325 replies to this topic

[Fin]

The new lore doesn't contradict anything in the "old" Hyrule's. The Minish gave the Hylians power which is connected to life force, which has nothing to do with the Triforce. Besides, the Triforce can be seen all over the castle in Minish Cap.

Anyway, if you think Link to the Past (I know you said games released after WW, but you mentioned LttP as well) occurs in a new Hyrule you've got to explain why this land is tied to the sacred realm as well. I mean, it was a pretty important plot point.

[Arturo]

And it's pretty much stated in the same speech that he has a bias towards his kingdom. Use context, kthx.

Lovely.

Can you remind me why a very marginal quote near the beginning of the game is more important than what defines the spirit of TWW?

[Lexxi Aileron]

Can you remind me why a very marginal quote near the beginning of the game is more important than what defines the spirit of TWW?

Can you remind me why one game's "spirit" has an effect on the progression of the games that follow?

Since, you know, OoT's "let's not overestimate our abilities" lesson totally carried over to TP.

Anyway, if you think Link to the Past (I know you said games released after WW, but you mentioned LttP as well) occurs in a new Hyrule you've got to explain why this land is tied to the sacred realm as well.

If you think ALttP occurs in the same Hyrule you have to explain where the completely random Sacred Realm warp tiles came from, too, you know.

Edited by Lexxi Aileron, 09 February 2009 - 02:01 PM.

[Raien]

Can you remind me why one game's "spirit" has an effect on the progression of the games that follow?

It allows us to determine how the developers set the scene for continuations of the series. Finality is conventionally determined by whether the victory of the heroes over the villains is absolute. If evil survives, like in OoT's ending, you know there's going to be a sequel. If evil dies completely, like in TWW, then the implication is that there will be no sequel. Of course, if the writers want to weave in a new element that could open up sequels, then the most conventional choice is a post-credits cutscene. MGS1 revealed Solidus Snake as the President, Beyond Good and Evil depicted a mutating Pey'j, and TWW depicted Link and Tetra sailing off to find a new land, which set the scene for PH.

If the TWW writers wanted to imply the return of Hyrule, they would have placed some emphasis on the Deku Tree in the ending as well, thus diminishing the finality of that story. But they don't, which implies that the Deku Tree's quest was not intended to create sequels. That said, many stories are continued by a plot device not implied in the original story. In which case, the decision to set games in Hyrule after TWW would have to be a post-TWW decision, much like the potential retconning of the canoninity of the PotFS. But then if ALttP wasn't meant to take place after TWW during the game's development, then it would suggest the developers intended ALttP to have a CT placement.

If you think ALttP occurs in the same Hyrule you have to explain where the completely random Sacred Realm warp tiles came from, too, you know.

The ruins of the Sage temples, perhaps?

Edited by Raien, 09 February 2009 - 03:02 PM.

[MikePetersSucks]

If you think ALttP occurs in the same Hyrule you have to explain where the completely random Sacred Realm warp tiles came from, too, you know.

Wherever the hell they wanted to come from. I don't imagine that something like the Sacred Realm has fixed, constant, and permanent portals. And if it WASN'T the same Hyrule, you'd have to explain why these portals are there when the Sacred Realm is a parallel to Hyrule, and not anywhere else. Unless dimensions move to adjust to changing governmental states and borders.

[TheAvengerLever]

Or that the Sacred Realm is a parallel to the Land of Hyrule and not just the Kingdom.

[Raien]

Is it also parallel to Hyrule's sky? If the new Hyrule is miles above the original kingdom, then there would have to have been holes in the sky leading to the Sacred Realm.

[NM87]

If you think ALttP occurs in the same Hyrule you have to explain where the completely random Sacred Realm warp tiles came from, too, you know.

...and placing ALTTP after WW provides a better reason for their presense, Riiiiight...

Or that the Sacred Realm is a parallel to the Land of Hyrule and not just the Kingdom.

It still wouldn't matter because this is a new land and kingdom.

Edited by NM87, 09 February 2009 - 03:59 PM.

[TheAvengerLever]

Well by Land I was referring to Planet.


I should've just said that.

I'm not sure of how the Sacred Realm works, whether it's just confided to the Kingdom or applied to the planet of Hyrule, but it'd be plausible, unless said otherwise.

[Impossible]

Oh god, it's like the entire point of that scene, and of TWW, just flew over Lex's head... I love how he even tried to use the word "context" without understanding what it means, that's cute. Context doesn't mean taking another quote from the same scene and ALSO taking it out of context in order to miss the ENTIRE POINT of what the king was saying - he WAS bound to the past and to Hyrule, he regrets being that way, he has finally let go. The "that land would not be Hyrule" part emphasises the fact that he doesn't WANT Hyrule to return, not that he's still attached to it. Dear god. Thanks Arturo.

No matter how you want to interpret this, ALttP would contradict that - and yes, it's goddamn identical. Not just vague geographical similarities. Both places AND names are almost all the same and in the same locations - except the Lost Woods, which instead of working with OoT, works with TP, but note that it's still a carried over name. You try to dumb it down into being just a few things, but it's really basically everything. The only things that aren't the same in either geography or name are human-built structures/towns.

And when will you learn that using geography as the main evidence when it only works to support existing points doesn't work? Or that using DIFFERENCES in geography shows a complete failure to understand how the games are made, because there is absolutely no evidence that any differences you point out relate to the timeline? Give up on that one.

Edited by Impossible, 09 February 2009 - 06:16 PM.

[Lexxi Aileron]

Wherever the hell they wanted to come from. I don't imagine that something like the Sacred Realm has fixed, constant, and permanent portals. And if it WASN'T the same Hyrule, you'd have to explain why these portals are there when the Sacred Realm is a parallel to Hyrule, and not anywhere else. Unless dimensions move to adjust to changing governmental states and borders.

The Sacred Realm is only depicted as a parallel to Hyrule in ALttP when it has become the Dark World in response to Ganon's desire to rule Hyrule, and as far as we know only as a result of Ganon's wish.

The "that land would not be Hyrule" part emphasises the fact that he doesn't WANT Hyrule to return, not that he's still attached to it.

He responds "that land would not be Hyrule" right before staying behind to die with Hyrule, as his response to Tetra's invitation for him to come with them to find a new land. Clearly he has let go and clearly he is quite concerned with being involved in what Tetra does with her future. Oh wait, no, that's just your imposition on the scene.

Both places AND names are almost all the same and in the same locations - except the Lost Woods, which instead of working with OoT, works with TP, but note that it's still a carried over name.

Death Mountain is in the same place in every game except for TP, and the flood wouldn't have done anything to it since it was on a mountain.
See the above with respect to the waterfall that is the source of Hyrule's water.
ALttP's Lake Hylia is in the same place as OoT, but FSA's is not and in fact no lake exists where OoT/ALttP's lake is in FSA.
Kakariko Village now borders the forest in FSA and ALttP, whereas in OoT and TP it is in a mountain gulch.
The desert is to the west, but really this is no surprise.

No, not all the places are in the same locations, and those that are are static natural locations that would never have moved anyway.

And when will you learn that using geography as the main evidence when it only works to support existing points doesn't work?

Arguing that the Hyrule of the 3D and 2D games is "the same" is a geographical argument. Arguing that there are differences between them that do not require as much is only as much of a geographical argument as the opposite. Neither case can be made independently of geography.

[NM87]

The Sacred Realm is only depicted as a parallel to Hyrule in ALttP when it has become the Dark World in response to Ganon's desire to rule Hyrule, and as far as we know only as a result of Ganon's wish.

So in your theory, the SR changes its properties based on what the current time period and geographical location of "Hyrule" is? It's getting a little ridiculous now.

He responds "that land would not be Hyrule" right before staying behind to die with Hyrule, as his response to Tetra's invitation for him to come with them to find a new land. Clearly he has let go and clearly he is quite concerned with being involved in what Tetra does with her future.

Can't you see how your first sentence contradicts the next? The King dies with his old Hyrule, he doesn't want to be involved with the new Hyrule. "IT WILL BE YOUR LAND".

Arguing that the Hyrule of the 3D and 2D games is "the same" is a geographical argument. Arguing that there are differences between them that do not require as much is only as much of a geographical argument as the opposite. Neither case can be made independently of geography.

He isn't using geography as the crutch of his argument though.

Edited by NM87, 09 February 2009 - 10:49 PM.

[MikePetersSucks]

The Sacred Realm is only depicted as a parallel to Hyrule in ALttP when it has become the Dark World in response to Ganon's desire to rule Hyrule, and as far as we know only as a result of Ganon's wish.

Regardless of the FORM the Realm takes, it's dimensional boundaries are adjacent to Hyrule. It's the aspect of Hyrule where the Goddesses set foot and laid their power to rest, then hid from the rest of the world. In a sense, the Sacred Realm could be called the soul of Hyrule, perhaps.

He responds "that land would not be Hyrule" right before staying behind to die with Hyrule, as his response to Tetra's invitation for him to come with them to find a new land. Clearly he has let go and clearly he is quite concerned with being involved in what Tetra does with her future. Oh wait, no, that's just your imposition on the scene.

He's of the old Hyrule. By allowing himself to die, he has let go of his hope to revive Hyrule. He no longer has a reason to exist because, like Ganondorf, he is a symbol of a past that needs to fade. Plus, he's a GHOST, so I don't think he could've kept existing to go with Tetra after having let go. It seems like his hope of reviving it was what allowed him to keep existing.

[Impossible]

Yeah, the king lived for hundreds of years and fulfilled his purpose. His death merely completes the symbolism: "Now, let our destiny come to an end... Ganondorf, sink with Hyrule!!!" (Japanese) At that point, he was probably already planning on staying behind, too, because as MPS said, he is a part of Hyrule. Ganondorf, the King and Hyrule are all representations of the past, this is explicitly stated. They die together. That doesn't mean that the king is WRONG, which is it just insane to argue. His two speeches in the ending are probably the most important pieces of dialogue in the game, second only to Ganondorf's dialogue - which is on exactly the same subject. The Deku Tree thing isn't even part of the story. No connection between that and Hyrule is ever established - it's a standalone, out of context quote that is not carried on by a single plot threat. Any interpretation you can make of the importance of that line is irrelevant due to the ending.

Also, you just don't seem to get the geography thing, or the reasons why your use of it differs to mine. You even tried to contradict me using exceptions I had ALREADY pointed out, way to make your point seem strong. Between OoT and ALttP, we have Death Mountain, the Master Sword, the desert, Zora's River/Fountain and Lake Hylia. The ONLY places that differ, are the Lost Woods, which are explained by TP, and man-made landmarks that are naturally going to be changed - even then, though, the NAME Kakariko Village persists.

Kakariko, as well as many of the others I listed, are incidentally examples of the fact that my argument of the 2D and 3D Hyrules being the same is NOT a geographical argument, whereas yours is purely geography. Place names that were lost in the flood reappear. The entire history of Hyrule, its landmarks, the Sacred Realm, the goddesses, the Triforce and the Master Sword somehow reappear. The actual Sacred Realm (which was parallel to the old Hyrule) and Master Sword somehow reappear. (Braces self for Lex's "Oracles are relevant to other games in the timeline (even though the games it is proving something about were made years later)" argument, part 1/2 - oh fucking god I hope there are only 2.) This is despite the fact that, even in your theory, the new Hyrule is NOT the same place and hence contains none of these things. All destroyed by TWW's ending. My argument is BACKED by geography, because geography is occasionally valid as a supporting point. But there are prerequisites for that to be the case.

The main one is, it must be viable to claim that the geography connection does, in fact, exist to imply a deliberate story link. In other words, not every game's geography is story-related, some are completely different for reasons of gameplay or just variety. Differences exist because the developers didn't care to make similarities. Imagine how piss boring TP would be with exactly the same Hyrule - that doesn't mean we can be retarded and say that TP's Hyrule is a retcon of OoT's as you are, that's ridiculous. TP's Hyrule does not follow geography-based arguments, because it is already 100% certain from canon that it is in the same Hyrule as OoT. Geography does not apply to it, and it does not prove that its Hyrule differs from that of any other game.

Also, the geography connection must be of a POSITIVE nature. This is because, if it isn't, point 1 really has no basis to be true. Saying that a minor difference, or sometimes even a major difference, is timeline evidence, is impossible. All your geography points are negative, as in, suggesting that games are not in the same Hyrule because there are differences in geography. This clearly DOESN'T work, as Hyrule is vastly different in basically every game - EXCEPT OoT and ALttP, and ALttP and FSA. Funny about that. Geography differences exist for so many reasons that have nothing to do with story, whereas geographical similarities are added deliberately for story reasons. You can't fucking deny that the similarities between OoT and ALttP aren deliberate. Similarly, if geography is being used as the main evidence and not a supporting point that is consistent with other evidence, there is again absolutely no grounds on which to claim that ANY intent is shown by geography.

One more thing: the next time you talk about Lake Hylia being different in FSA, for fuck's sake... You seem to be the only person who cares about this. It is clear from Lake Hylia's appearance and position that it is simply what used to be Zora's Fountain and Domain: it is the origin of Hyrule's water. Repositioned FOR GAMEPLAY REASONS, and there is actually nothing whatsoever (say, evidence) to suggest that it has anything to do with the story or timeline or intent. Really, LoZ's map differs far more from any other game. So does TMC's, although rotation can help that, in which case it SUPPORTS the virtually confirmed theory of it being a depiction of an earlier period in Hyrule. It doesn't prove it because I have no way to claim that it was developer intent - AND NEITHER DO YOU with any of your ideas. Next time you think about geography, try to consider, for a moment, what the human beings in Japan may possibly have had a chance of been thinking. Please? "Let's slightly move this one landmark to prove that Lex's timeline is true!" Actually, that quote could be modified to fit basically every piece of evidence you use. "Let's subtly refer to an idea that will be similarly referred to in a game we're going to make in 5+ years, just to prove that Lex's timeline is true! We know HE'LL find this!"

This is the problem with using out of context quotes that don't connect to the game's main story, with a side of geography that shows absolutely nothing about intent, as the entire basis for your theory. The problem you ignore is that there is major, central evidence in the stories of the games (like TWW and TMC) and that this is what the timeline placements are really based on. I've said it time and time again... Developers do NOT hide the secrets of the timeline in obscure, storyless, contextless quotes with subtle references, or in cameos. It's like the Legend of the Fairy all over again.

I already know I'm digging my own grave with a post this long, because Lex never actually responds to half of my points if they come in a cohesive paragraph form. They need to be like everything Lex does - isolated and contextless, or at least easy to take out of context so he can respond with something utterly irrelevant. That was the trick on GameFAQs, right?

PS: When NM is calling your theories "ridiculous" (I think this is the second time he's done something like this in the last few days), you're in deep water.

Edited by Impossible, 10 February 2009 - 04:08 AM.

[Lexxi Aileron]

So in your theory, the SR changes its properties based on what the current time period and geographical location of "Hyrule" is? It's getting a little ridiculous now.

No.

In my theory, Ganon wishes on the Triforce and the Sacred Realm turns into a dark reflection of Hyrule. The "parallel Hyrule" aspect of the Dark World is by my reckoning not a continuous quality of the Sacred Realm, but something introduced by Ganon's wish.

The King dies with his old Hyrule, he doesn't want to be involved with the new Hyrule. "IT WILL BE YOUR LAND".

Exactly. So the king saying "that land will not be Hyrule" doesn't mean that the new Hyrule won't be Hyrule to them - it just won't be Hyrule to him because it will be their land.

He isn't using geography as the crutch of his argument though.

Any argument involving whether or not the Hyrule in the 2D games is either different or the same as the Hyrule in the 3D games must be based on geography as there is no other criteria that could even possibly be used that could reach an objective conclusion.

Hyrule being washed away in TWW can go both ways because a new Hylian kingdom could have been developed in a new land formed by the Deku Tree from the old mountaintops;

The surviving legends could go both ways because the only game that really shows old legends is ALttP and it suggests that the legends were diluted over time, possibly due to the loss of information in the flood;

It's obvious in TWW that old artifacts are being uncovered because Link finds many of them in order to access the sunken temples (Power Bracelets, Iron Boots) and because searching for sunken treasure is one of the gameplay themes of the game, so any "lost artifacts" from Old Hyrule that appear in 2D games could have been discovered at the bottom of the sea.

Plus, he's a GHOST, so I don't think he could've kept existing to go with Tetra after having let go. It seems like his hope of reviving it was what allowed him to keep existing.

The idea that Daphnes was deceased seems patently ridiculous since the Triforce itself says it serves only users who are alive.

Between OoT and ALttP, we have Death Mountain, the Master Sword, the desert, Zora's River/Fountain and Lake Hylia.

Death Mountain is a mountain, and it's clear that the mountains didn't move during the flood.
Zora's River also stems from a mountaintop, so the above applies yet again.
Lake Hylia is not in the same place from OoT all the way to ALttP, as FSA demonstrates, and this could be accounted for by the flood.

Place names that were lost in the flood reappear. The entire history of Hyrule, its landmarks, the Sacred Realm, the goddesses, the Triforce and the Master Sword somehow reappear.

Right, because archaeological discoveries are obviously impossible in the Zelda world (despite archaeologists being shown in TWW and TP).

The ONLY places that differ, are the Lost Woods, which are explained by TP, and man-made landmarks that are naturally going to be changed - even then, though, the NAME Kakariko Village persists.

TP doesn't really explain the Lost Woods at all, unless you consider the placement of the Temple of Time there as an "explanation."

And new man-made landmarks appearing is fine, but it's just interesting to me that none of the man-made landmarks from ALttP besides Hyrule Castle (Kakariko Village seems to be on the move a lot) are directly shared with any other game.

This clearly DOESN'T work, as Hyrule is vastly different in basically every game - EXCEPT OoT and ALttP, and ALttP and FSA. Funny about that.

Hyrule has had more or less the same basic layout in every game besides TP, which ironically is the only game confirmed to not be after the flood that has been made so far after TWW. You may say that the differences between TP's map and other maps are meaningless, but it seems a common argument of yours that any differences between games are meaningless when, oddly enough, they're the differences that would discount your argument, whereas any similarities are obviously completely meaningful, despite disparities (unless they discount your arguments, in which case the disparities certainly have weight).

Of course, the differences between TP and the other Hyrules isn't the crux of my argument. It's all the other half-references to the OoT Imprisoning War and FSA that suggest TP's placement in an alternate universe from the those games that serves as its basis. The different landscape is just icing on the cake, and I didn't even start considering this until recently when trying to figure out if there are any indicators in LoZ.

Repositioned FOR GAMEPLAY REASONS, and there is actually nothing whatsoever (say, evidence) to suggest that it has anything to do with the story or timeline or intent.

Nothing about FSA's world map has anything whatsoever to do with gameplay, as the world map is not explored during gameplay. This is a pretty weak argument to try to discount the differences that do appear between OoT and FSA as nothing.

Really, LoZ's map differs far more from any other game. So does TMC's, although rotation can help that, in which case it SUPPORTS the virtually confirmed theory of it being a depiction of an earlier period in Hyrule.

LoZ's map shares the most similarities (as in it has the most shared locales) with TMC's, and TMC's shares the most with LoZ's and ALttP's. There's very little timeline-sensitive information in either LoZ or TMC to cement it anywhere, but I find the consistency here, even though it is similarly limited, somewhat interesting.

[NM87]

In my theory, Ganon wishes on the Triforce and the Sacred Realm turns into a dark reflection of Hyrule. The "parallel Hyrule" aspect of the Dark World is by my reckoning not a continuous quality of the Sacred Realm, but something introduced by Ganon's wish.

Okay, that sounds logical, except for the one point that many members of the forum are trying (unsuccessfully) to bring to your attention: the SR is connected to the land in which the goddesses left the planet and left behind a symbol of their power. Naturally, if Hyrule was the point of their return to the heavens, and that the resting place of the Triforce became known as the SR, and the SR is another dimension unto itself in the exact same place as Hyrule, then it was made clear back in OOT that the SR is a parallel to Hyrule, since its an alternate dimension existing on the same plane as Hyrule.

So the king saying "that land will not be Hyrule" doesn't mean that the new Hyrule won't be Hyrule to them - it just won't be Hyrule to him because it will be their land.

Review that statement again, and even you might realize that you are reading too much into things. You are adding the "context" now. The King's entire wish was for thier to be hope for the children and heir future, in which his destiny will be fulfilled with the washing away of Hyrule.

Hyrule being washed away in TWW can go both ways because a new Hylian kingdom could have been developed in a new land formed by the Deku Tree from the old mountaintops

The Deku Tree isn't going to connect the mountaintops, the small Islands in which he planted seeds will expand forming new lands. If every Island on the Great Sea was a mountaintop, do you really think every single mountain came from Hyrule Kingdom, when there is only one known mountain in Hyrule Kingdom? Eventually, the many lands will converge, which will connect these mountaintops because they are apart of the same land, not because each mountain was dragged to the next and this tops merged.

The surviving legends could go both ways because the only game that really shows old legends is ALttP and it suggests that the legends were diluted over time, possibly due to the loss of information in the flood

I think the washing away portion of the kings wish was to literally wash Hyrule away, much like you clean a dirty dish. Nothing will be left if you do a good job, and I think the Triforce would do a pretty good job at cleaning a dish if someone wished for that.

It's obvious in TWW that old artifacts are being uncovered because Link finds many of them in order to access the sunken temples (Power Bracelets, Iron Boots) and because searching for sunken treasure is one of the gameplay themes of the game, so any "lost artifacts" from Old Hyrule that appear in 2D games could have been discovered at the bottom of the sea.

The King made his wish at the end of the game, so I don' know what you are trying to pull here, but I'm not THAT stoopid.

PS: When NM is calling your theories "ridiculous" (I think this is the second time he's done something like this in the last few days), you're in deep water.

I may argue in favor of werid/outlandish theories (FSA Water argument, TP Triforce argument, etc.) but that doesn't mean I'm a complete idiot.

Edited by NM87, 10 February 2009 - 02:09 PM.

[MikePetersSucks]

The idea that Daphnes was deceased seems patently ridiculous since the Triforce itself says it serves only users who are alive.

That's really sort've debatable. He can poof around like a ghost, possess a wooden boat, and has existed in perfect stasis for centuries. Daphnes is in the world of the living; that might be sufficient. He's so clearly a ghost that you can't really use a vaguely defined Triforce rule to argue otherwise.

Right, because archaeological discoveries are obviously impossible in the Zelda world (despite archaeologists being shown in TWW and TP).

You think something like a Flood in the past would be more readily apparent, like being mentioned in the mythology or something. Plus, everything was WASHED AWAY. Daphnes' wish destroyed all that shit; an archaeologist won't be getting it back. The Archaeologists were never able to reach down that far anyway.

Hyrule has had more or less the same basic layout in every game besides TP, which ironically is the only game confirmed to not be after the flood that has been made so far after TWW. You may say that the differences between TP's map and other maps are meaningless, but it seems a common argument of yours that any differences between games are meaningless when, oddly enough, they're the differences that would discount your argument, whereas any similarities are obviously completely meaningful, despite disparities (unless they discount your arguments, in which case the disparities certainly have weight).

The GC TP map looks as similar to OOT's map as everything else's. If you're talking the Wii map, that's not canon.

[Lexxi Aileron]

Okay, that sounds logical, except for the one point that many members of the forum are trying (unsuccessfully) to bring to your attention: the SR is connected to the land in which the goddesses left the planet and left behind a symbol of their power. Naturally, if Hyrule was the point of their return to the heavens, and that the resting place of the Triforce became known as the SR, and the SR is another dimension unto itself in the exact same place as Hyrule, then it was made clear back in OOT that the SR is a parallel to Hyrule, since its an alternate dimension existing on the same plane as Hyrule.

Not all alternate dimensions have to be parallel worlds in the sense you're implying, though.

Review that statement again, and even you might realize that you are reading too much into things. You are adding the "context" now.

The game added the context when Daphnes explained that what he meant by "that land will not be Hyrule" was that it would be "your land." I'm simply acknowledging that "it will be your land" does not mean "you cannot call it Hyrule" or "the land cannot have anything to do with Hyrule" as that's flatly not true.

The King's entire wish was for thier to be hope for the children and heir future, in which his destiny will be fulfilled with the washing away of Hyrule.

Any further implications besides the land just being covered by water are imposed by theorists. Whereas the formation of a new kingdom and the creation of a new land are both ideas taken verbatim from in-game.

The Deku Tree isn't going to connect the mountaintops, the small Islands in which he planted seeds will expand forming new lands.

The people were said to have fled to the mountaintops and islands are literally mountains anyway, so I don't see what you're getting at here.

If every Island on the Great Sea was a mountaintop, do you really think every single mountain came from Hyrule Kingdom, when there is only one known mountain in Hyrule Kingdom? Eventually, the many lands will converge, which will connect these mountaintops because they are apart of the same land, not because each mountain was dragged to the next and this tops merged.

1) There is an entire mountain range to the north and mountains surrounding Hyrule in both OoT and TP.
2) I agree with you on the method; I'm sorry if I ever suggested that the mountains are dragged together.

I think the washing away portion of the kings wish was to literally wash Hyrule away, much like you clean a dirty dish. Nothing will be left if you do a good job, and I think the Triforce would do a pretty good job at cleaning a dish if someone wished for that.

He wanted the ancient land to be buried, but that doesn't mean no one can hit the refresh button.

He can poof around like a ghost, possess a wooden boat, and has existed in perfect stasis for centuries.

Teleportation, possession, and permanence are all qualities that could just as easily be applied to Ganondorf. Being preserved for centuries isn't too far-fetched given that everything else in Hyrule was preserved for centuries.

You think something like a Flood in the past would be more readily apparent, like being mentioned in the mythology or something.

Like it was in TWW, right?

Plus, everything was WASHED AWAY. Daphnes' wish destroyed all that shit; an archaeologist won't be getting it back. The Archaeologists were never able to reach down that far anyway.

Right, because real floods leave absolutely no archaeological record.

I think you'll find that the exact opposite is the case; anywhere where some manmade settlement was and was flooded, you'll find remains.

The GC TP map looks as similar to OOT's map as everything else's. If you're talking the Wii map, that's not canon.

Which is why Death Mountain is to the far east and Zora's Domain to the far north, despite the exact opposite being true in OoT;
And why the "Lost Woods" area seems to have switched to the exact opposite side of the map.

Everything else is more or less the same though, that's true. These are the most common recurring elements, though.

[MikePetersSucks]

The game added the context when Daphnes explained that what he meant by "that land will not be Hyrule" was that it would be "your land." I'm simply acknowledging that "it will be your land" does not mean "you cannot call it Hyrule" or "the land cannot have anything to do with Hyrule" as that's flatly not true.

But he's blatantly encouraging them to form a future with no connection to the past, right down to the name.

Any further implications besides the land just being covered by water are imposed by theorists. Whereas the formation of a new kingdom and the creation of a new land are both ideas taken verbatim from in-game.

It wasn't covered, it already was. The wish "washed it away." As in it's not there anymore.

Teleportation, possession, and permanence are all qualities that could just as easily be applied to Ganondorf. Being preserved for centuries isn't too far-fetched given that everything else in Hyrule was preserved for centuries.

Ganondorf has a Triforce piece and is a Demon King ("Maou") and is thus no longer mortal. Similarly, Daphnes has become a spiritual entity that can't by any stretch be called mortal, and, to me, is quite obviously a spirit.

Like it was in TWW, right?

Yea. So if LTTP takes place after LTTP, how come the timeline recounts the apparent events of OOT/The Imprisoning War, the Creation Myth, and recent history, but a WORLD FLOOD makes not so much as an allusion?

Right, because real floods leave absolutely no archaeological record.

Real floods don't cover the entire world, summon water out of nowhere to fill space without altering the sea level, maintain a spiritual barrier over a sunken city, etc.

Don't be an idiot, there's no comparison here.

I think you'll find that the exact opposite is the case; anywhere where some manmade settlement was and was flooded, you'll find remains.

Where those settlements wished away by an omnipotent divine force? No? Irrelevant then.

Which is why Death Mountain is to the far east and Zora's Domain to the far north, despite the exact opposite being true in OoT;

Death Mountain is northeast in OOT just like it is in TP. And the Zora's Domain is in the same general area, just longer. Irregardless, it would match up with LTTP's map.

And why the "Lost Woods" area seems to have switched to the exact opposite side of the map.

Matches about up with LTTP, though.

[CID Farwin]

The GC TP map looks as similar to OOT's map as everything else's. If you're talking the Wii map, that's not canon.

Death Mountain is northeast in OOT just like it is in TP. And the Zora's Domain is in the same general area, just longer. Irregardless, it would match up with LTTP's map.

*takes another look at TP map.*

Wait....wait, I see it!

It takes some severe skewing, but yes, it's the same as the rest. Snowpeak is the left peak of Death Mountain, and "Death Mountain" is the right peak.

That is amazing.

I blame tectonic movements (which looking at the in-game locations, is actually kind of obvious that something's going on there) for the changes.

Except that the ToT is still randomly in the lost woods.

[NM87]

Not all alternate dimensions have to be parallel worlds in the sense you're implying, though.

Ok, if you want to ignore everything I said, then just reply to this: the SR is connected to the land in which the goddesses left the planet and left behind a symbol of their power. How does this translate over to a new Hyrule, if that land is merely called Hyrule, and has nothing to do with the land tied to the SR?

The game added the context when Daphnes explained that what he meant by "that land will not be Hyrule" was that it would be "your land." I'm simply acknowledging that "it will be your land" does not mean "you cannot call it Hyrule" or "the land cannot have anything to do with Hyrule" as that's flatly not true.

Exactly, "your land", meaning "I don't want anything to do with it".

Any further implications besides the land just being covered by water are imposed by theorists.

Then he would have said "flood", not "wash away". Look up "wash" in the dictionary.

He wanted the ancient land to be buried, but that doesn't mean no one can hit the refresh button.

What?

[Arturo]

Any further implications besides the land just being covered by water are imposed by theorists.

Then he would have said "flood", not "wash away". Look up "wash" in the dictionary.

Apart from the fact that the original said "destroy", not "wash away".

[Impossible]

Of course, I was correct, Lex was incapable of dealing with half of my post, and he somehow expects nobody to point out how badly he's failing at addressing anyone else's arguments. It's too bad, he ignored most of the best parts of my post.

Any argument involving whether or not the Hyrule in the 2D games is either different or the same as the Hyrule in the 3D games must be based on geography as there is no other criteria that could even possibly be used that could reach an objective conclusion.

Yeah, except for the five or so I listed in my previous post. Geography is a little side point - however, the fact that unlike your geographical points, I'm pointing out something obviously deliberate, means it's still relevant to intent.

Hyrule being washed away in TWW can go both ways because a new Hylian kingdom could have been developed in a new land formed by the Deku Tree from the old mountaintops;

Are you so fucking incapable of seeing past your own bias? What all of us are saying is explicitly stated in game dialogue, and the meaning of it is implicit to everyone but you. You claim that somehow, what we're saying isn't factually based in the game, while claiming that a "new Hylian kingdom", a complete work of fan fiction, "could" exist? Even though the Deku Tree never once says that? You're the one who insists on being insanely literal - hell, as I'll show in a second, you've gone from taking scenes and quotes out of the context of the game, all the way to taking PARTS OF QUOTES out of context from the rest of the quote. But in no way, shape or form is there any part of the Deku Tree's words that refer to Hyrule or explicitly say anything about a new Hyrule.

The surviving legends could go both ways because the only game that really shows old legends is ALttP and it suggests that the legends were diluted over time, possibly due to the loss of information in the flood;

Who cares if it says that legends are diluted over time? How is that a valid response to the fact that ALttP and OoT contain the SAME legends that were absent in TWW? And if "archaeology" is your imbecilic one-word brush off for every argument on the subject, why have they discovered every last detail of every place and legend from the old Hyrule... But fucked up the Hero of Time legend that STILL existed on the Great Sea and was never even lost? You can't account the loss of information that existed after the flood to being a result of the flood anyway. Nor can you claim that because ALttP says legends are diluted, legends that explicitly exist in the manual and game and which are identical to OoT don't. Your explanation just contradicts itself.

It's obvious in TWW that old artifacts are being uncovered because Link finds many of them in order to access the sunken temples (Power Bracelets, Iron Boots) and because searching for sunken treasure is one of the gameplay themes of the game, so any "lost artifacts" from Old Hyrule that appear in 2D games could have been discovered at the bottom of the sea.

Too bad TWW occurs BEFORE Hyrule was erased, and anything after TWW does not. Oops. Humans in TWW had no access to the bottom of the ocean; none of them knew a kingdom was there, not even "archaeologists" (LOL again at acting like this somehow removes all contradictions). And artifacts are one thing - the names of places and explicit details of history are not possible to recover when they've been "erased". You can be sure as hell that no written records exist. Never mind that they somehow discovered a less accurate version of OoT's story than the one they already had, while missing the part in the legend they already had about how that seal was already broken.

The idea that Daphnes was deceased seems patently ridiculous since the Triforce itself says it serves only users who are alive.

I've been wondering about this. What is Daphnes' state in TWW? How can he have lived without physically aging for hundreds of years, without the power of the Triforce? (Part of a piece won't do crap, the parts weren't even inside him or Tetra, and Tetra's ancestors all died.) It's clear from his ability to possess boats and then randomly appear standing somewhere without actually walking there that he's a spirit of some kind.

Death Mountain is a mountain, and it's clear that the mountains didn't move during the flood.
Zora's River also stems from a mountaintop, so the above applies yet again.
Lake Hylia is not in the same place from OoT all the way to ALttP, as FSA demonstrates, and this could be accounted for by the flood.

I love how you completely ignored some of the points from the very statement you quoted. Especially the Master Sword, because you know everything you say on that subject is a joke (yes, I've heard it, don't bother) and you also know that no "archaeologists" can pull out the sword. Also funny that you ignore how somehow, a DESERT at the bottom of the ocean lines up perfectly with one on a land that was formed entirely from forests. The NAMES of Death Mountain and Zora's River are also important, a fact you like to ignore because you expect people who have no ability to reach the ocean floor to randomly stumble across erased information.

But your Lake Hylia point is a load of crap and you know it, because FSA's Lake Hylia isn't actually the same place from pure observation, while OoT's and ALttP's are in exactly the same place. FSA and ALttP are in the same Hyrule ANYWAY, so how does your point make any sense? And slight map differences CAN NOT BE USED AS TIMELINE EVIDENCE, because nothing suggests that they have anything to do with the story. Nothing you say on the subject can change the fact that OoT and ALttP are meant to be in the same Hyrule - this is obvious as hell with NO geographical evidence, just based on history, aspects of legends and their complete inconsistency with TWW, and place names that could not possibly be recovered. But with the geography it just can't be seriously denied - unless you're retarded enough to think that geographical differences, which nobody could take seriously as evidence because they have NOTHING to do with the story, are evidence that somehow, the games have been retconned completely.

Let me make sure I have your theory straight, though. You think that the moment these incredible archaeologists who reach the bottom of the sea, despite the fact that the goddesses made this impossible for good reason, they're going to somehow find records of every place and event in Hyrule despite them being "erased", and despite them having no idea where they would be, they're going to understand them despite being written in a dead language nobody knows, and THEN, get this, they're going to tell the people above, who will suddenly rename every single place in the entire fucking kingdom after these old places for no particular reason. Nope, nothing in that sentence is hard to believe, except for all of it, but I fully expect you to ignore all but one of the reasons and acting like responding to that one completely addresses the point. By the way, there would have to be WRITTEN records of the legends and place names. No written records have any chance of surviving.

Right, because archaeological discoveries are obviously impossible in the Zelda world (despite archaeologists being shown in TWW and TP).

I never tire of this being the end-all hollow argument in order to completely refuse to seriously deal with all the reasons why your fan fiction is wrong. It doesn't mean anything, it's illogical bullshit that is made impossible for the same reasons I say everything else about this is impossible.

TP doesn't really explain the Lost Woods at all, unless you consider the placement of the Temple of Time there as an "explanation."

...How dense are you? Temple of Time -> Sacred Grove with Temple of Time in it -> (Forest of Light, which incidentally probably had the MS in it before it was removed from the story) -> Lost Woods with Master Sword in it. That's not an explanation? You're right, TP does nothing at all to explain how the Master Sword went from being in a standing Temple of Time to a clearing in a forest. Except for, you know, showing it. You just answered your own question and immediately moved on, pretending to have countered my point. Actually, you haven't countered a single point from my last post - many of them you just ignored, and many you responded to with a repeat of the same fucking point I had been countering in the first place. It seems like your theme for this topic is to do all the same stupid things you did on GF, and responding with the same point over and over again while ignoring the fact that it was already countered features prominently there. Actually, that one shows up in most topics around here, too...

Hyrule has had more or less the same basic layout in every game besides TP, which ironically is the only game confirmed to not be after the flood that has been made so far after TWW. You may say that the differences between TP's map and other maps are meaningless, but it seems a common argument of yours that any differences between games are meaningless when, oddly enough, they're the differences that would discount your argument, whereas any similarities are obviously completely meaningful, despite disparities (unless they discount your arguments, in which case the disparities certainly have weight).

I love how you make this horrifically fallacious argument just to shit in my face and show that you never bothered to read what I said about geography before. GEOGRAPHICAL EVIDENCE DOES NOT WORK UNLESS THERE IS EVIDENCE TO SUGGEST THAT IT WAS DELIBERATELY INTENDED TO BE THAT WAY FOR STORY REASONS. I discount TP's map because it's common fucking sense with that in mind, while you try to claim that every slightly different map is a retcon of previous games. Which somehow changes the identical OoT and ALttP maps?

Nothing about FSA's world map has anything whatsoever to do with gameplay, as the world map is not explored during gameplay.

Grow the fuck up and don't pretend you haven't read this argument before - wow, once again, bringing up your old GameFAQs tricks. FSA's world map is a structured, interconnected level select screen, and it is made clear how Link progresses across it. Each level covers a single large piece of land. Meaning Lake Hylia was placed entirely so that it would fit properly into that piece of land. The people who write the story did not make the map.

This is a pretty weak argument to try to discount the differences that do appear between OoT and FSA as nothing.

BECAUSE IT'S ONE DIFFERENCE HOLY SHIT WHAT IS YOUR OBSESSION WITH STUPID TINY DETAILS. How about at least taking a GLANCE at the major evidence and storylines of the games before you jump straight into stupid crap that, in most cases, could not possibly have been done for intentional timeline reasons?

The game added the context when Daphnes explained that what he meant by "that land will not be Hyrule" was that it would be "your land." I'm simply acknowledging that "it will be your land" does not mean "you cannot call it Hyrule" or "the land cannot have anything to do with Hyrule" as that's flatly not true.

...Haha, you know you're just shooting yourself in the foot here? You make these comments and completely forget while making them that you don't actually know what "context" means yet. Seriously, just play it safe, don't attempt to use the word only to embarrass yourself, because everyone else can see that you don't know what context is and are just attempting to sound sophisticated. It's like a kid thinking he knows how to use a complex word only to feel stupid when an adult tells him afterwards he doesn't know what it means. This is the opposite of context, it's still just taking things out of context. You are now taking the king's SECOND SENTENCE out of context from the FIRST ONE. This is a new low. You can't isolate "your land" from "not Hyrule". Their land will not be Hyrule. Period. Erased. Triforce. Etcetera. Speaking of which...

Then he would have said "flood", not "wash away". Look up "wash" in the dictionary.

Actually, it's "erase".

Any further implications besides the land just being covered by water are imposed by theorists. Whereas the formation of a new kingdom and the creation of a new land are both ideas taken verbatim from in-game.

Erased does not mean covered by water. I love how you think that because it's inferred, it isn't still completely true.

Any further implications besides there being a land created by the Deku Tree are imposed by (idiotic) theorists (who ignore the main point of a game in favour of out of context quotes). Whereas the absolute destruction of the kingdom and the fact that any new land can't be functionally identical to the old one in every fucking way are both ideas taken verbatim from in-game. You seem to think that the king's Triforce wish just somehow ceased to function.

The "new kingdom" part is a lie, by the way. It's a "new country", and you've taken it out of context as it has nothing to do with Hyrule. Same deal for the creation of a new land.

Right, because real floods leave absolutely no archaeological record.

Do you remember the last time you tried to do this, with your Deku Tree "science" bullshit, and got pwned to death? This was not a real flood. This was an erasure, a complete destruction imposed by the gods through the power of a magical object. How the fuck does that relate to real life?

Let me just point this out one more time. Lex has gone beyond taking lines out of context from the game. He now takes the second sentence of a quote out of context from the first one. WOW.

Edited by Impossible, 11 February 2009 - 03:10 AM.

[MikePetersSucks]

I've been wondering about this. What is Daphnes' state in TWW? How can he have lived without physically aging for hundreds of years, without the power of the Triforce? (Part of a piece won't do crap, the parts weren't even inside him or Tetra, and Tetra's ancestors all died.) It's clear from his ability to possess boats and then randomly appear standing somewhere without actually walking there that he's a spirit of some kind.

Just googled up some game script of LTTP's and compared translations. Apparently the phrase that got translated as "as long as the owner lives" is more accurately translated as "possessing life", with life being translated from the word "jurei", which also can be interpretted as "will", "drive" and "autonomy." So my theory of an earthbound spirit counting as an owner is valid, as far as I can see.

[Impossible]

Oh, that is nice. It looks like the answer is given by TWW, in a sense: "I have lived bound to Hyrule". The king lives as long as Hyrule lives, the two share one life. His spirit can't die until its job as Hyrule's King is complete.

Edited by Impossible, 11 February 2009 - 03:13 AM.

[Lexxi Aileron]

@Impossible:

1) The idea that "the king is part of Hyrule" in an organic sense I don't agree with. I agree that as a result of his attempt to destroy the old kingdom he eliminates himself as well as Ganondorf and allows the floodwaters to have their way with the rest of them, but I disagree that this means that Daphnes's wish eradicates from existence any and all record of the old land. To me that's an absurd stretch and runs in a completely different character than real flood myths.

2) I disagree that the Deku Tree's plans are not part of the story. They are not a driving force of the main plot because the Deku Tree's plan will not see completion by the end of the game, but the Deku Tree makes clear that Ganondorf is an obstacle to his goals. Since Ganondorf is removed by the end of the game and since Daphnes's wish is for the people to have hope, it seems clear to me that the Deku Tree's goals will inevitably come to fruition. The Deku Tree and Koroks are just an example of the many people who needed the events of TWW to take place before their endeavors could move forward. No matter how large a place they have in TWW's plot, they are still a legitimate part of the story and should be considered as such. The whole story determines where the story will go next, not a single defining moment. Very minute characters in OoT became key characters in MM.

3) I disagree that only the Lost Woods is in a different place in TP; every place aside from the castle, field, lake, and desert differs somewhat in its geographical placement. The lake and desert are even iffy because the castle is in plain sight from both in TP but out of sight in OoT, but of course scale has never really been a telling point of geography.

4) A few scattered place names are shown to still exist in a flooded world in FPTRR, so I don't think "places have the same names" is a valid counterpoint, but of course you conveniently don't consider the world of FPTRR as a legitimate part of the Zelda universe.

5) The reemergence of old legends and information after the destruction of an old society happens to have a direct relationship with the passage of time, so it's no surprise that even considering a flood old history would be in circulation by the time of ALttP. The appearance of random warp tiles to the Sacred Realm all over Hyrule in ALttP has never had much of an explanation (OoT's sage temples don't explain it as the warp tiles outnumber the temples).

6) I believe the "New Hyrule" to be the land constructed by the Deku Tree where the old one once stood and ordained by the power of the Triforce when it is reunited in AoL. Since the discovery of lost history and artifacts happens to be an actual occurrence in the real world, I don't see the existence of history we never heard in TWW or artifacts lost in the flood to be of any particular difficulty. Since I place LoZ and AoL as the nearest games to TWW (based on a cacophony of things from plot relationships to "pseudo-secret" relationships), I don't see the Triforce's connection to the New Hyrule as a problem, either. And if the Triforce has a connection, it's not too difficult to say that the Sacred Realm would be connected to the new Hylian kingdom. Of course you disagree with all of these things as possibilities across the board, but that's simply a difference we have.

7) TP's Hyrule has to be considered as retconning OoT's otherwise the Temple of Time is simultaneously in two places at once or was moved by someone, both of which are patently absurd. I see no reason to pick and choose what discrepancies should be considered for the broader timeline and I think it would only be deceitful to suggest as much. The only game that I think can even be considered in that light is TMC only because of discrepancies between its in-game map and its world grid-map (Cloud Tops is shown off to the side of Veil Falls, but is in fact immediately above it, for example). Discrepancies between FSA and OoT, TP and literally everything else, and so on, should not be ignored because all of the discrepancies are seen not only in the gameplay areas we explore but the visual depictions of the land outside of gameplay (the world atlases, which are artwork). Lake Hylia in FSA was not and cannot be reasonably argued to have been repositioned for gameplay because FSA's world atlas had nothing to do at all with gameplay.

8) I don't suggest geography as my main evidence. I only suggest this particular argument in response to the statement that "it's the same Hyrule in all games." How else am I supposed to argue against it besides pointing out differences between the Hyrules as depicted after TWW's release? (one, FSA's, shown as identical to ALttP's, surrounded immediately by water; one, TP's, shown as vastly different than any before, surrounded by mountains according to the map)

9) I know OoT's Hyrule is nearly identical to ALttP's. It was developed to be consistent with ALttP and the idea of the flood didn't exist yet, so arguing that those similarities prove anything now is pretty irrelevant.

10) "Developers do NOT hide the secrets of the timeline in obscure, storyless, contextless quotes with subtle references, or in cameos."

Firstly, I don't think the Deku Tree's quote can be said to be storyless or contextless. The entire tree-planting sidequest is tied to the ceremony the Deku Tree performs every year, and the idea of connecting lands is the underlying reason why all of it takes place. The Deku Tree wants you to defeat Ganon so his plans can come to fruition; he says this himself.

Secondly, the only actual writer of the story that has ever spoken has said plainly that they do indicate things about the timeline in subtle references and cameos.

"Though in this game Zelda is now included in the Seven Sages, the other six have the names of the town names from the Disk System edition "The Adventure of Link." In the SNES edition game, the story "Long ago, there was a war called the Imprisoning War" was passed along. A name in the Imprisoning War era is the name of a Town later. They were like "pseudo-secrets." We wanted to throw these out through the entirety of the game. That thing from then is now this."

Thirdly, I firmly believe that you will ignore any piece of evidence that doesn't suit your theory. I can say this confidently because most of your counterarguments to me amount to "that doesn't matter," rather than saying "I don't agree with your interpretation."

11) Your entire last post consisted of, in summary:

"The king planned on staying behind so he can die with Hyrule."
I don't disagree with this, and it doesn't actually prove anything.

"The Deku Tree's quote doesn't mean anything because of the ending."
I disagree with this flatly and actually think that the Deku Tree's quote only has weight because of the ending.

Literally everything else you said had directly to do with geography:

"Between OoT and ALttP, we have Death Mountain, the Master Sword, the desert, Zora's River/Fountain and Lake Hylia. The ONLY places that differ, are the Lost Woods, which are explained by TP, and man-made landmarks that are naturally going to be changed - even then, though, the NAME Kakariko Village persists.

[...]

"Let's subtly refer to an idea that will be similarly referred to in a game we're going to make in 5+ years, just to prove that Lex's timeline is true! We know HE'LL find this!""

except for this:

"The problem you ignore is that there is major, central evidence in the stories of the games (like TWW and TMC) and that this is what the timeline placements are really based on. I've said it time and time again... Developers do NOT hide the secrets of the timeline in obscure, storyless, contextless quotes with subtle references, or in cameos. It's like the Legend of the Fairy all over again."

which I just addressed in point 10.

Also, I do NOT ignore the major, central evidence in the stories of games; I simply see supplementary "pseudo-secrets" that give additional context to the main and central plot, which is mostly self-contained in each game.

@Impossible post #2

1) It is never explicitly said that "Hyrule will never return." That is imposed by those interpreting it. What is said is that the gods will "destroy Hyrule." But "destroy" can have a myriad of meanings, and is used all the times in myths of ancient floods which more often than not are impermanent and don't actually completely destroy what they were supposedly intended to destroy. The Biblical Flood is a prime example.

2) You obviously know my case for the Master Sword, and you're obviously not convinced, so I'm not going to repeat it.

3) If the islands of the Hyrule Great Sea were to become one large island, it's actually probable that a desert would crop up in about the same place geographically speaking because a desert is just a place that doesn't receive a lot of precipitation due to weather patterns. I don't know what the world of Hyrule would have to say about deserts, though.

Death Mountain is a name that appears in FPTRR, and no one in LoZ/FSA/ALttP/TMC uses the name "Zora's River" at any point ever.

I point out Lake Hylia because if as you say Lake Hylia has continuity between OoT and ALttP and FSA comes in-between, why is it in a different place entirely in FSA (moreover, why is it in a place more continuous with TMC which you place at the beginning of the timeline)? Obviously your response is "that doesn't matter," but that seems to be your response to anything that contradicts you.

4) There's no evidence that no record of Hyrule exists on the Great Sea. There never has been, and it is actually impossible for there to ever be evidence for it as the non-existence of something cannot be proven. Not hearing about them is not proof that there is no evidence, by the way. Hearing only a certain part of them isn't either. It is obvious that some records, mostly in the form of old buildings and the Master Sword, have now been completely flooded, but floods do not make such things completely inaccessible. We recover things from the sea floor all the time in TWW and PH, including charts to the Triforce/the Triforce of Courage itself, which apparently split when Link left long before the flood.

King Hyrule speaks to Link as if he knows about the ancient kingdom. "Memory of the kingdom vanished" most probably means that everyone who remembered the kingdom died, especially considering that the very next line talks about legends surviving.

5) ALttP's legends being diluted probably explains why there's no hero in the sages' seal legend. Obviously there are no sages in the Hero of Time legend in TWW. I'm simply guessing that these two legends became separate due in large part to the flood.

6) "By the way, there would have to be WRITTEN records of the legends and place names. No written records have any chance of surviving."

Right, because no written records could have possibly left Hyrule in the first place. Despite these probably being in books and scrolls and thus being incredibly and easily mobile. Wonderful.

7) "Temple of Time -> Sacred Grove with Temple of Time in it -> (Forest of Light, which incidentally probably had the MS in it before it was removed from the story) -> Lost Woods with Master Sword in it."

I agree that it's totally a reference, but I think that along with all the non-references to FSA it seems more logical that TP's actual connection to the ALttP arc disappeared when TP was retconned from being a TWW prequel just like the mirror was shattered in the ending. I agree that it certainly seems to have been meant to connect to ALttP, just like the Hero references in OoT were probably meant to connect to OoT. This doesn't seem to be the case anymore, though, and the meaning of these references is a bit unclear. Are they connections? Or is it another "parallel"?

8) " You make these comments and completely forget while making them that you don't actually know what "context" means yet."

See, Impossible. Here's the thing:

Context means surrounding details or conditions that support the meaning of a phrase or scenario. I use surrounding details to support the meaning of TWW's ending. In fact, I use every available detail to do so, including ones that you don't touch. That's why our interpretations of the TWW ending are so different.

You seem to think that only the immediate effects of Daphnes's wish tell us anything about the lasting effects. I think beyond the immediate effects and look at what's going on outside of that scene. I daresay I'm looking at a broader context than you are.

Also:

"I have lived bound to Hyrule."

Probably just refers to his emotional attachment to the place, especially given that he then compares himself to Ganondorf. Although maybe that just underlies both characters' longevity. MPS? As of now I'm still content to say that he was just preserved in time along with Hyrule and acted through the King of Red Lions boat in the meantime, but looking at "jurei" it may be more complicated than that.

@ The Rest of You:

Sorry that I can't get back to you right now.

It'll happen.

[MikePetersSucks]

1) The idea that "the king is part of Hyrule" in an organic sense I don't agree with. I agree that as a result of his attempt to destroy the old kingdom he eliminates himself as well as Ganondorf and allows the floodwaters to have their way with the rest of them, but I disagree that this means that Daphnes's wish eradicates from existence any and all record of the old land. To me that's an absurd stretch and runs in a completely different character than real flood myths.

Real flood myths don't have the old world preserved by magic, and real flood myths typically have only one man, one woman, and a boatload of animals preserved, if even that.

And if the Triforce has a connection, it's not too difficult to say that the Sacred Realm would be connected to the new Hylian kingdom. Of course you disagree with all of these things as possibilities across the board, but that's simply a difference we have.

But the New Hyrule wouldn't be the land where the Gods set foot, it's some imitation created by a particularly powerful tree spirit.

7) TP's Hyrule has to be considered as retconning OoT's otherwise the Temple of Time is simultaneously in two places at once or was moved by someone, both of which are patently absurd.

Or geography doesn't matter and we shouldn't give a fuck.

"The king planned on staying behind so he can die with Hyrule."
I don't disagree with this, and it doesn't actually prove anything.

So why did he stay behind? We know that, if he's not bound to Hyrule, he could've come with them.

1) It is never explicitly said that "Hyrule will never return." That is imposed by those interpreting it. What is said is that the gods will "destroy Hyrule." But "destroy" can have a myriad of meanings, and is used all the times in myths of ancient floods which more often than not are impermanent and don't actually completely destroy what they were supposedly intended to destroy. The Biblical Flood is a prime example.

The Biblical Flood didn't DESTROY land, only covered it, and it only lasted for a little over a month. Unlike TWW's Flood, which ends up purging the existence of a kingdom entirely, and has lasted for centuries with NO SIGN of subsiding.

4) There's no evidence that no record of Hyrule exists on the Great Sea. There never has been, and it is actually impossible for there to ever be evidence for it as the non-existence of something cannot be proven. Not hearing about them is not proof that there is no evidence, by the way. Hearing only a certain part of them isn't either. It is obvious that some records, mostly in the form of old buildings and the Master Sword, have now been completely flooded, but floods do not make such things completely inaccessible. We recover things from the sea floor all the time in TWW and PH, including charts to the Triforce/the Triforce of Courage itself, which apparently split when Link left long before the flood.

The prologue said that everything was gone. You lose before we even get introduced to Link.

We recover things from the sea floor all the time in TWW and PH, including charts to the Triforce/the Triforce of Courage itself, which apparently split when Link left long before the flood.

PH maybe, but not in TWW. I really fucking doubt that hookshot's rope is over a mile or whatever long, as the sea floor would be the frozen and preserved Hyrule, which apparently no one's ever seen. The chests and stuff we pull up are more likely floating, resting on coral or something, or there's a magical barrier that keeps things from falling into Hyrule.

"I have lived bound to Hyrule."

Probably just refers to his emotional attachment to the place, especially given that he then compares himself to Ganondorf. Although maybe that just underlies both characters' longevity. MPS? As of now I'm still content to say that he was just preserved in time along with Hyrule and acted through the King of Red Lions boat in the meantime, but looking at "jurei" it may be more complicated than that.

If he is indeed a spirit, and he lived bound to Hyrule, then his emotional attachment and his actual vitality are synonymous, and it's a pure semantics argument. It's pretty much factual that Daphnes has to exist as long as Hyrule does, the Deku Tree said so. As long as there is Hyrule, Daphnes must play the role of King of Red Lions, and search for the Chosen Hero. He ceases to be the King of Red Lions at the end of the game. His spirit dies. Therefore, Hyrule is destroyed.

[Lexxi Aileron]

Real flood myths don't have the old world preserved by magic, and real flood myths typically have only one man, one woman, and a boatload of animals preserved, if even that.

You're right about the "old world preserved by magic" thing, but that doesn't really hurt my point since if other flood myths show a resurgence after the old world is totally decimated, so can Zelda's.

But the New Hyrule wouldn't be the land where the Gods set foot, it's some imitation created by a particularly powerful tree spirit.

Good thing no one in LoZ, AoL, TMC, FSA, or ALttP calls it the chosen land of the gods; it's a title given to Hyrule when it was originally created by the gods at creation.

7) TP's Hyrule has to be considered as retconning OoT's otherwise the Temple of Time is simultaneously in two places at once or was moved by someone, both of which are patently absurd.

Or geography doesn't matter and we shouldn't give a fuck.

So why did he stay behind? We know that, if he's not bound to Hyrule, he could've come with them.

He's bound to Hyrule, as in obsessed with it, and wouldn't be happy with anything else, perhaps? That's always the impression I got, anyway. I'd never even heard of the bond being magical until you just mentioned the idea.

The Biblical Flood didn't DESTROY land

The words used are precisely "destroy" and "perish." Many flood myths say explicitly that the gods resolved to destroy the earth.

and it only lasted for a little over a month.

"The water prevailed upon the earth one hundred and fifty days."

Unlike TWW's Flood, which ends up purging the existence of a kingdom entirely, and has lasted for centuries with NO SIGN of subsiding.

"However, if all of the people of the kingdom were sealed, it would be the same as destroying it. Before the sealing, the gods informed those who had been chosen to create a new country to flee to the tall mountains."

The game's pretty clear that the kingdom survives in its people. And time is really no item.

The prologue said that everything was gone.

1) "Among the myths passed down by the people, there is the following story." There are many myths passed down by the people.
2) "Even though the memory of the kingdom vanished, its legend survived blowing in the wind." Again, the legends survived. The idea that they all disappeared is pure fiction.

PH maybe, but not in TWW. I really fucking doubt that hookshot's rope is over a mile or whatever long, as the sea floor would be the frozen and preserved Hyrule, which apparently no one's ever seen. The chests and stuff we pull up are more likely floating, resting on coral or something, or there's a magical barrier that keeps things from falling into Hyrule.

I call bull.

If he is indeed a spirit, and he lived bound to Hyrule, then his emotional attachment and his actual vitality are synonymous, and it's a pure semantics argument.

I agree.

It's pretty much factual that Daphnes has to exist as long as Hyrule does, the Deku Tree said so. As long as there is Hyrule, Daphnes must play the role of King of Red Lions, and search for the Chosen Hero. He ceases to be the King of Red Lions at the end of the game. His spirit dies. Therefore, Hyrule is destroyed.

I disagree with this, however. Daphnes does need to exist as long as Hyrule does, but not necessarily as a result of the "binding" mechanic you suggest. Everything in Hyrule is preserved; likely he among it.

[Fin]

Just want to say, I don't consider the Deku Tree's plan entirely irrelevant. But I don't think it's enough to base a post-WW Hyrule theory on. As far as I'm concerned, any mentions of Hyrule being revived throughout the game are nothing more than teases, so that the ending would have that much more impact. If you don't think the ending has any weight, then you're kind of missing the point of it being an ending. It's the conclusion, the point we're supposed to leave the story with.

Even if the ending was meant to be undone by the Deku Tree later, don't you think the writers would have put more emphasis on the Deku Tree's plan? Or less emphasis on the finality of the king's wish? You can't write off everything the king says at the end as just him being in-character - the dialogue was written by real people to a certain end, after all.

Edited by Fintin O'Brien, 11 February 2009 - 03:25 PM.

[Lexxi Aileron]

If you don't think the ending has any weight, then you're kind of missing the point of it being an ending. It's the conclusion, the point we're supposed to leave the story with.

I think the ending has a lot of weight. Throughout the entire game I was under the impression that the seal on Hyrule would be lifted and the flood would recede automatically. Now I see that the rebuilding process will be something a bit more natural. The Deku Tree's plans seems to be the mechanic by which a "new land" will come to be. I do think that the new land will inherit the legacy of the old land rather like the Apostles inherited the legacy of God's covenant which was originally for the Jews.

The use of water as the means of destruction symbolically represents a "washing away," which is why the English translation uses that wording. Water is a symbol of death and rebirth; fire is the symbol of ultimate destruction. Compare Daphnes's wish for waters to erase the old land and Ganon's wish for the sun to burn forth and expose it. Ganon would destroy it altogether; Daphnes wants to start afresh.