295 replies to this topic

[Zythe]

Don't get me started on this. If the map wasn't important, there'd be a bloody drop list or simple seletion of locations frame-by-frame or something or a basic map.

[SOAP]

The FS Map is a basic map.

[Zythe]

No. They cared enough to give it some features, purely decoratively. So why none of which we see in FSA. OK I commandeth a change of subject.

[SOAP]

Don't you think the FS map could just be another part of the larger world of Hyrule? I mean, Zelda and Link have to live somwhere and there's not many building in the FS map nor is there much land to even build anything on. The FS basically rugged wildreness much like the LoZ Hyrule and even the LOZ era, most of civilization was located elsewheres according to AoL. The HA Map is to the FS Map what North and Eastern Hyrule are to the LoZ Hyrule, that's all. I mean, you wouldn't say LOZ and AOL Link are different just because of different world maps now would you?

[Zythe]

That's my point. The "wild ruggedness" of it shows a very undeveloped place, like maybe Link and Tetra only found it a few decades ago, long enough to build a few little buildings and stuff. Couple hundred years after FS, and it's a big grand country.

[Fyxe]

AWOOGA, AWOOGA.

My fanfic alarm is going off.

[Zythe]

AWOOGA, AWOOGA.

My fanfic alarm is going off.

What I said was not fanficcing. Merely concluding. Fanficcing is "well, a wizard came in just after OoT and sent Link forward in time where he did ALttP and then was sent back to do MM but then the future changed anyway" or somesuch.

[SOAP]

Except even FS, this Hyrule already has a rich history that goes back more than a few decades which involves the Four Sword Shrine.

[Hero of Slime]

What I said was not fanficcing

You said "Link and Tetra only found it a few decades ago". Where does it say Link and Tetra discovered the new land?

[Zythe]

It's implied they do at the end of TWW. Making a logical conclusion to tie in with a game with bare geography, is not fanficcing.

[Fatgoron]

But Link did know Vaati would be released when he pulled the Four Sword in HA. They game literally said that. It must be FS Link.

What I can only fathom was some form of narration, said words to the effect of "you must know what will happen if you draw the four sword" (since the verbatim is unavailible to me at this precise moment).
That only means that the text, whatever it represents, is presuming in favour of Link having knowledge of Vaati, which is not neccessarily exclusive to FS Link.
FSA Zelda and the shrine maidens have knowledge of Vaati, which they would more than likely have shared with Link given his close friendship with Zelda. I believe she even mentions the seal on Vaati during the early part of the game.

Of course, Zythe makes perfect sense. It's like how LoZ and AoL have different maps, so they must be centuries and centuries apart.

AoL has a small portion of the map, near the bottom, that shows spectacle rock IIRC, which does plenty to reinforce the idea that it is located north of the area played in during LoZ, as it creates a point of consistency between the two maps.
they could still feasibly be years, and years apart, assuming Nintendo does some more history revision, though I find it unlikely.
Thing is, there's plenty to suggest a connection between LoZ, and AoL, however the evidence for FS and FSA Links both being the same is entirely circumstantial at best.

I don't hate you nor do I take your posts personally. I do think you are reading too much into the simplicity of FS's map though. There are far more differences between the different maps of the Mushroom Kingdom--which has gown from a hilly grass feild to a group of seven virtually different kingdoms divided by water to to a high altitde cliffside of a chain of islands to a nearly sea level edge of a larger continent--and yet no one claims there's multiple Mario because of it.

Mario doesn't really have anykind of consistent central plot or storyline, it's largely just a number of variations on level completion/star collection and princess saving.
Mario is just a series of games, for which there is no need for an organised chronology. zelda is different, in that it has evolved into a consistent [enough] history, with a large fan-base for whom the storyline/timeline is an important part of enjoying the games fully.

WHY should geography matter, pray tell?

Why should anything matter?
The obvious answer is because the Zeda series has a[n attempt at a] consistent internal history, where differences in the location of the triforce, the characters involved, the state of those characters, wether or not the world is flooded, etc, matter. Geography is one more thing that is able to aid us in the process of logical deduction. Since the geography has rarely changed to the point of being completely unrecognisable between games, it seems likey that the developers are maintaining a level of consistency that will prevent any problems with the long-term storyline, or the transitions between games.

[Fyxe]

It's implied they do at the end of TWW. Making a logical conclusion to tie in with a game with bare geography, is not fanficcing.

It's also implied within FSA itself that it's a blatant sequel to FS.

I'm sorry, but the evidence that FSA is a continuation of FS is more than circumstantial, Fatgoron. Firstly, it's just a sequel. Secondly, the events of Four Swords are mentioned throughout the introduction. No mention of Wind Waker or ALttP or whatever. Link is even mentioned by name, I believe, which would be evidence enough to suggest that this is the same Link (if it was a different one, they would of made it more clear).

As for the geography being consistent, that's not really the case. At all. The Hyrule in LoZ/AoL is unbelievably different from the Hyrule shown in the next game, ALttP, who's only real similarity is that there's Death Mountain at the top, which is merely just a staple of the series. OoT has a different map again, with Lost Woods totally moving along with Lake Hylia, the desert no longer being in the south, the whole east area vanishing, and Death Mountain being a volcano rather than a large mountain region.

FSA does have distinct similarities to ALttP, but since the map layout doesn't really *matter*, they just picked something that would be consitent with the overall style.

So, the only real solid connections between maps is the small area in AoL being the area from the original game, and FSA's map being similar to ALttP (although when you get down to it on a gameplay level it's completely different).

I certainly don't think that's enough to make snap judgements about a game's placement based solely on geography.

What you're recognising is the resuse of certain areas, which have been staples of the Zelda series, namely Death Mountain, Lake Hylia, the desert, Lost Woods (which, incidently, shows up in Holodrum) and Hyrule Castle. Their layout however seems rather variable, and while there are some similarities, that's mainly due to the fact that it's easy to depict a stuff like a mountain at the north, and a lake at the south, and a river running from one down to the other. After all, Koholint has a very similar layout to ALttP; mountains to the north, large lake to the southeast, an eastern area with lots of ruins, a wooded section to the northwest, a river to the northeast, and a castle in the center. Not to mention a town in the same place as Kakariko.

[31-Year-Old-From-Georgia]

Gah!

I don't get it. The uper-right hand corner of the HA map and the FS map in a whole are nearly identical. The river looks exactly the same. Where is everyone getitng off saying they're different: they look identical.

And where exactly is the "bare ruggedness" in FS? I don't see any civilization in the area, and I didn't see any in the area in HA. All the cities and towns are in the southern part of FS/HA Hyrule. You didn't see any of it in FS simply because you weren't in the right area.

And MJ's right about the Four Swords Shrine already being there. And how would TWW Zelda know the Vaati Legend (TMC), anyways?

[Fyxe]

The concept of FSA being after WW just baffles me completely.

So far, the closest you've got to a WW 'sequel' is Tetra's Trackers, or possibly TP when it's released.

How many people here have actually played the original Four Swords? It's decent, it is.

[Mad Scrub]

Twilight Princess takes place several decades after Ocarina of Time so it can't be the sequel to The Wind Waker. Unless of course the creators change their minds again.

[Fyxe]

Except of course the latest official Nintendo mag over here says that Aonuma said it takes place several decades after WW, not OoT.

Honestly, I don't think anyone knows anymore. Bleh.

[Mad Scrub]

Thanks for the update.

[SOAP]

It's implied they do at the end of TWW. Making a logical conclusion to tie in with a game with bare geography, is not fanficcing.

Yes, but King Daphnes said that land would not be Hyrule. We already went over this. And even if they did found a new Hyrule, how do you know the FS land is that Hyrule? There no indication that that land was recently settled. Where are the makeshift villages or the settlers? As far as I can remember, there a chamber or temple of some sort for training. Why would it be more important for them to build that first before any colonies?

Mind you, FS also came out while TWW was still very much in the works.

Mario doesn't really have anykind of consistent central plot or storyline, it's largely just a number of variations on level completion/star collection and princess saving.
Mario is just a series of games, for which there is no need for an organised chronology. zelda is different, in that it has evolved into a consistent [enough] history, with a large fan-base for whom the storyline/timeline is an important part of enjoying the games fully.

Zelda being consistent? What have you been smoking? Hyrule geography alone has virtually changed far more than could explained by a few hundred years of natural geological changes could explain. Unless of course Hyrule sits on right ontop of a fault line but there's no evidence of it. Like in Mario, Hyrule's geography changes in each new release to better suit the game with a few familar landmarks (Death Mountian, Spectacle Rock, Lake Hylia) thrown in for nostalgic purposes but even then they don't always appear the same place all the time. Hyrule's geography is equivocal at best.

Taking that in consideration, I see far less difference between the FS Map and the HA map than say the OoT Map and the ALttP map.

Edit: Apologies to BahamutZERO2005 for misquoting him.

[Mad Scrub]

Hey Mario Jr, I never said that! Nice signature BTW, Farther Away is one of my favourite Evanescence songs.

[SOAP]

I have a quote that disagrees with that but oh well. Thanks for the compliment though. I posted a thread about it in the Art Works forum.

[Mad Scrub]

Fatgoron was the one who posted that.

[SOAP]

Are you serious! How the hell did that happen!? *goes back to make some changes*

[Fatgoron]

Hyrule geography alone has virtually changed far more than could explained by a few hundred years of natural geological changes could explain. Unless of course Hyrule sits on right ontop of a fault line but there's no evidence of it.

No evidence of tectonic activity in the area?
Not even the great huge honking active volcano from virtually every game?

Anyway, if we cannot explain changes in geography, then why not just say they're all different Hyrules, with no connection to one another at all, and simply do away with the whole idea of a timeline? We can just put thngs like the triforce location and stuff down to gameplay elements, since they don't really matter anyway, it's just what they do to make the game fun.

Taking that in consideration, I see far less difference between the FS Map and the HA map than say the OoT Map and the ALttP map.

Meaning... what? Less time has passed between the more similar ones?
OoT and aLttP are different Hyrules? Nintendo started trying to be consistent with the geography later on?

I'm sorry, but the evidence that FSA is a continuation of FS is more than circumstantial, Fatgoron. Firstly, it's just a sequel. Secondly, the events of Four Swords are mentioned throughout the introduction. No mention of Wind Waker or ALttP or whatever. Link is even mentioned by name, I believe, which would be evidence enough to suggest that this is the same Link (if it was a different one, they would of made it more clear).

First, I guess we should be putting things in release order then? (Since being a sequel apparetly makes it after the other games that preceded it, unless you've written something that doesn't reflect what you meant to say?)
Secondly, aLttP mentions nothing of all the games that could feasibly be betwen it and OoT, so what's your point? There can't be games in between because they're not mentioned? Somehow sticking solely to those events whach are relevant to the story precludes the possibility of other games fitting between them?

What you're recognising is the resuse of certain areas, which have been staples of the Zelda series, namely Death Mountain, Lake Hylia, the desert, Lost Woods (which, incidently, shows up in Holodrum) and Hyrule Castle. Their layout however seems rather variable, and while there are some similarities, that's mainly due to the fact that it's easy to depict a stuff like a mountain at the north, and a lake at the south, and a river running from one down to the other. After all, Koholint has a very similar layout to ALttP; mountains to the north, large lake to the southeast, an eastern area with lots of ruins, a wooded section to the northwest, a river to the northeast, and a castle in the center. Not to mention a town in the same place as Kakariko.

I could easily say the same of the characters, plot devices, items, etc ad nauseum, but that wouldn't make it true. You're presuming to know what the creators have intended, and chosen to do, without anything to back up that assumption.

[SOAP]

@Fatgoron

Anyway, if we cannot explain changes in geography, then why not just say they're all different Hyrules, with no connection to one another at all, and simply do away with the whole idea of a timeline?

There *are* multiple Hyrules. North, Eastern, and [Central] Hyrule. Or have you forgotten about them?

We can just put thngs like the triforce location and stuff down to gameplay elements, since they don't really matter anyway, it's just what they do to make the game fun.

No because those are specific details that have to do with the storyline. The FS map is more ambigious and can be interpreted as being anything from a smaller portion of the FSA map (which [img]http://forums.legendsalliance.com/public/ALOT.png[/img] people agree with) or another part of the greater LAND of Hyrule just outside the KINGDOM of Hyrule, much like what the LoZ Hyrule is to the AoL Hyrule.

Meaning... what? Less time has passed between the more similar ones?
OoT and aLttP are different Hyrules? Nintendo started trying to be consistent with the geography later on?

Are those my only choices?

First, I guess we should be putting things in release order then? (Since being a sequel apparetly makes it after the other games that preceded it, unless you've written something that doesn't reflect what you meant to say?)
Secondly, aLttP mentions nothing of all the games that could feasibly be betwen it and OoT, so what's your point? There can't be games in between because they're not mentioned? Somehow sticking solely to those events whach are relevant to the story precludes the possibility of other games fitting between them?

There's *nothing* in the FSA intro or the entire game or anything from the creators that suggest that it features a new Link. Unless otherwise noted, FSA Link is the same Link from FS by default. All we have so far is the back of the game box that says that HA takes place years after Vaati was sealed. That could be anywhere from two to infinity though anything higher than four is stretching the ambiguity of the context and if the creators had meant for games to be centuries apart, there's better words they could have used... l;ike the word, centuries.

I could easily say the same of the characters, plot devices, items, etc ad nauseum, but that wouldn't make it true. You're presuming to know what the creators have intended, and chosen to do, without anything to back up that assumption.

You have nothing to back up your assumptions. The game never says it's a new Link. The creators never said it's a new Link. All you have are slightly different maps which could be explained in a number of other more effective ways.

[Fatgoron]

No because those are specific details that have to do with the storyline. The FS map is more ambigious and can be interpreted as being anything from a smaller portion of the FSA map (which [img]http://forums.legendsalliance.com/public/ALOT.png[/img] people agree with) or another part of the greater LAND of Hyrule just outside the KINGDOM of Hyrule, much like what the LoZ Hyrule is to the AoL Hyrule.

How is the geography not a specific detail?
All I've heard thus far is the presumption that people know that the geography wasn't intended to be consistent with the games chronology. I have yet to see a shred of evidence to back up this assumption. Why do you think it is less important than other elements of the game?
I can say anything else is ambiguous, and can be interpereted any way one wishes, but that wouldn't be any more true than what you're saying.

Are those my only choices?

You finished your post with a premise/observation, I was fishing for a conclusion derived from it.

Unless otherwise noted, FSA Link is the same Link from FS by default.

Default? No, that would be making an argument from ignorance, one of the eaier logical fallacies to avoid, and I know you're capable of better than that.

All we have so far is the back of the game box that says that HA takes place years after Vaati was sealed. That could be anywhere from two to infinity though anything higher than four is stretching the ambiguity of the context and if the creators had meant for games to be centuries apart, there's better words they could have used... l;ike the word, centuries.

It says that an evil has been sealed by the four sword for years, that's plenty ambiguous.
Since when has nintendo ever used the best terminology?(especially in their translations)

You have nothing to back up your assumptions. All you have are slightly different maps which could be explained in a number of other more effective ways.

Those ways also require assumptions.

[Fyxe]

Geography is a specific detail to do with gameplay. If you knew anything about creating games you'd know that. You're comparing it to specific storyline details. It's not comparible.

You want some evidence why geography isn't consistent with the game's cronology?

...Here's some. It just isn't. The only instances where you revisit a Hyrule from a previous game is a small reference in AoL (despite the fact that they made Hyrule FAR larger), and in Kodai no Sekiban.

Even if Hyrule WAS on some kind of faultline, it would *still* take hundreds of thousands of years for Hyrule to change so drastically. I don't think it's particularly feasible for the Zelda timeline to be around for a million years or something.

As for sequels, sometimes, believe it or not, the way games are released makes a freakin' difference. Not every gamer is some storyline nut. They like to keep things fairly simple when it's on a smaller scale, that's why, for example, AoL, the sequel to LoZ, was released after LoZ, and why LA was released after ALttP, and why MM was released after OoT.

And that's also why, for most people who look at these things just logically and simply and don't go nuts about the layout of a bloody map, they will think of FSA as a direct sequel to FS, as it was implied. Then they'll play MC and go 'oh, Vaati's just a human and hasn't become a monster, this must be a prequel then'.

With FSA, they might go 'oh, hey, that looks a bit like the map from ALttP. Oh, hey, so do the graphics. Nice homage'.

[SOAP]

How is the geography not a specific detail?
All I've heard thus far is the presumption that people know that the geography wasn't intended to be consistent with the games chronology. I have yet to see a shred of evidence to back up this assumption. Why do you think it is less important than other elements of the game?
I can say anything else is ambiguous, and can be interpereted any way one wishes, but that wouldn't be any more true than what you're saying.

Of course. Nothing you say could ever be any more truer than what I'm saying.

You finished your post with a premise/observation, I was fishing for a conclusion derived from it.

Nothing in Zelda is ever concluded and just when someone has it all figured something new comes along and it's back to the drawing board. But if you really know what I think about the maps, I think Nintendo just makes Hyrule whatever they want it to be because... well, they can.

Default? No, that would be making an argument from ignorance, one of the eaier logical fallacies to avoid, and I know you're capable of better than that.

The whole point of Multiple Links is to make things easier for theorist to come up with a cohesive storyline. It's not to use all willy nilly just because you can't figure out any other way to relate one game to another. By that logic why not make EVERY game have a separate Link, including "direct" sequels? That'd solve [img]http://forums.legendsalliance.com/public/ALOT.png[/img] of timeline difficulties. Unless stated by the game or the creators, it's pretty safe to assume that new game stars the same Link as a previous game.

It says that an evil has been sealed by the four sword for years, that's plenty ambiguous.

Only slightly. Like I said 2-4 years. Tops. Anything higher than that is just overkill for one word that is meant to dsecribe less.

Since when has nintendo ever used the best terminology?(especially in their translations)

I think Nintendo knows how to use the word "centuries."

Those ways also require assumptions.

Better than making up Links out thin air.

[Kairu Hakubi]

The geography looks totally consistent to me.

[Showsni]

There is nothing that prevents FS Link being the same as FSA Link. Therefore, by Occam's Razor, he is.

[Zythe]

Since when has nintendo ever used the best terminology?(especially in their translations)

I think Nintendo knows how to use the word "centuries."  
.

[OT]They don't. They kept messing up decades, centuries and millenia in TWW interviews.[/OT]

Topic? I'll leave it to Fatgoron, I've said everything and it still stands. So shout away.