• This forum is strictly intended to be used by members of the VS Battles wiki. Please only register if you have an autoconfirmed account there, as otherwise your registration will be rejected. If you have already registered once, do not do so again, and contact Antvasima if you encounter any problems.

    For instructions regarding the exact procedure to sign up to this forum, please click here.
  • We need Patreon donations for this forum to have all of its running costs financially secured.

    Community members who help us out will receive badges that give them several different benefits, including the removal of all advertisements in this forum, but donations from non-members are also extremely appreciated.

    Please click here for further information, or here to directly visit our Patreon donations page.
  • Please click here for information about a large petition to help children in need.

Massive Majora TLOZ Upgrades(Continued)

Status
Not open for further replies.
Saikou The Lewd King said:
@Kep The issue is that this statement has never been supported anywhere else in the verse, let alone canon materials. And I'm pretty sure we ignoring stuff in guidebooks if they're not consistent with the verse.
Click to expand...
Majora's Mask in it's entirety is almost never referenced anywhere aside from HH and HE, so there is really no contradiction in this case.
 
No, but what little stuff that does references MM do not support this idea. And considering the entire game takes place in Termina, it's more than enough to consider the statement to not be supported.
 
Kepekley23 said:
Barging in as someone who has read the thread and is leaning more towards disagreeing with the upgrade.
"It might not contain 100% factual info" is an hilarious argument for all the wrong reasons. Of course it might not contain 100% factual information. Neither does any other guidebook out there, or even Primary Canon material. If 5 games said X, but 1 game said Y, then the game that said Y is obviously wrong and that specific sectio would be discarded for being inconsistent, thus proving that "the game is not 100% factual". Since when does that mean the entire rest of the game is unusable?

Have you proven that this specific section quoted isn't factual? If you haven't proven with in-game scans that this is contradictory then just saying "not everything in the book is factual" is a purely fallacious claim, and something that I've noticed to be sadly too widespread in this wiki for its own good.
Click to expand...
My argument isn't "the guide isn't 100% factual" though. Obviously, not everything in a guide is 100% accurate.

My argument is that the authors themsevles admitted that they made creative liberties on the lore that didn't come straight from in-game sources or other developmental materials.


Nothing in-game nor from those other deveoplmental materials states that Majora created Termina. All other sources state that Termina is a parallel world to Hyrule with it's own culutre and history that Link happens to stumble upon. And thus I find it logical that this is part of the lore, that only exists in the HE, is apart of their creative liberties.
 
Oblivion Lightning said:
Warren you destroy your own point as Anouma states that most of it is factual
"but most are based on in-game development and materials"

So it's not all creative liberties so therefore your argument is disproven by your own info
Click to expand...
Have you read anything I have written? Or do you just ignore it?

I mentioned this here.
 
Alright, re-read everything better. Bit of head lag there. ovo

Yes, it is "not supported" anywhere else, as well as a lot of things in the HH. The games has a vague and almost non-existent sense of "continuation" to the last filled with intense contradictions when looking at the games by themselves.

At the end of Ocarina of Time, Link still had the ToC, yet the piece also appeared in Wind Waker, a game that according to the HH, is in a separate timeline, while simultaneously appearing in Twilight Princess. Everytime the timeline splits it creates a new set of Triforce?

That is unsopported, but the canon shows otherwise.

Why is this particular case any different?

Keep in mind, I'm not even arguing that the feat is legit, but the argument that "well, is unsopported/contradicted" I don't agree with, when we have similar cases with the entire franchise.

Nothing contradicts Majora's case, even while unsopported before (which it is now, as someone stated earlier stated the HE was created to expand on things in the HH).

It would simply be a retcon, imo.
 
LephyrTheRevanchist said:
Actually no?
Where is it contradicted at all?

Edit: Not supported*
Click to expand...
The better question is to ask where IS it supported?

There is nothing in the entire franchise that supports this statement.


Nothing from the original N64 Game, nothing from any guides, and not even anything form the 3DS remake that was both made around the same time as this guide, and added more dialogue to the original game in places, made any hints or allusions that Termina was, in fact, Majora's creation.

What we know is that Termina is a parallel world to Hyrule, not one created by Majora based on the Skull Kid's memories of Hyrule.

If Termina was made from Skull Kid's memories, then where does all the original beings and stuff come from as a result, anyway?
 
LephyrTheRevanchist said:
Alright, re-read everything better. Bit of head lag there. ovo
Yes, it is "not supported" anywhere else, as well as a lot of things in the HH. The games has a vague and almost non-existent sense of "continuation" to the last filled with intense contradictions when looking at the games by themselves.

At the end of Ocarina of Time, Link still had the ToC, yet the piece also appeared in Wind Waker, a game that according to the HH, is in a separate timeline, while simultaneously appearing in Twilight Princess. Everytime the timeline splits it creates a new set of Triforce?

That is unsopported, but the canon shows otherwise.

Why is this particular case any different?

Keep in mind, I'm not even arguing that the feat is legit, but the argument that "well, is unsopported/contradicted" I don't agree with, when we have similar cases with the entire franchise.

Nothing contradicts Majora's case, even while unsopported before (which it is now, as someone stated earlier stated the HE was created to expand on things in the HH).

It would simply be a retcon, imo.
Click to expand...
That's not the entire argument.

While yes, the HH has contradictions and plotholes to its lore, the HH doesn't have a footnote that says what lore they didn't take from canon material, they made up.

The HE does, and thus I question the vaildity of what they have written.


And since it wasn't written by Nintendo, and augmentations to the story should be viewed at skeptically.
 
@Warren

  • shrugs
Like I said, is enough for me, but the wiki is weird. ovo

But like I also said, I'm neutral regarding an upgrade in the first place.
 
I strongly agree with Warren and Saikou. If the guidebook largely consists of made up unofficial information by a third party, and the relevant statement isn't supported anywhere else, the reasoning for this upgrade seems to have been thoroughly dismantled.

Mind you, I love the franchise, but nevertheless.

@Warren

Would you be willing to insert a note section mention in The Legend of Zelda verse page about that we consider the guidebook in question unreliable, and why?
 
@Ant

Is the other way around. It largely consists of information based on the lore and stuff (as stated by Aonuma), it's just this one quote in particular that it's likely unreliable.
 
Even assuming that Aonuma signing up those "creative liberties" doesn't mean he recognizes them as canon, these should be more referred to details and one-time statement. I have an extremely hard time believing that something repeated for two pages and that it's easily the biggest thing that has been changed by Hyrule Encyclopedia would amount to a simple "creative liberty". Also, what Kep said. There's also the fact that these kinds of books in the Zelda franchise exist literally exclusively to explain the lore, just as how Hyrule Historia did by retconnecting the entire ALLTP backstory, as the series didn't have a lore at first and as such contradictions started to come up and got resolved only with HH. I don't see how this is any different.
 
Are you serious?

How come the people opposing the upgrade get to decide what's the creative liberties even when Anouma said that "most of it is apart of the insourcing material".Stating that Majora creating Termina is noncanon without proof other than a vague statement is just a horrible argument

I'm not saying that most=all and saying that we should disregard all of HE is disregarding actual offical info as at least some of it is apart of the source material.Im saying that Termina being created by Majora might be a creative liberty but then again it might not.You can't choose what is the creative liberty just to fit your side of the argument

We should therefore do what we have always done accept the info unless it contradicts the source material,which in this case it doesn't so it's official info.

-HE confirms that Majora created Termina(nothing is contradicted and I debunked Tatl's Memory)

-HE confirms that Link's pure heart sustained Termina's collapse which is why Link still has his items(nothing is contradicted)

' They were created as a series of books to elucidate the canon and were directly supervised by Nintendo (also one of the writers credited for Encyclopedia has been with Nintendo for at least 30 years). As a general principle, official statements from Nintendo employees are considered canon unless they contradict in-game evidence. The Goddess Collection, due to their relationship to the timeline, are considered on-par with game canon and so supersede any previous evidence provided in the games."'

If it's supervised by Nintendo and was officially put place and signed by Anouma.It should still be considered canon as long as it doesn't contradict the source material.

This counter is honestly ridiculous and based on a vague statement that also destroys its own point in a desperate attempt to debunk this upgrade.
 
Dark Horse Comics were the ones who wrote it and even state that stuff that is contradicting should be disregarded.Dark Horse Comics also wrote the Official Guides of OT,MM,WW,MM 3DS, and Hyrule Historia.Also HE is a sequel to HH so they should both share their canonity unless it contradicts in source material like the writers said.

The very writers and their statements destroy the idea that everything is 100% Non canon which Warren is implying
 
I don't think that he is saying that everything is non-canon, just that the parts that are not confirmed anywhere else are very unreliable.
 
Yes they took creative liberties and yes they said that there is an amount of things that are canon in HE

In this dilemma we cannot determine what is canon and what is not as we didn't write HE.Thus we consider everything in HE to be canon unless contradicted(somethings we discussed in a previous thread)

The upgrade as it is doesn't contradict anything as proven above

-Tatl's Memory(HE confirms why we see Skull Kid Tatl and Tael in the memory see the OP as this does'nt contradict anything)

-Link's items(Link's pure heart sustains it which would count as Hax through empathetic manip.HE confirms this and Link sustaining Termina with hax isn't contradicted anywhere)

And wouldn't this be counted as possibly 3-A? As it's from a canon source with some creative liberties?Again I'm new with the "possibly stuff"
 
I mean unless it's shown that HE is completely noncanon or the Termina stuff is noncanon.I think "possibly 3-A" would work

I just wish they could confirm that it's completely noncanon or canon lol
 
We cannot assume that a text of variable canonicity is automatically reliable unless contradicted.
 
That's why I think possibly 3-A would work until we figure out the canonity of HE

Saying it's all noncanon would be ignoring canon info and calling it all canon is wrong due to creative liberties
 
Antvasima said:
We cannot assume that a text of variable canonicity is automatically reliable unless contradicted.
Click to expand...
The writers of HE say that all contradictions should be ignored and everything else is actuall apart of the ingame lore,but this site does things differently which is why I'm proposing possibly 3-A works
 
@Konaguna

I think that we have mostly or entirely avoided using them.
 
Well then this may e a problem, I was asking this since I myself believe that a source is either reliable or not, meaning that cherrypicking statements you like and discarding contradicting ones shouldn't be done. It's all or nothing you could say...

Then again I am not completely sure how much HE contradicts the games, It's been a while since I last played Majora's mask, but other than Ganon's curse I haven't found anything that would massively contradict the games.
 
That's why I think a compromise of possibly should work as there's no contradictions here and it can be changed if the canonity of the HE is altered
 
Antvasima said:
I strongly agree with Warren and Saikou. If the guidebook largely consists of made up unofficial information by a third party, and the relevant statement isn't supported anywhere else, the reasoning for this upgrade seems to have been thoroughly dismantled.Mind you, I love the franchise, but nevertheless.
@Warren

Would you be willing to insert a note section mention in The Legend of Zelda verse page about that we consider the guidebook in question unreliable, and why?
Click to expand...
You may have misinterpeted what I was writing about slightly.

I don't find the entirety of the HE as non-canon material. Most of what is in the HE is extrapolated from the games or other guides. And some of their changes or retcons are reaffirmed by Nintendo as legit.

The most notable one I can think off the top of my head is the change of the Oracle games in the timeline. In the HH, the Oracle games were in between ALttP and LA - they were the same Link. In the HE, the Oracle games are after LA, and I believe are a different Link.

That change to the timeline is backed up being the positioning of the game on the Zelda website.


The thing I question is the little foot note on the Staff page which details that the authors are not from Nintendo and that everything they wrote in the first chapter, the one pertaining to lore, that wasn't from the games or from other sources, they made up.

And because Majora creating Termina is completely unsupported, not having said notion reaffirmed by Nintendo, I believe that Majora creating Termina is one of those creative liberties, and that it would not usable to upgrade the characters.


And I'm very sorry to tell you this, but I am currently quite busy the rest of the week with more school work, so I am not confident I would be able to make any edits.

I honestly don't think I can write any more rebuttals for this thread.

Sorry.
 
Oblivion Lightning said:
Dark Horse Comics were the ones who wrote it and even state that stuff that is contradicting should be disregarded.Dark Horse Comics also wrote the Official Guides of OT,MM,WW,MM 3DS, and Hyrule Historia.Also HE is a sequel to HH so they should both share their canonity unless it contradicts in source material like the writers said.
The very writers and their statements destroy the idea that everything is 100% Non canon which Warren is implying
Click to expand...
Nintendo are the ones's who wrote the HH, while people at the Nintendo Dream magazine are the one who wrote the HE.

Dark Horse are the publishers, not the writers.
 
@Warren

So should we close this thread then? You can edit the verse page later.
 
I guess?

When is the point where a CRT is accepted or denied?

Is it through a vote count? If so, how many votes?
 
Warren has debunked this, we are going in circles, and the staff largely agree with Warren. He and I also don't have the time to continue, and doing so will be a gigantic waste of time that does not lead anywhere.
 
"We consider unsupported additions or retcons to the lore written in the Hyrule Encyclopedia as unreliable because in the Staff Page of the Hyrule Encyclopedia, the authors themselves admit to taking creative liberties with the lore that wasn't taken directly from the games or other developmental materials. And thus, it would be unviable to use said lore to upgrade certain characters.

Most notably, the notion that Majora's Mask created the world of Termina from the Skull Kid's memories."


Something like that?

Anyway, I really must go. I'm sorry once again.


Goodbye.
 
In case you don't want to read the entire article it states that Hyrule Encyclopedia was heavily,HEAVILY under watch by Nintendo America and needed confirmation by the editor in order to have it passed.It later states that Hyrule Encyclopedia does have some contradictions but Nintendo and the Editor agreed to diregard the contradictions.With this new info you need to prove that Termina being created by Majora is a contradiction.Guess what it's not as debunked several times above.If Nintendo and the Editor agreed to disregard contradictions so should we.This greatly opposes Warren's claims
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Similar threads

Dust_Collector
The Legend of Zelda: Majora's Moon Drop
Replies
23
Views
2K
Tyloxtus
Hyrule Warriors mid tier upgrades
Replies
17
Views
2K
y3p_owo
y3p_owo
Dust_Collector
  • Locked
Hylia High 6-B Upgrade (And by extension SS Link, Demise, and Ghirahim)
Replies
23
Views
2K
DarkDragonMedeus
DarkDragonMedeus
Dust_Collector
Palutena vs Demise
Replies
10
Views
935
Dust_Collector
Dust_Collector
Overlordhamsterball69
  • Locked
Twilight Princess Link Upgrade 2-B
Replies
5
Views
1K
Overlordhamsterball69
Overlordhamsterball69
Back
Top