Are The Zonai a Beneficial Addition to the Series?

[Ryuu Kage Desu]

literally nobody said or even implied otherwise.


Easily missed means subtle, not nonexistent. Me saying "Wonder Bread" yesterday does not foreshadow me making a sandwich today.

"They might use this in the future" is not foreshadowing.

You want an example of actual foreshadowing? The first Professor Layton trilogy. All throughout the second game, and to a lesser extent the first one, there is dialogue about how the Professor refuses to take off his hat. It's a distinct attribute, albeit one that's subtle enough to be considered a weird quirk and nothing more. Maybe you could theorize why that is, but it clearly wasn't the point to do so. They then follow this up by heavily reiterating the fact that he doesn't remove his hat in the third game before finally revealing the exact reason why. This is foreshadowing because it not only shows that the event in question exists, but also has some sort of thematic connection to the event.

Trying to call the Zonai's presence in BotW "foreshadowing" would be like trying to say that the mere existence of the Professors hat was foreshadowing the reveal of how he obtained it.

Like I said. I get it. You prefer to have things far more blatant and obvious. It doesn't change anything about the game in question.

oh man people definitely overuse the word foreshadowing
especially when it comes to those new disney tv shows
gravity falls was full of great foreshadowing and now everyone who watches owl house/amphibia/star/etc is like "this is clearly foreshadowing!"

probably some of that going on here too

I wouldn't know. I've only seen the parts of those shows my children have shown me. The shows seem interesting enough.

My usage of the terms comes from the writing courses I've taken.

 

[thePlinko]

Like I said. I get it. You prefer to have things far more blatant and obvious. It doesn't change anything about the game in question.

Just because I don’t like ****ty writing doesn’t mean I “prefer to have things far more blatant and obvious.” You making up things that objectively do not exist doesn’t change anything about the game in question either.

My usage of the terms comes from the writing courses I've taken.

You might want to take them again, because you clearly do not know what foreshadowing means.

 

[Ryuu Kage Desu]

Just because I don’t like ****ty writing doesn’t mean I “prefer to have things far more blatant and obvious.” You making up things that objectively do not exist doesn’t change anything about the game in question either.

You might want to take them again, because you clearly do not know what foreshadowing means.

I have not invented anything here, and getting upset won't help your arguments.

 

[thePlinko]

I have not invented anything here, and getting upset won't help your arguments.

You keep insisting that there’s foreshadowing here when there very clearly isn’t, and acting like I just can’t handle subtlety when I point out that theres literally nothing there.

 

[Vaati]

Sounds like we read very different literature. Not all foreshadowing requires a character to look into the fourth wall, and tell us that the thing will be important later. Many of the best uses, in my opinion, are easily missed, then we are reminded about it when it pops up again. For that mater, many people took the mere presence of the ruins, and a few people in game researching said ruins, as that implying future relevance. On top of that, as I have said before, what we did get, enough or not, is still more foreshadowing and continuity than we have gotten in previous games. We could tell that there was a history present in the world before that history was, quite literally, dropped on us.

The ruins were there before; did the zonai ruins fall from the sky, or did the Zonai commute to them? Did the Zonai make them and leave,

 

[Ryuu Kage Desu]

You keep insisting that there’s foreshadowing here when there very clearly isn’t, and acting like I just can’t handle subtlety when I point out that theres literally nothing there.

Foreshadowing, from a perspective taught by industry professionals is more about providing the clues/cues/insight to the audience you are writing to. Just like there is no one way to write a mystery, with some mysteries being an actual puzzle to figure out who done it, and others telling you who right away who done it; there is no prescribed way to write foreshadowing and continuity, with some stories requiring more information, and others needing just hints.

Which leads to the next issue. I said that you must prefer more obvious stories. It's not an insult against your taste, or your ability to grasp subtlety. It's simply a statement about preference. By insisting that nothing is present, when there was indeed something (however minor that is), and that others must view the efficacy of what is there the same way you do, tells everyone all they need to know about your stance.

Ultimately, I agree that the writing could have been better, and what little was there could have been improved upon. It doesn't change the fact that there is more here than before. Is that little enough to be happy with? It is for me, and numerous others. Is it enough for everyone? Obviously not.

The ruins were there before; did the zonai ruins fall from the sky, or did the Zonai commute to them? Did the Zonai make them and leave,

My going theory is that the Zonai civilization operated much we already see, for modern cities close to one another. Many would have spent their time more locally, be it in the sky, the depths, or on the surface, with there being pilgrimages, and things being shipped from where they were made. I also still think there was a conflict that lead the Zonai to become the Minish, basically abandoning their destroyed structures. But those are just my theories on the subject.

 

[thePlinko]

Foreshadowing, from a perspective taught by industry professionals is more about providing the clues/cues/insight to the audience you are writing to. Just like there is no one way to write a mystery, with some mysteries being an actual puzzle to figure out who done it, and others telling you who right away who done it; there is no prescribed way to write foreshadowing and continuity, with some stories requiring more information, and others needing just hints.

I never said that there was one way to write foreshadowing, I said that what you’re arguing is foreshadowing is not. Foreshadowing would require the elements in question to have some sort of relevance to the story it’s building to. Generic ruins and a meaningless name do neither of that.

Which leads to the next issue. I said that you must prefer more obvious stories. It's not an insult against your taste, or your ability to grasp subtlety. It's simply a statement about preference. By insisting that nothing is present, when there was indeed something (however minor that is), and that others must view the efficacy of what is there the same way you do, tells everyone all they need to know about your stance.

And I’m saying that you’re wrong. I don’t prefer “obvious” stories. I like stories that actually exist. I’m insisting that there’s nothing present because there isn’t anything present.