86 replies to this topic

[Raien]

Back from a well-needed break from this debate. I've cut down my response to save energy.

You're a historian of a video game? That's not Elitist? Historians are different, because they actually have some authority on the subject. Did you work for years to get a masters degree of The Legend of Zelda? No. You're just a fan that's played the games, same as the rest of us. Your opinions are no more valid than ours. The Zelda mythos isn't like History, where there definitely is one way that things happened. It is subjective; in fact, they seem to change how things work with every game. If I remember correctly, TP actually involved a lot of corroboration between NoJ and NoA, so I wouldn't say that one version is definitely more "Canon." Only the developers can determine that. There's a difference between contradicting developers/games, and using what one believes to be correct.

Actually, Zelda timeline theorising is a pretty accurate mirror of real historical analysis. We look at the evidence, we make subjective judgments of the evidence, we propose hypothesese to other theorists and debate their accuracy and effectiveness. The Zelda timeline is fictional, sure, but the standards with which we determine the strength and accuracy of a theory have a basis in real learning. If you have a problem with this, then you'd be questioning your own analysis and conclusions on the timeline. And while it is true that we don’t entirely know what the developers were thinking with these games, that’s the same for historians who don’t have access to influential figures because they are either simply out of reach or dead. Rather than just resign themselves to saying “We can never truly know the truth”, they develop theories with the information they do have access to, and those theories are developed or refuted with new information.

If there is one important difference between timeline theorising and real history, it’s as you said, the timeline’s history changes with new developers and new ideas. However, I believe that by documenting how the history has changed, we can make judgments on the canon. In fact, you clearly believe so too, as you’ve been arguing that TP has been avoiding overt references to previous games in order to justify a “changed terminology” (and btw, I’m still waiting for those examples of the invisible references you referred to).

Last point; you said that there has been corroboration between NoJ and NoA. I too remember NoA saying that they worked with the developers to produce TP’s script. However, I am not convinced that this has made NoA’s translation a true reflection of the Japanese intent, as it follows an identical formula of mistakes and fanfic timeline references that we saw in TWW. There were things in NoA’s translation of TP that did not make sense to me, and the Japanese dialogue has cleared them up. I have no faith in NoA.

Yes, yes, I know. FSA. But think about it, Ganon's tried the Triforce route at least once already, is it so hard to think that maybe he's just trying something different?

FSA features a new Ganon, so he can’t be learning from past experience. The simple fact is that Ganon did not seek out the Triforce because he simply didn’t need it. While it certainly would make Ganon a true “Fisher King”, Ganon was simply concerned with transforming Hyrule into his Maou. And likewise, if the Dark Tribe had enormous magical power, they would not need the Triforce.

because OoT wasn't supposed to be ALttP's backstory or anything...

In the state of the current canon, OoT is not AlttP’s backstory. Hence, the events described in ALttP’s manual are not the same events described in OoT.

Edited by Raien, 06 June 2009 - 06:07 PM.

[Person]

In the state of the current canon, OoT is not AlttP’s backstory. Hence, the events described in ALttP’s manual are not the same events described in OoT.

The time span given in the ALttP introduction is not specific. The Fierce Wars in the OoT backstory could have been part of the history of conflict over the Triforce mentioned in the ALttP backstory before the Seal War.

[Raien]

The time span given in the ALttP introduction is not specific. The Fierce Wars in the OoT backstory could have been part of the history of conflict over the Triforce mentioned in the ALttP backstory before the Seal War.

ALttP's backstory implies that the fighting led straight into the Seal War, and while I accept that it's not undisputable fact, I still think that the retcon of the Seal War also retcons the event before it.

[Impossible]

I thought the issue was not with what Lanayru said, but with other dialogue in TP that logically IS still about the Sacred Realm. I don't remember that much now, and I'd have to go through the translations which I don't have time to do (I can't believe I even had time for that one longass post), but I don't think that we can universally say that TP doesn't reference the Sacred Realm.

Actually, Zelda timeline theorising is a pretty accurate mirror of real historical analysis. We look at the evidence, we make subjective judgments of the evidence, we propose hypothesese to other theorists and debate their accuracy and effectiveness. The Zelda timeline is fictional, sure, but the standards with which we determine the strength and accuracy of a theory have a basis in real learning. If you have a problem with this, then you'd be questioning your own analysis and conclusions on the timeline. And while it is true that we don’t entirely know what the developers were thinking with these games, that’s the same for historians who don’t have access to influential figures because they are either simply out of reach or dead. Rather than just resign themselves to saying “We can never truly know the truth”, they develop theories with the information they do have access to, and those theories are developed or refuted with new information.

Of course, people who practice historical revisionism/negationism are laughed out of any community of historians. It seems to be okay in Zelda communities, given the accuracy of the Richard J. Evans explanation to what we see constantly. In real life, you don't get to make up a theory and then work the evidence around it.

Edited by Impossible, 07 June 2009 - 04:28 PM.

[Raien]

I thought the issue was not with what Lanayru said, but with other dialogue in TP that logically IS still about the Sacred Realm. I don't remember that much now, and I'd have to go through the translations which I don't have time to do (I can't believe I even had time for that one longass post), but I don't think that we can universally say that TP doesn't reference the Sacred Realm.

I would appreciate some examples here, because I don't remember any such references in the dialogue.

Of course, people who practice historical revisionism/negationism are laughed out of any community of historians. It seems to be okay in Zelda communities, given the accuracy of the Richard J. Evans explanation to what we see constantly. In real life, you don't get to make up a theory and then work the evidence around it.

The problem is that the two camps of timeline theorising (the first camp wants a true writer's timeline and the second camp just wants to make up their own timelines) all congregate in the same place, so when you try to establish regulations for the first camp, you get complaints from people in the second camp who naturally assume their own creativity is being stifled. It's practically impossible to distinguish them though, and that's why it's so difficult establishing regulations.

In addition to this, CID Farwin has also just demonstrated the problem of a self-fulfilling prophecy. Lots of people on the Zelda forums say that there is no real value in timeline theorising, and so we shouldn't have stringent regulations for it. Yet this very lack of regulation is the reason why timeline theorising has so little value. If we really want to bring the value of theorising up, we have to first defend it as an account of history and then bring in regulations to make that value substantial.

Edited by Raien, 07 June 2009 - 04:57 PM.

[CID Farwin]

Whazzataboutme? I was just getting at the fact that you're in no real position to choose what's "canon" or not.

I would appreciate some examples here, because I don't remember any such references in the dialogue.

かつて、聖地を手に入れようとハイラルに攻め込んできた盗賊の首領
A leader of thieves who once invaded Hyrule to establish dominion over the sacred place.
He was the leader of a band of thieves who invaded Hyrule in the hopes of establishing dominion over the Sacred Realm.

There you go, for one. In the context of the "sacred realm" being Hyrule, the sentence seems redundant.

ALttP's backstory implies that the fighting led straight into the Seal War, and while I accept that it's not undisputable fact, I still think that the retcon of the Seal War also retcons the event before it.

I believe he meant that ALttP doesn't specify how long the fighting went on before the Seal War.

As for my end, OoT was created as ALttP's backstory, and thus would elaborate on certain points. I don't see why the placements of the games should change that so radically. (especially if OoT is still before ALttP, albeit not the SW.)

FSA features a new Ganon, so he can’t be learning from past experience. The simple fact is that Ganon did not seek out the Triforce because he simply didn’t need it. While it certainly would make Ganon a true “Fisher King”, Ganon was simply concerned with transforming Hyrule into his Maou. And likewise, if the Dark Tribe had enormous magical power, they would not need the Triforce.

My mistake, the reincarnated Ganondorf just inherited the powers from the trident, not something like him getting possessed by or reviving "Ganon."

[Raien]

Whazzataboutme? I was just getting at the fact that you're in no real position to choose what's "canon" or not.

As long as the reasons hold up in debate, I am perfectly entitled to present my opinion on the canon and to encourage other theorists to adopt it. As such, the credibility of the NOA translations have been debated for years now, and the general consensus is that where there are differences between the NOA translations and the literal Japanese, the NOA translations are not canon. If you disagree, then I will be happy to debate your reasons for adopting the NOA translations. But I have no patience for claims of entitlement without substance to support them.

かつて、聖地を手に入れようとハイラルに攻め込んできた盗賊の首領
A leader of thieves who once invaded Hyrule to establish dominion over the sacred place.
He was the leader of a band of thieves who invaded Hyrule in the hopes of establishing dominion over the Sacred Realm.

There you go, for one. In the context of the "sacred realm" being Hyrule, the sentence seems redundant.

It's a decent example, but I'm interested to know if the words "the sacred place" could also mean "that sacred place" (which would connote a reference to Hyrule). I'll ask jacensolo on the translation topic.

[Impossible]

Ah, that's probably one of the quotes I was thinking of, and why I thought this was kind of stupid. It would be completely redundant unless that line refers to the Sacred Realm. Ganon invaded Hyrule to establish dominion over Hyrule, but I'm just going to call it something different that time! We know it was the Sacred Realm, we saw this in OoT.

As for whether the Twili's ancestors ever attempted to enter the Sacred Realm... Well, we DO see the Triforce, right? If that was the power they were after, then the text isn't relevant. Not saying I don't find the Japanese version to be interesting or more accurate, though, because it is. Maybe NoA were just extrapolating.

Edited by Impossible, 07 June 2009 - 10:14 PM.

[Person]

Raien, it seems you're applying a literalist argument to a symbolic scene. Much of TP went unstated. The word "Triforce" is never mentioned after all. Perhaps this was another thing that we the players were supposed to extrapolate given the visuals and NoA just made it explicit.

NoA probably didn't just invent this. It goes along with the visuals and message of the scene.

[Raien]

Okay, in light of this comment, I'll step back from this debate. I'm not convinced that the Twili's ancestors attempted to enter the Sacred Realm, but the evidence is clearly not specific enough to validate that claim to any considerable extent.

As for whether the Twili's ancestors ever attempted to enter the Sacred Realm... Well, we DO see the Triforce, right? If that was the power they were after, then the text isn't relevant. Not saying I don't find the Japanese version to be interesting or more accurate, though, because it is. Maybe NoA were just extrapolating.

Here's the thing. TP doesn't say they were after any power, it said that they wanted to conquer Hyrule using their own dark magic. And just as all the visuals in that scene were symbolic, the very first reference to the kingdom of Hyrule coincided with the appearance of Hyrule's symbol; the Triforce.

[MikePetersSucks]

Still, if the Twili weren't after the Triforce or anything, the Goddesses probably wouldn't of intervened, given precedent. They don't really make moves to stop dark lords unless they're wielding divinity.

[Raien]

Still, if the Twili weren't after the Triforce or anything, the Goddesses probably wouldn't of intervened, given precedent. They don't really make moves to stop dark lords unless they're wielding divinity.

I think they only intervene when there's no saviour in Hyrule to do so. That's more logical, in my opinion, than just saving Hyrule when the Triforce is involved.

[MikePetersSucks]

Well then new crackpot theory: The Hero's Shade is a Link ancestor (but not a Link himself) who tried to stop the Twili, failed, got killed, and never got over it, so he haunted Hyrule until the Twili became a threat again.

[Person]

Well then new crackpot theory: The Hero's Shade is a Link ancestor (but not a Link himself) who tried to stop the Twili, failed, got killed, and never got over it, so he haunted Hyrule until the Twili became a threat again.

Since we've never seen a hero who was not a Link, wouldn't that make him a Link, albeit a Link who failed? I mean, even the hero of the TMC backstory was implied to be a Link, as was the one of the FS backstory.

[CID Farwin]

Since we've never seen a hero who was not a Link, wouldn't that make him a Link, albeit a Link who failed? I mean, even the hero of the TMC backstory was implied to be a Link, as was the one of the FS backstory.

I play the Link's uncle card.

As for the crackpot theory, it actually kind of works in the context of the story, making it worlds better than anything over at ZU, (Actually ZU would probably be all over this and saying that he's the guy in the vision) but the big problems I can see are that it's pretty much based off of assumptions and there's no real precedent for it.

[MikePetersSucks]

Since we've never seen a hero who was not a Link, wouldn't that make him a Link, albeit a Link who failed? I mean, even the hero of the TMC backstory was implied to be a Link, as was the one of the FS backstory.

Link's Uncle, the Knights of Hyrule, the Group in TP sort've count, Ancient Stone Tablets...

[Raien]

I think we're all missing the important point here. At no point is the internal logic of the goddesses ever suggested to the players; we're just speculating their motivations on the basis of their actions. As such, the potential motivations of the goddesses cannot be used as a justification for other theories.

Edited by Raien, 09 June 2009 - 03:44 PM.

[Person]

Since we've never seen a hero who was not a Link, wouldn't that make him a Link, albeit a Link who failed? I mean, even the hero of the TMC backstory was implied to be a Link, as was the one of the FS backstory.

Link's Uncle, the Knights of Hyrule, the Group in TP sort've count, Ancient Stone Tablets...

Link's Uncle never was a hero, the Knights only held off Ganon until the sages could seal him, leaving ALttP Link to finish the job; the Group helped TP Link who did all of the real heroics, and the hero of AST showed up because Link was indisposed.

[Impossible]

Well then new crackpot theory: The Hero's Shade is a Link ancestor (but not a Link himself) who tried to stop the Twili, failed, got killed, and never got over it, so he haunted Hyrule until the Twili became a threat again.

OR... He's OoT Link, who is also TP Link's ancestor. Well, it's more plausible than making up more Links/ancestors when the game doesn't imply it.

[MikePetersSucks]

Link's Uncle never was a hero, the Knights only held off Ganon until the sages could seal him, leaving ALttP Link to finish the job; the Group helped TP Link who did all of the real heroics, and the hero of AST showed up because Link was indisposed.

Link's Uncle was a failed hero, like this Hero's Shade guy apparently is. The Knights still helped seal Ganon, if they don't count neither does LTTP Link, the Group still had actual heroics under their belt even if they didn't solo a boss fight, and the hero of AST is still a hero regardless of Link's availability.

[Person]

Link's Uncle never was a hero, the Knights only held off Ganon until the sages could seal him, leaving ALttP Link to finish the job; the Group helped TP Link who did all of the real heroics, and the hero of AST showed up because Link was indisposed.

Link's Uncle was a failed hero, like this Hero's Shade guy apparently is. The Knights still helped seal Ganon, if they don't count neither does LTTP Link, the Group still had actual heroics under their belt even if they didn't solo a boss fight, and the hero of AST is still a hero regardless of Link's availability.

But what exactly prevents the Hero's Shade from being OoT Link?

And it seems I was working on a different definition of hero than you were. I meant that every "Hero" we see who has risen up to defeat evil has ben a Link. Hence, there would be no failed heroes. The only real hero we have besides Link is the hero of AST, and that's because Link was stuck in a dream.

[SOAP]

Still, if the Twili weren't after the Triforce or anything, the Goddesses probably wouldn't of intervened, given precedent. They don't really make moves to stop dark lords unless they're wielding divinity.

I think they only intervene when there's no saviour in Hyrule to do so. That's more logical, in my opinion, than just saving Hyrule when the Triforce is involved.

Actually I think the simpler solution is that the Goddesses are all about balance and intervene when the scales have been tipped too far one way or the other. So in a way both of you are right. They'd intervene if an otherwise mortal villain approaches to closely to godhood, whether through the Triforce or some other means (the Fused Shadows). They'd intervene also if there's no hero to oppose Evil in Hyrule. And depending on your interpretation of the "Divine Prank" they can also intervene even when scales are tipped too much in the good guys favor if it could potentially lead to the good guys becoming oppressors rather than liberators of Hyrule.

[MikePetersSucks]

But what exactly prevents the Hero's Shade from being OoT Link?

Well, they have absolutely nothing in common aside from being "heroes", for one.

And it seems I was working on a different definition of hero than you were. I meant that every "Hero" we see who has risen up to defeat evil has ben a Link. Hence, there would be no failed heroes. The only real hero we have besides Link is the hero of AST, and that's because Link was stuck in a dream.

It doesn't change that other people in canon bear the title of hero. Link-esque heroes are just Legendary and whatnot. Besides, weren't we just talking about the hypothetical scenario of a Link-style Hero rising up to the Twili and failing?

[Person]

But what exactly prevents the Hero's Shade from being OoT Link?

Well, they have absolutely nothing in common aside from being "heroes", for one.

Wolf form, he indicates that Link is in his bloodline, he presumably etched in stone songs from MM...

And it seems I was working on a different definition of hero than you were. I meant that every "Hero" we see who has risen up to defeat evil has ben a Link. Hence, there would be no failed heroes. The only real hero we have besides Link is the hero of AST, and that's because Link was stuck in a dream.

It doesn't change that other people in canon bear the title of hero. Link-esque heroes are just Legendary and whatnot. Besides, weren't we just talking about the hypothetical scenario of a Link-style Hero rising up to the Twili and failing?

We've never seen a Link-style hero fail in canon. Whenever evil wins, there's no heroes around. The knights only barely beat Ganon, and the goddesses flood the world because no hero shows up in the TWW backstory. The only "replacement" hero we ever see win instead of Link is the hero of AST.

[MikePetersSucks]

Wolf form, he indicates that Link is in his bloodline, he presumably etched in stone songs from MM...

I meant the Hero's Shade and OOT Link, not TP Link. Context is important, dude.

We've never seen a Link-style hero fail in canon. Whenever evil wins, there's no heroes around. The knights only barely beat Ganon, and the goddesses flood the world because no hero shows up in the TWW backstory. The only "replacement" hero we ever see win instead of Link is the hero of AST.

Exactly, so why can't the Hero's Shade be a failed hero? He's clearly not a successful one.

[SOAP]

Stop it guys! We've been through this already.

[Average Gamer]

Exactly, so why can't the Hero's Shade be a failed hero? He's clearly not a successful one.

I haven't been following this discussion too closely, but I don't see any sign that the Hero's Shade failed. His only regret is that he seemingly didn't find an apprentice or someone who he could trust to take care of the world when he was gone. Also, aren't the only ones known as heroes in the series the successful ones?