- Joined
- Jan 1, 2009
- Location
- Hyrule and Azeroth
The wall of text... it burns!!!!you say MC comes in the new hyrule after WW and PH. the game would have to come quite a bit of time later. if WW link and tetra started this new world then wouldnt the legend of the hero of winds be passed down? technically that would be like the greatest hero the world has ever known since he saved the great sea world AND started a new Hyrule, but this legend is not mentioned, or even found in a book at the library that you love talking about so much. if MC takes place in the new Hyrule, then how come there is no mention of tetra and the hero of winds? MC was made closely after WW which would mean that if it was to fit into a timeline RIGHT after WW/PH then there should a much more obvious connection because as you said, they go back and change little details to make it fit into a timeline. the fact that the "triforks" are mentioned in a book in a different language is about as important to me as the hat is to you. where are the books on the hero of winds? i would think that would be much more important but i have yet to hear one argument from you that isnt about an ocean under the sky temple or the triforks. both are very very terrible arguments. that argument is about as good as saying it goes after WW/PH because they used the toon link design. i hate people who say that.
Good point. But I must also ask something of you too. Why isn't the story of the Hero of Men or the hero from tMC ever passed down in TP? He saved the world too. And on the CT they would be the only heroes as well.you say MC comes in the new hyrule after WW and PH. the game would have to come quite a bit of time later. if WW link and tetra started this new world then wouldnt the legend of the hero of winds be passed down?
OoT first because in TP you get a tunic and it doesn't imply anything about tMC. Only OoT starting the tunic.MC First because you get a hat without anyone telling you that the founder of new hyrule, the hero of winds, had a hat just like it. i would think that someone would be like "hey youre wearing what our great and wonderous founder wore back in the day!"
OoT first because TP makes no mention of a previous hero.MC First because no previous link is mentioned anywhere, and as i said, the hero of winds was the founder (along with tetra) of this new Hyrule. he was known for saving the world from ganondorf, but this isnt mentioned anywhere? interesting.
TMC Link was known for defeating Vaati and saving the world from him. This isn't mentioned anywhere? Interesting...
Oh and the only people who even knew of Ganondorf were the King of Red Lions, Tetra and Link. (Maybe the pirate crew did. I can't quite remember) Ganondorf died and so did the KoRL.
So my vague, pointless implication uses the exact same logic as yours, but mine works.
Technically the same would be if tMC was directly after tWW. Actually with tMC as the first game in new hyrule I can use all of the same perks of tMC being first. And OoT being first. Plus factual non-implication evidence.MC First because there is no mention of a previous evil. only monsters.
With evidence OoT being first is better and more evidenced. You can't deny that. It's like saying that LttP-LA has more evidence and is a better placement than OoX-LA. OoX-LA has far more evidence. OoT first has far more evidence. I don't care whether you choose to believe in tMC-OoT. I do care, however, that you admit there is more overall evidence and that your argument relies soley on pure unevidenced implications.
Sorry if I come off rude. This debate is just getting a little irritating when all that happens is:
You present un-evidenced implications.
I show how those exact implications can work for my timeline. Then I show you true evidence.
You don't mention that the implications can work for my timeline. You then say that my evidence is too old.
I show evidence more recent than your evidence and show how pointless those implications are.
You don't acknowledge my evidence then re-present your implications.
It's just going around in circles. So don't take my irritation personally. I'm just a little tired of this debate and not having my evidence acknowledged.