|
|
Post by kirbychu on Oct 8, 2007 3:23:42 GMT -5
Well you start the game out with the shield in a forest in Hyrule. Were there even Like-Likes in MM? I don't remember. And if you killed them, you could always get your shield back... They were all over Great Bay Coast. And yes, you could kill them to get your shield back, but what if you don't? No shield for the rest of the game. Or at least until halfway through Ikana.  Link's going to start out with the Shield, obviously. They're not going to make two shields identical except for appearance just so that you can have a different one to buy if you lose the other. EDIT: Somehow missed Fry's post... I agree with pretty much everything you're saying, Fry. Of course, future games will mess it all up completely.  I remember an interview from sometime between TWW and TP where Aonuma said that he wants to fill all the gaps in the storyline. I can't find that interview now, but it'll be interesting if he does. |
|
|
|
Post by Sqrt2 on Oct 8, 2007 5:00:43 GMT -5
Link's going to start out with the Shield, obviously. They're not going to make two shields identical except for appearance just so that you can have a different one to buy if you lose the other. They did exactly that in TP though! If your Ordon Shield gets burnt, you have to go back to Kakiriko to buy the Wooden Shield (which is the same as the Ordon Shield, except for the design on the front). Of course, pro's use the metal shield inside Death Mountain, so the wooden shield is basically useless. |
|
vorpal
Pikpik Carrot
Posts: 32
|
Post by vorpal on Oct 8, 2007 13:14:50 GMT -5
It's been my stance for quite a long time that the Zelda games, other than the games that are cited as specific sequels, are only loosely related. The problem with the religious/scientific example quite a while back (other than being severely flawed in how they're labeled, because many religious people approach truth in a way you label as "scientific" and vis versa.) is that you're dealing with a storyline that is altered at the whim of the creators when the need arises. To assume that there is even one unchanging underlying truth that will bring everything into alignment is a fallacy from the beginning.
|
|
|
|
Post by Hiker of Games on Oct 8, 2007 13:28:10 GMT -5
But... that's like giving up!
But then again, I've always viewed using Split Timeline as "Giving Up" on the timeline too. Fortunately Tingle's Rupeeland makes the Single Timeline possible again.
|
|
|
|
Post by kirbychu on Oct 8, 2007 13:35:06 GMT -5
Except it's already officially ruled out anyway. |
|
|
|
Post by Hiker of Games on Oct 8, 2007 15:10:54 GMT -5
What? Tingle or the Single Timeline?
|
|
|
|
Post by Fryguy64 on Oct 8, 2007 15:18:39 GMT -5
because many religious people approach truth in a way you label as "scientific" and vis versa. Don't want to turn this into a religious debate or anything, because I have an armory of arguments about that... but you seem to be misusing the word "truth" there. Observations of the world are either empirical (scientific) or non-empirical (theoretical). A religious person might well use empirical data, and a scientist might well use theoretical data... but that's completely missing the point I was trying to make... which is that a lot of Zelda fans who try to work on the storyline issue get angry and defensive at points that are unproven and indefensible. After all thinking something is true, and something being true are not the same thing. To assume that there is even one unchanging underlying truth that will bring everything into alignment is a fallacy from the beginning. Well, if there's a document at Nintendo HQ outlining how all the games fit together, then that is the unchanging, underlying truth that we must get at. It won't bring everything into alignment, of that I am 100% sure. If it's ever revealed, there will be fans who find (and pick at) inconsistencies. And yes, this document is highly unlikely to have existed before 1998 with the release of Ocarina of Time - possibly even later than that. But I am sure Aonuma is doing his best to patch it up, and one day I absolutely expect a LoZ and AoL Zero Mission game to tie it together. |
|
|
|
Post by TV Eye on Oct 8, 2007 15:33:25 GMT -5
and one day I absolutely expect a LoZ and AoL Zero Mission game to tie it together. Wasn't that discussed in a previous thread? It is a good idea nonetheless. |
|
|
|
Post by Hiker of Games on Oct 8, 2007 15:40:55 GMT -5
Whenever they start to make a LoZ remake, they get sidetracked. Take the Oracle games, for instance. Eiji even said that Phantom Hourglass is basically a Legend of Zelda remake. Which, from playing, I think he's bonkers, but yeah.
|
|
|
|
Post by kirbychu on Oct 8, 2007 16:24:17 GMT -5
What? Tingle or the Single Timeline? The Single Timeline. Since, at this point, the creators have expressly mentioned the timeline split, I think we can assume it happened. |
|
|
|
Post by Hiker of Games on Oct 8, 2007 17:09:01 GMT -5
Oh, that. Yeah. Zelda Legends brainwashed me into taking creator words with a grain of salt... since they tend to change what they mean a lot.
|
|
|
|
Post by Arcadenik on Oct 8, 2007 18:32:40 GMT -5
I thought of something...
It was stated that the sleeping Zelda in TAOL is the original Zelda... So is the sleeping Zelda really the OOT Zelda? Since OOT apparently is the first in the timeline...
|
|
|
|
Post by Fryguy64 on Oct 8, 2007 19:05:45 GMT -5
Possibly... but first in the timeline doesn't mean first ever. But there are issues:
1. If she was, she couldn't exist along the TWW timeline because she'd have been submerged in Hyrule.
2. Her father ruled Hyrule with the Triforce, but the Triforce (allegedly) didn't leave the Golden Land until the events of Ocarina of Time. But even then, it was split into three, and Zelda's father didn't get any of them.
But then there's the whole idea that Daphes Johannsen Hyrule (or whatever the King of Red Lions name is) has a striking resemblance to the king in the AoL manual, and may even be the same man.
But would that mean the King of Red Lions was the father of the Zelda we knew from OoT? Who can say. Big ol' plothole right there.
|
|
|
|
Post by TV Eye on Oct 8, 2007 19:14:30 GMT -5
I thought of something... It was stated that the sleeping Zelda in TAOL is the original Zelda... So is the sleeping Zelda really the OOT Zelda? Since OOT apparently is the first in the timeline... Yes, I brought up earlier that the Link in AoL is the one from OoT, just older. Hyrule was taken over by Ganondorf while Link was in Termina. That's just my theory... |
|
|
|
Post by kirbychu on Oct 9, 2007 3:47:16 GMT -5
1. If she was, she couldn't exist along the TWW timeline because she'd have been submerged in Hyrule. It's possible that she is down there, still sleeping under the water. If she can go for hundreds of years without aging, who's to say she couldn't survive a little flood, huh? Or perhaps the palace she's in is waterproof... or perhaps Northern Hyrule wasn't flooded. I'm pretty sure AoL was the only game that ever took place there, so it's possible. |
|
