Jump to content

IPBoard Styles©Fisana

Another way to see the multiple timeline theory from an outside perspective


  • Please log in to reply
7 replies to this topic

#1 Guest_TerraEsperZ_*

Guest_TerraEsperZ_*
  • Guests

Posted 06 October 2004 - 01:01 AM

A lot of people have been saying that Aonuma's statement about Wind Waker's ending following Ocarina Of Time's future is proof of multiple timelines in the Zelda universe.

But I've been wondering if that was his intention, of if it meant something else. The fact is, the Zelda games have, for a time, gone farther and farther into the past. First LOZ and AOL, then ALTTP which took place further back, and then OOT which seemed to have been intented as the start of the whole thing.

But fictional universes like Zelda quickly get overcrowded. It gets increasingly difficult to fit games either in between existing ones or going even further back into the past. In complex mythos like that, it's not uncommon for retcons (for retro-active continuity, meaning you change one of the basic detail of the universe and apply that change all the way back so that it's now considered to have always been that way) and reboot (you basically restart the universe from scratch) to be used either to simplify the story or simply make it more consistent.

Aonuma's statement, to me, seems like a desire to basically restart the Zelda universe anew, starting with OOT and going in another direction with TWW. He hasn't said that the old games aren't relevant anymore so that they'd at least still exist in another timeline in order not to make all of them invalid for all the fans who loved them. But I'd frankly be surprised if we ever got another game taking place in the old timeline. It's much easier to build another Zelda in the correct order this time, starting from the past and going foward, instead of doing like the old games, where the backstory of every game was altered and/or simply ignored by the next game which chronologically came before in order for the game designers not to limit themselves.

And I don't think all the games will ever fit together that neatly. As it was said before, Zelda is about gameplay first, story second. We shouldn't expect the game makers to restrain themselves to little details like how the Triforce works, what exactly can defeat Ganon, or how Hyrule looks. There is always a basic sense of continuity, like Hyrule will always have a Death Mountain, but the specifics are kept vague enough to leave them room to expand the series.

Okay, long story short (because it's late and I really need to catch some ZZZs), it's not so much that the Zelda universe has multiple timelines because of what happens in OOT, but it seems rather that TWW (and presumably the games that will follow) is based on a big "What if?", what if Ganon escaped from the Sacred Realm without Link around to stop him?

#2 Guest_chronicle_*

Guest_chronicle_*
  • Guests

Posted 06 October 2004 - 08:05 PM

we shall wait and see...

#3 Marty

Marty

    Famicom

  • Members
  • 1,241 posts
  • Location:Nottingham, UK
  • Gender:Male

Posted 07 October 2004 - 12:08 AM

I don't like the idea of multi-timelines, but frankly I can't fault your argument. I think you could well be right on the intentions of how the new zelda games will work.

#4 Guest_TerraEsperZ_*

Guest_TerraEsperZ_*
  • Guests

Posted 07 October 2004 - 12:52 AM

Didn't get many reply, but that's probably because I didn't label this thread as META or something, as I realize now that it concerns the Zelda series as the games they are, instead of the fictional universe we all came to love.

Oh, by the way, I just had a thought. When old Hyrule is destroyed at the end of TWW, someone said it might be symbolic of Aonuma burying the past (the old games he had nothing to do with) and taking control of the Zelda franchise (and I'm saying that without attributing any selfish intent to him). It's possible he feels too limited with all the backstory established so far and prefers to prevent all the inevitable contradictions and retcons by getting rid of said backstory.

And it's not like it never happened before. The Castlevania series is now being controlled by someone named IGA, who angered a lot of fans by publicly declaring several recent games made by another team within Konami (that has since disappeared) to not be part of the series. I guess the fans were frustrated because the Castlevania series holds together a lot better than Zelda ever did, if only because all the games have dates and they sometimes mention family relations between the various heroes, and deciding on a whim to ignore games he had nothing to do with has been seen as arrogance on his part. What personally irks me about IGA but not with Zelda is that in the former's case, the games haven't been made in any order. As more Castlevania games came out, they started putting them in any century that was available, so removing a few games is basically denying their existence. In Aonuma's case however, he's simply starting for the first game chronologically, and going in another direction. All the old games still form a coherent universe by themselves. I guess it would be like if Aonuma said he didn't consider ALTTP canon, and later made a game that took its place as a link between OOT and LOZ. ALTTP's fans would be pissed I bet.

Another random thought. I'm also considering weither the Four Swords game might also be intended to take place within their own universe. For one, Ganon's backstory in FSA doesn't really match with what's been established in OOT and TWW (if we follow my theory that they're basically starting the series anew following OOT). Also, although it's probably too premature to make any judgement, it's possible we might never hear of Vaati in any game that's not part of the Four Swords series (which they seem to want to develop further).

Although I don't like the idea, you have to admit that from a designer's point of view, it would be much easier to do that instead of trying to synchronize both series so that both's history mesh together while going in compeltely different direction in terms of gameplay and setting (or so I'd assume).

Okay, enough rambling for the night, got work tomorrow :)

#5 Marty

Marty

    Famicom

  • Members
  • 1,241 posts
  • Location:Nottingham, UK
  • Gender:Male

Posted 07 October 2004 - 01:01 AM

If they do take that path then it would be good to have one shared beginning (OoT) and one shared end with all of the games in between forming two different histories that lead to the same point, almost to suggest that even if things happen differently fate and destiny will still lead to the same point.

#6 SOAP

SOAP

    So Oo Ap Puh

  • Members
  • 7,750 posts
  • Location:Savannah, GA Hell Yeah!
  • Gender:Male
  • World

Posted 07 October 2004 - 02:17 AM

I used to think that way back in the day when I was a Multiple Timeline Theorist... XD Except for that part about that "What if." That I don't like. TWW isn't a big maybe because the game exists therefore it happened (in that world). Other than that, that's a good way to look at the Z series from a completely objective view.

#7 Guest_chronicle_*

Guest_chronicle_*
  • Guests

Posted 07 October 2004 - 06:17 AM

Marty, what you said, is THE COOLEST IDEA I HAVE EVER HEARD

I so hopw they are doing this! It would mean a lot a lot, no infiinite Zelda games that aren't connected, but are and maybe some more in Termina and such

*kisses him*

hehehehee
*hyperventalates*

#8 Guest_Trinexx_*

Guest_Trinexx_*
  • Guests

Posted 08 October 2004 - 02:53 PM

Dude...I had that idea years ago. I knew I should of posted it. Damn.

Anyway, it doesn't make sense with my timeline now...It only works for a split timeline.




Copyright © 2020 Your Company Name