99 replies to this topic

[MikePetersSucks]

Doesn't require the Master Sword be dredged up, so it's easier than putting, say, aLttP on the adult timeline. Also, LoZ Hyrule is refered to as a "little kingdom" in the "Hyrule region". That's pretty generic, and doesn't necessitate that Link/Tetra committed the apparent cardinal sin of naming "YOUR LAND" Hyrule. It's just a kingdom in the general area of the old Hyrule.

That's a ridiculous stretch, and you know it. It's Hyrule, it's intended to be Hyrule, it's named Hyrule.

That got me thinking. Ever since I first finished TWW I've always hoped that we'd get to see this new land in TWW's sequel and we'd get to name it like we get to name Link and Epona. With this name allowing you create your own train tracks, giving some freedom to carve the landsacpe to your like (assuming this is a PH sequel), I wouldn't be surprised if this is the case. Might not happen but it would be cool if could name it.

If this is the case, we're all naming it Calatia, understood?

Either that, or AMERICA!

Oh yes, that is clearly a fact. I'm sure Linebeck's boat was magical too, even though it was never stated as such.

I recommend looking closer. The tracks, whenever they shift, give little fairy flutters, and at brief moments you can see sparkles of light coming out along with puffs of the train.

I'm not sure I understand what you mean here... that if the train isn't magical the game has to be placed at the end of the child timeline?

No, I'm saying that just because there's steam technology doesn't mean it has to come over PH. It could come later in the Child Timeline as well since, eventually, Hyrule will invent steam engines too.

In the end, if Nintendo holds true to their habit of linking new games to one specific past game, they will place this wherever they want, train or no train. It's entirely possible for ST to link itself with TP or FSA is Nintendo wishes to, as much as I dread it.

Actually, I wouldn't mind it coming after FSA. Then Spirit Tracks will become THE NEW IMPRISONING WAR.

The fans will rage, the storyline community will argue each other with bloody anger, and it will be the best trollin' Nintendo ever pulled.

[Erimgard]

That's a ridiculous stretch, and you know it. It's Hyrule, it's intended to be Hyrule, it's named Hyrule.

It's called the Hyrule region.
The Kingdom itself is not named.

The vast AoL map is called Hyrule, but I believe that itself to be the "chihou" Hyrule.

[Raien]

It's called the Hyrule region.
The Kingdom itself is not named.

And considering just about every Zelda game refers to the kingdom as "the Kingdom of Hyrule", and AoL refers to the "region of Hyrule", what do you think the obvious name of the kingdom is in AoL? Or are you suggesting that AoL's kingdom underwent a deliberate name change just for that one game?

Btw, I've found the name for this sort of argument; Historical Revisionism.

Reputable and professional historians do not suppress parts of quotations from documents that go against their own case, but take them into account and if necessary amend their own case accordingly. They do not present as genuine documents which they know to be forged just because these forgeries happen to back up what they are saying. They do not invent ingenious but implausible and utterly unsupported reasons for distrusting genuine documents because these documents run counter to their arguments; again, they amend their arguments if this is the case, or indeed abandon them altogether. They do not consciously attribute their own conclusions to books and other sources which in fact, on closer inspection, actually say the opposite. They do not eagerly seek out the highest possible figures in a series of statistics, independently of their reliability or otherwise, simply because they want for whatever reason to maximize the figure in question, but rather, they assess all the available figures as impartially as possible in order to arrive at a number that will withstand the critical scrutiny of others. They do not knowingly mistranslate sources in foreign languages in order to make them more serviceable to themselves. They do not wilfully invent words, phrases, quotations, incidents and events for which there is no historical evidence in order to make their arguments more plausible.

Edited by Raien, 03 April 2009 - 01:38 PM.

[Duke Serkol]

If this is the case, we're all naming it Calatia, understood?

Either that, or AMERICA!

Since it is discovered by Link and Tetra, not Amerigo Vespucci, wouldn't Linkia or Tetria make more sense?

I recommend looking closer. The tracks, whenever they shift, give little fairy flutters, and at brief moments you can see sparkles of light coming out along with puffs of the train.

Not denying that, but they are spirit tracks. Those are confirmed to be magical, the train is pending still (and a notion I find rather hard to accept).

it will be the best trollin' Nintendo ever pulled.

Indeed it would!

[Evilsbane]

It's called the Hyrule region.
The Kingdom itself is not named.

And considering just about every Zelda game refers to the kingdom as "the Kingdom of Hyrule", and AoL refers to the "region of Hyrule", what do you think the obvious name of the kingdom is in AoL? Or are you suggesting that AoL's kingdom underwent a deliberate name change just for that one game?

Btw, I've found the name for this sort of argument; Historical Revisionism.

LOL, it would be if we were discussing actual history. But as a work of interactive fiction, I think you'll find that there is no immutable 'truth'. Accordingly, all interpretations which attempt to make sense of a nonsensical timeline require one to focus on some evidence and neglect other evidence, which makes your accusation of negationism somewhat hollow. Maybe you should try ACTUAL Historical Revisionism?

If there were a universally accepted view of history that never changed, there would be no need to research it further. Many historians who write revisionist exposés are motivated by a genuine desire to educate and to correct history. Many great discoveries have come as a result of the research of men and women who have been curious enough to revisit certain historical events and explore them again in depth from a new perspective.

Edited by Evilsbane, 03 April 2009 - 03:13 PM.

[Raien]

LOL, it would be if we were discussing actual history. But as a work of interactive fiction, I think you'll find that there is no immutable 'truth'. Accordingly, all interpretations which attempt to make sense of a nonsensical timeline require one to focus on some evidence and neglect other evidence, which makes your accusation of negationism somewhat hollow.

We have seen every aspect of negationist arguments from theorists like Lex in particular, such as nitpicking details, choosing quotes and figures while ignoring the surrounding context, arguing for the use of NOA translations when it suits his theory, ignoring NOA when they don't suit his theory, respecting fan translations when they suit his theory, ignoring fan translations when they don't suit his theory, disputing arguments from people who speak Japanese, etc.

I find it hilarious that a scholar can describe every facet of Lex's argumentative-style as something already discredited in mainstream historical debate. Just because we are discussing a fictional history doesn't make Lex's arguments any more valid than they would be in real historical debate.

Edited by Raien, 03 April 2009 - 05:20 PM.

[Average Gamer]

Actually, I wouldn't mind it coming after FSA. Then Spirit Tracks will become THE NEW IMPRISONING WAR.

The fans will rage, the storyline community will argue each other with bloody anger, and it will be the best trollin' Nintendo ever pulled.

That would be great.

[Impossible]

The point with applying Historical Revisionism to Lex's argument isn't the point of whether we're arguing about history or fiction. That's just a red herring in the argument. The techniques described are Lex in a nutshell. I would bold specific ones, except Lex is guilty of all of them, so yeah, just read that quote.

[Erimgard]

And considering just about every Zelda game refers to the kingdom as "the Kingdom of Hyrule", and AoL refers to the "region of Hyrule", what do you think the obvious name of the kingdom is in AoL?

The game doesn't give it a name. Say all you want, but it's only described as a kingdom in the region of Hyrule. I believe that region to be the AoL map, with the "kingdom" being the small southwest corner.

[MikePetersSucks]

Since it is discovered by Link and Tetra, not Amerigo Vespucci, wouldn't Linkia or Tetria make more sense?

They name it Tetris.

Not denying that, but they are spirit tracks. Those are confirmed to be magical, the train is pending still (and a notion I find rather hard to accept).

So they have magical train tracks that, if they're like every other Zelda MacGuffin, appeared at the onset of the series and probably disappear at the end of it for some storyline reason, and Link just has some random steam-powered train sitting around?

The game doesn't give it a name. Say all you want, but it's only described as a kingdom in the region of Hyrule. I believe that region to be the AoL map, with the "kingdom" being the small southwest corner.

This might have something to do with the fact that the country of Hyrule was split into half because of AOL's backstory, and LOZ's half was wrecked all up to shit by Ganondorf. Instead of something stupid like it being the Deku Tree's new land. Either way, you're arguing a semantics debate that doesn't even exist (CAN'T even exist) in the original Japanese.

I don't get why people make such a fuss over minor phrases and words like this like they're uber truth when they know that it wasn't phrased that way in the Japanese.

[Erimgard]

This might have something to do with the fact that the country of Hyrule was split into half because of AOL's backstory, and LOZ's half was wrecked all up to shit by Ganondorf. Instead of something stupid like it being the Deku Tree's new land. Either way, you're arguing a semantics debate that doesn't even exist (CAN'T even exist) in the original Japanese.

I don't get why people make such a fuss over minor phrases and words like this like they're uber truth when they know that it wasn't phrased that way in the Japanese.

It is phrased like that in the Japanese.
And I didn't even say Deku Tree's Success in reference to LoZ/AoL Hyrule.

[Duke Serkol]

Since it is discovered by Link and Tetra, not Amerigo Vespucci, wouldn't Linkia or Tetria make more sense?

They name it Tetris.

Makes sense, but only if the castle looks like this.

[Wolf O'Donnell]

If this is the case, we're all naming it Calatia, understood?

Either that, or AMERICA!

Since it is discovered by Link and Tetra, not Amerigo Vespucci, wouldn't Linkia or Tetria make more sense?

Actually, America is more likely to have been named after Richard Americke. The reason I say this is that countries are only given someone's first name, if that someone happened to be royalty. So Victoria Falls after Queen Victoria, Jamestown after King James etc.

If the person was a commoner, then the land would be given their last name. So Cook Islands named after Captain James Cook and so forth.

So if America had been named after Vespucci, the land would now be known as Vespuccia which kind of has a nice ring to it.

Thusly, seeing as Link doesn't have a last name... Tetris makes more sense.

Edited by Wolf_ODonnell, 05 April 2009 - 10:54 AM.

[MikePetersSucks]

It is phrased like that in the Japanese.

The translation is. But it becomes utter bollocks either way when you realize JAPANESE SEMANTICS DO NOT WORK THAT WAY.

And I didn't even say Deku Tree's Success in reference to LoZ/AoL Hyrule.

The idea that got us on this subject was the idea of the Deku Tree succeeding, creating the land of Spirit Tracks, which would allow games like LOZ to exist on the Adult Timeline.

[Evilsbane]

We have seen every aspect of negationist arguments from theorists like Lex in particular, such as nitpicking details, choosing quotes and figures while ignoring the surrounding context, arguing for the use of NOA translations when it suits his theory, ignoring NOA when they don't suit his theory, respecting fan translations when they suit his theory, ignoring fan translations when they don't suit his theory, disputing arguments from people who speak Japanese, etc.

I find it hilarious that a scholar can describe every facet of Lex's argumentative-style as something already discredited in mainstream historical debate. Just because we are discussing a fictional history doesn't make Lex's arguments any more valid than they would be in real historical debate.

Yes, it does. Because when you're talking about something as inconsistent as the Zelda timeline, it will be inevitable that you will have to redact certain elements that should technically be canon, or else give up on a timeline that makes any sense. History will always be consistent, whether you see it or not, but fiction will usually have inconsistencies from the get-go. You yourself have said that you regard the series as a collection of legends that can't be taken at face value, and from such a base the only way forward is to make decisions, yourself, on which parts you choose to believe.

Come on, people, this is like arguing over whether Mona Lisa is smiling or not.

[Average Gamer]

Just because we are discussing a fictional history doesn't make Lex's arguments any more valid than they would be in real historical debate.

As Raien said, it doesn't matter that we're talking about video games; Lex's reasoning is still horrible and flawed.

[Raien]

Yes, it does. Because when you're talking about something as inconsistent as the Zelda timeline, it will be inevitable that you will have to redact certain elements that should technically be canon, or else give up on a timeline that makes any sense. History will always be consistent, whether you see it or not, but fiction will usually have inconsistencies from the get-go. You yourself have said that you regard the series as a collection of legends that can't be taken at face value, and from such a base the only way forward is to make decisions, yourself, on which parts you choose to believe.

I said nothing of the sort. To quote myself:

This is why the focus of my philosophy is on the development of the timeline, as opposed to the events within each individual game. Aonuma explained the development strategy to IGN in 2007, making the case that every new game relates to one previous game in the series, and the rest is not decided until development has concluded. Looking at the content and direction of the games, this strategy is more-or-less proven with the sole exception of FS, which was a stand-alone title. FSA might have also been different had Miyamoto not stepped in to "up-end the teatable".

Aonuma's development strategy is the reason why I reject arguments that TWW and/or TP were created with intent to connect to ALttP. Connections are stretching because they don't really exist.

The stated development process is an important piece of context that Lex-negationists ignore, but both it and other developer statements allow us to establish the timeline development within the context of real, factual historical analysis, and thus bring the actual game content into that same position of historical analysis. The new translations, for example, allow us to establish what was decided by the writers when the games were released, just as historical translators would read and decipher ancient texts. In other words, we are discussing the Zelda timeline as real history, and in that context, Lex's position is clearly as a negationist.

Edited by Raien, 06 April 2009 - 09:05 PM.

[Sir Turtlelot]

This is why the focus of my philosophy is on the development of the timeline, as opposed to the events within each individual game. Aonuma explained the development strategy to IGN in 2007, making the case that every new game relates to one previous game in the series, and the rest is not decided until development has concluded. Looking at the content and direction of the games, this strategy is more-or-less proven with the sole exception of FS, which was a stand-alone title. FSA might have also been different had Miyamoto not stepped in to "up-end the teatable".

Aonuma's development strategy is the reason why I reject arguments that TWW and/or TP were created with intent to connect to ALttP. Connections are stretching because they don't really exist.

The stated development process is an important piece of context that Lex-negationists ignore, but both it and other developer statements allow us to establish the timeline development within the context of real, factual historical analysis, and thus bring the actual game content into that same position of historical analysis. The new translations, for example, allow us to establish what was decided by the writers when the games were released, just as historical translators would read and decipher ancient texts. In other words, we are discussing the Zelda timeline as real history, and in that context, Lex's position is clearly as a negationist.

I would have to disagree with your philosophy. The ingame events are what our timelines are made from, so it would make sense to base our theorizing on them, rather than the development process. Don't get me wrong, I think that at least take the word of the developers into consideration, but the word of developer isn't always the most reliable source. With every new game release, there is always a chance that they might end up contradicting something they previously stated. The ingame events can't change, they are always going to be the same. So with them being the more reliable source and the subject of our theorizing, it would make sense to use them as the basis of our theorizing.

The Zelda universe is fictional, not reality, so real-world techniques don't exactly apply. They can be used, but they are not required.

[Raien]

I would have to disagree with your philosophy. The ingame events are what our timelines are made from, so it would make sense to base our theorizing on them, rather than the development process. Don't get me wrong, I think that at least take the word of the developers into consideration, but the word of developer isn't always the most reliable source. With every new game release, there is always a chance that they might end up contradicting something they previously stated. The ingame events can't change, they are always going to be the same. So with them being the more reliable source and the subject of our theorizing, it would make sense to use them as the basis of our theorizing.

The in-game events are less reliable than developer statements, simply because the developers write each new game with a degree of independence that makes the stories inconsistent. In particular, the series mythology has been in a state of constant change, creating the majority of timeline inconsistencies that we see today. For example, the original demon-killing property in Zelda was silver (a reference to European lore), but then OoT introduced Light magic to the series, and the Master Sword took on the silver's properties it didn't have originally. Other examples would be the purpose of the Temple of Time and the lore surrounding the Sages.

The reason a lot of people can't get their heads around the Zelda timeline is because they can't compromise their personal necessitation for a consistent connection of in-game events with the nature of timeline development. But since we're all searching for the official developer timeline (at least the theorising community is), then it only makes sense that we take said compromise into account. It's ridiculous to ignore the development process when it is central to the establishment of in-game events. As for the unreliability of developer statements, it all factors in to our knowledge of the development process. We know that Miyamoto is not involved with timeline development, nor is he a voice for the official developer timeline. We know that on occasions, intended timeline connections have been abandoned in favour of alternatives. This all factors into what has become a historical analysis of the development process.

So in conclusion, with a detailed historical analysis of the development process, we can not only explain the timeline in a manner that negates the necessitation for complete consistency, but we can provide a more realistic vision of the official developer timeline.

[Sir Turtlelot]

The in-game events are less reliable than developer statements, simply because the developers write each new game with a degree of independence that makes the stories inconsistent. In particular, the series mythology has been in a state of constant change, creating the majority of timeline inconsistencies that we see today. For example, the original demon-killing property in Zelda was silver (a reference to European lore), but then OoT introduced Light magic to the series, and the Master Sword took on the silver's properties it didn't have originally. Other examples would be the purpose of the Temple of Time and the lore surrounding the Sages.

The reason a lot of people can't get their heads around the Zelda timeline is because they can't compromise their personal necessitation for a consistent connection of in-game events with the nature of timeline development. But since we're all searching for the official developer timeline (at least the theorising community is), then it only makes sense that we take said compromise into account. It's ridiculous to ignore the development process when it is central to the establishment of in-game events. As for the unreliability of developer statements, it all factors in to our knowledge of the development process. We know that Miyamoto is not involved with timeline development, nor is he a voice for the official developer timeline. We know that on occasions, intended timeline connections have been abandoned in favour of alternatives. This all factors into what has become a historical analysis of the development process.

So in conclusion, with a detailed historical analysis of the development process, we can not only explain the timeline in a manner that negates the necessitation for complete consistency, but we can provide a more realistic vision of the official developer timeline.

I do see the logic behind your point, but I'm still not convinced. The reason I don't follow the word of the developers, because like I said earlier, I consider the ingame events far more important and my personal philosophy is to use ingame events, and without negating or contradicting other ingame events, make connections based off of reasoning & logic. When it comes to theorizing I'd much rather have a theory that makes sense to me, so I find it better to try and make my own connections. But I'll be honest, this is because our goals are not entirely the same. You are trying to decipher the exact timeline, whereas I'm just trying to make one that makes sense. But this debate is based off of points of view, so it's really not going to go anywhere, but like I said, I see your logic, though I don't necessarily agree with it, but if you think about it, either way you go with there are going to be inconsistencies made by the developers at some point in time, will have to be worked with.

[Raien]

I do see the logic behind your point, but I'm still not convinced. The reason I don't follow the word of the developers, because like I said earlier, I consider the ingame events far more important and my personal philosophy is to use ingame events, and without negating or contradicting other ingame events, make connections based off of reasoning & logic. When it comes to theorizing I'd much rather have a theory that makes sense to me, so I find it better to try and make my own connections. But I'll be honest, this is because our goals are not entirely the same. You are trying to decipher the exact timeline, whereas I'm just trying to make one that makes sense. But this debate is based off of points of view, so it's really not going to go anywhere, but like I said, I see your logic, though I don't necessarily agree with it, but if you think about it, either way you go with there are going to be inconsistencies made by the developers at some point in time, will have to be worked with.

It's fair enough if you have a personal timeline; a lot of people do. But this debate began with Evilsbane, who is a proponent of the official developer timeline. In that context, the line of argument that he and others like Lexxi Aileron have been using is clearly negationist. The majority of theorists highlighted those negationist elements at least two years before we learned that they even had an umbrella definition (before then, we'd coined it "Lex-logic").

[SwordBreaker]

What I find really interesting about this game is that this is possibly the first time the series introduces a somewhat 'modern' machine. Almost all things Zelda are medieval based, but this train seems way out of the box, you know.

While it's somewhat far-fetched, the closest thing that I can relate to this train is the Temple of Time and the Sky Temple in TP. If I recall correctly, the Oocca (sp?) are responsible for these modern settings, so if Nintendo's really smart they can tie-in that backstory with the sudden appearance of a freakin' train in Spirit Tracks. Then again, I'm sure one of you will argue that PH's steamboat and Cannon Island are somewhat modern as well so why am I singling out Spirit Tracks' train? I don't know...I just find this train to be such a sudden leap of technology compared to everything else so it would be weird to have Spirit Tracks as a direct sequel to PH without a large amount of time separating the two games.

[MikePetersSucks]

The train is about the same technological level as steamboats, so it's not a big deal; especially since the train is obviously magic.

[Buckeye Scrub]

The Zelda series seems to have had a few "modern" things here and there. Like the stopwatches in LoZ and mine carts in MC. I'm no weapons expert, but did ancient bombs really look as they do in the Zelda games?

[Zola Revolution]

I think it will be OK. Not as good as most other games, but I don't think it will be so bad.

All I know is that with the information presented to me about the game, I think it goes before Twilight Princess and maybe before Wind Waker, but I know that will most likely change (unless I got it right which would also be QooL.)

[Erimgard]

For the lulz, it now looks like the Spirit Tracks map has a western coast

[Masamune]

I like how they can actually have a conversation about that.

[Person]

Watch the ST map look nothing like Hyrule at all and these people will still try to make it match up with the old maps.

[Masamune]

When has Hyrule ever looked like Hyrule? This IS Zelda we're talking about!

[Person]

When has Hyrule ever looked like Hyrule? This IS Zelda we're talking about!

FSA looked like ALttP, TP looked like OoT, and that tiny section at the bottom of the AoL map was supposed to be the LoZ overworld. Similarities end there, though.