New Hyrule CONFIRMED!

Originally Posted by Triforce of the Gods

You'd think, but a lot of people had this bizzare notion that King Hyrule meant Tetra couldn't name the new land Hyrule when he said "It won't be Hyrule. It will be YOUR land."

Nobody thought that Daphnes solely meant that. People thought that, seeing as how Daphnes told the kids that Hyrule was gone and he declined Tetra's offer to work toward bring it back for his sake, the kids would possibly drop the subject and use a different name for whatever they could potentially find.

Also, on a minor note, naming a new place Hyrule after Daphnes specifically erased Hyrule, said that it wouldn't return, and told the kids to let go of the past would arguably be a rather dickish move, even if the land itself was completely different.

Originally Posted by Triforce of the Gods

GANNON-BANNED


."

I fixed it before you corrected me.

Originally Posted by Average Gamer

That's mainly because, before ST, the evidence for a "New Hyrule" was admittedly feeble and easily countered, especially since TWW ended with Hyrule dead and forgotten while, in contrast, TP ended with Hyrule alive and with a hope that it'd return to its former glory.

Hope you're not basing that off said opinions of others and common disagreements with Lex.

It may have been feeble in the sense of in-game textual support, but certainly not in other areas. All this means is that we theorists need to expand our horizon on what other things can be used as canon. Whether it be geography, or some interesting objects/depictions that flow with the atmospheric progression of storyline by main characters.

Originally Posted by Average Gamer

LA sincerely doubted a "New Hyrule", but they never thought that a "New Hyrule" was completely impossible.

I'm going to let you believe that so the LA community doesn't end up looking like the 'bad guys'. Let's call it even now that both sides of the canon spectrum are in check.

Originally Posted by Average Gamer

Keep in mind that Nintendo doesn't really plan ahead with this stuff. As of now, this doesn't "show various ways of looking at context" so much as Nintendo made a decision that just so happened to match up with a fan timeline.

And that is what I thought about the Split Timeline. It was a popular belief which some older generation theorists (before my time) thought as being radical fan-theory supported by time-travel & affect theories and other weird paradox analogies. And as the theory grew in popularity, it ended up being confirmed in more or less direct ways.

You have contradicted yourself. Claiming that Nintendo doesn't plan stuff ahead gives no reason to analyze context in depth to find the most objectively plausible truths (Something LA is famous for, and still should be respected in those regards). The fact of the matter is that Nintendo purposely leaves loose ends, no matter how seemingly small, so they can go back and expand upon - IF convenient with the rest of the games atmosphere. Every Zelda game has elaborated upon uncovered elements left in previous games. Its always been a gamble which of those things they chose to make important.

Took me three years to accept this truth and find a balance which wasn't solely reliant upon every single little detail.

Maybe, just maybe, textual context isn't everything.

Originally Posted by Average Gamer

...naming a new place Hyrule after Daphnes specifically erased Hyrule, said that it wouldn't return, and told the kids to let go of the past would arguably be a rather dickish move, even if the land itself was completely different.

QFT.

I'm really disappointed with the name of the land, and the possible return of Ganon.

Don't get me wrong, I'm thrilled to explore the new land, and I love the Ganon train...

...but the developers had a chance to move the plot in a whole new direction, with
a radically different new land, and totally new villains.

Now it seems like the land won't be too different from Hyrule and that Ganon
will make a comeback on the AT... what a letdown...

It's much more of an artistic disappointment than a timeline disappointment

EDIT:

Originally Posted by Cukeman

Now it seems like the land won't be too different from Hyrule and that Ganon
will make a comeback on the AT... what a letdown...

Hopefully I'll be proven wrong

Originally Posted by LOZ Historian

Hope you're not basing that off said opinions of others and common disagreements with Lex.

I'm basing that off of every discussion I've been in and every discussion I've seen. The "New Hyrule" evidence admittedly relied on small, weak things that were countered without much effort, both in-game and in other areas. It wasn't impossible, but it was very, very unlikely, "loose ends" or not.

Originally Posted by LOZ Historian

I'm going to let you believe that so the LA community doesn't end up looking like the 'bad guys'.

Dude, I'm stating a fact. LA never believed that a "New Hyrule" was impossible.

Originally Posted by LOZ Historian

You have contradicted yourself. Claiming that Nintendo doesn't plan stuff ahead gives no reason to analyze context in depth to find the most objectively plausible truths (Something LA is famous for with the analyzing of Re/translations).

No, I'm just trying to point out that Nintendo doesn't really think of plots years in advance and is willing to change things down the line. For example, I doubt that Nintendo had the entire plot of OoT thought up back in 1991. However, that doesn't mean that the games lack "objectively plausible truths".

Originally Posted by Average Gamer

The "New Hyrule" evidence admittedly relied on small, weak things that were countered without much effort, both in-game and in other areas. It wasn't impossible, but it was very, very unlikely, "loose ends" or not.

Define those things by canonical categories (State of Ganon, Triforce, geography, etc.)

You don't have go into a big explanation for where and why things were inconsistent. I just need it for reference for what I was stating before: Maybe we need to reconsider and look into other things that may hold more weight than previously thought.

Originally Posted by Average Gamer

Dude, I'm stating a fact. LA never believed that a "New Hyrule" was impossible.

Best others judge what the innovative balance of opinion was their. I'm not saying any more on this if you won't.

Originally Posted by Average Gamer

No, I'm just trying to point out that Nintendo doesn't really think of plots years in advance and is willing to change things down the line.

Which proves part of my point. They leave room to go different directions should they choose to. It happened with FSA's plot because it was too complex, and would have restricted any room for games to be fixed after it. Thus why I believe they have an outline of timelines for reference rather than a set one.

Originally Posted by Average Gamer

For example, I doubt that Nintendo had the entire plot of OoT thought up back in 1991. However, that doesn't mean that the games lack "objectively plausible truths".

Nope. I'm not saying that.

The confirmation of New Hyrule should make us reevaluate other canonical things that can help find more objectively plausible truths, in addition to context. That is all I am saying.

Originally Posted by LOZ Historian

Define those things by canonical categories (State of Ganon, Triforce, geography, etc.)

I don't use your "canonical catagories" system and I don't have much time left. I'll just try to throw some things out there.

Regarding the AT, Hyrule and its culture were basically dead and forgotten in TWW, the Master Sword was buried at the bottom of the ocean (while Medli and Makar apparently stopped praying for the blade, meaning that it could potentially become powerless and erode), the Legend of the Hero, the last remnant of the past, was fading, etc.

When considering the CT, Hyrule was still around, meaning that no convoluted "resurrections" of Hyrule were needed to place LoZ, AoL, etc. TP's placement of the Master Sword heavily leans toward ALttP and TP ends with the hope that Hyrule can regain its former glory. The Twinrova Sisters apparently didn't die on the CT (and it's doubtful that they'd be resurrected since they're ultimately minor villains), explaining why they were in OoX. The Rito don't exist on the CT, explaining why there are Zoras. As far as geography goes, by never destroying OoT Hyrule, you have a good explanation for ALttP's map lining up with OoT's map when turned 45 degrees clockwise.

That's all I have time for.

Originally Posted by LOZ Historian

Which proves part of my point. They leave room to go different directions should they choose to.

I already said in my previous post that, all things considered, "New Hyrule" was very, very unlikely even with "loose ends". Nintendo deciding to make a game would pretty much be the only thing that could help the idea, and we still don't know the full plot, so ST might not be able to transition into any existing game.

Originally Posted by LOZ Historian

It happened with FSA's plot because it was too complex.

FSA's plot wasn't exactly "changed down the line" in the way I meant so much as Miyamoto caused chaos in the eleventh hour and Nintendo needed to quickly make up a different plot.

Originally Posted by LOZ Historian

The confirmation of New Hyrule should make us reevaluate other canonical things that can help find more objectively plausible truths, in addition to context. That is all I am saying.

While evaluating doesn't hurt, pretty much every potential issue has been evaluated dozens of times already. Since ST still hasn't come out, it'd be best to wait for the release of the game before making any real evaluations or assessments.

I think my biggest surprise is that Zelda's gown tradition made it into ST. Tetra only
wore it a short while and reverted to her pirate garb...

This is why I left after the last topic I made, nobody has learnt anything from previous mistakes, and the "war" mentality never ends. It's even worse when some people are declaring victory over ridiculous assumptions, and claiming to be right when most of you were wrong about the revival of Hyrule, and claiming that others were wrong when absolutely nothing said by myself or most others on this subject has been disproved. In fact, that only claims really disproved so far are:

a) Nintendo will never make a post-TWW/PH game. (I don't know if anyone said this, I know I said the opposite months ago, despite what I actually think they should do.) This can't be applied retroactively and turned into some kind of proof on the level of the split confirmation, as nothing has been confirmed about previous games. This is the current truth of 2009, of one game that will be released in 2009. Whereas the split timeline was the long since confirmed truth well before 2007 - at least as early as 2002. So the "right all along" idea is bull**** here.

b) The ****ing retarded Deku Tree's Hyrule theory, and all the other idiotic ideas about how Hyrule would be revived with zero evidence from the story, which only had a basis if you assumed them to be true and deliberately twisted evidence or took it out of its original context in the story in order to make it support your assumption. Surprise, the actual new land after TWW is the one that was specifically mentioned IN THE CONTEXT OF THE STORY in TWW, and that wasn't superseded by later events (though I would argue that the name Hyrule being used was, that's a bit of a digression).

See here for my actual response.

Edit: Also, congrats to River Zora for making what is quite possibly THE most facepalm-inducing geography post I've seen. Really, don't you think this is a little bit excessive? It's the same thing I've seen people do a few times, where they decide there must be a connection and go looking for it as though it proves something... But wow. Is that even a map?

Common people (the ones adressed should know who they are) man up and admit that you stormed into every possible thread and tried to make a new hyrule look as impossibe as possible.
I like you guys...but this is a bit well...evasive? It hurts noone to admit that you were heaviely arguing against new Hyrule.
I personally am just glad that this issue is resolved and look forward to explore wether or not this new Hyrule is a new playground for future games, or a setup for older games.

I also find it amusing how there is mentioning of "war mentality", I agree that many theorist go too far in their competative behaviour. But for the sake of the FSM, theorising is about your personal interpretation of facts and sharing it with others, discussions are bound to happen. Calling it "war" is slightly disturbing.

Read what I said, and the post I linked to as well, before you say blatantly wrong things.

And I argued against the retarded theories here that contradicted TWW and blew out of context evidence completely our of proportion. Surprise, they were wrong. And while I never thought Link and Tetra finding a new land was impossible (given that they go to do so in the ending), I think Nintendo made a mistake in calling it Hyrule, unless it actually turns out to be necessary. Particularly as it makes it seem like they're ignoring TWW's ending. Yes, "That land will not be Hyrule" is taken metaphorically, but it's a **** of a lot less confusing if the literal and metaphorical meanings are in alignment and consistent with each other. The name Hyrule is given significance by the scene.

Besides, Nintendo doing stupid **** is never something I argued wouldn't happen, given how many times they've done it before. The issue is people claiming this as proof of things that it's not. At this point, it doesn't change any timelines because there isn't enough information. Obviously there are major contradictions based on what we know with the idea of ST leading into, say, ALttP... Because ALttP's Hyrule is blatantly in the same place as OoT's, Sacred Realm, Triforce, Master Sword, history, place names, geography and all. (Those are in order of importance.)

You forgot:

3) Any land appearing after TWW/PH will not be called Hyrule.

That's what you and pretty much every other Child Timeline theorist at LA have been saying since... well, forever.

I sense a powerful air of denial about you.

And I argued against the retarded theories here that contradicted TWW and blew out of context evidence completely our of proportion. Surprise, they were wrong.

Almost everybody gave up on the idea that the Deku Tree's success had to predicate a new Hyrule a long time ago - now they usually see a combination of "new land" plus "Deku Tree connecting old locales found on the islands to the new land to form a Hyrule resembling the old one."

Originally Posted by Impossible

I think Nintendo made a mistake in calling it Hyrule, unless it actually turns out to be necessary.

No, sir, you made a mistake in your interpretation of TWW's ending.

And even now, when what we know - not just what we speculate - seems to make this plain and obvious, you still won't admit you were wrong. Instead you're saying Nintendo was wrong.

It's always been easier for me to think that calling the new land Hyrule isn't so much an attempt to "hold on to the past" as it is "honoring the past". It's important to remember your roots, especially as a country, and it's common for parents to name their children after their own parents or grand-parents. That's not necessarily holding on to the past.

Daphnes didn't want Link and Tetra to feel that they had to revive the old kingdom because it was their duty or something, he just gave them the clear message that the land they would eventually find would be their land and they were free to do with it as they themselves pleased, even if that meant naming the new land Hyrule. If they had been restrained by Daphnes' intentions then it wouldn't really be their own choice, would it?

So it's my belief that by "Hyrule", Daphnes refers to the old kingdom specifically, and not to the name alone.

This belief leaves possibilities open, and it's also pretty simple. Plus it makes Link/Tetra not "stupid" and Nintendo not "wrong".

Also, I don't see why lots of people are saying "different crest means it isn't the same Hyrule as the 2D games" - the old crest appears at least on the back of the Phantom while Zelda is possessing it.

This is why I left after the last topic I made, nobody has learnt anything from previous mistakes, and the "war" mentality never ends. It's even worse when some people are declaring victory over ridiculous assumptions, and claiming to be right when most of you were wrong about the revival of Hyrule, and claiming that others were wrong when absolutely nothing said by myself or most others on this subject has been disproved.

This "war" is being cause by Average Gamer as much as it is LoZH.

Honestly I don't get you. You tell everyone to **** off and that they're gloating and causing a war when you're the one causing a war right now by calling everyone and their theories here retarded.

Edit: Also, congrats to River Zora for making what is quite possibly THE most facepalm-inducing geography post I've seen. Really, don't you think this is a little bit excessive? It's the same thing I've seen people do a few times, where they decide there must be a connection and go looking for it as though it proves something... But wow. Is that even a map?

Hey buddy, have you ever heard of something called a "theory"?

Honeslty, I'm not going to go on with this argument because then you're going to acuse me of being some sort of retard who doesn't share the same opinions as you.

Next time you decide to come back to ZU, how about you try stopping a war instead of ****ing starting one?

~Pinecove

Originally Posted by Impossible

Read what I said, and the post I linked to as well, before you say blatantly wrong things.

And I argued against the retarded theories here that contradicted TWW and blew out of context evidence completely our of proportion. Surprise, they were wrong. And while I never thought Link and Tetra finding a new land was impossible (given that they go to do so in the ending), I think Nintendo made a mistake in calling it Hyrule, unless it actually turns out to be necessary. Particularly as it makes it seem like they're ignoring TWW's ending. Yes, "That land will not be Hyrule" is taken metaphorically, but it's a **** of a lot less confusing if the literal and metaphorical meanings are in alignment and consistent with each other. The name Hyrule is given significance by the scene.

Besides, Nintendo doing stupid **** is never something I argued wouldn't happen, given how many times they've done it before. The issue is people claiming this as proof of things that it's not. At this point, it doesn't change any timelines because there isn't enough information. Obviously there are major contradictions based on what we know with the idea of ST leading into, say, ALttP... Because ALttP's Hyrule is blatantly in the same place as OoT's, Sacred Realm, Triforce, Master Sword, history, place names, geography and all. (Those are in order of importance.)

1. I have seen very few post from you actually, thus I was unsure if you are in the group of the ones feeling adressed or not.
2. Please, inform me what was so blatantly wrong about my post

I agree on the "not decisive yet" thing though. That should have been fairly obvious from my post.

Originally Posted by Impossible

It's even worse when some people are declaring victory over ridiculous assumptions, and claiming to be right when most of you were wrong about the revival of Hyrule,

There never was a consensus if New Hyrule would be:

A. New Land named Hyrule

B. New Land would be old Hyrule unflooded

C. New Land would be Great Deku Trees land grown over old Hyrule (or parts of old Hyrule being uplifted from the ground for that matter).

Originally Posted by Average Gamer

I already said in my previous post that, all things considered, "New Hyrule" was very, very unlikely even with "loose ends". Nintendo deciding to make a game would pretty much be the only thing that could help the idea, and we still don't know the full plot, so ST might not be able to transition into any existing game.

That's extremely skeptical. When the game come out and give us things to compare and contrast, I personally hope to see where sense can be made based on those "loose ends" in other games. If not, then that would be a slam towards Nintendo's ability to be coherent and consistent.

Originally Posted by Average Gamer

While evaluating doesn't hurt, pretty much every potential issue has been evaluated dozens of times already. Since ST still hasn't come out, it'd be best to wait for the release of the game before making any real evaluations or assessments.

I suppose you are right. We cant really look in depth for reasons WHY New Hyrule got canonical proven (by elements yet to be tested until the actual game comes out) yet.

Doing this would be fair for those that were wrong anyway, seeing where their errors were. If we chose not to do this, then we would have some people build evidence around current theories (maybe with some little alterations) rather than reevaluation and reforming ideas. I say that with respect to what Impossible preached last time he raged these forums.

Originally Posted by Pinecove

This "war" is being cause by Average Gamer as much as it is LoZH.

In the past I would agree with this, in bitter reply... I will have to concede due to this redeeming moment for some people.

It is our war. And it should end today.

Edit

But before that, would you like to know what is really at the root of the "war mentality" Impossible? It stems way before I ever started my transgressions here. A simple matter rooting in civility issues. A simple yes, no, or maybe so goes a long way in respect of other peoples opinions. Violently cursing, laughing, or downright saying something is ridiculous is what gets us into dramatic messes like these. Places like LA Forums were/are websites not exempt from civility issues. Zelda Legends, in all its notoriety and respect for being the one website which provided theorizing resources, eventually became stagnant and self absorbed in their consensus of theories - group thinking etc. And you can be sure their were certain members that were agitated by this. Their forum, among others, became the vocal point/s of a personal agenda; which was hindering debate for others for the sake of debate. And that same atmosphere in some places is exactly what keeps the consistent participation of Zelda Theorizing at an all time low. With that said: People go where innovation and civil discussion can be held. Its a known fact. Don't believe me? Take a look around you.

Unfortunately the emphasis of these issues happened a time before your coming to LA Impossible (If you don't believe me, ask Duke Serkol). Which makes you somewhat pure and just for your agitations (as any other) with this place's history. I came here to ZU in a blazing rage looking to reach credibility - and then using that to build up a force to match that of the personal agendas I loathed. In spite of my hypocrisy, I shamefully manipulated people's personal agendas to meet an ends - which took a horrible toll on participants caught in the crossfire. And for what? To simply get even with you people. All this drama, lulz, and controversy had been for naught. You people won the Timeline Wars (for lack of better terms) anyway, and had your egos set even higher. This didn't help ZU or other places in resent, it made things worse. A good deal of us gradually learned our lesson, but Splittists that were arrogant didn't because they keep/kept reminding us of the very thing we reflected from you.

Now is the time to put that all behind us and start anew. Zelda Legends still deserves to be respected for the resources they provide - because after all, they were the first to do it. But that doesn't mean they are the authority, nor is anyone else because they had a theory that happened to be confirmed by Nintendo. Hopefully any overlapping egos between difference of opinions have been balanced and put at ease. Their really should not be any more of this nonsense. We were right about New Hyrule, LA and the rest of the web were right about the Split Timeline. I find that extremely fair to diverse opinions of the fans in the long run.

If strong opinionated members want to keep fueling condemnation, old grudges, and needless ridicule towards these boards and other places ("we're more logical, we know how to theorize better, logical fallacies, context of canon blah blah blah"), in spite of recent confirmations, then you truly are doing what Pinecove said. Repeating history of fighting fire vs. fire. Your spite will continue, and you'll ruin theorizing for the rest of the people that are trying to find their own logical ways of approaching things.

You win some, you lose some. What more can I say. Sooner or later we are all back at square one, as equals. Enjoy this period.

~LOZ H~

Originally Posted by Artemicion

Also, I don't see why lots of people are saying "different crest means it isn't the same Hyrule as the 2D games" - the old crest appears at least on the back of the Phantom while Zelda is possessing it.

Pinecove also pointed out that it's on Zelda's dress, as well.

Originally Posted by Jarsh

Pinecove also pointed out that it's on Zelda's dress, as well.

That's just the developers being lazy if you ask me.

http://img35.imageshack.us/img35/7046/zeldadesign.png

^
Perhaps, but it's still there in-game.