Jump to content

IPBoard Styles©Fisana

Photo

Nintendo Confirms


  • Please log in to reply
156 replies to this topic

#61 MikePetersSucks

MikePetersSucks

    Actual Japanese Person

  • ZL Staff
  • 4,174 posts
  • Gender:Male

Posted 24 July 2009 - 03:51 PM

I wanna see proof the of the split that isn't a creator quote, then I will believe. How wasn't it a time loop? It was present, you closed it by obtaining the song. I dont even think that it was made clear in WW that the hero statues were OoT.


It technically wasn't a perfect timeloop because it didn't involve the generation of information out of nowhere. It's an irrelevant point though, as Zelda time travel isn't consistent across the board. A split does have to exist, since TWW and TP can't coexist at all on a timeline.

It's debatable, and using all caps isn't going to change that.


It's really not. It's currently one of the few absolute facts of timeline placement we have. What are your reasons for doubting it?

What doesn't present problems? Kid Link presumaby retained his memories of the erased future, just as Marty McFly did, and probably used his story, and his possession of the ToC, as proof that he was the Hero of Time. It takes some stretching to fit, but again, nothing doesn't, and I'm not really going for anyone else's approval.


Yea, so? Child Link presenting that information would change history, and would neatly lead into TP's backstory. However, in a single timeline, this would break any timeloop you have going due to a changed future, and TWW, which requires the events of OOT's Adult Future, cannot happen.

Again, I don't believe in a split timeline, and I don't believe that both games require no non-MM games to occur between them and OoT.


Still the above problem.

It's only "dumb" because you're misreading it. All I said was that I don't think the creators care as much as they claim to in interviews about clarifying the storyline. TP is ambiguous as shit regarding this stuff, yet they claim they're trying to clarify sutff? No sale.


It's not ambiguous. They didn't use the name, but they used every other cue to make you think "Triforce" without holding your hand. That's what good storytelling is. You'd have to be a complete moron (or completely unintroduced to Zelda) to not think Triforce. And indeed, this forum has those sorts of morons.

True, but the point is, there are way more things to disagree about, meaning a consensus on pretty much anything, including what had a consensus way back when, has been rendered essentially impossible.


Well, aside from the placement of TMC, my timeline represents the current general consensus. Consensus can exist, but if you're asking for EVERYONE to agree, then that's just foolishness.

Yeah, I could have worded that better. It's plot-heavy compared to Mega Man or Street Fighter. Creator quotes being canon in those cases, I'll totally go for, mainly because there's very little story covered in the games themselves (especially Street Fighter), and the creators' comments really only cover stuff like who won which tournaments, who meets whom (Dan and Sagat, ect.), or what the flying hell the Zero Virus actually is. And I'm pretty sure that's the first time I've brought that up.


So then if a Zelda creator who's shown interest in the story, and who's helped to actually clarify things, (yea, I know, TP's Triforce thing, but he's not responsible for that) makes a comment on the timeline, it's pretty hypocritical of you to just say "it doesn't count." We have about as much information on the timeline at large as we do on Megaman and Street Fighter as a whole.

Honestly, I wouldn't be so against a split if the two timelines reconverged at some point (like davo's waaaaay old Creation of the Dark World idea). It's just the idea of having two separate "universes" in the property that bothers me.


So you're throwing out evidence, ignoring problems in the timeline, and ignoring creator intent simply because you don't like the idea, despite the huge metaphysical headache merging timelines would do (going so far as to have made games never happen). Lovely.

I'm sorry, but everyone seems to have concluded the hero referred to in TP is the Hero of Time, despite the game never using that terminology, and won't hear a word against it. That's assuming more than is given in text.


Deeds are attributed to the Legendary Hero that only the Hero of Time ever completed, such as saving the Zora the last time they froze over.

Okay it's incredibly stupid. I'd mention Ganon getting around that whole perfect seal business after Ocarina's ending without someone else's help, and moving above and below with no limitations despite the Master Sword supposedly acting as the key to keeping time frozen, but that'd be incredibly stupid, so I won't.


Please tell me you weren't thinking of quoting a Lex theory.

3) Why not? (I cropped the rest because it doesn't answer the question. Put yourself back in 2001/2 first MPS. Was there any GOOD reason why we couldn't play as the incarnation of Link we've all come to know and love most?)


Don't speak for all of us. OOT Link was never the most important Link or anything, and Nintendo has a trend of putting two games per Link, it seems. OOT Link went back in time, and, well, you know, he can't live for HUNDREDS OF YEARS. Not to mention that, 2001/2 or not, it's always been the game's theme about letting go of the past. The King of Red Lions and the other guardian deities keep expecting the Hero of Time to return, and keep trying to groom TWW Link into his replacement, but ultimately he has to surpass their expectations and be a hero in his own way.

Not sure how its canonical when the creators can't give a rat's arse about it MPS. This is an inherent problem with Zelda's storyline, one I don't expect you or anyone else to resolve easily.


Aonuma, the guy who confirmed the split, gives a rat's ass. His intent as a developer is to make the story more clear and coherent, aware of the concern of the fans.

You mean "gimmick" with regards to terminology. After you restore the Light Spirits early on in the game and converted Hyrule back to normal, the wolf form becomes pathetically obsolete. Half your changes into wolf-form aren't even intentional, they just plot devices, much akin to the useless pink rabbit Link from ALTTP.


Even after you save the Light Spirits, there's loads of scenes that require you to be Wolf Link, and Wolf Link possesses abilities that human Link does not, but ultimately requires. TWW's sailing was pathetically linear, and you weren't much allowed to leave your straight line path until you collected all the Pearls. Then after you get the power to teleport, it's "pathetically obsolete." And LTTP and OOT didn't even have a gameplay mechanic, it's just map-shifting. And LA etc. etc. etc.

Yeah we'll go with that IF ON THE BASIS that it makes you happy, which I doubt. To be honest I care for this now about as much as Shigeru Miyamoto does.


Then why argue? Joeymartin gave his reasons for denying a split, what are yours?

For the forseeable future, yes, but it does leave open the possibilty it being restored somehow, what with Ganondorf's spiel before the Phantom Ganon fight, and especially the Deku Tree's plan.


Ganondorf is deluded and is contradicted by King Daphnes, who says that Hyrule is gone and any new land wouldn't be Hyrule. Even the Deku Tree's plan seems unrealistic and ambitious. IMO, it's just tying back to how the Deku Tree, like other characters, obsessively cling to the past instead of looking to the future.

And it has nothing to do with gameplay or feel. It's kinda similar to how a lot of Star Trek fans felt screwed by the new movie, since the reboot rendered all the previous media "illegitimate." I know that's not really the case, but that's how some people took it. It just feels cheap to me to know that some events happen in different universes, rather than being one unified series. And don't throw Termina or Koholint in my face; you know what I mean.


Multiverses is common in series like that. The Star Trek reboot happened in it's own universe, since the events allowing for the timeline thing could never happen in the timeline we were familiar with. What's the problem with having multiple universes? It doesn't keep the series from being unified; look at Mega Man.

#62 GuardianNinja

GuardianNinja

    Famicom

  • Members
  • 1,489 posts
  • Location:Ohio
  • Gender:Male

Posted 24 July 2009 - 04:22 PM

I wanna see proof the of the split that isn't a creator quote, then I will believe. How wasn't it a time loop? It was present, you closed it by obtaining the song. I dont even think that it was made clear in WW that the hero statues were OoT.


It technically wasn't a perfect timeloop because it didn't involve the generation of information out of nowhere. It's an irrelevant point though, as Zelda time travel isn't consistent across the board. A split does have to exist, since TWW and TP can't coexist at all on a timeline.


You mean the way you teach yourself a song you dont know, so that you know it, to teach yourself it? Cause y'know, that did happen by the way.

What doesn't present problems? Kid Link presumaby retained his memories of the erased future, just as Marty McFly did, and probably used his story, and his possession of the ToC, as proof that he was the Hero of Time. It takes some stretching to fit, but again, nothing doesn't, and I'm not really going for anyone else's approval.


Yea, so? Child Link presenting that information would change history, and would neatly lead into TP's backstory. However, in a single timeline, this would break any timeloop you have going due to a changed future, and TWW, which requires the events of OOT's Adult Future, cannot happen.


Orrrrr, in LA, Link leaves Hyrule?

3) Why not? (I cropped the rest because it doesn't answer the question. Put yourself back in 2001/2 first MPS. Was there any GOOD reason why we couldn't play as the incarnation of Link we've all come to know and love most?)


Don't speak for all of us. OOT Link was never the most important Link or anything, and Nintendo has a trend of putting two games per Link, it seems. OOT Link went back in time, and, well, you know, he can't live for HUNDREDS OF YEARS. Not to mention that, 2001/2 or not, it's always been the game's theme about letting go of the past. The King of Red Lions and the other guardian deities keep expecting the Hero of Time to return, and keep trying to groom TWW Link into his replacement, but ultimately he has to surpass their expectations and be a hero in his own way.


Sure, but I will always consider the theme to try something new in the zelda series. (Gimmick, ect.)

You mean "gimmick" with regards to terminology. After you restore the Light Spirits early on in the game and converted Hyrule back to normal, the wolf form becomes pathetically obsolete. Half your changes into wolf-form aren't even intentional, they just plot devices, much akin to the useless pink rabbit Link from ALTTP.


Even after you save the Light Spirits, there's loads of scenes that require you to be Wolf Link, and Wolf Link possesses abilities that human Link does not, but ultimately requires. TWW's sailing was pathetically linear, and you weren't much allowed to leave your straight line path until you collected all the Pearls. Then after you get the power to teleport, it's "pathetically obsolete." And LTTP and OOT didn't even have a gameplay mechanic, it's just map-shifting. And LA etc. etc. etc.


But its still useless, they force you to trasform to warp, incredibly not needed. Mapshifting is a gameplay mechanic, because as you know, it effects gameplay in positive and negative ways, just like the wolf?

Yeah we'll go with that IF ON THE BASIS that it makes you happy, which I doubt. To be honest I care for this now about as much as Shigeru Miyamoto does.


Then why argue? Joeymartin gave his reasons for denying a split, what are yours?


Why need a reason? maybe he just doesnt want 2 timelines, I dont?

For the forseeable future, yes, but it does leave open the possibilty it being restored somehow, what with Ganondorf's spiel before the Phantom Ganon fight, and especially the Deku Tree's plan.


Ganondorf is deluded and is contradicted by King Daphnes, who says that Hyrule is gone and any new land wouldn't be Hyrule. Even the Deku Tree's plan seems unrealistic and ambitious. IMO, it's just tying back to how the Deku Tree, like other characters, obsessively cling to the past instead of looking to the future.


But the past is where its at! :D

And it has nothing to do with gameplay or feel. It's kinda similar to how a lot of Star Trek fans felt screwed by the new movie, since the reboot rendered all the previous media "illegitimate." I know that's not really the case, but that's how some people took it. It just feels cheap to me to know that some events happen in different universes, rather than being one unified series. And don't throw Termina or Koholint in my face; you know what I mean.


Multiverses is common in series like that. The Star Trek reboot happened in it's own universe, since the events allowing for the timeline thing could never happen in the timeline we were familiar with. What's the problem with having multiple universes? It doesn't keep the series from being unified; look at Mega Man.


Megaman is not unified, its totally seperate in terms of time, One is if robotics were adapted, Two is if computers were, The newest one is an alternate computer advanced society. But thats just Megaman not Zelda.

#63 Person

Person

    Famicom

  • Members
  • 1,047 posts
  • Gender:Male

Posted 24 July 2009 - 04:32 PM

And it has nothing to do with gameplay or feel. It's kinda similar to how a lot of Star Trek fans felt screwed by the new movie, since the reboot rendered all the previous media "illegitimate." I know that's not really the case, but that's how some people took it. It just feels cheap to me to know that some events happen in different universes, rather than being one unified series. And don't throw Termina or Koholint in my face; you know what I mean.


Multiverses is common in series like that. The Star Trek reboot happened in it's own universe, since the events allowing for the timeline thing could never happen in the timeline we were familiar with. What's the problem with having multiple universes? It doesn't keep the series from being unified; look at Mega Man.

Or Batman. I mean, even with just the movies, we have two series that have nothing to do with each other, but it's still a unified franchise. Or all those "elseworld" comic book stories. Heck, the most well-regarded Batman story, the Dark Knight Returns, doesn't even happen in the main DC Universe, it happens on Earth-31. Why can't Zelda be the same way, even with only two universes?

#64 joeymartin64

joeymartin64

    Optimistic Cynic

  • Members
  • 2,068 posts
  • Location:Shoreline, WA
  • Gender:Male
  • United States

Posted 25 July 2009 - 01:12 AM

It's really not. It's currently one of the few absolute facts of timeline placement we have. What are your reasons for doubting it?

I don't consider creator quotes as hard canon. How the hell many times do I have to say that?

Yea, so? Child Link presenting that information would change history, and would neatly lead into TP's backstory. However, in a single timeline, this would break any timeloop you have going due to a changed future, and TWW, which requires the events of OOT's Adult Future, cannot happen.

Or, the events being known would cause them to go down as legend. Sort of like how alternate 1985 happened, but didn't. (Yeah, I know I'm kinda heavy into the BttF analogies.)

It's not ambiguous. They didn't use the name, but they used every other cue to make you think "Triforce" without holding your hand. That's what good storytelling is. You'd have to be a complete moron (or completely unintroduced to Zelda) to not think Triforce. And indeed, this forum has those sorts of morons.

You're still missing my point like a champion. It's not that I'm doubting anyone knew that they were talking about the Triforce. It's that, even after claiming to want to try to clarify the storyline, they bullshit around with even the most basic stuff. I can't possibly be this hard to read.

Consensus can exist, but if you're asking for EVERYONE to agree, then that's just foolishness.

That's exactly what I'm saying. It's impossible for everyone to agree, so I don't give a shit if anyone agrees with my views. I don't hold anyone else to what I think, so what harm?

So then if a Zelda creator who's shown interest in the story, and who's helped to actually clarify things, (yea, I know, TP's Triforce thing, but he's not responsible for that) makes a comment on the timeline, it's pretty hypocritical of you to just say "it doesn't count." We have about as much information on the timeline at large as we do on Megaman and Street Fighter as a whole.

I'm really trying not to get Serious Business about this, but I'm starting to think you're not even reading my posts.

So you're throwing out evidence, ignoring problems in the timeline, and ignoring creator intent simply because you don't like the idea, despite the huge metaphysical headache merging timelines would do (going so far as to have made games never happen). Lovely.

That's one way to look at it, I guess, but I'm not insisting that anyone agree, so who cares? Also, I don't see any "metaphysical headache" (whatever that even means), and I don't exclude any games. Third, I'm not "merging timelines," as my view never has a split occur at all. And what evidence am I throwing out, other than creator quotes, which I don't consider canon? I'm not really ignoring problems, either, I'm bullshitting to explain them. You can call it fanwanking if you like, and I wouldn't disagree. You'd have to do that for anything, though. Less so, probably, but the point remains. Plus, like I keep saying, I don't care if anyone agrees, and I don't care about a "right" answer.

Deeds are attributed to the Legendary Hero that only the Hero of Time ever completed, such as saving the Zora the last time they froze over.

Ooh, that could present some difficulties. Serious, no sarcasm. Quote, please?

Aonuma, the guy who confirmed the split, gives a rat's ass. His intent as a developer is to make the story more clear and coherent, aware of the concern of the fans.

So he says; we don't believe him. At least I don't.

Ganondorf is deluded and is contradicted by King Daphnes, who says that Hyrule is gone and any new land wouldn't be Hyrule. Even the Deku Tree's plan seems unrealistic and ambitious. IMO, it's just tying back to how the Deku Tree, like other characters, obsessively cling to the past instead of looking to the future.

He didn't say "any land." He said "that land," referring specifically to the one Link and Tetra set out to find. And your interpretation of the Deku Tree's plan is just that: an interpretation. I happen to have a different one.

Multiverses is common in series like that. The Star Trek reboot happened in it's own universe, since the events allowing for the timeline thing could never happen in the timeline we were familiar with. What's the problem with having multiple universes? It doesn't keep the series from being unified; look at Mega Man.

I mean "unified" in a storyline sense. If Battle Network and Star Force didn't exist, I'd be with you there.

Edited by joeymartin64, 25 July 2009 - 01:38 AM.


#65 Person

Person

    Famicom

  • Members
  • 1,047 posts
  • Gender:Male

Posted 25 July 2009 - 02:28 AM

Gods of the Triforce! Hear that which I
desire! Hope! I desire hope for these children! Give them a future! Wash away
this ancient land of Hyrule! Let a ray of hope shine on the future of the
world!!!


It would kind of defeat the purpose of TWW if TP happened right after it, with a Hyrule exactly like the one from OoT. If anything, the ending sets up sequels set in Link and Tetra's new land, the first of which will probably be ST.

#66 joeymartin64

joeymartin64

    Optimistic Cynic

  • Members
  • 2,068 posts
  • Location:Shoreline, WA
  • Gender:Male
  • United States

Posted 25 July 2009 - 02:40 AM

Yeah, that one nags at me. Still, if Hyrule is restored, that wouldn't be "this ancient land of Hyrule." And why wouldn't a new Hyrule be geographically similar to the old one? Also, I never said TP happened "right after" TWW, just some time later, probably a shitload of time later.

Also, it's not unheard of for the purpose to be defeated. OoT was once meant to be the Imprisoning War, but that's been rendered pretty unlikely, what with TWW, TP, or both, separating OoT from ALttP. The case could still be made, I guess, but I doubt many would go for it.

#67 bjamez7573

bjamez7573

    Bard

  • Members
  • 69 posts
  • Gender:Male

Posted 25 July 2009 - 11:29 AM

bjamez: I don't expect one game to provide all the answers. But not even using the word "Triforce" after claiming to want to clarify the timeline? Ambiguity is one thing, but TP seemed like it was intentionally dicking around a lot of the time to avoid providing information, especially in that regard.

It's not that I'm doubting anyone knew that they were talking about the Triforce. It's that, even after claiming to want to try to clarify the storyline, they bullshit around with even the most basic stuff.
......................................

Aonuma, the guy who confirmed the split, gives a rat's ass. His intent as a developer is to make the story more clear and coherent, aware of the concern of the fans.

So he says; we don't believe him. At least I don't.

If Aonuma says that he cares, why should we doubt him? What else can you go by to make the conclusion that every quote he says about the zelda storyline doesn't count as canon? My understanding of your reseaoning so far is that although you don't require games to give outright answers, that can't be too ambiguous, either? And TP was too ambiguous? Therefore, Aonuma can't be trusted? (just a side note: how was not saying the Triforce really hurting the timeline in any way?) Or is that just an example? If he leaves TP kind of ambiquous, he can fill in the gaps with new games. I am just trying to understand your reasoning here, as I can't wrap my head around why anyone would disregard Aonuma's quotes when many of them should be considered evidence (due to the reasons I mentioned in my previous post)

Ganondorf is deluded and is contradicted by King Daphnes, who says that Hyrule is gone and any new land wouldn't be Hyrule. Even the Deku Tree's plan seems unrealistic and ambitious. IMO, it's just tying back to how the Deku Tree, like other characters, obsessively cling to the past instead of looking to the future.

He didn't say "any land." He said "that land," referring specifically to the one Link and Tetra set out to find. And your interpretation of the Deku Tree's plan is just that: an interpretation. I happen to have a different one.

It is very feasible for the Deku's Tree plan to work and a new land to form. But it will be just that, a new land, not the old, ancient OOT hyrule (which is required for TP to happen). This is due to the fact that the King wished with the Triforce for the old Hyrule to be erased, and the Deku Tree can't contradict that.

Yeah, that one nags at me. Still, if Hyrule is restored, that wouldn't be "this ancient land of Hyrule." And why wouldn't a new Hyrule be geographically similar to the old one? Also, I never said TP happened "right after" TWW, just some time later, probably a shitload of time later.

Also, it's not unheard of for the purpose to be defeated. OoT was once meant to be the Imprisoning War, but that's been rendered pretty unlikely, what with TWW, TP, or both, separating OoT from ALttP. The case could still be made, I guess, but I doubt many would go for it.

Except, the Hyrule of TP is the ancient one from OOT. King made the wish with the Triforce, I doubt any amount of time would really change that and be able to bring the ancient Hyrule back.

I am a little surprised that you would bring up a connection that was made with creator quotes, when the in-game evidence for that connection was shaky. OOT's story and the IW story don't really meet up, that is exactly why Aonuma shattered that connection and retconned those old creator quotes (which were said during Miyamoto's era [who's creator quotes I think should be disregarded, by the way]).

Edited by bjamez7573, 25 July 2009 - 11:30 AM.


#68 MikePetersSucks

MikePetersSucks

    Actual Japanese Person

  • ZL Staff
  • 4,174 posts
  • Gender:Male

Posted 25 July 2009 - 01:32 PM

You mean the way you teach yourself a song you dont know, so that you know it, to teach yourself it? Cause y'know, that did happen by the way.


The Japanese text vaguely implies a non-causal loop origin point for the Song of Storms. But this really is a moot issue, I'm dropping it to focus on other things.

Orrrrr, in LA, Link leaves Hyrule?


LA Link doesn't leave Hyrule "through the currents of time", nor is he called the Hero of Winds. So yea.

Why need a reason? maybe he just doesnt want 2 timelines, I dont?


That's just contrarian, which is bad form when arguing, debating, discussing. You shouldn't throw out ideas or evidence simply because you don't like them.

Megaman is not unified, its totally seperate in terms of time, One is if robotics were adapted, Two is if computers were, The newest one is an alternate computer advanced society. But thats just Megaman not Zelda.


I'm aware it has different timelines, but the franchise is unified. The unification of a story does not preclude the franchise's unity.

I don't consider creator quotes as hard canon. How the hell many times do I have to say that?


There's confirming evidence within the series, as I've already told you. TWW and TP can't coexist.

Or, the events being known would cause them to go down as legend. Sort of like how alternate 1985 happened, but didn't. (Yeah, I know I'm kinda heavy into the BttF analogies.)


No one in the OOT>TP timeline would know about Adult OOT Link's exploits in that sort of detail. TWW's Prologue recounts it as if it actually happened, including having Ganon break out of his Seal, and there being memoriums to Sages that never became Sages in OOT Link's childhood, and in an altered history have no reasoning to be awakened. Given that Ganondorf dies at the end of TP, it can't go inbetween OOT and TWW. It sincerely cannot, with TWW having Ganon break out of the OOT Sage's seal.

You're still missing my point like a champion. It's not that I'm doubting anyone knew that they were talking about the Triforce. It's that, even after claiming to want to try to clarify the storyline, they bullshit around with even the most basic stuff. I can't possibly be this hard to read.


I'm not missing your point, I'm saying your point isn't valid. Being clear with the timeline as a whole has nothing to do with the script of a specific game and it's contents, and since Aonuma, the one trying to unify the timeline and making the Creator Comments, isn't RESPONSIBLE for the script of TP, it's an entirely pointless argument.

Ooh, that could present some difficulties. Serious, no sarcasm. Quote, please?


I really, really hate going through game scripts, due to my troubles with English. I know they have to do with the Zora and Goron areas, as the leaders of those races make comments about how the Legendary Hero saved them the last time they were frozen/volcano'd. The ONLY Hero who fits these requirements? OOT Link.

He didn't say "any land." He said "that land," referring specifically to the one Link and Tetra set out to find. And your interpretation of the Deku Tree's plan is just that: an interpretation. I happen to have a different one.


Hyrule is dead; the interpretation is consistent with the bigger theme of the game. Bringing Hyrule back is completely meaningless, and probably impossible. It'll be the country in name only, and probably just a bunch of trees, which isn't too conductive to Hyrule's classical landmarks.

Yeah, that one nags at me. Still, if Hyrule is restored, that wouldn't be "this ancient land of Hyrule." And why wouldn't a new Hyrule be geographically similar to the old one? Also, I never said TP happened "right after" TWW, just some time later, probably a shitload of time later.


Better question: Why SHOULD it look the same, and have the same name, etc? Daphnes' wish seems like he wanted Hyrule GONE and out of the way, in order to end the cycle that the other games have been repeating over and over and over. You'd have to be saying that the Gods refused to grant Daphnes' wish for this scenario to work out, or that the Deku Tree can defy their will, or something.

Also, it's not unheard of for the purpose to be defeated. OoT was once meant to be the Imprisoning War, but that's been rendered pretty unlikely, what with TWW, TP, or both, separating OoT from ALttP. The case could still be made, I guess, but I doubt many would go for it.


OOT being the Imprisoning War was never the purpose in-game. There wasn't a storyline element hinging on that connection, or an Aesop the characters had to learn. It was just a cool connection for the players that ultimately wasn't important.

#69 joeymartin64

joeymartin64

    Optimistic Cynic

  • Members
  • 2,068 posts
  • Location:Shoreline, WA
  • Gender:Male
  • United States

Posted 25 July 2009 - 02:53 PM

If Aonuma says that he cares, why should we doubt him? What else can you go by to make the conclusion that every quote he says about the zelda storyline doesn't count as canon? My understanding of your reseaoning so far is that although you don't require games to give outright answers, that can't be too ambiguous, either? And TP was too ambiguous? Therefore, Aonuma can't be trusted? (just a side note: how was not saying the Triforce really hurting the timeline in any way?) Or is that just an example? If he leaves TP kind of ambiquous, he can fill in the gaps with new games. I am just trying to understand your reasoning here, as I can't wrap my head around why anyone would disregard Aonuma's quotes when many of them should be considered evidence (due to the reasons I mentioned in my previous post)

Yeah, it's just an example. Finally, somebody gets that. If future games do less bullshitting, I'll probably retract this, but as it stands, I don't believe him. And it's not so much that I think he "can't be trusted" as much as I think he "can't be trusted absolutely."

Except, the Hyrule of TP is the ancient one from OOT. King made the wish with the Triforce, I doubt any amount of time would really change that and be able to bring the ancient Hyrule back.

Looks that way, sure. But I don't think a destruction and reconstruction would necessarily have to be mentioned if it wasn't pertinent to TP's plot, which it wasn't.

I am a little surprised that you would bring up a connection that was made with creator quotes, when the in-game evidence for that connection was shaky. OOT's story and the IW story don't really meet up, that is exactly why Aonuma shattered that connection and retconned those old creator quotes (which were said during Miyamoto's era [who's creator quotes I think should be disregarded, by the way]).

I didn't. I was referring to the pretty ham-fisted parallels between OoT and the ALttP account of the IW.

No one in the OOT>TP timeline would know about Adult OOT Link's exploits in that sort of detail. TWW's Prologue recounts it as if it actually happened, including having Ganon break out of his Seal, and there being memoriums to Sages that never became Sages in OOT Link's childhood, and in an altered history have no reasoning to be awakened. Given that Ganondorf dies at the end of TP, it can't go inbetween OOT and TWW. It sincerely cannot, with TWW having Ganon break out of the OOT Sage's seal.

Link could have recounted it in "that sort of detail." And I don't place TP between OoT and TWW; I place it well after the TWW-PH arc. And I'm talking a FFT-after-FFXII length of time.

I'm not missing your point, I'm saying your point isn't valid. Being clear with the timeline as a whole has nothing to do with the script of a specific game and it's contents, and since Aonuma, the one trying to unify the timeline and making the Creator Comments, isn't RESPONSIBLE for the script of TP, it's an entirely pointless argument.

Yes, you are, and yes, it does. If he wasn't responsible for it directly, he did approve of it. Like bjamez said, it's just an example.

I really, really hate going through game scripts, due to my troubles with English. I know they have to do with the Zora and Goron areas, as the leaders of those races make comments about how the Legendary Hero saved them the last time they were frozen/volcano'd. The ONLY Hero who fits these requirements? OOT Link.

I looked. I honestly, sincrerly looked, and I didn't find anything like that. I may have looked in the wrong place; I'll check again.

Hyrule is dead; the interpretation is consistent with the bigger theme of the game. Bringing Hyrule back is completely meaningless, and probably impossible. It'll be the country in name only, and probably just a bunch of trees, which isn't too conductive to Hyrule's classical landmarks.

I'm not going to bergudge you holding that interpretation, but trying to shoot mine down by using it is getting to be a circular agrument. If that's the way you look at it, fine. I happen to disagree.

Better question: Why SHOULD it look the same, and have the same name, etc? Daphnes' wish seems like he wanted Hyrule GONE and out of the way, in order to end the cycle that the other games have been repeating over and over and over. You'd have to be saying that the Gods refused to grant Daphnes' wish for this scenario to work out, or that the Deku Tree can defy their will, or something.

Nah. "This ancient land of Hyrule" could mean just that: the ancient land. The new one later on could be considered a new and improved version, supposedly absolved of all the shit you mentioned (for however little good that ultimately did them).

OOT being the Imprisoning War was never the purpose in-game. There wasn't a storyline element hinging on that connection, or an Aesop the characters had to learn. It was just a cool connection for the players that ultimately wasn't important.

At the time, it was of enormous importance.

Edited by joeymartin64, 25 July 2009 - 02:54 PM.


#70 bjamez7573

bjamez7573

    Bard

  • Members
  • 69 posts
  • Gender:Male

Posted 25 July 2009 - 04:34 PM

Yeah, it's just an example. Finally, somebody gets that. If future games do less bullshitting, I'll probably retract this, but as it stands, I don't believe him. And it's not so much that I think he "can't be trusted" as much as I think he "can't be trusted absolutely."

I guess I can understand why you don't trust them. Because of Miyamoto, the first few games didn't really make sense together, and since then the newest game, TP, was vague, it seems like Aonuma can't be trusted, either. However Anouma did clear up the IW/OOT connection with WW and WW was a very consistent sequel to OOT.

So, since you said "can't be trusted absolutely, does that mean you trust him somewhat? Maybe some quotes are valid? I can understand that not all of his quotes are valid, such as, "The Four Swords is what were thinking of as the oldest game in the timeline" (That may not be the exact quote, but the meaning is there), he can't necessarily be trusted in that instance. For one, he wasn't involved in the Four Swords that much, and he gave a statement that made it sound like it wasn't a hard and fast decision. I can understand sifting through his statements based on involvement and how well they coincide with game evidence, but the split timeline quotes from Aonuma satisfy both qualities. So why doubt those quotes?

Looks that way, sure. But I don't think a destruction and reconstruction would necessarily have to be mentioned if it wasn't pertinent to TP's plot, which it wasn't.

Its not that they have to be mentioned, but a reconstruction would defy the wish the King made on the Triforce. You need a very good reason (game evidence to support) to suggest this to happen, as defying the Triforce from someone righteous does not happen.

I didn't. I was referring to the pretty ham-fisted parallels between OoT and the ALttP account of the IW.

Well, Ok, but you just said,..

Also, it's not unheard of for the purpose to be defeated. OoT was once meant to be the Imprisoning War, but that's been rendered pretty unlikely, what with TWW, TP, or both, separating OoT from ALttP. The case could still be made, I guess, but I doubt many would go for it.

It sounded like you were stating the purpose of OOT was to be the Imprisoning War story (therefore, a connection). And since that purpose was broken by future games, the King's Wish could be broken, too.

But if you are just talking about parallels, then OOT and the IW do have them, but that doesn't mean there was any purpose (if you are only looking at in-game evidence) for OOT that was broken later by WW and TP. So using that as a justification for a game to come after WW without considering those old creator quotes (that connected OOT to the IW) doesn't work.

Hyrule is dead; the interpretation is consistent with the bigger theme of the game. Bringing Hyrule back is completely meaningless, and probably impossible. It'll be the country in name only, and probably just a bunch of trees, which isn't too conductive to Hyrule's classical landmarks.

I'm not going to bergudge you holding that interpretation, but trying to shoot mine down by using it is getting to be a circular agrument. If that's the way you look at it, fine. I happen to disagree.

So are you saying that the King's wish didn't result in Hyrule's destruction? Or that the old ancient Hyrule (from OOT) can be recovered? (even though the king wished it to never come back with the Triforce and to rise the ancient land to the surface from deep water would require great magic [magic that would have to be more powerful than the Triforce because it has to override the King's wish.])

Nah. "This ancient land of Hyrule" could mean just that: the ancient land. The new one later on could be considered a new and improved version, supposedly absolved of all the shit you mentioned (for however little good that ultimately did them).

That's good and fine, but TP's Hyrule is the same as OOT's (which is the ancient Hyrule that the King wished away) - with virtually all of the same places and not to mention the old Temple of Time. It is not a new Hyrule by any means.

#71 SOAP

SOAP

    So Oo Ap Puh

  • Members
  • 7,750 posts
  • Location:Savannah, GA Hell Yeah!
  • Gender:Male
  • World

Posted 25 July 2009 - 04:48 PM

Wasn't it once believed that TP came between OoT and TWW? I remember because that's when people started theorizing that TP Link would fail somehow and Hyrule would be flooded. And this was well before the Valley of the Flood rumors. It wasn't the case of course but could a timeline with TP before TWW be made? TP's ending was as ambiguous as shit, we don't know what happened to the Triforce and TWW's intro describes Ganon emerging from the bowels of the earth. Maybe the ToP remained in him after all and just needed time to "recharge" and bring him back from the dead. People see Ganon's death in TP as deader than dead but his death seems more final in TWW being turned to stone and all.

#72 joeymartin64

joeymartin64

    Optimistic Cynic

  • Members
  • 2,068 posts
  • Location:Shoreline, WA
  • Gender:Male
  • United States

Posted 25 July 2009 - 04:58 PM

I guess I can understand why you don't trust them. Because of Miyamoto, the first few games didn't really make sense together, and since then the newest game, TP, was vague, it seems like Aonuma can't be trusted, either. However Anouma did clear up the IW/OOT connection with WW and WW was a very consistent sequel to OOT.

So, since you said "can't be trusted absolutely, does that mean you trust him somewhat? Maybe some quotes are valid? I can understand that not all of his quotes are valid, such as, "The Four Swords is what were thinking of as the oldest game in the timeline" (That may not be the exact quote, but the meaning is there), he can't necessarily be trusted in that instance. For one, he wasn't involved in the Four Swords that much, and he gave a statement that made it sound like it wasn't a hard and fast decision. I can understand sifting through his statements based on involvement and how well they coincide with game evidence, but the split timeline quotes from Aonuma satisfy both qualities. So why doubt those quotes?

It's not really a quote-by-quote thing. It's more taking what he says with a good pinch of salt, and if something doesn't jive with me, I don't buy into it. If it jives with you, go for it.

It sounded like you were stating the purpose of OOT was to be the Imprisoning War story (therefore, a connection). And since that purpose was broken by future games, the King's Wish could be broken, too.

That's pretty much exactly what I was getting at, though I don't believe the king's wish was broken, but that's the next point.

As for the new Hyrule thing, the physical place may be the same (at least partially), but it could have been restored with the hope that the "cycle," as MPS put it, had been broken (even though it really hadn't). Sort of like the old cliche, "I feel like a new man."

And if I really want to get stupid about it, I could mention that the Hero's Shade says this:

Surely you can restore Hyrule to its stature of yore as the chosen land of the gods.

This could be taken to mean that it hadn't been thought of as such for whatever reason prior to TP, and that the old OoT Hyrule is still looked upon in that manner. The case could also be made that the revisited locations from OoT look damaged enough to have been submerged for a couple hundred years. Time would do that just as well, though, so I'm not throwing in with that one too hard.

Wasn't it once believed that TP came between OoT and TWW? I remember because that's when people started theorizing that TP Link would fail somehow and Hyrule would be flooded. And this was well before the Valley of the Flood rumors. It wasn't the case of course but could a timeline with TP before TWW be made? TP's ending was as ambiguous as shit, we don't know what happened to the Triforce and TWW's intro describes Ganon emerging from the bowels of the earth. Maybe the ToP remained in him after all and just needed time to "recharge" and bring him back from the dead. People see Ganon's death in TP as deader than dead but his death seems more final in TWW being turned to stone and all.


I'm pretty sure the Triforce is supposed to be ruinited after TP, despite that happening on the sly. They did... something with Ganondorf's body; we know that because the Master Sword shows up later on. And since the fated pair had the other two already, that'd complete it. The whole thing about Ganondorf's fading crest is misleading, I think. People used to say that he lost the ToP, but I don't think that's the case; it just couldn't save him, because Master Sword trumps Triforce powers, just like back in ALttP. I choose to believe that TP reduces The Big G to the spirit form we see in Oracle, but that's just me.

Edited by joeymartin64, 25 July 2009 - 05:05 PM.


#73 GuardianNinja

GuardianNinja

    Famicom

  • Members
  • 1,489 posts
  • Location:Ohio
  • Gender:Male

Posted 25 July 2009 - 07:02 PM

If its any interest, I beat LttP today, the ending states that the master sword stays put forever, which is, different... Whats it mean?

#74 bjamez7573

bjamez7573

    Bard

  • Members
  • 69 posts
  • Gender:Male

Posted 25 July 2009 - 07:35 PM

It's not really a quote-by-quote thing. It's more taking what he says with a good pinch of salt, and if something doesn't jive with me, I don't buy into it. If it jives with you, go for it.

I can agree that you have to be careful about creator quotes, but Anouma's quotes regarding the split seem right on to me (it is fantasy after all, a split in the timeline is not as bizarre as Star Trek's time stuff, at least in my opinion). I think it is good to question the creator's, but I think there needs to be a good reason to disregard a creator quote, not just a feeling. Although I guess its for each person to decide on what to do with zelda story we are given, so if you think its more fun to disregard creator quotes, more power to ya.

That's pretty much exactly what I was getting at, though I don't believe the king's wish was broken, but that's the next point.

As for the new Hyrule thing, the physical place may be the same (at least partially), but it could have been restored with the hope that the "cycle," as MPS put it, had been broken (even though it really hadn't). Sort of like the old cliche, "I feel like a new man."

And if I really want to get stupid about it, I could mention that the Hero's Shade says this:

Surely you can restore Hyrule to its stature of yore as the chosen land of the gods.

This could be taken to mean that it hadn't been thought of as such for whatever reason prior to TP, and that the old OoT Hyrule is still looked upon in that manner. The case could also be made that the revisited locations from OoT look damaged enough to have been submerged for a couple hundred years. Time would do that just as well, though, so I'm not throwing in with that one too hard.

The physical place being the same is exactly the problem. That same place is what the king wished away with the Triforce. When the gods decided to flood the land, they significantly raised the water level. It would take great magic (i.e. the Triforce) to raise the land up from the water OR for the waters to recede. Either way, this magic must counter the Triforce's magic. The only two things that can do this are the Triforce itself (which the King has the whole Triforce) and the Master Sword (which is only designed to fight evil, and we know that the King is not evil). This problem must be resolved if any games with the Old Hyrule (ALTTP, TP, FSA) are to take place after WW.

Also, that quote can have a variety of interpretations. Since it was referring to a time when Hyrule was the chosen land of the gods, it could mean that the people's will to follow the gods' chosen path has waned. The Hero's shade could be talking about the corruption that has taken place, and that Link needs to abolish it. Its not necessarily the restoration of a destroyed kingdom. However, regardless of the intrepretation, you still have to deal with the above problem.

#75 SOAP

SOAP

    So Oo Ap Puh

  • Members
  • 7,750 posts
  • Location:Savannah, GA Hell Yeah!
  • Gender:Male
  • World

Posted 26 July 2009 - 02:56 AM

I'm pretty sure the Triforce is supposed to be ruinited after TP, despite that happening on the sly. They did... something with Ganondorf's body; we know that because the Master Sword shows up later on. And since the fated pair had the other two already, that'd complete it. The whole thing about Ganondorf's fading crest is misleading, I think. People used to say that he lost the ToP, but I don't think that's the case; it just couldn't save him, because Master Sword trumps Triforce powers, just like back in ALttP. I choose to believe that TP reduces The Big G to the spirit form we see in Oracle, but that's just me.


Just thought that might help make a single timeline, since people are so adamant about TP Hyrule being the same as OoT Hyrule, which can never come back post-TWW. It can possibly work pre-TWW if we assume Ganondorf is not dead for good and still retians the ToP after TP's ending. Zelda keeps hers and passes it down the royal family. Somehow TP Link loses and it shatters. The ending is ambiguous enough to make it work.

Anyways I'm a splitter. I'm just with you that I don't give a damn about making a "canon" timeline that pleases everyone. I prefer fans to make their own timeline that suits them and I like to see what other people come up with regardless if it's what the creators intended. So long as it's nothing too complicated, I'm for it.

#76 Fin

Fin

    Alpha Trion

  • Members
  • 5,320 posts
  • Gender:cutie
  • Ireland

Posted 26 July 2009 - 04:34 AM

I'm just with you that I don't give a damn about making a "canon" timeline that pleases everyone. I prefer fans to make their own timeline that suits them and I like to see what other people come up with regardless if it's what the creators intended. So long as it's nothing too complicated, I'm for it.


Yeah, I'm getting a little sick of all the debates myself (not that I'd try to stop anyone else - I used to enjoy it, and if others still do, more power to 'em). I'm starting to prefer my personal timeline over the perceived official one. It's in Person's fanon timelines thread, if you're interested.

Edited by Fintin O'Brien, 26 July 2009 - 04:46 AM.


#77 joeymartin64

joeymartin64

    Optimistic Cynic

  • Members
  • 2,068 posts
  • Location:Shoreline, WA
  • Gender:Male
  • United States

Posted 26 July 2009 - 04:42 AM

Although I guess its for each person to decide on what to do with zelda story we are given, so if you think its more fun to disregard creator quotes, more power to ya.

Damn smokin'.

The physical place being the same is exactly the problem. That same place is what the king wished away with the Triforce.

We're pretty heavy into interpretations now, so there's nothing I can say here that isn't fanficcy. Remember that the first part of his wish was hope for Link, Zelda, and presumably their people. He may have just axed Hyrule to prevent them from getting shackled to it like he and Ganondorf were. Once hope is established, new lands settled or whatever, there'd be no harm with reviving Hyrule or creating a new one. Also remember that the Deku Tree had a plan in place to do just that. I'm still undecided about how exactly it happens, but I'm currently leaning somewhat toward the Deku Tree's plan creating some new land, and some old land resurfacing, however much real-world sense that doesn't make. It's magic, physics can go jump in a lake... no pun intended.

And if I really wanted to push it, I could mention that TP seems like it's at a higher elevation than OoT, what with the bottomless pits in the overworld.

Also, that quote can have a variety of interpretations.

Certainly. I simply presented one, and I'm not even that adamant about it. It just stood out at me while I looked in the TP quote FAQ for that "previous hero unforoze Zora's Domain" thing. Which wasn't there.

...which can never come back post-TWW.

I don't believe this to be the case.

I'm just with you that I don't give a damn about making a "canon" timeline that pleases everyone.

Yeah, it took me some time in another fandom (Mario) to fully realize that it's effectively impossible for everyone to agree. Dicking around with some interpretations related to that (Banjo and Conker occuring in the same universe or not, the whole DK debacle, ect.) showed me that deciding stuff for oneself (fanwanking, if you must) is much more enjoyable in the long run. It's all of no real consequence anyway, so enjoy it any way you want it. That's the way you need it.

#78 Sir Turtlelot

Sir Turtlelot

    Svartifeldr

  • Members
  • 5,193 posts
  • Location:Death Star
  • Gender:Machine
  • Antarctica

Posted 26 July 2009 - 01:06 PM

I'm just with you that I don't give a damn about making a "canon" timeline that pleases everyone. I prefer fans to make their own timeline that suits them and I like to see what other people come up with regardless if it's what the creators intended. So long as it's nothing too complicated, I'm for it.


Yeah, I'm getting a little sick of all the debates myself (not that I'd try to stop anyone else - I used to enjoy it, and if others still do, more power to 'em). I'm starting to prefer my personal timeline over the perceived official one. It's in Person's fanon timelines thread, if you're interested.

Yeah, I'm with Fintin & SOAP on this. The official timeline would be nice to know, but fanon ones are much more interesting.

#79 MikePetersSucks

MikePetersSucks

    Actual Japanese Person

  • ZL Staff
  • 4,174 posts
  • Gender:Male

Posted 26 July 2009 - 04:58 PM

Looks that way, sure. But I don't think a destruction and reconstruction would necessarily have to be mentioned if it wasn't pertinent to TP's plot, which it wasn't.


They mentioned some of Zelda's apparent pre-history. You'd think mentioning "For a while, the time of innocence was restored when the world was washed away, but fate cannot beceased so easily" or something would be simple to put in, and relevant.

#80 Doopliss

Doopliss

    Famicom

  • Members
  • 1,531 posts
  • Location:UK
  • Gender:Male
  • Mexico

Posted 26 July 2009 - 11:11 PM

Hello everybody. It seems to me that multiple timelines are being discussed again. I am well aware that some people have come up with multiple timelines game orders that work pretty well. However, I will only raise one objection which I have always risen against multiple timelines. Where in any Zelda game, is it implied by text that there has been a split Why make such a supposition if we have no justification for it?

#81 Person

Person

    Famicom

  • Members
  • 1,047 posts
  • Gender:Male

Posted 27 July 2009 - 12:04 AM

Hello everybody. It seems to me that multiple timelines are being discussed again. I am well aware that some people have come up with multiple timelines game orders that work pretty well. However, I will only raise one objection which I have always risen against multiple timelines. Where in any Zelda game, is it implied by text that there has been a split Why make such a supposition if we have no justification for it?

Because Eiji Aonuma said so, and TP makes no sense in the same timeline as TWW. And it's not likely that a split would ever be mentioned in-game, because from the perspective of the characters they wouldn't know about the other timeline. You'd need an "old Spock" character from the other timeline to come back in time. In OoT this character is Link, who warns Zelda about Ganon in the ending. This is the closest we'll come to someone having direct knowledge of the alternate reality. We also have the King of Red Lions in TWW explicitly mention that Link traveled "through the flows of time," meaning that this game happens after Link sealed Ganon at the end of OoT. According to most single-timeline theories, that future was "erased" like alternate 1985 from BTTF2. However, since we have someone making a reference to Link traveling back in time, that means that this reality takes up in the time Link left behind. Since TP does not mention Ganon ever rising up and conquering Hyrule and a hero defeating him, it takes place in the reality created when Link went back in time and prevented Ganon from coming to power, which resulted in his execution. He also doesn't break into the Sacred Realm, and receives the Triforce differently than he does in OoT. And TP cannot be after TWW because TWW destroyed the old Hyrule, where TP is set.

#82 SOAP

SOAP

    So Oo Ap Puh

  • Members
  • 7,750 posts
  • Location:Savannah, GA Hell Yeah!
  • Gender:Male
  • World

Posted 27 July 2009 - 01:05 AM

Hello everybody. It seems to me that multiple timelines are being discussed again. I am well aware that some people have come up with multiple timelines game orders that work pretty well. However, I will only raise one objection which I have always risen against multiple timelines. Where in any Zelda game, is it implied by text that there has been a split Why make such a supposition if we have no justification for it?

Because Eiji Aonuma said so, and TP makes no sense in the same timeline as TWW. And it's not likely that a split would ever be mentioned in-game, because from the perspective of the characters they wouldn't know about the other timeline. You'd need an "old Spock" character from the other timeline to come back in time. In OoT this character is Link, who warns Zelda about Ganon in the ending. This is the closest we'll come to someone having direct knowledge of the alternate reality. We also have the King of Red Lions in TWW explicitly mention that Link traveled "through the flows of time," meaning that this game happens after Link sealed Ganon at the end of OoT. According to most single-timeline theories, that future was "erased" like alternate 1985 from BTTF2. However, since we have someone making a reference to Link traveling back in time, that means that this reality takes up in the time Link left behind. Since TP does not mention Ganon ever rising up and conquering Hyrule and a hero defeating him, it takes place in the reality created when Link went back in time and prevented Ganon from coming to power, which resulted in his execution. He also doesn't break into the Sacred Realm, and receives the Triforce differently than he does in OoT. And TP cannot be after TWW because TWW destroyed the old Hyrule, where TP is set.


Well that and TP has cutscenes to Ganondorf's failed execution at the arbiter's grounds in Hyrule's distant past so we're led to believe the arbiter's grounds existed during OoT even though we never see it. The structure would not have survived the King's wish for Hyrule to be washed away. So taht's in-game evidence that TP can't happen post-flood.

I still say it can work between OoT and TWW with TP's ending as ambiguous as it was. TWW doesn't deal much with Ganon's sealing in the Sacred Realm either. In fact, the prologue makes it seem he came back from the dead rather escape from some nether world. It can work if you have the whole timeline based off the child timeline.

#83 joeymartin64

joeymartin64

    Optimistic Cynic

  • Members
  • 2,068 posts
  • Location:Shoreline, WA
  • Gender:Male
  • United States

Posted 27 July 2009 - 03:10 AM

Eh. I'm seeing a lot of stuff thrown about as indisputable fact, despite disagreeing with that assessment. I've been doing the "not necessarily" bit for like two and a half pages now, and I guess nobody's buying it. I still think it's possible that Hyrule could revive, that TP could follow it, and that the timeline doesn't have to split. If nobody else wants to go that way, fine. I've pretty much said all I can say, and all I'm getting are arguments as to why my views make less sense. I'm not going to disagree with that; it's a completely personal fancanon interpretation, and it takes some stretching and bullshitting to get it to work. That said, I think it's become pretty clear that all of that really has no place here. (I've also got some straight up bullshit ideas that I adhere to, just because I think they sound cool. You'd all probably kill me if I threw those out.)

Again, I honestly do not begrudge anybody believing anything contrary to my own views. I just wish that one interpretation making more sense than another, or being more consistent with creator quotes or "intent" didn't cause everyone to consider any other interpretations entirely invalid, which seems to be the case.

Edited by joeymartin64, 27 July 2009 - 03:10 AM.


#84 CID Farwin

CID Farwin

    Disciple

  • Members
  • 2,935 posts
  • Location:At the threshold
  • Gender:Male

Posted 27 July 2009 - 12:47 PM

Eh. I'm seeing a lot of stuff thrown about as indisputable fact, despite disagreeing with that assessment. I've been doing the "not necessarily" bit for like two and a half pages now, and I guess nobody's buying it. I still think it's possible that Hyrule could revive, that TP could follow it, and that the timeline doesn't have to split. If nobody else wants to go that way, fine. I've pretty much said all I can say, and all I'm getting are arguments as to why my views make less sense. I'm not going to disagree with that; it's a completely personal fancanon interpretation, and it takes some stretching and bullshitting to get it to work. That said, I think it's become pretty clear that all of that really has no place here. (I've also got some straight up bullshit ideas that I adhere to, just because I think they sound cool. You'd all probably kill me if I threw those out.)

Again, I honestly do not begrudge anybody believing anything contrary to my own views. I just wish that one interpretation making more sense than another, or being more consistent with creator quotes or "intent" didn't cause everyone to consider any other interpretations entirely invalid, which seems to be the case.

It seems you've had my experiences of serious timeline debate here within a single thread. :lol:
BTW I agree with pretty much that entire post.

I just don't get this section of the forums anymore. Timeline discussions and such are supposed to be fun, it used to be fun for me. It's part of being a fan, discussing the kooky theories and such.

But here all that seems to happen is that either someone new to the forums comes in and posts their theory, or someone plays/replays a game and comes up with some theory, then MPS, Impossible, Raien, and/or some other people who frequent the forums come in and make fun of it, and make out the person who came up with it to be a moron. Then a few other people join in on both sides. The poster then defends their position, and what follows is 2-14 pages of what basically can be summed up as
"you're wrong."
"Why?"
"[elaborate explanation that really can be summed up with "you're wrong"]"
"But what if I see that differently then you?"
"Then you're looking at it wrong."
"I can't have a different point of view?"
"no, because it's wrong."
Rinse and repeat until one side or the other gets sick of it and gives up.

Having your theories trampled over, being told "you're wrong" seventeen different ways, and being made out to be stupid aren't what I consider to be fun.

#85 MikePetersSucks

MikePetersSucks

    Actual Japanese Person

  • ZL Staff
  • 4,174 posts
  • Gender:Male

Posted 27 July 2009 - 01:17 PM

I still say it can work between OoT and TWW with TP's ending as ambiguous as it was. TWW doesn't deal much with Ganon's sealing in the Sacred Realm either. In fact, the prologue makes it seem he came back from the dead rather escape from some nether world. It can work if you have the whole timeline based off the child timeline.


Only the English script says shit like Ganon "revived", and both scripts claim that he overcame the Sage's Seal. TP cannot go between OOT and TWW, and it cannot go after TWW.

#86 joeymartin64

joeymartin64

    Optimistic Cynic

  • Members
  • 2,068 posts
  • Location:Shoreline, WA
  • Gender:Male
  • United States

Posted 27 July 2009 - 01:47 PM

Timeline discussions and such are supposed to be fun, it used to be fun for me.

Ditto. I was one of the regulars around here from way back in the day (like, early 2001.) It's quite a bit different now, and I partially attribute that to the fact that there's a lot more stuff to sift through now. Why people seem so much more Serious Business, I don't know.


"But what if I see that differently then you?"
"you're wrong."
"Why?"
"[elaborate explanation that really can be summed up with "you're wrong"]"
"But what if I see that differently then you?"
"Then you're looking at it wrong."
"I can't have a different point of view?"
"no, because it's wrong."

Rinse and repeat until one side or the other gets sick of it and gives up.

That's pretty much what it seems like.

Having your theories trampled over, being told "you're wrong" seventeen different ways, and being made out to be stupid aren't what I consider to be fun.

It's not even really that. If someone rolled up with a single-Link theory, got that trampled over by someone pointing out the different origin stories, family backgrounds, events of other games recounted as legend, ect., that would be a perfectly legitimate "trampling," as long as the person wasn't outright insulted. What I'm talking about is the fact that people seem immovable on things that can have multiple interpretations. I don't mind being shot down by hard facts, but when one explanation makes more sense to someone, and that causes them to think that any other explanation is null and void as a result, it gets rather frustrating. People keep saying that TWW's Hyrule can not, under any circumstances, be revived, ever, period end. The game is nowhere near that concrete about it, yet nobody will even consider anything else.

Edited by joeymartin64, 27 July 2009 - 01:47 PM.


#87 Person

Person

    Famicom

  • Members
  • 1,047 posts
  • Gender:Male

Posted 27 July 2009 - 02:34 PM

The game is concrete about that, though. People keep misinterpreting the Deku Tree's dream to mean "revive Hyrule" when it's really "unite the islands." The king's wish was to have Hyrule washed away and for Link and Tetra to find a new land. It's all there in the text.

#88 joeymartin64

joeymartin64

    Optimistic Cynic

  • Members
  • 2,068 posts
  • Location:Shoreline, WA
  • Gender:Male
  • United States

Posted 27 July 2009 - 02:44 PM

The game is concrete about that, though. People keep misinterpreting the Deku Tree's dream to mean "revive Hyrule" when it's really "unite the islands." The king's wish was to have Hyrule washed away and for Link and Tetra to find a new land. It's all there in the text.

No, it isn't. And uniting the islands to create a new land where the old Hyrule was as part of a plan initiated by somebody from Hyrule wouldn't make for a new Hyrule? That's not a misinterpretation. It's just a different intrepretation than the one you have. People around here seem to have taken to confusing those two concepts. This is getting rather tiresome.

#89 CID Farwin

CID Farwin

    Disciple

  • Members
  • 2,935 posts
  • Location:At the threshold
  • Gender:Male

Posted 27 July 2009 - 03:02 PM

"But what if I see that differently then you?"
"you're wrong."
"Why?"
"[elaborate explanation that really can be summed up with "you're wrong"]"
"But what if I see that differently then you?"
"Then you're looking at it wrong."
"I can't have a different point of view?"
"no, because it's wrong."

Rinse and repeat until one side or the other gets sick of it and gives up.

That's pretty much what it seems like.

Having your theories trampled over, being told "you're wrong" seventeen different ways, and being made out to be stupid aren't what I consider to be fun.

It's not even really that. If someone rolled up with a single-Link theory, got that trampled over by someone pointing out the different origin stories, family backgrounds, events of other games recounted as legend, ect., that would be a perfectly legitimate "trampling," as long as the person wasn't outright insulted. What I'm talking about is the fact that people seem immovable on things that can have multiple interpretations. I don't mind being shot down by hard facts, but when one explanation makes more sense to someone, and that causes them to think that any other explanation is null and void as a result, it gets rather frustrating. People keep saying that TWW's Hyrule can not, under any circumstances, be revived, ever, period end. The game is nowhere near that concrete about it, yet nobody will even consider anything else.

While legitemate, there could be less 'trampling'. People around here could use more tact rather than just 'pwn1ng n00bz' with their 'l33t t1m3l1n3 sk1llz'

But yes, there definitely is a problem where they do the same things with something that has multiple interpretations (like OoT's ending, or TWW's)

#90 GuardianNinja

GuardianNinja

    Famicom

  • Members
  • 1,489 posts
  • Location:Ohio
  • Gender:Male

Posted 27 July 2009 - 04:21 PM

If WW a newer game isnt concrete when it says something, does that mean an older game would be the same way? I think I was ignored when I said my post before. LttP ending says the master sword rests forever is that supposed to be true? And Im getting sick of all this script stuff, Im about ready to say were not f'ing japs and that the english games are for english speaking people, I mean seriously..




Copyright © 2021 Your Company Name