. That's really the only logical meaning. Why the hell would Nintendo even describe Termina as the "flows of time", and not "another world"?

And, of course, I think you misplace the emphasis of the last scene in TWW on the destruction of Hyrule and not enough on the undertones of rebuilding.

There are no undertones in TWW's plot of rebuilding. And god forbid I emphasise the events of TWW that ARE central to the plot and themes of the game. You still don't really understand how to interpret what is and isn't made significant by a game's own story, do you? Figures... Not much has changed.

There's no reason to unflood it when it would ruin the meaning in TWW's story.

Which was... what, exactly?

But really, why would "undertones" only you can see be MORE important than the most important scenes of the game and the entire climax and resolution of the plot?

Edited by Impossible, 19 April 2008 - 11:03 PM.

[MikePetersSucks]

Yeah, obviously you know why I don't like that, though. With my reasoning of OoT's time travel, there's no opportunity for the Triforce to split, and if Ganondorf had the ToP, I believe events would have progressed exactly the same as on the Adult Timeline.

1) No matter how you interpret time travel, Link has to lift the Master Sword, and thus open the Sacred Realm, atleast once.

2) Link isn't asleep in the Child Timeline. Perhaps he was able to do something to make sure things worked out differently, even if it was merely warning Zelda.

[Raien]

Ah, I get it now. Well, frankly, the two don't have to be linked. The King decided to destroy Hyrule because it had already been destroyed long ago; he just hadn't accepted it. He knew the future lay with Link and Zelda, not beneath the sea. Is that not a good enough reason to 'wash away the past' and start over?

I disagree with that assertion. The King hoped that the people would reawaken Hyrule, according to the words of Ganondorf. This would suggest that Hyrule was not beyond repair, so long as Ganondorf was defeated by the Hero. And then this makes the King's choice to destroy Hyrule all the more impactful. The King sacrifices his hopes and dreams for the sake of the people. Thus, the destruction of Hyrule was for the benefit of the people.

No, you got them. I shouldn't have brought it up. The reason I doubt conquering Hyrule represents conquering the world is because Zelda made a distinct difference between the two in OoT, and Ganondorf has never desired Hyrule anyway, except in TWW.

I'm not saying that conquering Hyrule means conquering the world. I'm saying Hyrule is a holy land; a place of great spiritual importance connected to the creation of the world. Conquering Hyrule would not be conquering the world, but it serves as a representation of one's power in the world. It's the reason why the Crusades took place over Jerusalem.

Bellum was smart enough to use the Ghost Ship to lure people into his trap, take over the Temple of the Ocean King and created Phantoms and other monsters to serve and protect him. Of course, I still don't believe Nintendo will let the destruction of Hyrule stop them from creating a new, human villain.

That's true, but I doubt future TWW-sequels would take place in that area.

Yeah, I think this is going off my point. What I'm trying to say is that the King did not wish for the people to be free of evil forever more. He simply wished for hope; hope being the motivation to find a world where they can live in peace. The people could not hope for peace in Hyrule, because evil was always coveting the kingdom.

This is where we disagree.

And yet when I asked you to present me with evidence of change, other than geography (which to be quite frank, does not justify the destruction of Hyrule), you could not.

Edited by jhurvid, 19 April 2008 - 10:45 PM.

[Impossible]

And by the way, I said that Ganondorf's death was about accepting the future. That's the same as accepting fate. The ultimate meaning is still there.

jhurvid, I'm adding your first post in this topic to what I already used from you in that section. If you want to rewrite everything about that into a single, cohesive discussion, I'll replace it with that instead, but I do like what's there now.

[LionHarted]

And yet when I asked you to present me with evidence of change, other than geography (which to be quite frank, does not justify the destruction of Hyrule), you could not.

I don't see why there has to be change, though. XD

You never established what a "meaningful change" would be; therefore, how can I provide one?

Furthermore, what makes you think Nintendo cares that much? Clearly they ignored the peaceful implications of OoT's ending and had Ganondorf invade and get the Triforce of Power in TP anyway, etc. etc.

Based on the very, very, very flat, underdeveloped nature of their stories, I'll tell you something: they don't make their stories cohesive enough to put that much thought into it. Tetra, who has just been given the power of the gods, discovered she's the princess of an ancient kingdom, and faced off with ancient demons, is still a skeptic about legends and ghost stories? Come on. Do they not understand the basics of character development? No. They just don't care. Tetra is entirely unchanged from the previous game. There is no visible sign of maturity on her part, and there most definitely would be if the developers were paying any attention.

I asked you what makes Hyrule any different than any other prosperous land in this fictional universe, aside from the main entrance to the sacred land being there (which Ganondorf already had control of, and has already taken the Triforce from). Clearly Holodrum and Labrynna were magical and desirable as well, because they were attacked also. Clearly the king's wish isn't to eliminate prosperity from the Great Sea (that was Ganondorf's cited reason for desiring Hyrule). Considering the kingpin of your argument is: "what makes the new Hyrule any different from the old?", I find it funny that you ignore the fact that every land in Zelda is effectively the same. They all have mountains to the north, and all of them are volcanic to some extent; they all have forests; they all have lakes; they all have magic, Gorons, and all are desired, controlled, or sought to be destroyed by some evil power. What Ganondorf covets is power; by controlling the world, he will control power. Hyrule's merely a first step.

Ganondorf desired power; Vaati desired power; Onox desired power; Veran desired power; Bellum desired power. Majora just wanted to destroy everything, but there are always oddballs.

What makes this Hyrule similar to other Hyrules? Place names. A basic skeleton of geography. The fact that it's a country in the Zelda series. That's it. And we've already determined how important names are in this series--oh wait, they're recycled in ways absolutely meaningless to the plot! The basic skeleton of geography doesn't change from game-to-game, even in new lands.

And remember, the King wished for hope of peace, not a guarantee of peace.

And yet you won't accept anything less than your interpretation of what "hope for peace" would mean?

He wished to destroy Hyrule as a means of giving people hope.

Are you sure it wasn't to give them hope because he was about to cut off the easiest way of rebuilding a strong society and leave them to fend for themselves?

There are no undertones in TWW's plot of rebuilding.

Of course there aren't. Those would go against your idea!

I'm not the only one who sees them; in fact, to a lot of others, they're quite obvious. He wishes to give them hope. They place that hope in finding a new land, a new Hyrule. That land will not be Hyrule; the Hyrule Daphnes knows is at the bottom of the ocean. It will be their Hyrule. And thus he turns down Tetra's offer to join them in the search. Prior to this, it is stated that the islands will be connected, that people were intended to build a new country by the gods, and that this would constitute awakening Hyrule. Which, of course, makes sense, because isn't Hyrule the country of the people chosen by the gods? Isn't that what it symbolizes?

I've addressed similarities already. Shared objects--they're all on the Great Sea, for crying out loud.

And god forbid I emphasise the events of TWW that ARE central to the plot and themes of the game.

That the King of Red Lions needs to let go?

Le gasp!

And no, MM is not a journey into the "flows of time". That's ridiculous. It's another world, any time travel there is both irrelevant and known only to Link. And was seven years before he saved Hyrule (on another timeline). The fact is, immediately AFTER Link saved Hyrule, he left.

Impossible; you have absolutely no flexibility whatsoever.

"Flows of time" is too bloody vague to mean anything unless you attach its meaning to something else.
"Leaving the land of Hyrule," on the other hand, is much more specific.

But wait! Link never leaves Hyrule.

That's certainly not what I see happen in OoT's ending. Link appears in the Tem\ple of Time, and the Master Sword is already resting in its pedestal.

Link DISAPPEARS in the scene in the sky, and the Master Sword is on his back, in its scabbard.

Honestly, you'll use one detail and ignore others. (See Triforce of Courage mark, countless implications of what will happen after TWW, and anything else that would go against your theory.) In fact, I don't think I've ever seen you use a detail that would do any damage to your theory unless it could be twisted to your side.

Link isn't asleep in the Child Timeline. Perhaps he was able to do something to make sure things worked out differently, even if it was merely warning Zelda.

Link closing the entrance to the Sacred Realm, trapping Ganon inside? o:

Edited by LionHarted, 20 April 2008 - 09:24 AM.

[FDL]

Yeah, I'm not going to quote any one person but I have to say this. Zelda acknowledging that the the Master Sword will need be placed in the Pedestal and that the Door of Time needs to be closed, followed by Link being shown with the Triforce mark on his hand, which then lead into TP showing Link, Zelda, and Ganondorf all having their Triforce pieces seems to imply to me that the "Divine Prank"/"Link goes back to before he even met Zelda" theory doesn't work. And those references certainly aren't irrelevant. I'd go into more detail but I don't feel like it at the moment.

[Hero of Legend]

It creates lots of other problems, though. As I said before, I don't see how the Triforce could be split at that time, because Ganondorf failed to conquer Hyrule. Anyway, if Link went back to after drawing the Master Sword, things would be pretty messed up. Why wouldn't Zelda send him back to before he touched it? It was when he first drew the MS that everything went wrong, and it would just be idiotic of Zelda to allow Ganondorf to succeed.

I don't quite agree; TP already tells us events did not progress the same way, and does nothing to lead us to believe that Ganondorf did not have the ToP. Quite the contrary, if you ask me. Anyway, the ToC in the ending seems to indicate that the Triforce already had been split, but you might be right about the retcon.

That's certainly not what I see happen in OoT's ending. Link appears in the Temple of Time, and the Master Sword is already resting in its pedestal.

Yes, but when he was sent back he was still carrying the sword.

And yet that still carries the same connotation - Ganondorf accepted fate, rather than trying to defy it. Ganondorf in TP was still defying fate, you might say. That's a good point, though.

Yes, that was my point.

I addressed that, too... I think it was under 2a or 2b or something. ALttP's Hyrule IS basically the same as OoT's Hyrule. It's not some vastly different kingdom, it's a recreation of the old one. It has all the reasons the first one did for Ganondorf to want to ruin it. And certainly, Link and Zelda finding a new Hyrule accounts for virtually none of the similarities and shared objects.

Good thing I don't think ALttP (or FSA) follow after TWW, then.

I disagree with that assertion. The King hoped that the people would reawaken Hyrule, according to the words of Ganondorf. This would suggest that Hyrule was not beyond repair, so long as Ganondorf was defeated by the Hero. And then this makes the King's choice to destroy Hyrule all the more impactful. The King sacrifices his hopes and dreams for the sake of the people. Thus, the destruction of Hyrule was for the benefit of the people.

No, Ganondorf said the King said the gods wanted that. Strange thing is, he never said that.

Either way, the King admits to being wrong in not letting go of Hyrule in the end, so what difference does it make?

I'm not saying that conquering Hyrule means conquering the world. I'm saying Hyrule is a holy land; a place of great spiritual importance connected to the creation of the world. Conquering Hyrule would not be conquering the world, but it serves as a representation of one's power in the world. It's the reason why the Crusades took place over Jerusalem.

I'm fairly sure Hyrule is only important because it holds the entrance to the Sacred Realm (among other things). Of course, the holy-land and power-of-the-gods things are related.

Yeah, I think this is going off my point. What I'm trying to say is that the King did not wish for the people to be free of evil forever more. He simply wished for hope; hope being the motivation to find a world where they can live in peace. The people could not hope for peace in Hyrule, because evil was always coveting the kingdom.

Hmm. That's a plausible interpretation. Still, I don't think that was his (sole) motive.

Edited by Hero of Legend, 20 April 2008 - 10:59 AM.

[Raien]

Either way, the King admits to being wrong in not letting go of Hyrule in the end, so what difference does it make?

Put it like this. If it was possible for the King to restore Hyrule with the Triforce, then his choice to destroy Hyrule would be evidence of self-sacrifice for the people. If it was not possible for the King to restore Hyrule with the Triforce, then that's basically saying that the King was in denial.

I don't see the suggestion that the King's hope was actually denial; he hoped for the restoration of Hyrule because that restoration was possible. And in order for the King to compare himself to Ganondorf, he had to be on equal ground to Ganondorf. Both men wanted Hyrule restored in their respective images of Light and Darkness. If it was impossible for Hyrule to be restored in the image of Light, then the King could not have had hope for it.

I'm fairly sure Hyrule is only important because it holds the entrance to the Sacred Realm (among other things). Of course, the holy-land and power-of-the-gods things are related.

Hyrule is blessed with prosperity, and it is also the home of the elemental deities, like the Light Spirits, the Deku Tree, etc. The Hylians, the chosen people of the gods, were meant to live in Hyrule, which is very similar to how God was said to give the Jews, his chosen people, their own land. I think the evidence supporting Hyrule as a holy land is very clear.

You never established what a "meaningful change" would be; therefore, how can I provide one?

A meaningful change is a reason for destroying Hyrule that benefits the people. The King is not going to say "That mountain range is in a place I don't like. DESTROY HYRULE!", and thus geography is a meaningless change.

Furthermore, what makes you think Nintendo cares that much? Clearly they ignored the peaceful implications of OoT's ending and had Ganondorf invade and get the Triforce of Power in TP anyway, etc. etc.

The big difference is that the "divine prank" was created to instigate all the events that occur in TP, whereas the flooding of Hyrule served no purpose as a narrative plot-point within TWW's story. Nintendo did not need to destroy Hyrule in TWW if it was intended that the kingdom would be revived. Furthermore, if it was intended that the Deku Tree's plan was an important narrative plot point, Nintendo would have placed much more visual and verbal emphasis on the Deku Tree's plan instead of renegating it to optional dialogue. The placement of text is a basic way of determining its importance, hence why I argue that the "Triumph Forks" reference in TMC is not relevant to the storyline.

Based on the very, very, very flat, underdeveloped nature of their stories, I'll tell you something: they don't make their stories cohesive enough to put that much thought into it. Tetra, who has just been given the power of the gods, discovered she's the princess of an ancient kingdom, and faced off with ancient demons, is still a skeptic about legends and ghost stories? Come on. Do they not understand the basics of character development? No. They just don't care. Tetra is entirely unchanged from the previous game. There is no visible sign of maturity on her part, and there most definitely would be if the developers were paying any attention.

It's true that Nintendo are not normally a company to focus on character development. And of the characters that do change, it's never usually Link, Zelda or Ganondorf; these three characters are pretty much steadfast throughout the series. But when Nintendo do want to show a change in character, they do so overtly, like Midna's change of heart over the course of TP. The King of Hyrule is another example of someone who has an overt change of heart since the beginning of the game. He sacrifices his dream for the restoration of Hyrule in hope that the people will find peace in a new land.

I asked you what makes Hyrule any different than any other prosperous land in this fictional universe, aside from the main entrance to the sacred land being there (which Ganondorf already had control of, and has already taken the Triforce from). Clearly Holodrum and Labrynna were magical and desirable as well, because they were attacked also. Clearly the king's wish isn't to eliminate prosperity from the Great Sea (that was Ganondorf's cited reason for desiring Hyrule). Considering the kingpin of your argument is: "what makes the new Hyrule any different from the old?", I find it funny that you ignore the fact that every land in Zelda is effectively the same. They all have mountains to the north, and all of them are volcanic to some extent; they all have forests; they all have lakes; they all have magic, Gorons, and all are desired, controlled, or sought to be destroyed by some evil power. What Ganondorf covets is power; by controlling the world, he will control power. Hyrule's merely a first step.

All countries possess magic, but only Hyrule possesses magic connected directly to the gods. The Triforce, elemental magic, the Hylian magic were all made by the goddesses, and thus control of that magic has far more significance to the world than other magic does. As I have already said, it's symbolic of Hyrule's existence as a holy land.

And yet you won't accept anything less than your interpretation of what "hope for peace" would mean?

If the new kingdom is not better than the old kingdom, then the destruction of Hyrule is meaningless, and thus the king's call for hope is meaningless.

Edited by jhurvid, 20 April 2008 - 11:51 AM.

[Hero of Legend]

Put it like this. If it was possible for the King to restore Hyrule with the Triforce, then his choice to destroy Hyrule would be evidence of self-sacrifice for the people. If it was not possible for the King to restore Hyrule with the Triforce, then that's basically saying that the King was in denial.

What are you talking about? Of course it was possible, but it was pointless. What, did you understand nothing of the meaning behind the King's words? Impossible's right, letting go of the past was the point of TWW. Certainly the King could have restored Hyrule, but what would have been the point of that? He'd be no different from Ganondorf, defying the gods for the sake of his own desire. His "ancient kingdom" was forgotten - No one wanted it to be restored except he. He wished for the future for Link and Zelda's sakes; that was his motive.

Hyrule is blessed with prosperity, and it is also the home of the elemental deities, like the Light Spirits, the Deku Tree, etc. The Hylians, the chosen people of the gods, were meant to live in Hyrule, which is very similar to how God was said to give the Jews, his chosen people, their own land. I think the evidence supporting Hyrule as a holy land is very clear.

I think the evidence that evil people desires it for that reason is non-existent.

Furthermore, if it was intended that the Deku Tree's plan was an important narrative plot point, Nintendo would have placed much more visual and verbal emphasis on the Deku Tree's plan instead of renegating it to optional dialogue.

Actually, it was part of the main plot - the whole first visit to the Forest Haven is all about it. It was also meant for the player to find out the purpose of the trees when asking the Deku Tree about Makar's whereabouts. Of course, the King's wish still means the new land won't be Hyrule, and the Deku Tree never said he wanted to bring it back anyway.

[LionHarted]

jhurvid:

1) There are deities that are not in Hyrule. In fact, the deities play more of an active role in games that are set on the Great Sea than in the games actually set in Hyrule.
2) So, should the lands the King wishes for his children to build not be blessed with prosperity, and not have divine providence (indeed, these are the things you say makes Hyrule Hyrule)? What kind of a sick joke would that be?

[Raien]

What are you talking about? Of course it was possible, but it was pointless. What, did you understand nothing of the meaning behind the King's words? Impossible's right, letting go of the past was the point of TWW. Certainly the King could have restored Hyrule, but what would have been the point of that? He'd be no different from Ganondorf, defying the gods for the sake of his own desire. His "ancient kingdom" was forgotten - No one wanted it to be restored except he. He wished for the future for Link and Zelda's sakes; that was his motive.

What do you mean no one wanted it to be restored? How can you speak for all the people on the Great Sea who have no memory of the kingdom? The land was blessed with magic and prosperity by the goddesses, and under a good rulership, it could have been a bountiful land to live in. Would that not be good reason for the people to want the kingdom restored, instead of living on a fishless sea?

You seem to think that "letting go of the past" applies to the King alone; that his hope to restore Hyrule was entirely selfish. But a good King always puts his people first, and his initial reasoning would be that Hyrule would be beneficial for everyone. But then he realised that there would continue to be fighting between Light and Darkness, and that everyone must let go of the past in order to find a better future.

I think the evidence that evil people desires it for that reason is non-existent.

Then why do you think Ganondorf wished for Hyrule, when he almost had the Triforce in TWW?

Actually, it was part of the main plot - the whole first visit to the Forest Haven is all about it. It was also meant for the player to find out the purpose of the trees when asking the Deku Tree about Makar's whereabouts. Of course, the King's wish still means the new land won't be Hyrule, and the Deku Tree never said he wanted to bring it back anyway.

The festival is part of the plot, but the dream to connect the islands is optional dialogue. It did not need to be optional, which begs reason as to why it was, if it was so important to the storyline.

1) There are deities that are not in Hyrule. In fact, the deities play more of an active role in games that are set on the Great Sea than in the games actually set in Hyrule.

There are deities, but does their magic play a part in the fundamentals of nature?

2) So, should the lands the King wishes for his children to build not be blessed with prosperity, and not have divine providence (indeed, these are the things you say makes Hyrule Hyrule)? What kind of a sick joke would that be?

Would you give your son a barbie doll knowing that he would be beaten up at school for it?

Edited by jhurvid, 20 April 2008 - 12:29 PM.

[Hero of Legend]

What do you mean no one wanted it to be restored? How can you speak for all the people on the Great Sea who have no memory of the kingdom? The land was blessed with magic and prosperity by the goddesses, and under a good rulership, it could have been a bountiful land to live in. Would that not be good reason for the people to want the kingdom restored, instead of living on a fishless sea?

I meant what I said; Nonbody wants Hyrule back. Zelda says they need to get back to their ocean, I assume that's true. Now let me ask you a question: Why did the goddesses drown Hyrule if they truly wanted it to be restored? It's sort of like with the Mirror of Twilight, if you can't tell.

You seem to think that "letting go of the past" applies to the King alone; that his hope to restore Hyrule was entirely selfish. But a good King always puts his people first, and his initial reasoning would be that Hyrule would be beneficial for everyone. But then he realised that there would continue to be fighting between Light and Darkness, and that everyone must let go of the past in order to find a better future.

That's complete speculation.

Then why do you think Ganondorf wished for Hyrule, when he almost had the Triforce in TWW?

Ganondorf wanted Hyrule, but to say it was because it was a holy land is to go beyond what the game tells us.

The festival is part of the plot, but the dream to connect the islands is optional dialogue. It did not need to be optional, which begs reason as to why it was, if it was so important to the storyline.

You don't say A and not B. The reason it's optional is because it's not relevant to the main plot, it's just a "don't worry, things won't be like this forever" assurance to the player, but that doesn't mean it's not true. You can't expect to get a proper idea of the story by going simply by what's said in the main plot, because usually the point of optional dialogue is to flesh the plot out.

Edited by Hero of Legend, 20 April 2008 - 12:40 PM.

[Raien]

I meant what I said; Nonbody wants Hyrule back. Zelda says they need to get back to their ocean, I assume that's true.

Was this line after the King had already wished for Hyrule's destruction? Because the King's suicide was a different choice to the destruction of Hyrule.

Now let me ask you a question: Why did the goddesses drown Hyrule if they truly wanted it to be restored? It's sort of like with the Mirror of Twilight, if you can't tell.

The goddesses trapped Hyrule in stasis to prevent Ganondorf from completely destroying the kingdom and the people. Until a Hero could awaken, Ganondorf had to be stopped. Perhaps the gods did want Hyrule to be reawakened after the Hero killed Ganondorf, but the King of Hyrule had the power of the gods, which allowed him to decide Hyrule should be destroyed instead.

That's complete speculation.

No, it isn't. By definition, a King represents the people and speaks for them. A bad king might be selfish, but I think we can deduce that the King of Hyrule does not fit under what we recognise as a bad king.

Ganondorf wanted Hyrule, but to say it was because it was a holy land is to go beyond what the game tells us.

I repeat the question, why do you think Ganondorf wished for Hyrule, when he almost had the Triforce in TWW? What's his actual motivation for covering the kingdom in Darkness?

You don't say A and not B. The reason it's optional is because it's not relevant to the main plot, it's just a "don't worry, things won't be like this forever" assurance to the player, but that doesn't mean it's not true. You can't expect to get a proper idea of the story by going simply by what's said in the main plot, because usually the point of optional dialogue is to flesh the plot out.

The importance of a quotation can be derived from where it is placed. We can learn additional information from the Appendix in Lord of the Rings, but that doesn't mean it's relevant to the main narrative.

Edited by jhurvid, 20 April 2008 - 01:06 PM.

[MikePetersSucks]

Link closing the entrance to the Sacred Realm, trapping Ganon inside? o:

Possible, but TP doesn't make that likely.

Why did the goddesses drown Hyrule if they truly wanted it to be restored?

Erm...to stop Ganon, obviously?

[Hero of Legend]

Was this line after the King had already wished for Hyrule's destruction? Because the King's suicide was a different choice to the destruction of Hyrule.

Well, yeah. I don't get your point.

The goddesses trapped Hyrule in stasis to prevent Ganondorf from completely destroying the kingdom and the people. Until a Hero could awaken, Ganondorf had to be stopped. Perhaps the gods did want Hyrule to be reawakened after the Hero killed Ganondorf, but the King of Hyrule had the power of the gods, which allowed him to decide Hyrule should be destroyed instead.

That didn't seem to be the point, though. Nobody ever told Link to restore Hyrule. If anything the gods preserved Hyrule for other reasons, such as to keep usefull things like the Master Sword on hand. Well, if we are to speculate, I mean.

No, it isn't. By definition, a King represents the people and speaks for them. A bad king might be selfish, but I think we can deduce that the King of Hyrule does not fit under what we recognise as a bad king.

And yet, to say anything about what the King though other than what he said is indeed utter and complete speculation.

I repeat the question, why do you think Ganondorf wished for Hyrule, when he almost had the Triforce in TWW? What's his actual motivation for covering the kingdom in Darkness?

He said he coveted Hyrule. Does he need a reason for wanting to rule a fair country? Not really.

The importance of a quotation can be derived from where it is placed. We can learn additional information from the Appendix in Lord of the Rings, but that doesn't mean it's relevant to the main narrative.

Which still does not make it any less canon, unless there is a contradiction, which there is not.

Erm...to stop Ganon, obviously?

Isn't that a bit drastic, though? They could’ve just sealed him back in the Sacred Realm or something.

Edited by Hero of Legend, 20 April 2008 - 01:24 PM.

[LionHarted]

Isn't that a bit drastic, though? They could’ve just sealed him back in the Sacred Realm or something.

I don't think they can. He has the power of the gods. So they'd need to do something indirect to stop him.

Link closing the entrance to the Sacred Realm, trapping Ganon inside? o:

Possible, but TP doesn't make that likely.

Well, the objection I get from most people regarding Ganon getting the Triforce of Power as normal is that he would be impossible to capture. This remedies that problem.

There are deities, but does their magic play a part in the fundamentals of nature?

YES.

Would you give your son a barbie doll knowing that he would be beaten up at school for it?

Red herring.

Would I want my son to be successful even though people might envy his success? Yes.

Edited by LionHarted, 20 April 2008 - 01:24 PM.

[Raien]

Well, yeah. I don't get your point.

The point is that Zelda must get to the surface to avoid drowning, not because she hates Hyrule. Hyrule was already being flooded; Zelda couldn't choose to live underwater.

That didn't seem to be the point, though. Nobody ever told Link to restore Hyrule. If anything the gods preserved Hyrule for other reasons, such as to keep usefull things like the Master Sword on hand. Well, if we are to speculate, I mean.

The gods flooded Hyrule at the behest of the people, when a Hero did not appear; this is in the game's introduction. In order to defeat Ganondorf and make the restoration of Hyrule possible, a Hero must appear.

And yet, to say anything about what the King though other than what he said is indeed utter and complete speculation.

It doesn't need to be stated if it's already established in general culture. Kings by definition represent and speak for the people; this is true for the real world and it is true for Hyrule. Only bad kings serve their own needs before others, and it is generally established that the King of Hyrule is not a bad king. The King's hope for the resurrection of Hyrule would have been his decision for the benefit of the people, and his decision to destroy Hyrule would have been for the benefit of the people. "Letting go of the past" is a message that the King receives on behalf of everyone.

He said he coveted Hyrule. Does he need a reason for wanting to rule a fair country? Not really.

Yes, he does. No one does anything without motivation. Why, for example, did he want to cover Hyrule in Darkness? What was wrong with Hyrule as it was? Why did he not wish for prosperity for the Gerudo Desert, since it was the injustice to his people that caused his envy?

Ganon's motivation is a little more complicated than "he wanted Hyrule". He wants power, he wants darkness, he wants to rule everything. As the spiritual centre of the world, Ganondorf covets Hyrule because it represents power. There's no other explanation for the choices he made with the Triforce.

Which still does not make it any less canon, unless there is a contradiction, which there is not.

This is not about canon, this is about judging the importance of the Deku Tree's plan in the general storyline. The placement as optional dialogue suggests that it is not meant to be important, and thus, it doesn't have the importance that you place upon it in the timeline.

YES.

Name them.

Would I want my son to be successful even though people might envy his success? Yes.

And if that envy would lead to murder?

Edited by jhurvid, 20 April 2008 - 01:53 PM.

[LionHarted]

On the point of the hat

Points made by Impossible (quoted):

1) Ezlo [gives] Link a hat at the end.
1a) Realistically, this is not necessary, since OoT’s Link already gave us the origin of the entire hero’s garb.
1b) Ezlo giving Link a hat at the end hinted at TMC symbolically starting the tradition.

2) [The] hero in the backstory [is] not wearing a cap.
2a) [W]e infer that [all past heroes did not wear hats], because we can see what the developers were trying to tell us through that imagery.
2b) TMC is not actually the reason why other Links wear green hats.
2c) [There] seems to [be] some significance to the cap in this game.

3) Bill Trinen [said]: “This game takes you really, really deep into Hylian lore, and you could almost look at it as the story of how Link gets his cap.”
3a) Bill Trinen is credible enough to confirm [this].
3b) [He is credible enough to do so because] he is pretty much at the top of Nintendo’s localization team.

Conclusion 1) TMC shows the origins of the cap.
Conclusion 2) TMC is the first game in the timeline.

Counter-points:

1a) Ocarina of Time gives us a literal origin of the hero’s garb—they are the clothes of forest fairies.
1b) Majora’s Mask upholds this origin—Tingle says that the “green clothes and green hat” show that Link is of the fairy folk.
1c) The Wind Waker references the hero’s garb as originating in Ocarina of Time.
1d) Oracle of Ages, Four Swords Adventures, and The Minish Cap all also reference the clothes and cap as being fairy garb.
Conclusion) Ocarina of Time’s story of the origins of the garb is referenced even in The Minish Cap. Therefore, Ezlo’s gift of the hat is superseded by the overarching references to Ocarina of Time.

2) The hero in the backstory having no cap gives significance to Link receiving a hat from Ezlo. That is, if the hero in the backstory had a hat, then Link not inheriting the hat would be utterly meaningless.

3) Bill Trinen also supervised the team that removed the indications that The Minish Cap was Link’s first adventure from his region’s version of the game. Was this move credible as well?

Name them.

Din. Nayru. Farore. Zephos. Cyclos. Valoo. The Deku Tree. Jabun. Whoever instigated the flood. The Great Fairies. Ciela. Neri. Leaf. The Ocean King.

And if that envy would lead to murder?

Regrettable, but should I not allow my son to prosper just because it's possible that prosperity could be envied and taken from him?

I repeat the question, why do you think Ganondorf wished for Hyrule, when he almost had the Triforce in TWW? What's his actual motivation for covering the kingdom in Darkness?

He wanted the floodwaters to recede so that he could conquer the world he had coveted. Which includes the Old Hyrule.

Edited by LionHarted, 20 April 2008 - 01:58 PM.