Search results for query: *

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. And...

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.

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...

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...

They weren't foreshadowing. That's not how foreshadowing works. Like, at all. Foreshadowing is indicating or implying at a future event. Generic ruins and a completely meaningless name are neither an indication nor an implication of a future event.

You mean like how the floating islands and depths all appeared out of nowhere? The alternative is to not make their original appearance consist of absolutely nothing of value. You want me to care about them? Give me a hook. Give them some sort of attribute that makes them stand out from...

I like continuity that actually has a point in the game that it’s in and doesn’t just exist to be half-assed theory bait. You can not give all of the answers while also making what you do give actually interesting, it’s not that hard.

That’s exactly what I’m saying. In BotW they were completely pointless.

You’re completely missing the point. All of the tribes that you mentioned have some sort of explanation within the game or a previous game. We know about the previous civilization in SS because we not only see what purpose they were built for but we see what’s left of them. We already know about...

Majora’s Mask is the only one that even comes close to being similar, and even then it never pretends that the ancient tribe in question has any more to it than it actually does like BotW does.

Easy, I wouldn’t.

Uh huh. Tell me, how many of those are ever discussed to any length in casual conversation? Just because it exists in the real world doesn’t make it good world building.

Never, because that’s stupid. There’s no depth to a civilization that only has a name attached to it. They were nothing more than theorist bait. At least Majora’s Mask didn’t pretend that the tribe that created it was any more important than it actually was.

Except TotK wasn’t our introduction to the Zonai, BotW was. Literally every other species in the series at least showed us what they looked like in the first game.

What impression of depth? There was a single name and some generic “ruins.” Literally the only thing that was different from hundreds of other generic ruined areas was that this one had some slightly different generic carvings. The Zonai had as much effort put into making them interesting as if...

Nope, they hadn’t :eyes:

People really like to ignore that the timeline has been pretty consistent for the most part. The capcom games are really the only time there’s any wild inconsistencies, and I hardly blame Nintendo for that. I’ve said it before, but the sheer severity and amount of inconsistencies in the latest...

They’re the worst addition to the series lore yet. In BotW they were a complete bag of nothing. Just a random name thrown into the game to get theorists to talk about them despite the fact that they had absolutely nothing interesting about them whatsoever. It was just yet another way BotW...