506 replies to this topic

[Raien]

But wouldn't you say the Sages having such a power and choosing not to use it would fall under an "invisible event", such as what you accused me of? Not to mention the whole "intent" argument that people love to get into around here. And unlike the "Divine Prank" stuff, this really has nothing for or against it, aside from the aforementioned "Do's and Don'ts of timeline theorizing". Not to be accusatory, I'm just a little confused.

An "invisible event", as I referred to earlier, is an event that we are supposed to believe took place, yet there is no actual reference to it. For example, there is no reference to Ganondorf enterring the Sacred Realm in the Child Timeline, so it is an invisible event.

As for my current argument, I'm not trying to suggest specifically that the Sages are choosing not to use an invisible power. I'm arguing that the Sages did not confirm that the power balance was in their favour, and thus their perceived ability to control Ganondorf's evil magic was an overestimation. The Sages didn't need to search specifically for the Triforce of Power; they just needed to make sure that Ganondorf's evil magic was properly subdued, and it wasn't because the Triforce of Power had increased it beyond the expected proportion.

[FDL]

Oh, alright, thanks for explaining your theory. I'm still in disagreement, particularly because it is actually closer to an invisible thing than you acknowledge(and more invisibe than what I suggest is), but at least I know exactly where you stand. But I know you tire of this argument, as do I, so we can try and end this debate again if you want. I'm not entirely sure why it was restarted in the first place, but whatever.

Edited by FDL, 05 October 2008 - 07:12 PM.

[Raien]

Oh, alright, thanks for explaining your theory. I'm still in disagreement, particularly because it is actually closer to an invisible thing than you acknowledge(and more invisible than what I suggest is), but at least I know exactly where you stand. But I know you tire of this argument, as do I, so we can try and end this debate again if you want.

Yeah. I normally avoid debating the timeline split because I've always known it to be a grey area so far as the evidence is concerned (what little evidence there is, is debatable). Still, I feel the debate was on the whole worthwhile, and I hope you've been able to get a better idea of things as I have.

[FDL]

Yeah, it's funny, but I think you and I both seem to come out of our debates on this subject feeling assured in our own theories, while simultaneously feeling like we have a better understanding of the overall subject. Anyway, I enjoyed it as well. The only bad part is we may never get any more info that would clarify the events in such a way that we'd actually have this whole thing clarified. Actually, I'm not sure if this is good or bad. Ambiguity can be fun in stories, after all.

Edited by FDL, 05 October 2008 - 07:43 PM.

[Raien]

Yeah, it's funny, but I think you and I both seem to come out of our debates on this subject feeling assured of our own theories being true, while simultaneously feeling like we have a better understanding of it overall.

It doesn't surprise me; every piece of evidence we've debated thus far has possessed at least two valid interpretations, and we both just happened to choose alternate interpretations that we could hence validate in this discussion. You've just got to love semantics in things like this; it makes logic look quite absurd.

Anyway, I enjoyed it as well. The only bad part is we may never get any more info that would clarify the events in such a way that we'd actually have this whole thing clarified. Actually, I'm not sure if this is good or bad.

Unless an interviewer thinks to ask Aonuma about the timeline split, I don't think he's going to say anything more about it. I would rather he did, but I bet people will forget all about TP's back story when we move on to Zelda Wii. Then we'll have something new to puzzle over, like why the Triforce pieces are square-shaped.

[FDL]

Well if they were to do that we'd know they were just fucking with us and thus we'd no longer need to debate it.

[NM87]

Actually, you stated the converse; it's impossible for him to be stopped if he has the Triforce. There is really nothing that says this is true.

Except, there is no way that he could have entered the SR without Link opening the Door of Time, which he does not in the Child Timeline. Link was sent back to the "way/form he was supposed to be" (according to Zelda) which is before this mess had happened. So he didn't have the Triforce and none of what you said matters.

Presumably enough that that's what the script says while saying nothing about stopping him from getting the Triforce.

Like I said, the script also makes it seem that he didn't have the power beofre the executon scene, since it just goes on to say he was a powerful magic user who was subdued.

Same thing happened in OoT, as has been restated to death.

Simply no, he wasn't killed in the tower, Zelda only had thought so. He had enough power to bring down the tower and then some, so he wasn't "killed but the ToP kicked in" during OOT.

[NM87]

Lex covered this pretty well, but the idea that there is no way he could have been temporarily stopped because he has the Triforce of Power isn't really backed up by anything. The game says he was captured because he exposed a weak point in his arrogance, what that weak point was is irrelevant. But the fact that they needed to get the jump on him is. It's not a "The Sages are stronger than Ganondorf" thing, it's a "The Sages outsmarted Ganondorf" thing.

They outsmart Ganondorf because he was "blind". He was a powerful wicked man from the desert in OOT, even without the ToP. Oh, and in WW, he was so powerful with the ToP only, that when he came back during the Prologue, NOTHING could have stopped him. No even all the awakened sages. So the goddesses had to step in. So yeah, nothing can stop him, period. The TP Sages might have had help from the hero, but we are unsure what type of hero the TP Skeleton really was, or if he was even involved.

This is Hyrule, the kingdom where once the power of the gods was said to sleep.

"Once" and "was said" implies it no longer does sleep. This line is mirrored in TWW.

And? Once upon a time someone said that the power of the gods was said to sleep in Hyrule. I see no problem with this interpretation.

That doesn't really make sense. You use the Sages "Divine Prank" line as some sort of proof that Ganondorf did not gain the Triforce until then, but you then turn around and say that a much less vague line really implies something that it doesn't? The Sages say that they overestimated their power and that's why Midna's people suffered. What caused the execution to not go smoothly and force them to dump Ganondorf into the mirror? The Triforce. It would not be an overestimation of their abilities if he gained it after the tried to stop him, because if not for the Triforce Ganondorf would be dead. No offense, but that line really makes no sense if you try to interpret it in the way you claim it can be interpreted.

It does make sense. They kill wicked man from the desert Ganondorf (powerful) - "divine prank" gives Ganondorf the chosen power of Din (very powerful) and he survives because of it.

Edited by NM87, 05 October 2008 - 10:27 PM.

[FDL]

The debate is over. There's nothing you've said that hasn't been said by others, but in a much better way. And you have far too much certainty for your own good, basically ignoring the long debate Raian and I had. Your refutations of Lex and I seem to consist of "Nuh Uh" in this case, and I for one am not going to be the one to answer with "Yuh Huh".

Edited by FDL, 05 October 2008 - 10:59 PM.

[Lexxi Aileron]

What about the TP Sages? Clearly they are not Saria, Darunia, Ruto, etc.

Clearly they are depicted as spiritual avatars and not assigned actual identities. Regardless, I'd say their depiction with the symbols corresponding to the OoT sages is meant to tell us that they're related to the same group.

It does make sense. They kill wicked man from the desert Ganondorf (powerful) - "divine prank" gives Ganondorf the chosen power of Din (very powerful) and he survives because of it.

What FDL is saying is that the sages aren't "overestimating" their abilities if they could have killed Ganondorf while he was "powerful" but not while he was "very powerful." They made the endeavor to kill him while he was still only "powerful" and objectively should have been able to kill him.

Oh, and in WW, he was so powerful with the ToP only, that when he came back during the Prologue, NOTHING could have stopped him. No even all the awakened sages.

Might be cause he picked off the sages one-by-one before he made himself known. Just saying.

Except, there is no way that he could have entered the SR without Link opening the Door of Time, which he does not in the Child Timeline. Link was sent back to the "way/form he was supposed to be" (according to Zelda) which is before this mess had happened.

The "way" he was supposed to be was a child, because he had missed seven years of mental maturity and had the body of an adult. When exactly in the past he is sent back to isn't indicated at all by that line.

However, he was sent back to "close the Door of Time," which certifiably means it's open at the point he's being sent back to.

Edited by Lexxi Aileron, 05 October 2008 - 11:43 PM.

[FDL]

I'd like to add that we don't even know what the status of the Sages was by TWW's prologue. But it's not like it'll do any good. People who say "None of what you say matters" so early into a debate usually don't make any effort to understand their opponent's side.

Also, yeah, Lex is right in what I'm saying about that overestimation line. It can still work to a degree if you hold a theory like Raian's, in which Ganondorf did have the ToP but he and the Sages weren't aware of it, but that line makes no sense if you try to squeeze it into a "Ganondorf gained the Triforce/randomneverbeforeheardofpowerofdin" theory.

As for your attempt at differentiating between the AG scene and the Ganon's Tower scene, there really is no difference. Ganondorf wasn't killed in TP any more than he was in OoT.

Edited by FDL, 06 October 2008 - 09:43 AM.

[Raien]

Also, yeah, Lex is right in what I'm saying about that overestimation line. It can still work to a degree if you hold a theory like Raian's, in which Ganondorf did have the ToP but he and the Sages weren't aware of it, but that line makes no sense if you try to squeeze it into a "Ganondorf gained the Triforce/randomneverbeforeheardofpowerofdin" theory.

Actually, if the Sages couldn't determine that Ganondorf possessed the Triforce of Power until after it activated, then it shows that the Sages couldn't ascertain the point in which he received the Triforce of Power. So if Ganondorf got the Triforce of Power when the timeline split or during the execution, then the Sages could have made the same conclusion regardless.

I'm not changing my initial argument, I'm just throwing in another possibility.

[FDL]

Oh, good point. That's still not what NM's posts implied though, which is why I said it makes no sense in that case. Particularly if you take their other words to mean "Ganondorf gained a new power at that point" as NM appears to do.

Edited by FDL, 06 October 2008 - 11:55 AM.

[MikePetersSucks]

Yet you took the box text? Just saying.

It's a higher rung on the canonicity ladder for me, being that much closer to the original source.

[NM87]

What FDL is saying is that the sages aren't "overestimating" their abilities if they could have killed Ganondorf while he was "powerful" but not while he was "very powerful." They made the endeavor to kill him while he was still only "powerful" and objectively should have been able to kill him.

The sages overestimate their ability to stop Ganondorf's evil magic by sending him to the Twilight Realm, thinking it would be enough, but they were wrong. The overestimation came after hey tried to execute him.

Might be cause he picked off the sages one-by-one before he made himself known. Just saying.

Bull. Shit. (please inform me if this wording is not to you're liking) "Oh sage of forest, I wonder where sage of water has gone to?" "I don't know sage of fire, but sage of shadow and light have disappeared as well." "Oh its nothing, lets just continue our tea party."

However, he was sent back to "close the Door of Time," which certifiably means it's open at the point he's being sent back to.

Which would matter and actually mean something if you assume that Ganondorf was waiting right outside the ToT smoking or something and entered as soon as Link opened the door. If Link was sent back to the time right before or after pulling the sword makes no difference because he would have seen Ganondorf enter which he does not as we see Link running out of the chamber.

I would also like to add that we should look at the story of TP alone instead of relating to all other Zelda stories before crying out "there is no precedent of this happening!". Not to mention interpreting the text in the way that is best suited for oneself and then telling everyone else they don't make any sense.

Oh and FDL, I was unsure if you were the person I was ignoring (you-a top notch forgettable) , so I entertained your posts, but now I am quite sure who you are.

Edited by NM87, 06 October 2008 - 03:46 PM.

[FDL]

Oh, the delicious irony. You think I care if a temperamental little troll ignores me? I acted perfectly fine towards Raian, Impossible, Lex, HoL, and MPS(if they disagree they can tell me what I did) in this debate, I just directed hostility towards you because from the moment you entered this debate you took the "my opinion is better than everyone elses" position and borderline-insulted Lex and I(which then evolved into full insults). You entered a finished debate, that had lasted many pages/days with very little of the behavior you exhibited, and started this crap for no reason from what I can see. Here's a little tip: Everything that disagrees with you isn't "bull shit", people who disagree with you don't immediately have an invalid opinion("None of what you say matters"-you), etc.

[NM87]

You think I care if a temperamental little troll ignores me?

Look man, this will be the last time I even think of you as a normal. You have problems. I thought maybe you were just a tad over excitable when it came to debates so I let you alone. You on the other hand continued to quote my posts and try to get me to respond to you, now that I review the last time I was here.

Lets review my first post in the topic:

If Ganondorf had the ToP all along in TP, how could he have been subdued and brought to justice? With the power of the Triforce nothing can stop him, save the Hero. Ganondorf only received the power of his respective Goddess when fate stepped in to rescue him. Therefore, Ganondorf is able to survive the mortal wound with newfound power without gaining the actual Triforce. When Zelda explains that Hyrule was the land where the power of the Gods was said to be hidden, she hints that it has not been found yet.

It wasn't even a big post, just something I wanted to say in the topic because that?s what I think about it. You take it as:

"my opinion is better than everyone elses"

and then admittedly stated:

I just directed hostility towards you

Listen - take the hint. I don't - want to talk - to you. I'm not trying to be mean, just let it go.

EDIT: Can't believe I missed this:

borderline-insulted Lex

...please show me.

Edited by NM87, 06 October 2008 - 03:32 PM.

[FDL]

It's not debates themselves that concern me, it's your tone. Allow me to post what I'm specifically talking about:

Except, there is no way that he could have entered the SR without Link opening the Door of Time, which he does not in the Child Timeline. Link was sent back to the "way/form he was supposed to be" (according to Zelda) which is before this mess had happened. So he didn't have the Triforce and none of what you said matters.

They outsmart Ganondorf because he was "blind". He was a powerful wicked man from the desert in OOT, even without the ToP. Oh, and in WW, he was so powerful with the ToP only, that when he came back during the Prologue, NOTHING could have stopped him. No even all the awakened sages. So the goddesses had to step in. So yeah, nothing can stop him, period. The TP Sages might have had help from the hero, but we are unsure what type of hero the TP Skeleton really was, or if he was even involved.

I equate the bolded things to something that is said by someone who believes that their opinion is superior to everyone elses. There were further things that made me feel this way, but they were less noticable and thus wouldn't matter if not for the more obvious ones. Forgive me for saying that you did this at the very beginning(looking back you did post before those two posts I take issue with), but my point still stands. I apologize if I'm misinterpreting, but you do appear to be belittling those who disagree with you. And claiming I have mental issues and that I am "forgettable" seems to be taking things further than you yourself say they should be taken. This is not about the discussion itself.

Edited by FDL, 06 October 2008 - 03:43 PM.

[NM87]

It's not debates themselves that concern me, it's your tone. Allow me to post what I'm specifically talking about:

So he didn't have the Triforce and none of what you said matters.

So yeah, nothing can stop him, period

Are you serious. You find that offending/insulting/naughty/ill-toned? How old are you? (Don't answer)

In that case, I didn't realize that the Zelda Storyline board was to be treated as a fifth grade classroom. I apologize for anything I said that wasn't sugar coated. I'll watch my big kid "tongue".

[FDL]

You really think saying none of what someone says matters is perfectly fine on a forum specifically about discussing stuff?

[NM87]

You really think saying none of what someone says matters is perfectly fine on a forum specifically about discussing stuff?

I'm sorry, I'm really really sorry. Lex, forgive me.

Edited by NM87, 06 October 2008 - 03:48 PM.

[FDL]

Be sarcastic if you want, but if I'm wrong just explain to me how and I'll apologize profusely.

EDIT: You know what, I don't even need to wait for a response. I apologize for escalating this.

Edited by FDL, 06 October 2008 - 03:53 PM.

[NM87]

Be sarcastic if you want, but if I'm wrong just explain to me how and I'll apologize profusely.

Don't take everything to heart. Lets just forget this all happened and start over. I take back everything I ever said that was cruel regardless.

[FDL]

I already apologized up there. I think maybe you and I had some bad blood from our previous encounters, and I'm sorry if I put you under more scrutiny than I would other folks.

[NM87]

I already apologized up there. I think maybe you and I had some bad blood from our previous encounters, and I'm sorry if I put you under more scrutiny than I would other folks.

So yea, like I said said, I'm starting over.

[FDL]

I'm not here that much, but I'll keep that in mind and do so myself.

[Lexxi Aileron]

I'm sorry, I'm really really sorry. Lex, forgive me.

It's not so much that I'm offended or hurt by any remarks; it's that they're completely inappropriate for debate and therefore insulting to a constructive discussion.

However, I am kind of sick and tired of being singled out for making arguments that happen to involve unpopular interpretations. Last I checked, the same thing happened when I said "the IW doesn't happen in the Child ending of OoT" before TP came out and I happened to be right. I'm also sick of the hypocrisy that exists here: I was "persecuted" (in a loose sense of the word) for disregarding developer quotes confirming the split before TP came out and now that I embrace almost every developer quote in existence including the ones others disregard I'm told I'm even more of an idiot.

Edited by Lexxi Aileron, 06 October 2008 - 05:03 PM.

[FDL]

I wouldn't say NM was doing what you say happens to you in the second paragraph. Just the first thing you said, and that's water under the bridge now.

[Lexxi Aileron]

Heh, just expressing some grievances.

It's my understanding that we all argue from different platforms when it comes to the timeline, and consider different things in different ways and give weight to and thus have different theories. This place seems to have some kind of contagion that generates a lack of respect for these different platforms, or at least that thinks some are objectively superior to others.

A clear example of this is that some people see various inclusions of things in recent games as either references or Easter Eggs-- or in the case of those games where "upending" has occurred, like FSA or TP, residual references that no longer have any meaning. Raian, for example, seems to see FSA's references to ALttP as non-indicative of a direct sort of connection to ALttP (possibly because of upending, as many of us have acknowledged the removed text as indicating that it might have been intended as a new version of the Imprisoning War), while I see TP's references to ALttP as leftover from TP's original development as a bridge between OoT and TWW. Both of us have the same level of justification; we're just applying them in different ways. I imagine Raian thinks that FSA doesn't serve as a meaningful prequel to ALttP and thus doesn't consider the references as existing for that purpose (he can confirm or deny this as he likes); I similarly think that TP's placement on an alternate timeline would indicate that it has no connection to the already-developed games.

It's a problem I've noticed almost exclusively with this community, that instead of these different approaches being equally weighed one is automatically rated superior to the other.

Edited by Lexxi Aileron, 06 October 2008 - 05:31 PM.

[FDL]

Well, I'm not here to argue that too much. I'm just making it clear that I wasn't accusing NM of singling you out or anything like that. I'll agree that people do need to give you a break once and a while, and I think some criticisms of you come from a misunderstanding just as Raian's claims that I was arguing "Lex theory" were wrong, but I will say you do sometimes seem to base theories on random quotes, rather than using them more prudently in situations. Which was the distinction I made to Raian in the aforementioned discussion. I don't really come here often enough to know everything about what goes on, but I remember something about the Cobble Kingdom and it's alleged relation to LoZ/AoL in which I felt you were guilty of taking quotes and trying to apply them at times when it didn't seem to make too much sense. That may be why you are accused of it so much, even when it doesn't apply(as it didn't in the thing I mentioned above). Because you have done it in the past.