• Choose a category
• All
• Classic-Fiction

By Root 359 0

designers, the availability of the games, the quality of the games, and even aspects of the game design (“mini-games” vs. “a real game”). The combination of these factors seemed to influence whether or not a game could be considered evidence in a timeline debate; this mirrors Latour’s emphasis on how evidence is theory-laden in constructing scientific knowledge.

To illustrate further, let’s look at how and why the meaning of a particular piece of evidence can quickly change through debate and negotiation. The following is an exchange between posters GAMEFAN#1 and SGM2 from June 2004:

Stanza 1 (GAMEFAN#1):

1. - Okay, you remember that the first time when OOT Link pulled the Master Sword from the pedestal.

2. - Seven years later, he grew up.

3. - Then Sheik appeared to Link

4. - and said he really does look like the Hero of Time.

5. - So… How did Sheik know how the Hero of Time is supposed to look like?

6. - That implied that there was another Link before OOT who became the Hero of Time.

7. - That means OOT Link is the second Hero of Time.

Stanza 2 (GAMEFAN#1):

1. - Also, when Navi first saw the Master Sword,

2. - she said it was the legendary blade.

3. - So, what made it legendary in the first place?

4. - Unless another Link used it before OOT

5. - and that Link is the first Hero of Time.

Stanza 3 (SGM2):

1. - I am not saying there was not another hero before the game

2. - but it could of become legendary just because it was created by the sages

3. - and that it repels evil.

Stanza 4 (GAMEFAN#1):

1. - First off, it is not legendary if it hasn’t done anything significant yet.

2. - For example: I forged a knife.

3. Does that make that knife legendary right after I forged it?

4. - No, of course not.

Stanza 5 (SGM2):

1. - If you later do something famous

2. - that knife will become the legendary knife of GAMEFAN #1.

3. - The sages created the blade.

4. - They are also the protectors of the triforce.

5. - It would be lengendary just by being created by them.

Stanza 6 (GAMEFAN#1):

1. - Ah, but remember in ALTTP’s backstory.

2. - The Master Sword was forged for the purpose of sealing the evil away.

3. - But… If OOT was the Imprisoning War,

4. - then why was the Master Sword already there as if it had been forged long time ago?

5. - That means there must be a game before OOT

6. - and that game is the true ALTTP’s backstory.

Stanza 7 (SGM2):

1. - I’m sorry.

2. - I am getting mixed up in a conversation.

3. - I am just saying that saying it is legenndary is not great proof.

4. - I am not saying the IW was in OoT

5. - or if it was not.

6. - The thing is stuff can happen even if it is not in a game.

7. - The IW may not be in a game as we know it so far.

This series of posts dealt with the necessity of another Link pre-dating the Link of Ocarina of Time (“OOT” to the posters). In Stanzas 1 and 2, GAMEFAN#1 proposed a theory based on two pieces of evidence: First, that Link in Ocarina was recognized by the Sheik as the “Hero of Time” (stanza 1, line 4), implying that there must have been an earlier Link who was called that and, second, that Navi referred to Link’s Master Sword in Ocarina as “legendary” (stanza 2, line 2), meaning that the Master Sword must have been used by a previous, “legendary” Link. It is the interpretation of “legendary” that dominated the rest of the thread.

In Stanza 3, SGM2 presented a direct challenge to the understanding of “legendary” as proposed by GAMEFAN#1, stating (in lines 2 and 3) that “it could of [sic] become legendary just because it was created by the sages and that it repels evil.” This is a very different “legendary” than GAMEFAN#1’s: for GAMEFAN#1, the source of what makes a sword “legendary” was the original sword’s owner’s actions and thus the sword inherited this property from a previous, heroic Link. However, for SGM2, the source of what made the sword “legendary” was the