SuperMetroid
Eating Your Brains
- Joined
- Apr 6, 2012
- Location
- Melbourne, Australia
In all seriousness, Bradley does have a point. Apart from his use of Ockham's razor (which is purely bull----)*, I understand but don't agree with his argument. Zelda is a series that has so many holes and loose ends, you could almost effectively place the games in any order you choose, and connect the stories in numerous permutations. One can respect that he holds in-game information in higher regard than anything else. We all feel the same way, and I can give you an example: When Nintendo released the official timeline, they introduced the possibility that Link failed. No-body was happy. And if you were, you secretly weren't. The reason for this? There was no in-game evidence. If we didn't hold in-game information in higher regard than outside sources, why was everybody so distraught?
For this reason, I think Bradley has a point. Zelda is a game built entirely on perspective. That isn't the way developers wanted it, and possibly not how they want it now - who knew so much scrutiny would be directed at ALttP? Yet my interpretation is that Zelda is made for interpretation, which is a testament in itself. Zelda is meant to be a fun, interesting and immersive game, and I interpret it as such. Giving Termina the status of Hyrule's mirrored counterpart adds an extra layer of depth, as each of the characters are familiar to me, yet my relationship with them is vastly different.
*Ockham's Razor means practically nothing if you can't sum up ALL of the ramifications. That means every single one of them. Every time I see people stating Ockham's Razor, they rely on what they want to hear solely, simply because it's what seems right at first. The Legend of Zelda series is particularly difficult to apply Ockham's razor, simply because there are so many holes and loose ends. That's why, every time I hear someone stating Ockham's razor, I feel ashamed for the person using it. Did you remember that you assumed that outside information is wrong? Did you also remember that you assumed 'different world' meant of the same land as Hyrule - you can't assume that real world logic applies, where wormholes and separate dimensions are only theoretical. And frankly, Ockham's razor can go eat itself to death if it destroys my experience.
For this reason, I think Bradley has a point. Zelda is a game built entirely on perspective. That isn't the way developers wanted it, and possibly not how they want it now - who knew so much scrutiny would be directed at ALttP? Yet my interpretation is that Zelda is made for interpretation, which is a testament in itself. Zelda is meant to be a fun, interesting and immersive game, and I interpret it as such. Giving Termina the status of Hyrule's mirrored counterpart adds an extra layer of depth, as each of the characters are familiar to me, yet my relationship with them is vastly different.
*Ockham's Razor means practically nothing if you can't sum up ALL of the ramifications. That means every single one of them. Every time I see people stating Ockham's Razor, they rely on what they want to hear solely, simply because it's what seems right at first. The Legend of Zelda series is particularly difficult to apply Ockham's razor, simply because there are so many holes and loose ends. That's why, every time I hear someone stating Ockham's razor, I feel ashamed for the person using it. Did you remember that you assumed that outside information is wrong? Did you also remember that you assumed 'different world' meant of the same land as Hyrule - you can't assume that real world logic applies, where wormholes and separate dimensions are only theoretical. And frankly, Ockham's razor can go eat itself to death if it destroys my experience.