4 replies to this topic

[Average Gamer]

Roughly a week or two ago, I came across this discussion on ZU:

http://www.zeldauniv...maps-valid.html

In that thread, Cayenne Pepper of ZU, who claims to have been taught about maps in the military, said that all of the maps in the series, the wind directions in TWW, etc. were based off of grid north, not cardinal north. She also claimed that the "second north" arrow of the OoT map would in fact be the cardinal north.

Is Cayenne Pepper correct? If not, what in particular disproves her argument? While I personally doubt what she says, her argument does appear to have a foundation.

[Alastair]

Many people have been rotating the OoT map since its release, but OoT is justifiable exception for two reasons. First, there is a second indicative arrow on the manual's map; something which no other Zelda map has. Secondly by rotating the map the vast majority of landmarks coincide with their aLttP counterparts.

In general map rotation should not be acceptible, because it is so arbitrary. In the linked thread Cayenne Pepper aknowledges that there is a question as to whether real life constraints are applicable. If the maps are not alligned to cardinal north, this would still not explain a rotation of 90 degrees. Even with rotation similarities between maps tend to be debatable, and outnumbered by blatant differences.

Of course these points ignore that using geography alone to determine timeline is a dubious method at the best of times.

[ganonlord6000]

Many people have been rotating the OoT map since its release, but OoT is justifiable exception for two reasons. First, there is a second indicative arrow on the manual's map; something which no other Zelda map has. Secondly by rotating the map the vast majority of landmarks coincide with their aLttP counterparts.

In general map rotation should not be acceptible, because it is so arbitrary. In the linked thread Cayenne Pepper aknowledges that there is a question as to whether real life constraints are applicable. If the maps are not alligned to cardinal north, this would still not explain a rotation of 90 degrees. Even with rotation similarities between maps tend to be debatable, and outnumbered by blatant differences.

Of course these points ignore that using geography alone to determine timeline is a dubious method at the best of times.

Agreed 95%.
I don't agree with OOT ALTTP map comparisons much anymore thanks to TP's map messing everything up. Especially since the only map that can fit other games is the Wii map. It matchs ALTTP's map almost exactly.

[MikePetersSucks]

CARTOGRAPHY DOES NOT WORK THAT WAY.

[CID Farwin]

Many people have been rotating the OoT map since its release, but OoT is justifiable exception for two reasons. First, there is a second indicative arrow on the manual's map; something which no other Zelda map has. Secondly by rotating the map the vast majority of landmarks coincide with their aLttP counterparts.

In general map rotation should not be acceptible, because it is so arbitrary. In the linked thread Cayenne Pepper aknowledges that there is a question as to whether real life constraints are applicable. If the maps are not alligned to cardinal north, this would still not explain a rotation of 90 degrees. Even with rotation similarities between maps tend to be debatable, and outnumbered by blatant differences.

Of course these points ignore that using geography alone to determine timeline is a dubious method at the best of times.

Agreed 95%.
I don't agree with OOT ALTTP map comparisons much anymore thanks to TP's map messing everything up. Especially since the only map that can fit other games is the Wii map. It matchs ALTTP's map almost exactly.

If I may say a few words:

I don't understand how the (almost identical) similarities between OoT and ALttP maps are invalidated by TP, especially since, as I see it, TP doesn't mess anything up. TP takes place in North Hyrule.

@Original Topic: Over my head. Cardinal North? Grid North? *whoosh*