New Hyrule CONFIRMED!

I don't check this place for 3 months and it finally gets interesting, bah humbag. Anyway, is this helping out the bridge between PH and LoZ or hurting it?

Originally Posted by Apollo

I don't check this place for 3 months and it finally gets interesting, bah humbag. Anyway, is this helping out the bridge between PH and LoZ or hurting it?

As in the geographical connections? I'd say it would hurt them since they seemed to be based around the de-flooding concept, which has been debunked now. But depending on what the official ST map looks like, there could still be a connection.

Originally Posted by Nerushi

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

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

Okay then I'll say the MS in the woods at the end of TP is laziness/fanservice after all there's just as much evidence for both of them. Really it's in the context of the game therefore you just have to accept it.

edit: Thought I'd point out:



MC Zelda



WW Zelda



And ST Zelda all look to be about the same.

Well, I can't blame them for re-using character designs. :/

hylian: Still it seems very interesting given the possible connections these three games could have.

I made the mistake of reading through 5 pages of thread. All that I found interesting was the title. Which is true.

Originally Posted by Oni Dark Link

Okay then I'll say the MS in the woods at the end of TP is laziness/fanservice after all there's just as much evidence for both of them. Really it's in the context of the game therefore you just have to accept it.

Just as much evidence for what? I don't give a crap if you say its fanservice or not, because thats only you being biased to the core while picking and choosing evidence.

Zelda dress, as far I am concerned haven't changed in the cartoon designed games since 2003. Same with Link. Now it would be odd if they did indeed change it seeing how close ST happens after WW ( Only 100 years. ). The Triforce appearing on Zelda's dress essentialy means as little as her wing ornament in her hair. Its no indictaion of whether or not the Triforce is forgotten or left behind.

Lookin at (new) Hyrule as a whole, or the little we've seen seen of it, its easy to assume that the Triforce doesn't play a major role, even removing it from the royal insignia. However, this is just an assumptation. We'll have to wait for ST to be released until we can safely say anything.

I don't really consider New Hyrule as offering much proof of anyone's timelines - we need to wait and see if this game plans to foreshadow any of the other games on that timeline, or if they plan to start a whole new legacy here.

As far as I'm concerned, there's still a lot of decent evidence for most of the games to go on the child timeline, and all the name New Hyrule indicates is that Nintendo don't have a very good imagination (like we didn't already know that).

@ Nerushi;

they've changed Link's shield design between TWW and PH, and TWW/PH and ST; surely they could have changed Zelda's dress design if they wanted to.

@ Nerushi;

they've changed Link's shield design between TWW and PH, and TWW/PH and ST; surely they could have changed Zelda's dress design if they wanted to.

Originally Posted by Artemicion

@ Nerushi;

they've changed Link's shield design between TWW and PH, and TWW/PH and ST; surely they could have changed Zelda's dress design if they wanted to.

Did they change the shield in ST? I have yet to see it...

Either way, you're right. They could have changed it easily, probably with minimal effort. But the question remains, is it neccesary? Some suggest Tetra is in ST ( Anjean ), and she could easily have given Zelda in ST her dress, so changing that would contradict things. Hyrule on the other hand seem to be built from scratch, not based around having the Triforce as a royal insignia.

Oh boy, here it comes...

Originally Posted by Artemicion

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.

And again, someone can't read the posts I made... What is my mistake, exactly? Almost nothing I've said about TWW's ending has been wrong, except for one thing, and that one thing is something EXPLICITLY STATED BY THE KING. This is a contradiction on Nintendo's part, not mine.

My "interpretation" was that the writers, if they were the same writers throughout the series (which I'm pretty sure is not true), would want to maintain the king's wish, and would also want to avoid confusing the player. In other words, they would keep the literal and figurative meaning in line with each other. The figurative meaning is that any new land will not be the King's Hyrule, regardless of name, but the literal wording uses the term "Hyrule" to refer to it. The name Hyrule itself holds great symbolic meaning due to this usage. Nintendo have chosen to ignore this. But it has no bearing on anything else I've said about TWW's ending, especially not when people are making assumptions based on a game that isn't out yet - your favourite past time.

What you're suggesting is that I'm wrong because a new game came out that is set in a new Hyrule after TWW. How the **** does that make sense? The position of anyone arguing against it has always been that it's fanfic because NO GAME SHOWS IT. If a new game is made that does show it, how the **** does that make those people wrong? Were we supposed to see the future and come up with theories using evidence of games that did not exist yet? As I keep pointing out, nothing has been proved about other games. I've said time and again that if Nintendo wanted us to believe that TMC or FSA were set in a new Hyrule, they would have indicated it in the game. The fact that ST does this is proof that I was right - hell, TMC was even an origins-heavy and backstory game, and they still made no reference to this being a new Hyrule.

Now, I usually assume that nobody is stupid enough to take any quote you post seriously, because it is inevitable that it will be taken out of context to twist its meaning. But some people here may not know that, so I should point it out: "Any land appearing after TWW/PH will not be called Hyrule" is not my opinion, it is stated by the King, and hence if it's not true, it just means Link and Tetra **** on the King's wishes (which you can't blame people for not predicting). But that's besides the point, as it is in the context of my previous assumption that the literal and figurative meanings would remain consistent. They haven't, probably for reasons unrelated to story directly, but my statement applies in the same figurative sense. It just has to be reworded in light of new games ("Any land appearing after TWW/PH will not be Hyrule" is precisely what the king said), but the fact that new games exist doesn't mean I was previously wrong. Not to mention that there's a hell of a lot more to what I said than that one line... You can't ****ing nitpick on a single thing when there is no evidence whatsoever that it was wrong. You act like I wrote it after ST came out and contradicted something.

In fact, I've been saying for months that ST would be in the new land after TWW, so uh, what? It's Nintendo's habit of making same-system sequels follow chronologically, to create a kind of coherency when they rehash gameplay engines. And I fully expected Nintendo to be stupid enough to call the land Hyrule to maintain nostalgia, and make it seem more like a "true" Zelda game - as the games outside of Hyrule often aren't seen that way, or are the "sequel" game. As it turns out, your interpretation of TWW was complete ****, though.

What all the COST theorists have stated is that there is no land called Hyrule after TWW, on the basis that no EXISTING games took place in one. This was true up until now. There is no restrospective wrongness, nor is there even enough information about the true backstory and events of ST, which will probably shed light on this (being the first game in a new Hyrule), and yet people have the nerve to claim this is somehow a confirmation regarding a major timeline controversy, along the lines of the split timeline. Even though nothing has been confirmed about the placement of any games yet. An idea that had already been suggested by fanfiction turning into the actual backstory of a game does not make anyone right or wrong.

Nobody claimed "Nintendo will never make a game set in Hyrule after TWW". My point in saying that it's a mistake is that it's still up for debate whether they've simply completely disrespected their old story. After all, TWW was nearly 7 years ago, and it didn't sell that well due to the GCN not being that popular. And we know from past experience that Nintendo frequently contradict previous games, and often make mistakes because they don't care about the story that much, compared to gameplay and other things - they ESPECIALLY tend to not care about maintaining the precise intent and story of older games, though I sometimes think this is the fault of varying staff. There's no evidence that this was always going to be the case, nor does it make sense for that to be true, based on TWW and based on how Nintendo works. People saying OoT was ALttP's direct backstory and prequel, showing the same Ganon and the origins of his sealing in the SR, didn't magically become wrong when TWW came out and changed that. It would be ridiculous to blame them for basing their interpretation on the games and information that existed at the time, and not magically predicting future sequels.

One hurdle to placing games on the Adult Timeline has been removed. And it is only one, which is the existence of Hyrule. Congratu-****ing-lations, but Hyrule always existed on the Child Timeline. I explicitly stated in my document that even if Hyrule existed after TWW, it was meaningless as there were still so many other contradictions, so many other hurdles and plotholes that do not exist on the Child Timeline. How did a post-TWW placement suddenly become superior because you were able to create just ONE of numerous conditions that already perfectly existed after TP? Never mind that there still ARE problems with Hyrule... Such as the fact that it is NOT OoT's Hyrule and is lacking many of the things that are necessary for it to be the same Hyrule as other games. My statement based on what the King said, remember, is above all based on the metaphorical meaning, which still must hold. If this new Hyrule is ALttP's Hyrule, then it really would break the King's wish in any possible way it still works., due to ALttP's Hyrule including virtually every element of OoT's Hyrule. In other words, it's still both physically impossible and contradictory to the intended meaning.

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."

Don't give me that crap. Due to numerous arguments and proofs regarding the necessity of the old Hyrule's history, geography (given ALttP's map is almost identical to OoT's) and many other things existing in the new Hyrule, it was always claimed that either Hyrule was somehow unflooded or drained, or that the Deku Tree would join the islands to make one (with magical recovery of old history from below). You can't just magically make all those contradictions disappear now and forget they were always there. The new land Hyrule was by far the weakest post-TWW Hyrule theory with regards to connecting to other games, even though it was the only one that was ever implied to be possible by TWW's story.

And the Deku Tree theory was clearly the most prevalent here. People were going as far as to look at ST's map from trailers and try to connect it to the Deku Tree, or using spinoffs or making ridiculous inferences from games like TMC or FSA... It's complete garbage. I'm sure that if, by some incredible coincidence, this new Hyrule looks identical to the old one (sorry Daphnes), that will mean I was wrong all along, though. *cough* But I don't make stupid assumptions about unreleased games, and as far as I can see, there are still endless contradictions, especially now that theories about how elements of old Hyrule could be recovered have been exposed as the fanfiction they are. ESPECIALLY some of the stuff you've posted... Your theories are pretty much all either still completely wrong (and now factually so), or completely devoid of legitimate evidence (that isn't created via fallacies, especially those in my signature).

Anjean is the old lady that can see Zelda?

Originally Posted by HylianPwnage

Anjean is the old lady that can see Zelda?

Yes.

Originally Posted by Nerushi

Yes.

*facepalm* People would call that lady Tetra just because of the wink and the hair style?

Originally Posted by HylianPwnage

*facepalm* People would call that lady Tetra just because of the wink and the hair style?

A shame she lost her tan, huh.

Originally Posted by HylianPwnage

*facepalm* People would call that lady Tetra just because of the wink and the hair style?

Well, to be fair, those are kind of her trade mark.

Yeah, it;s not like we're dealing with real people here. They're cartoons.

I really hope Nintendo aren't just doing that for nostalgia, or are going to be really vague about this. I'd love a tighter chronology for the Wind Waker timeline than the other one.

Originally Posted by HylianPwnage

*facepalm* People would call that lady Tetra just because of the wink and the hair style?

...Do you have ANY idea of the kind of inferences that go on here? WATER and TREES existing in any form have massive timeline significance. ****ing Epileptic Trees.

Personally, I think it's really obvious that that woman is either Tetra or otherwise an ancestor of Zelda. Probably Tetra, despite needing to live for over 100 years. There's no way they'd reuse the wink and the hair otherwise.

I think I'm done editing my last post by the way, unless I think of something else... >_>

Originally Posted by Triforce of the Gods

Well, to be fair, those are kind of her trade mark.

Tetra could walk and was a kid.
Also, their names kinda seperate them.
But, unlike everyone else I'm going to play this game before making any final "decisions" as to what happens.
I'm hoping for something that will either prove or disprove the CT....
LOL, Nintendo actually prove something liek that? What was I thinking?