Talk:Spirit War

Malladus rivalling Ganon's power?
Just a question, but should we REALLY have the line that states that Malladus' power rivals Ganon(dorf)'s? To the best of my knowledge, the two have yet to be directly compared (unlike, say, Ganon and Vaati), so any definitive statement to that effect is really premature, don'tcha think? Dinosaur bob 22:04, 4 January 2010 (UTC)
 * Yeah, I just removed it. Thanks for the heads-up. Dany36 22:42, 4 January 2010 (UTC)
 * I disagree, it's a comparison, nothing more. And the fact that the spirits couldn't even defeat him with all of their combined power does attest to that comparison. I disagree with the statement's removal b/c it's a justified comparison to demonstrate just how strong Malladus was at the height of his power. Not one word in that statement implied the two to be the same, but the way Malladus was described and the way Anjean described him, he really did rival even Ganondorf's tyranny. This removal is unjustified. Link87 23:42, 4 January 2010 (UTC)
 * We don't know just how strong the Spirits were, though, so we can't say so just because they couldn't defeat Malladus in the end. After all, both Malladus and Ganondorf were defeated by Link and Zelda, so he couldn't have been that much stronger. Dany36 00:08, 5 January 2010 (UTC)
 * Dany, that's exactly the point, they were similar in that they were the biggest menaces to Hyrule old and new. Ganondorf was to the old Hyrule what Malladus was to the new Hyrule. The spirits were obviously powerful, they were the ruling deities of the new Hyrule and their power was powerful enough to create such things as the tower, the tracks, the compass, and the bow. I never once said they were equal in power, I said they were comparable. There's nothing illegal with making a comparison. To remove such a statement from the story undermines its description of how powerful Malladus really was. That was the whole point of it to begin with, and there was nothing in it that warranted removal. Link87 02:14, 5 January 2010 (UTC)

Sequence of events, round 2
Alright then, time to disprove this assumption that the war happened after the new Hyrule was founded.


 * 1. The man in Castle Town who says that the Spirit Tracks were already around when the kingdom was founded. Some people discounted this as evidence due to the "How could that be?"...but what everyone neglected to mention was that immediately afterward he asks Link what he knows about it. And, instead of saying that they were built afterward, Link instead says that they were built by the Spirits of Good. "You're an engineer, right?  Do you know anything about this?  ...What's that you say?  The tracks were built...by the spirits of good? ...Where do you get these crazy ideas from?"  And where does Link's knowledge of the creation of the Spirit Tracks come from again?  Well, none other than our dear Niko - the same person who people who think that the war occurred after Tetra and her pirates arrived use as evidence.  Interesting.


 * 2. Anjean is heavily implied to have already been in the Tower of Spirits when she met Tetra. Now, even ignoring the fact that the Lokomo were left by the spirits to ensure that the lock on Malladus remained secure, which I'll touch on again in a moment, there's also the slight problem that the Tower of Spirits IS that lock.


 * 3. Hyrule was established. This also means that he must have been her apprentice before Tetra arrived - meaning that the Lokomo were around at that time as well. I've already mentioned above that the Lokomo were left to guard the Spirit Tracks.


 * 4. Niko's story. This is the sole piece of evidence on the side of the people who say that the war occurred after New Hyrule was established.  Unfortunately, everything in the story that they say is proof can be interpreted a different way.  "The land was given over to us" - that doesn't necessarily mean that the it was given to them immediately after the war; even if they just came a few years later, the land still would've been "given over to them".  "It's the story of the first settlers of this land" - there could've easily have been people there even before the kingdom was established.  And even if you think this is too vague...I've already established that the Lokomo were there first, meaning that they were technically the first settlers there.

All around the game, there's evidence and hints that the Spirit Tracks are older than the kingdom. The only thing that implies otherwise is a story in the beginning that could be interpreted multiple ways. Now then, unless you think Nintendo's purposely trying to mislead us, I really don't see how you could think that all this evidence means nothing. -LinkIII816 22:27, 5 January 2010 (UTC)


 * NEWSFLASH TO LinkIII816: Not one word in this article states when the war occurred exactly, so you have no argument here. Nobody is sure of the answer to that question, hence why it has been kept ambiguous in the article. If you had read the article thoroughly, you would know that this statement appears there: "It is unclear whether the Hyruleans were the first settlers of the land or if others (perhaps the Lokomo) had inhabited it prior to their coming, but it is known that a group of settlers did live here during these events..." It is made clear that it is not known who Niko was referring to, so this argument is a bit pointless b/c neither side has sufficient evidence to disprove the other. And no, Anjean never once states that she was in the tower before Tetra's arrival, so you have no point there without confirmation, it's a moot point. The man in Castle Town didn't even sound sure of himself either, so once again your ground is shaky as well. The Lokomo were servants of the spirits, but it's never said if they were once the first settlers or not, so once agin you have no direct evidence there. We go by what is given first and foremost, and you're relying a lot on conjecture. Nobody is trying to say one way or the other here whether it occurred before or after Hyrule was re-established, so I would suggest you spend your time doing something constructive rather than trying to conjecture a different point of view. What we have merely states what happened and that the land was given over to the Hyruleans at the end of the war, just as Niko states. It is just as probable if not moreso that the Hyruleans arrived near the end of the war, nothing exists to disprove that with any degree of certainty. Nothing you say will disprove Niko's words either. You have no evidence of anything here, you have a bunch of conjecture from incomplete and shaky statements that don't all come together on the same page. Until we have direct evidence to say when and who were involved, the page will have to remain as it is, based upon Niko's testimony as he was the only one of age that gave us any "direct" testimony without uncertainty. Until that time, I suggest you occupy your time, and thus don't waste ours, doing something more constructive than trying to conjecture different scenarios when not enough concrete information exists for either side of the debate. Link87 23:15, 5 January 2010 (UTC)