269 replies to this topic

[Jumbie]

Incorrect, technically the only Death Mountain in ALttP was in the Dark World. As someone has mentioned, the one in the Light World is 'Hebra Mountain'.

As if I didn't know. But that's only for Japan, anyway. And even there it makes no sense, because in LoZ and AoL it had already been called Death Mountain in Japan as well.

[Fyxe]

...IT'S NOT THE SAME MOUNTAIN.

Shock horror. Hyrule is different in every game!! O ye gods.

Hell, in the old games it was a *range* of mountains rather than just one big mountain.

Edited by Fyxe, 26 July 2006 - 07:59 PM.

[Alardonin]

As if I didn't know. But that's only for Japan, anyway. And even there it makes no sense, because in LoZ and AoL it had already been called Death Mountain in Japan as well.

have you played both versions of it in all the zeldas from japanese to english Jumbie?sorry a litle of topic but does it really diferentiate a lot in terms of names among other things?

[Jumbie]

...IT'S NOT THE SAME MOUNTAIN.

Shock horror. Hyrule is different in every game!! O ye gods.

Hell, in the old games it was a *range* of mountains rather than just one big mountain.

That's what I call an own goal Yes, Hyrule has slightly different features in every game, but it's the very same ground and earth all the time. Where you walk around in LoZ, you also walk around in ALttP and OoT. It's a little disturbing you don't realize that..!
And especially the Death Mountain range is constant throughout all the games. I'm fully aware that it was a range in LoZ/AoL, but unlike you, I'm also fully aware that it *still is* a range in ALttP, OoT and FSA. The westernmost peak of the range is where the crater was in OoT, then we have another peak with Hera's Tower on it, another one with the equivalent to Turtle Rock, and the easternmost peak is where Zora's Fountain is. That much is constant in all the games.
Now just add to that the large portion we see only in AoL, which extends to the north, and you get a really large range. I don't care what FSA's overworld map or OoT's scarce depiction of mountain peaks say, the Death Mountain has always been a range up until now. Saying otherwise is just nihilism.

have you played both versions of it in all the zeldas from japanese to english Jumbie?sorry a litle of topic but does it really diferentiate a lot in terms of names among other things?

Well, I have never played any Zelda game in its Japanese Version, but that isn't necessary at all to get the knowledge about which names are the same and which differ. Just read through a language comparison table on ZeldaLegends if you are interested. In fact, a whole lot of names and facts were changed from the original versions of games like AoL, ALttP, TWW and TMC to the localized versions.

[Fyxe]

That's what I call an own goal Yes, Hyrule has slightly different features in every game, but it's the very same ground and earth all the time. Where you walk around in LoZ, you also walk around in ALttP and OoT. It's a little disturbing you don't realize that..!

...Seriously now, shut up with the bleedin' snide comments, it's so, so so old and unbelievably childish. And I know all about childish. Drop it.

You also completely missed my point, so feh.

Drop the insults. You're arguing about the geography of a series of video games. Like the designers really thought about it in huge detail. Like hell. Just take a moment and stand back and look at all the stuff you're saying before you claim I'm some blind stupid girl who can't see what's right infront of her.

[Arturo]

Incorrect, technically the only Death Mountain in ALttP was in the Dark World. As someone has mentioned, the one in the Light World is 'Hebra Mountain'.

From what I remembered, even in the Japanese version, Death Mountain was the secondary name of Hebra Mountain. So Hebra Mountain is Death Mountain.

About geography, Davogones wrote a good article about it time ago:

http://www.zeldalege...hp?n=article_18

It's evident that Hyrule is the same in almost all games. You can see it because of the repetition of a few landmarks in roughly the same place throughout most games.

I don't say they thougth of it in detail, but they have been keeping a a schema for Hyrule that is in most games.

Edited by Arturo, 27 July 2006 - 07:32 AM.

[Jumbie]

You also completely missed my point, so feh.

Ah, did I? Well, in case there was a hidden meaning in what I quoted of you, then maybe, but I actually tried to read it straightforward.

Drop the insults. You're arguing about the geography of a series of video games. Like the designers really thought about it in huge detail. Like hell. Just take a moment and stand back and look at all the stuff you're saying before you claim I'm some blind stupid girl who can't see what's right infront of her.

Like Arturo pointed out, it was originally great names like Davogones who used to care about the geography of Hyrule, and that was of course what made me realize its importance! A little more respect for them, okay.

I know that the creators don't give a damn about having an accurate geography, but still they're free to reuse well-known landmarks, and if they do, they normally put a little thought into their placement.

[MikePetersSucks]

That's what I call an own goal laugh.gif Yes, Hyrule has slightly different features in every game, but it's the very same ground and earth all the time. Where you walk around in LoZ, you also walk around in ALttP and OoT. It's a little disturbing you don't realize that..!
And especially the Death Mountain range is constant throughout all the games. I'm fully aware that it was a range in LoZ/AoL, but unlike you, I'm also fully aware that it *still is* a range in ALttP, OoT and FSA. The westernmost peak of the range is where the crater was in OoT, then we have another peak with Hera's Tower on it, another one with the equivalent to Turtle Rock, and the easternmost peak is where Zora's Fountain is. That much is constant in all the games.
Now just add to that the large portion we see only in AoL, which extends to the north, and you get a really large range. I don't care what FSA's overworld map or OoT's scarce depiction of mountain peaks say, the Death Mountain has always been a range up until now. Saying otherwise is just nihilism.

Do you know what nihilism means? If not, don't use it.

Like Arturo pointed out, it was originally great names like Davogones who used to care about the geography of Hyrule, and that was of course what made me realize its importance! A little more respect for them, okay.

Yea, but Davogones didn't use geography for personal debates to go "I'm right you're wrong." He just notices things and posts them for public use, then goes back to his humble little niche. What you're saying is basically implying that you're like Davogones and thus great. You're not. You're more like Mike Peters, who also cared about Geography.

[Arturo]

Yea, but Davogones didn't use geography for personal debates to go "I'm right you're wrong." He just notices things and posts them for public use, then goes back to his humble little niche. What you're saying is basically implying that you're like Davogones and thus great. You're not. You're more like Mike Peters, who also cared about Geography.

STOP INSULTING EACH OTHER!!!!!!!!!!!!!

He hasn't implied that he's like Davogones because he uses geography, but that we shouldn't disregard Geography becasue people like Davogones didn't.


And I don't want to know more about that Mike Peters.

[Jumbie]

Do you know what nihilism means? If not, don't use it.

Man, I do know it!!! It's been enough, always saying I didn't know the meaning of the words I'm using!
If someone says there is no consistent timeline in Zelda, then they are timeline nihilists. If someone says geography is not evidence, then they are nihilistic in the respective way.

Yea, but Davogones didn't use geography for personal debates to go "I'm right you're wrong." He just notices things and posts them for public use, then goes back to his humble little niche. What you're saying is basically implying that you're like Davogones and thus great. You're not. You're more like Mike Peters, who also cared about Geography.

Have I read that right, you say I had compared myself to Davogones?!
Better think a second before you go writing such a crap. I merely said it was him who inspired me to take geography as evidence, and the respect should be for him, not for me. Man, you seriously should find better ways to make way for your feelings, instead of telling lies.

[Showsni]

*Puts mod hat on*
Debate the timeline, and not each others faults.

[Jumbie]

You're right, sorry for my getting off the subject.
The last that this thread made sense was when somebody said, "Maybe TMC's Hyrule is a small portion of Hyrule". (Just in case someone wants to pick back up there)

[Doopliss]

All that is... interesting. However what we are actually discussing is if TMC goes before or after OoT. We were discussing about the geography because we want to figure out if TMC takes place in the same place as OoT because it seems to be an unified kingdom in TMC. We got there because some people think that Hyrule hadn't been unifed before OoT. I hope this helps to get back to the main topic.

[Fyxe]

It's called Hyrule, so... It's Hyrule. Where exactly in Hyrule it is doesn't seem relevant to me.

[Jumbie]

We were discussing about the geography because we want to figure out if TMC takes place in the same place as OoT because it seems to be an unified kingdom in TMC. We got there because some people think that Hyrule hadn't been unifed before OoT. I hope this helps to get back to the main topic.

Thx for your summary! Well, I think that the Kingdom of Hyrule shown in TMC is only the Hylian part of it. After all, there is no desert or other hint at the Gerudo, the appearing Gorons have no actual hometown, Zoras are not in the game at all, and the Kokiri with their Lost Woods are also not inside this kingdom's borders. What I want to say is that the 'unified Kingdom' of OoT is no reason that TMC couldn't happen before OoT.

[Hero of Slime]

The area's of Hyrule that are not shown in TMC do not show up in TMC because the game creators did not want those areas to be in TMC. The changing geography is due to the game creators wanting to add some new elements to Zelda, there is no timeline reason behind it.

[Jumbie]

When I get back, I'll put up some maps of OoT Hyrule and TMC Hyrule, as well as my comparison of the two. I have quite a bit of experience with the geography of Hyrule, so I'll know what it is that I'm doing.

Sounds great, MoALttP! As I'm a passionate Zelda cartographer myself, I'm really looking forward to it.

The area's of Hyrule that are not shown in TMC do not show up in TMC because the game creators did not want those areas to be in TMC. The changing geography is due to the game creators wanting to add some new elements to Zelda, there is no timeline reason behind it.

Sure, it's known and accepted by everyone that there is no reason behind it, but - to make the timeline fit from our perspective, we need to explain how everything could fit into place. In my opinion, we cannot just connect all the storylines and just leave the geographic changes unexplained. It's not Nintendo's responsibility to provide a reason behind the landmarks they use, but the one of us fans. To those who don't find that necessary, it's ok, there's still enough fans who do care.

[Fyxe]

How on *earth* is it the responsibility of the fans to make up reasons for stuff that, well, don't need reasons? You're getting into a realm where you're making up theories for why there are paintings of Mario and pals in Hyrule Castle and things like that.

Putting too much emphasis on stuff which are simply design issues and trying to relate them to a timeline strikes me as highly... Nerdy and extremely unnecessary. This is getting into Trekkie land.

[Jumbie]

How on *earth* is it the responsibility of the fans to make up reasons for stuff that, well, don't need reasons? You're getting into a realm where you're making up theories for why there are paintings of Mario and pals in Hyrule Castle and things like that.

Putting too much emphasis on stuff which are simply design issues and trying to relate them to a timeline strikes me as highly... Nerdy and extremely unnecessary. This is getting into Trekkie land.

I will certainly not bother about easter eggs like the Mario pictures, that can't possibly be storyline-related.
You have your right to think that, but I guess I'm just.. different. What's wrong with Zelda Trekkie-ism?!

[Hero of Slime]

Needing an explaination of the geography changes would be like needing to explian why time of day changes in OoT but does not in LoZ or why some characters say things refering to the controls like "press the A-botton to talk". They are all gameplay features and nothing more.

Edited by The Zol, 29 July 2006 - 02:36 AM.

[Niko]

Time placement of Minish Cap? Okay.

I think... After WW, but before FS, seeing as we see Vaat much later.

[Jumbie]

Needing an explaination of the geography changes would be like needing to explian why time of day changes in OoT but does not in LoZ or why some characters say things refering to the controls like "press the A-botton to talk". They are all gameplay features and nothing more.

Such a nonsense!! Geography does not belong into that category at all. It's just not possible to explain the game instructions and the missing day/night cycle, but it's very well possible to explain the changing landscape. What can be done, will be done - that's the first law of human nature.

Take for example Hyrule in OoT and ALttP. It's exactly the same ground, and one is able to identify each and every m² with its equivalent in the respective other game. So, if those maps are so similar, it is just silly to say ALttP could happen in a new found Hyrule.
As for TMC, when someone did a retelling of TMC's storyline, and told about the Veil Falls for example, then everyone should ask, "Wait, are those falls the same as at Zora's River in OoT? Are they, or not?" So, someone has to explain if they could be the same. You cannot try to get a continuity of storylines, but at the same time disregard the geography and just put hundreds of unrelated landmarks into some imaginary Hyrule and say, "Well, that's Hyrule, lots of mountains and lots of forests..." If someone likes to get a map of what Hyrule looked like at a specific point in Zelda's history, it must be possible to depict it exactly like it looked like. No stereotypical guesses like, 'here a castle, there a lake would be fine'.

What do you think was the reason that Tolkien drew detailed maps of Middle-Earth? People just appreciate that, and he himself too, obviously. Nintendo is no different. Remember, the in-game map in LoZ was so reduced, it just showed you in which square you were, but no landscape at all. If they didn't care, they could've kept it that reduced up until now, and the games would still have worked. But no, beautiful detailed maps on the map screen, to give you the feeling that Hyrule was real. Now, the player accepts this world is 'real', and then in the next game they throw at him a completely different map. ..No, not completely different. There are actually similarities! And seeing as this map is just as realistic as the first, it's only logical that you try to explain how the geographical changes could fit into the timeline.

Keep in mind, we're not merely playing the games like so many uninspired people do - we're enjoying the whole package with theorizing, doing fan works maybe, or doing map comparisons, for that matter. There's nothing wrong with it. Nintendo don't ask us to explain the different Hyrule maps, but neither do they ask us to theorize about the timeline. Either fan hobby isn't "useless" nor "useful". It's just fun, that's all.

[Fyxe]

Such a nonsense!! Geography does not belong into that category at all. It's just not possible to explain the game instructions and the missing day/night cycle, but it's very well possible to explain the changing landscape. What can be done, will be done - that's the first law of human nature.

Take for example Hyrule in OoT and ALttP. It's exactly the same ground, and one is able to identify each and every m² with its equivalent in the respective other game. So, if those maps are so similar, it is just silly to say ALttP could happen in a new found Hyrule.

You're being quite naive. Firstly, the map of Hyrule in OoT and ALttP are extremely different. What do you mean by 'm²'? I hope you don't mean 'meter squared', because that's just rubbish. There are tons of differences. If they're the same map, does Lost Woods just hop over to the other side of Hyrule? Where does Kakariko go? Where is Zora's Domain? The Spirit Temple? Where does the Eastern Palace come from? Where is Death Mountain Crater?

If it is the exact same location in Hyrule, a *massive* amount of time had to go by to change the whole geography of the place.

As for TMC, when someone did a retelling of TMC's storyline, and told about the Veil Falls for example, then everyone should ask, "Wait, are those falls the same as at Zora's River in OoT? Are they, or not?"

Why the fuck should they ask that? Kakariko in ALttP cannot be the same Kakariko in OoT, or FSA, because they are in completely different locations. So in the end, it's just a name. And if the name is different, there's even less reason to question if they are the same location or not. Mount Crenel is not Death Mountain. Tal Tal Heights is not Death Mountain. Veil Falls is not Zora's River. Have you EVER considered that the mountains are at the north of the map simply because if they were at the south, you wouldn't be able to see the rest of the map? Have you considered that waterfalls need to come down from the north because that's where the mountains are? It's a game design issue.

So, someone has to explain if they could be the same. You cannot try to get a continuity of storylines, but at the same time disregard the geography and just put hundreds of unrelated landmarks into some imaginary Hyrule and say, "Well, that's Hyrule, lots of mountains and lots of forests..."

Excuse me, by why the hell not? If a location has the same name as an old location, I presume they share some relation to the old location, but I also realise that the reuse of locations is merely a homage to old Zelda games and it doesn't mean they're going to keep Hyrule's geography identical in every game. If a location has a different name, I take it as a new location.

If someone likes to get a map of what Hyrule looked like at a specific point in Zelda's history, it must be possible to depict it exactly like it looked like. No stereotypical guesses like, 'here a castle, there a lake would be fine'.

What are you talking about? Each game has a map. What's your point?

What do you think was the reason that Tolkien drew detailed maps of Middle-Earth? People just appreciate that, and he himself too, obviously. Nintendo is no different.

Are you comparing a video game to a book? A huge company like Nintendo to one man? That's rediculous.

Remember, the in-game map in LoZ was so reduced, it just showed you in which square you were, but no landscape at all. If they didn't care, they could've kept it that reduced up until now, and the games would still have worked. But no, beautiful detailed maps on the map screen, to give you the feeling that Hyrule was real.

...That's because the graphics improved. That's nothing to do with them 'caring' so much about the geography.

Now, the player accepts this world is 'real', and then in the next game they throw at him a completely different map. ..No, not completely different. There are actually similarities!

You fight Bowser almost always in Bowser's Castle. Yet his castle looks different in every game and often moves to new locations. It's called a homage. Seriously. You need to play more games.

And seeing as this map is just as realistic as the first, it's only logical that you try to explain how the geographical changes could fit into the timeline.

Look. If they had the EXACT SAME MAP in every game, it would be BORING. Instead, they share the same locations but they change the layout and add or remove locations to make things more interesting. There is absolutely no reason to 'explain' why the geographical changes should fit into the timeline.

Keep in mind, we're not merely playing the games like so many uninspired people do - we're enjoying the whole package with theorizing, doing fan works maybe, or doing map comparisons, for that matter.

Ugh, get off your high horse. So you're more obsessive than other players, that doesn't make them 'uninspired', maybe they simply enjoy the games for what they are rather than going on about niggling little details like geography.

[Jumbie]

Firstly, the map of Hyrule in OoT and ALttP are extremely different. What do you mean by 'm²'? I hope you don't mean 'meter squared', because that's just rubbish.

Yes of course, that's what I mean.

There are tons of differences. If they're the same map, does Lost Woods just hop over to the other side of Hyrule?

As I said elsewhere, "Lost Woods" is not the name of one specific place. It's the term for a certain type of forest growing in Hyrule and neighbouring countries (Holodrum for example). Since OoT's map shows trees north of Hyrule Castle, these are the Northern Lost Woods of ALttP, while the Eastern Lost Woods of OoT have withered by the time of ALttP to become the Eastern Area.

Where does Kakariko go?

OoT's Kakariko was a Sheikah village, west of the graveyard. If you look at the place left of ALttP's graveyard, where now the cathedral is located, that has to be where centuries before the old Kakariko stood. So, my theory is that one day the ghosts of the graveyard became too much for the villagers, so they left their village and built a new one at the place where ALttP's Kakariko stands. That's perfectly possible, since the move of Kasuto Town in AoL showed how it can go.

Where is Zora's Domain?

The cave entrance to Zora's Domain is where in ALttP we have the Waterfall of Wishes - cavern was blocked with boulders to become a small fairy room.

The Spirit Temple?

This one is controverse, but as I seem to be the man for controversy, my opinion is that Spirit Temple = Desert Temple. Both are in the desert (how many temples would you expect there?), both have the 3-exit-design, both contain the power gloves, the architecture of both dungeons bears some similarities.

Where does the Eastern Palace come from?

That one's easy. Eastern Temple = Forest Temple. Same exterior (disregarding the animal statues as a design issue), both contain the bow, interior can be matched with a little imagination.

Where is Death Mountain Crater?

One really strong eruption of the volcano has made the crater walls crumble down, burying the lava under huge rock walls. All that's left of OoT's crater is the tips of Spectacle Rock, which where already to be seen in OoT, where the upper floors of the Fire Temple where arranged inside of them. In no game after OoT does a Death Mountain Crater appear, so it's obvious that the rim crumbled down before ALttP.

If it is the exact same location in Hyrule, a *massive* amount of time had to go by to change the whole geography of the place.

Umm, why? Is there any of my explanations that requires more than one century to pass?

Kakariko in ALttP cannot be the same Kakariko in OoT, or FSA, because they are in completely different locations.

Exactly, as I also think. From that, you can see that it's not at all my point to say that the villages are the same. They move, since villages are not landmarks, which cannot possibly move.

Mount Crenel is not Death Mountain.

I know.

Tal Tal Heights is not Death Mountain.

Come on, you don't need to name a place that's not even in Hyrule.

Veil Falls is not Zora's River.

Both are the source of all the water in Hyrule. (stated in both OoT and TMC)

Have you EVER considered that the mountains are at the north of the map simply because if they were at the south, you wouldn't be able to see the rest of the map? Have you considered that waterfalls need to come down from the north because that's where the mountains are? It's a game design issue.

Nice explanation, but the mountains are not always at the north: in OoT, they're northeast, and in AoL they're all over the place, but Death Mountain range is to the very south. OoT's position can be explained by turning the map by 45°, AoL can be explained by that the relevant part of Hyrule is still south of Death Mountain range.

...That's because the graphics improved. That's nothing to do with them 'caring' so much about the geography.

Nevertheless, there was no need to draw a detailed map for OoT, we certainly would've got along without one. But it's just nicer to have a beautiful map. Fan service.

You fight Bowser almost always in Bowser's Castle. Yet his castle looks different in every game and often moves to new locations. It's called a homage. Seriously. You need to play more games.

Mario timeline theorizing is something for people who have veeeery much time. Nintendo takes Zelda much more serious than Mario. I mean, not that Mario isn't cared for, but Mario is meant to be fun, and Zelda is meant to be fantasy/adventure.
Don't tell me to get more experience! Zelda is not the only series I've played, but the only one that allows such an in-depth theorizing.

Look. If they had the EXACT SAME MAP in every game, it would be BORING. Instead, they share the same locations but they change the layout and add or remove locations to make things more interesting. There is absolutely no reason to 'explain' why the geographical changes should fit into the timeline.

I kinda dislike this practice of putting the same locations into all the games and merely shuffling their directions. I would've been cool if TMC had used a map similar to ALttP, since the locations were the same anyway: a lake, a mountain, a forest, a town, a castle, a graveyard, a swamp, a waterfall, temple ruins... They can still overhaul the graphics, put the Minish and Wind Tribe in it, and add new mechanics for Link to interact with the environment - but I see no reason for totally rearranging the same locations. The game doesn't get more exciting by that. We still know all the places, no matter if they are to the south now or to the west.
(Not criticising your statement, just saying I can see no benefit in this rearranging of well-known places)

Ugh, get off your high horse. So you're more obsessive than other players, that doesn't make them 'uninspired', maybe they simply enjoy the games for what they are rather than going on about niggling little details like geography.

All I want to say is that it's a waste of time to criticise my caring for a consistent Hyrule geography. It's one of my hobbies, and it's really not like I was the only one who cares for it, so would you please tolerate it!

[Hero of Slime]

The game doesn't get more exciting by that. We still know all the places, no matter if they are to the south now or to the west.
(Not criticising your statement, just saying I can see no benefit in this rearranging of well-known places)

Zelda is all about exploration, what is there for vetran Zelda players to explore If all the same areas are in the exact same locations? The games would be predictable which would negate the whole exploration concept. Since Nintendo still wants the games to take place in Hyrule, rather than choose a new location for every game, they have to re invent Hyrule for evey game. They do this buy adding, removing and changing the games areas.

All I want to say is that it's a waste of time to criticise my caring for a consistent Hyrule geography. It's one of my hobbies, and it's really not like I was the only one who cares for it, so would you please tolerate it!

You know how I dislike it when timeliners draw connections between things where no connection needs to be. How it makes the Zelda world seem smaller than it actually is. Doing this for geography will lead to doing it with other aspects as well.

I can tolerate you making these type of connections with geography as fanfiction, as long as you do not use these connections as timeline evidence or tell me that my timeline is wrong because of the geography. I recived enough of that crap from Zythe.

[Jumbie]

I can tolerate you making these type of connections with geography as fanfiction, as long as you do not use these connections as timeline evidence or tell me that my timeline is wrong because of the geography. I recived enough of that crap from Zythe.

Well, I don't know Zythe, but I suppose s/he was more fanatic about the geography than I am...
With me it's like that: I would never base a theory on geography alone, but if a theory seems to fit anyway, that's where my landscape explaining comes in.

Whatever, we were discussing about TMC's country borders, if it's a unified kingdom (with many peoples) or a strictly Hylian kingdom. I think, because the Hylians are the only people who actually live there permanently (besides the Minish), TMC just shows the Hylian Kingdom of Hyrule. But all of that is only in case TMC goes before OoT. I've still not decided.

It would be nice if someone could come up with other evidence to TMC's placement.

[Hero of Slime]

Someone can not come up with somthing that does not exist. TMC can be anywhere in the timeline as long as it is before FS, FSA, and OoX.

[Fyxe]

As I said elsewhere, "Lost Woods" is not the name of one specific place. It's the term for a certain type of forest growing in Hyrule and neighbouring countries (Holodrum for example). Since OoT's map shows trees north of Hyrule Castle, these are the Northern Lost Woods of ALttP, while the Eastern Lost Woods of OoT have withered by the time of ALttP to become the Eastern Area.

...Fanficalicious.

OoT's Kakariko was a Sheikah village, west of the graveyard. If you look at the place left of ALttP's graveyard, where now the cathedral is located, that has to be where centuries before the old Kakariko stood. So, my theory is that one day the ghosts of the graveyard became too much for the villagers, so they left their village and built a new one at the place where ALttP's Kakariko stands. That's perfectly possible, since the move of Kasuto Town in AoL showed how it can go.

...Kasuto hasn't appeared in any other game other than AoL. Again, even more fanfic.

The cave entrance to Zora's Domain is where in ALttP we have the Waterfall of Wishes - cavern was blocked with boulders to become a small fairy room.

Explain why the entrance suddenly moved down to ground level.

This one is controverse, but as I seem to be the man for controversy, my opinion is that Spirit Temple = Desert Temple. Both are in the desert (how many temples would you expect there?),

EVERY TEMPLE IN EVERY DESERT MUST BE THE SAME TEMPLE. No.

both have the 3-exit-design, both contain the power gloves, the architecture of both dungeons bears some similarities.

The Spirit Temple goes up, the Desert Palace goes down.

That one's easy. Eastern Temple = Forest Temple. Same exterior

...What.

interior can be matched with a little imagination.

What?

One really strong eruption of the volcano has made the crater walls crumble down, burying the lava under huge rock walls. All that's left of OoT's crater is the tips of Spectacle Rock, which where already to be seen in OoT, where the upper floors of the Fire Temple where arranged inside of them. In no game after OoT does a Death Mountain Crater appear, so it's obvious that the rim crumbled down before ALttP.

Obvious? Really. Cos, y'know, if the rim collapsed but Spectacle Rock was still there, surely they would still be below the level of the rest of Death Mountain. Yet they are as tall as the very peak of the mountain? Odd, I'd say.

Umm, why? Is there any of my explanations that requires more than one century to pass?

Forests don't just move. Locations don't just get new names for no reason. Castles don't just hop around. So, YES.

Nice explanation, but the mountains are not always at the north: in OoT, they're northeast,

WAY TO MISS THE POINT. Ocarina of Time is a 3D game that therefore did not have to bow to the specific issue I just mentioned.

and in AoL they're all over the place,

AoL uses a unique graphical style and this design was developed before graphical ability allowed for easy 'height' notability.

OoT's position can be explained by turning the map by 45°,

Again missing my point.

AoL can be explained by that the relevant part of Hyrule is still south of Death Mountain range.

...A rather tiny part of Hyrule to fit in a desert, a swamp, a lake, a castle, a village, blah blah blah blah...

Nevertheless, there was no need to draw a detailed map for OoT, we certainly would've got along without one. But it's just nicer to have a beautiful map. Fan service.

Exactly my sodding point. It's just *nicer*. It's nothing to do with the bleedin' timeline.

Mario timeline theorizing is something for people who have veeeery much time. Nintendo takes Zelda much more serious than Mario.

Ha, not that much. You think you're better than Mario timeline theorists? Hardly.

I mean, not that Mario isn't cared for, but Mario is meant to be fun, and Zelda is meant to be fantasy/adventure.

Mario is a fantasy/adventure too and Zelda is meant to be fun too. Your point?

Don't tell me to get more experience! Zelda is not the only series I've played, but the only one that allows such an in-depth theorizing.

The only one? Exactly why I tell you to get more experience.

I kinda dislike this practice of putting the same locations into all the games and merely shuffling their directions.

It's what Nintendo does, sorry.

I would've been cool if TMC had used a map similar to ALttP, since the locations were the same anyway: a lake, a mountain, a forest, a town, a castle, a graveyard, a swamp, a waterfall, temple ruins... They can still overhaul the graphics, put the Minish and Wind Tribe in it, and add new mechanics for Link to interact with the environment - but I see no reason for totally rearranging the same locations. The game doesn't get more exciting by that. We still know all the places, no matter if they are to the south now or to the west.

It doesn't rearrange the locations. TMC introduces new locations that may be similar to old locations but aren't the same.

All I want to say is that it's a waste of time to criticise my caring for a consistent Hyrule geography. It's one of my hobbies, and it's really not like I was the only one who cares for it, so would you please tolerate it!

I'll tolerate it as long as you act like it's a hobby and not a solid debating structure for the placement of games within a timeline.

I mean, seriously, what the heck have the locations in TMC got to do with whether Hyrule is 'unified' or not? Nothing.

Edited by Fyxe, 30 July 2006 - 10:40 PM.

[Arturo]

Hi from the middle of nowhere!

*Puts mod hat on*
Debate the timeline, and not each others faults.

*Adores Showsni*
Finally somene came to put a little bit of order!


Well, I think I have had ENOUGH

Fyxe, I think you are missing a little tiny point. Debating the timelines is pointless. So you cannot say other things are pointless, because everything we are doing here is. To put an example. Timeline using Fyxe's geographical rules:

LoZ>AoL
OoT>ALttP
OoT>MM
OoT>TWW
ALttP>LA
OoX
TMC>FS>FSA

WONDERFUL, INCREDIBLE!!!!!! WE GOT THE PERFECT TIMELINE!

This is what you have been doing with geography, but applied to timeline. Of course creators don't think of geography... but do they really think that much in timeline? NO

I believe we can use Hyrule's geography, to an extent, for timeline purporses, though I don't use it for creating my theories, but to ground done theories.


Try to be open-minded, and read Jumbie's posts, because you are missing his points. And a little bit of respect for the one that is above all us.... that some of the theories (Nothern Lost Woods) wasn't Jumbie's but Davogones' (Read that article, please) and has been confirmed by another game, that is FSA, where it is said that Lost Woods are a generic kind of Hyrulean forest, like if we said "Rainforest":

Soon, Lord Ganon's power
will change all of Hyrule's
forests into Lost Woods!

P.S. And I like your Avatar Image!

Edited by Arturo, 31 July 2006 - 05:08 AM.