@redweasel
Editing/hacking games is still a huge process. Plus, I think you’d need to add animation sprite frames of Bunny Link using the sword, picking things up, preforming a spin attack, and using other items.
I recall, somebody put Derpy in the game before. lol
if I had known you could edit games back then, I would totally have made it so he could wield a sword, then played the rest of the game defeating the dark world as a pink bunny.
@redweasel
Bunny Link was kinda adorable. Definitely, one of the first surprisingly hilarious moments in the Zelda series.
Also, if you count the cornball classic Zelda cartoon from the Friday episodes of the “Super Mario Bros. Super Show” he also became a frog once. Link’s become many things, but I think the bunny is my favorite.
yeah, I… my mind must have unconsciously corrected it before I even read it. that’s pretty freaky. I swear I thought it said “would” not “wouldn’t”
anyway my point about commas still stands.
who’s to say hylians wouldn’t function any worse, were there more stallions than mares?
it makes sense, it’s just… not really all that sensible. because you said more females was a “better” ratio, so asking you “who’s to say it would be better to have more stallions than mares” is challenging the opposite of what you claimed.
who said hylians would function any worse, were there more stallions than mares?
all he did was forget a comma. there wasn’t even a single negative in there.
Here is, the completely unaltered quote, as written:
Who’s to say Hylians wouldn’t function any worse were there more stallions than mares? <w<
Again, the first negative is “Who’s to say”. Because sentences like “Who’s to say its cancer?” suggests it might not be cancer.
The second negative is “Wouldn’t”. As in “Would Not”. “Not” is a negative.
The comment is still there, there’s no excuse to deny reality. Even after I played telephone with their quote that doesn’t change the fact their original statement is permanently on display in its unaltered form.
@ZeroBlue4
The grammar in my comment was already correct.
Yeah… I really should have just said “for readability”.
That said, even with the changes for readability… I still couldn’t quite parse what you said properly. You used a double negative in a way that didn’t make sense in context.
Here’s the version that made more sense in context, given in context:
Bonus points if a few men end up turned into mares in order to get a better gender ratio for equine social structures.
Who’s to say Hylians would function any worse if there were more stallions than mares? <w<
… And here’s what an exact words reading of what you said parses as:
Hylians might function worse if there’s more stallions than mares.
(For clarity, “Who’s to say” and “Wouldn’t” is effectively a double negative. The plain English translation once converted from a rhetorical question to a statement replaces those two with “might”.)
Le sigh… Too bad I didn’t learn that criticising how someone said something is a bad idea BEFORE I replied.
Its funny because that’s the same thing I was subtly implying applied to the person I quoted.
… Pretty sure my own statement on preferring the “Male to female” transformation outcome is just gonna draw more statements along the lines of “are traps gay?” too.
Who’s to say Hylians wouldn’t function any worse if there were more stallions than mares? <w<
(Fixed for grammer/readability)
There’s a reason I mentioned “Horse Social Structures”, given that a semi-realistic horse re-creating the world in their own image would result in that being the dominant social structure; which basically has a “multiple females, one male” assumption built in (albeit with a single dominant female that rules both females and males).
That said, having excess males would probably not be so bad either; if an isolated village or nomadic tribe of bachelor males sounds cool. Given that’s what can sometimes happen to ejected males in polygamous species if they survive long enough to meet up.
That said, I kind of prefer the outcome where men become mares… It could just be some kind of kink I have though.
well epona is like, pure 100% unadultrated saintly goodness, so it wouldn’t twist her wish like with ganon and his world of darkness. but the triforce definitely transformed everyone in the world, in link to the past. well except if you had the macguffin pearl, which is sad b/c I wanted to see bunny link swing a sword.
Weird thought… What if Epona got hold of the completed Triforce, and her wish with it somehow turned Hyrule into… Well… Something similar to Equestria?
More specifically, all the Hylians (and other people) got turned into horse/pony counterparts.
Bonus points if a few men have to be turned into mares in order to get a better gender ratio for Equine social structures.
Epona: i love you now link marry me!
Link: oh boy and what?
I’d just paste the sword’s animation underneath the bunny, it’d be super cheap and I’d have loved it to death.
Editing/hacking games is still a huge process. Plus, I think you’d need to add animation sprite frames of Bunny Link using the sword, picking things up, preforming a spin attack, and using other items.
I recall, somebody put Derpy in the game before. lol
if I had known you could edit games back then, I would totally have made it so he could wield a sword, then played the rest of the game defeating the dark world as a pink bunny.
Bunny Link was kinda adorable. Definitely, one of the first surprisingly hilarious moments in the Zelda series.
Also, if you count the cornball classic Zelda cartoon from the Friday episodes of the “Super Mario Bros. Super Show” he also became a frog once. Link’s become many things, but I think the bunny is my favorite.
muchu
#bringbackthebunny
And a Minish… sort of. (Minish Cap)
Don’t forget a bunny. (“A Link to the Past.”)
yeah, I… my mind must have unconsciously corrected it before I even read it. that’s pretty freaky. I swear I thought it said “would” not “wouldn’t”
anyway my point about commas still stands.
it makes sense, it’s just… not really all that sensible. because you said more females was a “better” ratio, so asking you “who’s to say it would be better to have more stallions than mares” is challenging the opposite of what you claimed.
Here is, the completely unaltered quote, as written:
Again, the first negative is “Who’s to say”. Because sentences like “Who’s to say its cancer?” suggests it might not be cancer.
The second negative is “Wouldn’t”. As in “Would Not”. “Not” is a negative.
The comment is still there, there’s no excuse to deny reality. Even after I played telephone with their quote that doesn’t change the fact their original statement is permanently on display in its unaltered form.
Edited
all he did was forget a comma. there wasn’t even a single negative in there.
Yeah… I really should have just said “for readability”.
That said, even with the changes for readability… I still couldn’t quite parse what you said properly. You used a double negative in a way that didn’t make sense in context.
Here’s the version that made more sense in context, given in context:
… And here’s what an exact words reading of what you said parses as:
(For clarity, “Who’s to say” and “Wouldn’t” is effectively a double negative. The plain English translation once converted from a rhetorical question to a statement replaces those two with “might”.)
Le sigh… Too bad I didn’t learn that criticising how someone said something is a bad idea BEFORE I replied.
Edited
The grammar in my comment was already correct.
well I suppose the homosexuality award is… transmissible then.
personally I like whatever ratio ensures that just about everyone gets laid, both homo and no homo.
Its funny because that’s the same thing I was subtly implying applied to the person I quoted.
… Pretty sure my own statement on preferring the “Male to female” transformation outcome is just gonna draw more statements along the lines of “are traps gay?” too.
how gay do you have to be to think that excess males would probably not be so bad?
no, that’s a compliment. all the homo to you, sir.
(Fixed for grammer/readability)
There’s a reason I mentioned “Horse Social Structures”, given that a semi-realistic horse re-creating the world in their own image would result in that being the dominant social structure; which basically has a “multiple females, one male” assumption built in (albeit with a single dominant female that rules both females and males).
That said, having excess males would probably not be so bad either; if an isolated village or nomadic tribe of bachelor males sounds cool. Given that’s what can sometimes happen to ejected males in polygamous species if they survive long enough to meet up.
That said, I kind of prefer the outcome where men become mares… It could just be some kind of kink I have though.
well epona is like, pure 100% unadultrated saintly goodness, so it wouldn’t twist her wish like with ganon and his world of darkness. but the triforce definitely transformed everyone in the world, in link to the past. well except if you had the macguffin pearl, which is sad b/c I wanted to see bunny link swing a sword.
Who’s to say Hylians wouldn’t function any worse were there more stallions than mares? <w<
More specifically, all the Hylians (and other people) got turned into horse/pony counterparts.
Bonus points if a few men have to be turned into mares in order to get a better gender ratio for Equine social structures.
(I couldn’t decide which one to post, so what the heck.)
Edited
everything loves screwing with link