You're right, that was extremely boring. Mainly because your point is "I know stuff". I realize that I myself am not beyond using referent power solely to get a point across, but I'll give you a chance to cite the claims you made with sources.
Yes diddums, I know stuff. I know you might find that pretty fuckin' uncouth - but it's the traditional method of adult debate. It might not match up to inventing information and throwing a temper tantrum in terms of convenience, but I assure you that it has many things to recommend it.
Now leaving aside the hypocrisy of criticising me for the crime of "knowing stuff" and then demanding citations - sure, whatever. Play Skyward Sword, where it is directly stated that the different iterations of Link are different people, or alternatively, take a look at the official Zelda timeline as published by Nintendo.
You could have looked it up yourself in half the time you spent sulking about my lack of Harvard Referencing System, but whatever.
Bullshit. Link -- in this tournament -- is designated as being from "The Legend of Zelda" and he's depicted wearing the Master Sword. I see no reason to assume that he couldn't have the capabilities afforded to any video game depicting as much.
Because they're different people. You're functionally saying that one Zelda protagonist should be able to use all of the Zelda protagonists' tools and skills.
Look at it this way. If the main character of the Zelda franchise had a different name and appearance in every game then you'd happily agree with me that the idea of combining all their tools and powers was stupid. But it has been confirmed in the Zelda story that every version of Link (bar sequels) is just as unique and separate an entity as if that was the case.
I know you probably think that sniping is as easy as it's made out to be in video games, but if you take a shot then you've compromised your position. On top of that -- as Dagger Dias pointed out -- Link has a cape that renders him invisible for a limited time. Not distorted, but completely invisible. If both men are wary of each other's existence and they're granted the obscene amount of distance that would make the most use out of a sniper rifle's range, it wouldn't be uncharacteristic of Link to remain as difficult to spot as he could be until getting within range of his own tools of war.
We have no way of knowing if it would shield Link from thermal imaging or any of the other non-visual tracking methods common in the MGS franchise, but since it makes him partially incorporeal, I'm open to the idea that it might. However; the magic cape has an extremely short duration, since it permanently drains Link's rather megre magic meter. It's only available to one iteration of Link, and he can't use it to hide for more than about 30 seconds at a time. That doesn't do him a lot of good here.
Literally every depiction of the Hylian shield has it as an indestructible form of protection. No exceptions, it doesn't break. Like-Likes don't destroy the shield, they steal it. It really doesn't depend on which Link you're using, there has never been a breakable Hylian shield.
I assumed you were talking about the mirror shield, since your side brought it up earlier and it's been in far more games. Anyway, you're wrong. Ocarina of Time, if you kill a Like Like within a few seconds of it stealing your shield, you get the shield back. If you allow it to finish digesting the shield, the shield is destroyed. QED: the shield is not indestructible.
So yes; there
has been a breakable Hyrule shield. Skyward Sword is the only version to my knowledge where the shield is directly implied to be indestructible.
Neither Navi nor Tatl can be captured in a jar for use as items. They look similar, but they're different.
Based on what? They look exactly the same, and every single character in every single one of the games refers to them by the same name. Nowhere, literally nowhere, are they implied to be different species. You threw your toys out the pram over me not citing my sources - show my why they are different. One line from one Zelda game where these creatures that look and move identically are not the same.
Ocarina of Time, Majora's Mask, Twilight Princess and Phantom Hourglass all feature indistinguishable bottled and unbottled fairies.
You know, you really have no place mocking someone else's intellect after typing out that last paragraph of horseshit. Here's the original game manual, it doesn't describe fairies in the way you claim. If you're not lying, then please cite the game manual you're referring too. It sure as Hell isn't "the original game".
Page 31 tells you that they live together in communal groups and have magical powers. It also portrays them wearing tailored dresses and wielding tools. How do you explain that without intelligence? Do you think Hyrule has a fiercely proactive modesty police who go around putting dresses on all the pixies?
There is evidence across multiple games that fairies are independant living beings. There is seemingly no evidence in any of the games, beyond your wish for it to be so, that fairies are not independant living beings. Nevertheless, you will stick your fingers in your ears and go 'na-na-na-na'.
In this case, we're going to have to agree to disagree. If Link was able to dig into sandstone like it's nothing, then he could also dig through "soft earth" as you indicated that he could in your original retort. Namek is a big bunch of soft earth.
Trees like that don't grow in soft earth; they'd fall over.
Here is a picture of some standard soil (note the grass growing on top) that is too dense for Link to dig through.
Here is another one, showing the overworld. Note the trees growing out of the earth that, once again, Link is unable to dig through.
And of course, as I've explained multiple times before and you've deliberately ignored - the mole mitts don't grant Link the ability to dig down and tunnel, nor for that matter, the ability to dig his way back up again if they did. Again, you're demanding things in the game work the way that lets Link win, rather than how the evidence suggests.
Well I beg your fucking pardon good Sir, but you've only shared pictures in your attempt to back up any of the points that you've made so far. If you want to write me off as just another fanboy, that's fine with me. I wouldn't want to be the jackass that totally remembers the original game depicting fairies living in houses.
Just remembering the games would do for the purpose of this discussion. Also: either calm down or grow up - one or t'other.
Oh for fuck's sake. Can you at least pretend to be a little civil today? If I present a hypothesis that hasn't been negated by anything that I could find in the time I invested doing research, then be the adult in this conversation and either present me with evidence that negates my theory or acknowledge that you're just not seeing the connection that I made.
Why would I treat you with civility, especially after that little performance? You're not interested in discussion.
You checked the Zelda wiki! I'm so proud of you! Yeah so; that's not an official description of the boomerang, but I give you points for finally putting in an effort. More likely; that's all that the game can allow you in terms of the limitations of the display. Your argument is that based on gameplay the boomerang can't travel beyond the limitations of the programming code, and my argument is that it's never been expressed -- in the manual or in the wiki -- that the magic boomerang has a range limit. I feel that it goes where Link wants it to go, and there's no concrete evidence to refute that.
In the Legend of Zelda: it has a limited range.
In a Link to the Past:it has limited range, which is shorter than arrows, disproving your theory.
In Oracle of Seasons: it has limited range.
In the Minish Cap: it has limited range.
That's every appearance of the magic boomerang. I could add all the other boomerangs to the list as well if you'd like. They all have limited range, and the fact that you don't think this constitutes evidence (especially against your oh so eloquent counter argument of "because I think so") is exactly why I say you're not interested in discussion.
You'll swipe away any evidence that doesn't suit you just because you want to to be otherwise. Fairies look identical and have the same name, but they're totally different because you want them to be. The boomerang is displayed in every single game to work a certain way, but you want to to work differently, so it works differently. The mole mitts work differently to how they do in the game because you want them do.
If you want civility rather than being poked with a stick, then enter a discussion in the spirit to which it is intended.
Incidentally, nice logical fallacy. After screaming at the evidence until to goes away - you're asking me to prove that the boomerang
doesn't have infinite range. That's called a burden of proof fallacy - the ridiculousness of which can be demonstrated thusly...
Prove to me please that Big Boss is
not secretly three magical racoons wearing a human costume.
*ugh* I was referring to what Link's options would be if that were to happen, he's one of the few in this tournament who would even have options in that circumstance. Do you really want to get back into that argument?
If you're retroactively changing your position then yes. Does getting shot in the head with a gun cause Link to die?
