220 replies to this topic

[Vertiboy]

That's why I called those elements as game mechanics, such as Link still having money in the bank after going back in time or losing arrows and bombs and such when there's no real reason for him to lose them. So, I still think it really only makes sense if there are multiple Links running around.

I must have overlooked it when you said that. I'm sorry about that.

Multiple Links in or not, it still doesn't change the number of assumptions the "Adult OoT Erased" theory has. The one assumption would change to something like, "Is Ganondorf sealed in the Dark World in the present at the moment Link arrives from the future?" or something like that.

[Ogmios22188]

I must have overlooked it when you said that. I'm sorry about that.

Multiple Links in or not, it still doesn't change the number of assumptions the "Adult OoT Erased" theory has. The one assumption would change to something like, "Is Ganondorf sealed in the Dark World in the present at the moment Link arrives from the future?" or something like that.

Oh no, I believe in the split timeline. At the very least, the adult timeline wasn't erased. It couldn't have been erased if Link actually experienced it.

[Chaltab]

Maybe there's no split timeline... Just more than one Universe each with a single timeline.

[SOAP]

Even if the adult future is erased, there's no raeson to assume that TWW can't take place in the same timeline with the rest of series. If the events of the aduklt timeline can be carried over by word of mouth and the seal transcended through time in order to align better with ALttP, the same acn be down with TWW.

[Ogmios22188]

We'll just have to wait and see.

[LionHarted]

If the events of the aduklt timeline can be carried over by word of mouth and the seal transcended through time in order to align better with ALttP

I guarantee neither of these is the case.

[MikePetersSucks]

Maybe there's no split timeline... Just more than one Universe each with a single timeline.

That's what a split timeline is.

[LionHarted]

That's what a split timeline is.

No. A split timeline says that Ocarina of Time is responsible for splitting the time-space spectrum of the world Hyrule.

A multi-universe theory says that several Zelda games take place in different time-space spectrums without the involvement of Ocarina of Time.

[SOAP]

I guarantee neither of these is the case.

I know. But if people can use that excuse to fit ALttP in the child timeline, why can't they do the same for TWW instead of saying it simply never happened?

[LionHarted]

I know. But if people can use that excuse to fit ALttP in the child timeline, why can't they do the same for TWW instead of saying it simply never happened?

TWW is stated to be after the Adult ending. If people even care about the "two ending" idea, and think that it actually demonstrates a timeline split, they have to abide by this, do they not?

Edited by LionHarted, 15 November 2006 - 09:17 AM.

[Chaltab]

TWW is stated to be after the Adult ending.

The game doesn't make mention a Adult or Child ending, just a vague outline of what happened.

[MikePetersSucks]

No. A split timeline says that Ocarina of Time is responsible for splitting the time-space spectrum of the world Hyrule.

A multi-universe theory says that several Zelda games take place in different time-space spectrums without the involvement of Ocarina of Time.

Um.....? Wha? I don't see the difference.

[LionHarted]

The game doesn't make mention a Adult or Child ending, just a vague outline of what happened.

The game mentions the Hero of Time sealing away Ganon.

Adult ending.

[Mgoblue201]

Men!? Ganondorf's men!? I thought only one Gerudo male was born every 100 years.

The word men is always made as an allusion toward a larger group of people, especially an army. It's simply accepted vernacular. Perhaps in a more PC society like we have today some might object to it, but in a chivalry/medieval setting like OOT, men would probably be synonomous with army in that context.

The problem I have with the split timeline theory is a rather simple one. We have to talk about burden of proof here. A single timeline would of course be the naturally accepted one due to obvious reasons. That's our reality. The split timeline then would have to assume the burden of proof. Think of it this way. By definition under law all men are presumed innocent. The burden rests on the prosecution to prove otherwise. Beyond an ambiguous quote from the creators the only reason to look into a split timeline theory is if the single timeline makes impossible sense. Of course OOT lends credence toward the split timeline based upon assumptions, but there's no real proof.

Assumptions are something I don't want to make because the cleaner the timeline the better. However, no matter what you're going to have to make some. The events after Wind Waker seem to be the trickiest to decipher, especially in regards to the Master Sword (the Triforce could go back to the Sacred Realm, Ganon has shown an immense proclivity toward coming back, and the game makes allusions that the land will eventually reform, but the Master Sword is one that can't just be naturally assumed). But here's the point. Let's just excise the split timeline theory for now and stick with the single timeline. Let's say the developers conclude once and for all that there's only a single timeline. And now let's say WW takes place between OOT and LTTP. Is it an assumption that all these events are worked out...or is it simply common sense? There are different levels here. It's possible to make up entire things that are far from fact. But if we say LTTP is a prequel to LoZ and Ganon is destroyed in LTTP but is alive in LoZ, than we'd have to conclude that Ganon is revived sometime in between. Likewise it can be concluded that there's untold history between WW and LTTP. It's not like WW contradicts anything. It would simply take some explanation.

Of course we have to be careful here because in my prior example we have to conclude that something happens in between to make the single timeline theory work. That's different from making something up to make a personal timeline up. We don't want to go around making stuff up. Some things we must conclude, but no more than that.

Back to the split timeline theory, I do have problems with it. I just think it's too convenient of an out. It's almost a step toward saying the games are groups of legends that have no real connection. Not quite, but it's one step there. This is my "anything can happen to anyone at any time" theory. It simply states that if we come up with these theories that gives us easy outs than it cheapens the series (I also think it cheapens the mythology...if the Greeks arose in another timeline and not ours than our Earth would be worse off for it). That is to say that of course you could explain away anything with convenient theories. But you're giving up on the thought that there could be a real connection here. There's problems with both series anyway. Nothing is perfect. But until the creators make implicit that there is a split timeline, I'll simply stick with the tried and true.

As for the original post, you could make your coin flip analogy...but with one problem. With a coin flip you're leaving it up to chance, chance being a string of mathematical probabilities based on everything from physics to the thought of your hot girlfriend naked in bed causing you to tip the coin one way before you flip it. Now "assumptions" aren't bound to these rules. They may in essence have a 50/50 probability, but like I was stating before, there are different levels of assumption. There are different levels of proof. If one theory makes a couple more assumptions than another, and in a few games we find out that the former theory is in fact correct, it won't matter how many assumptions it originally made. Now of course if you load your theory with too many it could break. It could cease making sense. It could be defeated with common sense. That's why we have to judge each theory as it is.

[Vertiboy]

As for the original post, you could make your coin flip analogy...but with one problem. With a coin flip you're leaving it up to chance, chance being a string of mathematical probabilities based on everything from physics to the thought of your hot girlfriend naked in bed causing you to tip the coin one way before you flip it. Now "assumptions" aren't bound to these rules. They may in essence have a 50/50 probability, but like I was stating before, there are different levels of assumption. There are different levels of proof. If one theory makes a couple more assumptions than another, and in a few games we find out that the former theory is in fact correct, it won't matter how many assumptions it originally made. Now of course if you load your theory with too many it could break. It could cease making sense. It could be defeated with common sense. That's why we have to judge each theory as it is.

I would have to say that I somewhat agree. The writters are more likely to make certain theories a reality when writing a game's story. This is kind of a bad example, but it's more likely that the writters will introduce a single timeline than for them to say that TWW was Tingle's bad dream. When making a game about the beginning of the flood (which I guess could be TP), they are more likely to say that Ganon is directly resposible than to say that Tingle helped Ganon out and made the Alliance of Evil.

Anyway, I have other reasons than just the chance for believing that TWW is a "what if" scenario. Think about it. We see Ganon, the Master Sword, the Triforce, and Hyrule itself buried under the Great Sea. Basically, every element important to a (major) Zelda game was killed off. To me, that makes a statement. For example, I wouldn't have expected Shakespeare to write "Hamlet Part II" because (OMFG SHAKESPEARE "SPOILERS"!!!!!!) everyone in Hamlet is killed off. He could have wrote a Hamlet prequel because every person and element that it took to write a play in the style of "Hamlet" would have still been alive at that point in the "Hamlet" universe.

I guess what I'm trying to say is that if the Zelda series continues to deal with the TWW story line, they will either have to make prequels, like (possibly) TP, pseudo-sequels, like PH, or just say that TWW was a "what if" scenario, and just deal with the games made before TWW.

[Chaltab]

The game mentions the Hero of Time sealing away Ganon.

Adult ending.

It meantions that he travelled through time, which is something nobody in the adult timeline but the sages were witness to. The seal seems to transcend time, otherwise why would Zelda have been back in the castle at the end of the game?

[LionHarted]

The seal seems to transcend time, otherwise why would Zelda have been back in the castle at the end of the game?

There are a number of reasons why Zelda could have been back in the castle.
--Ganon is busy building up power in the Sacred Realm, so Zelda feels as though she has eluded him;
--Zelda is preparing to mount a defense of Hyrule Castle;
--The castle is retaken, and things are presumed to be safe

Also, a time-transcending seal is impossible for reasons PIE has stated.

Imagine a blue ball, existing "outside time", the ball, existing in a sigle moment of its own universe, touches every point of our time.

At first you would imagine that, were I to paint the ball red, it would suddenly be red in all times.
But there are many problems:
(A) The ball is already blue in the future. If it is touching all moments of our time, then it is still blue at the end of the universe and, therfore, could never have been painted red.
(B) If the ball would be red from the begining of time. If it is touching all moments of our time, then it has always been red, and, therefore, I ha no reason to paint it in the first place.

Introduce on top of that another problem: "I want to paint the red ball (not the blue) yellow" (I want to break the existent seal) and your problems compound, landing you knee deep in half a dozen paradoxes.

[Vertiboy]

There are a number of reasons why Zelda could have been back in the castle.
--Ganon is busy building up power in the Sacred Realm, so Zelda feels as though she has eluded him;
--Zelda is preparing to mount a defense of Hyrule Castle;
--The castle is retaken, and things are presumed to be safe

Those are all assumptions. The game tells us that HC surrenders shortly after the attack, but it makes no mention of Hyrule retaking HC. No matter how you look at it, explaining how Zelda is in HC at the end of the game is an assumption for the "Erased" theory.

Also, a time-transcending seal is impossible for reasons PIE has stated.

Good reasons from PIE, but again, I bring up MM time travel logic. The Giants, their seal, the 3-day cycles. It's all been said.

I think that if there were multiple Links in MM, the game would have made the point to at least say there were, even if it couldn't show them. No, the N64 may not have the technical capacity to show multiple Links running around or to store the exact time a dungeon or sidequest was completed in a previous 3-day cycle. The N64 was cabable, however, of at least making the Happy Mask Salesman or Tatl(or whoever) say, "Every time you go back in time, you create another copy of yourself." I'm 100% sure that the N64 has the capability to have a character say that one sentence.

With that being said, the time-transisting seal is not impossible, and there is an entire game dealing with just that subject to back me up.

[Mgoblue201]

I would have to say that I somewhat agree. The writters are more likely to make certain theories a reality when writing a game's story. This is kind of a bad example, but it's more likely that the writters will introduce a single timeline than for them to say that TWW was Tingle's bad dream. When making a game about the beginning of the flood (which I guess could be TP), they are more likely to say that Ganon is directly resposible than to say that Tingle helped Ganon out and made the Alliance of Evil.

Anyway, I have other reasons than just the chance for believing that TWW is a "what if" scenario. Think about it. We see Ganon, the Master Sword, the Triforce, and Hyrule itself buried under the Great Sea. Basically, every element important to a (major) Zelda game was killed off. To me, that makes a statement. For example, I wouldn't have expected Shakespeare to write "Hamlet Part II" because (OMFG SHAKESPEARE "SPOILERS"!!!!!!) everyone in Hamlet is killed off. He could have wrote a Hamlet prequel because every person and element that it took to write a play in the style of "Hamlet" would have still been alive at that point in the "Hamlet" universe.

I guess what I'm trying to say is that if the Zelda series continues to deal with the TWW story line, they will either have to make prequels, like (possibly) TP, pseudo-sequels, like PH, or just say that TWW was a "what if" scenario, and just deal with the games made before TWW.

Again though, the only element that can't easily be explained in the Master Sword. Think about it. The reemergence of Hyrule is heavily hinted at in the game.

DEKU TREE, TALKING TO HIM AFTER CEREMONY:

Every year after the Koroks perform this
ceremony, they fly off to the distant
islands on the sea and plant my seeds
in the hopes that new forests will grow.

Forests hold great power--they can change
one tiny island into a much larger island.
Soon, a day will come when all the islands
are one, connected by earth and grove.

And the people who live on that great
island will be able to join hands and,
together, create a better world.

Such is my dream.

...But the one you are chasing is trying
to prevent that dream from ever coming
to pass.


GANONDORF:

What did the King of Hyrule say?
...That the gods sealed Hyrule away?

And they left behind people who would
one day awaken Hyrule?!


KING:

I have scattered the seeds of the future...

Now Ganon's quote is rather dubious because he seems to be saying that they'd one day awaken the real Hyrule and the game never states this elsewhere, but the King does make it clear that Hyrule would remain below as long as Ganondorf was never "revived" (revived meaning brought to the full luster of his power since Ganon was sealed beneath the waves with Hyrule). If he meant it in the context of unsealing Hyrule than that would make no sense since to unseal Hyrule would mean to unseal Ganon, and he was meant to be sealed for all time.

And of course the King's comments could be interpreted different ways (seeds could mean Link and Zelda since he says this in the context of finding a different land), but the Deku Tree's words are clear, and the fact that they both used the words "seeds" makes me think that they're both refering to the same thing.

The point is, Nintendo clearly inserted a number of references to make sure that Hyrule could be rebuilt. Obviously they didn't completely neglect future games in the series and mean WW as a stand alone thing in that respect.

We never really see what happens to the Triforce. The most common theory is that it flies back to the Sacred Realm. The only other game the Triforce is collected in its entirety and wished upon was at the end of LTTP, and it appeared the Triforce went with Link to Hyrule (although I don't believe it ever shows this). However, there are a number of variables to consider. With the King as the sole owner of the Triforce, perhaps he never intended for it to stay with him. Or if it did, he was killed as the sea swallowed Hyrule, so without an actual resting place there really is no canon for what could potentially happen to it.

Ganon is both easy and hard to explain. Easy because even if he's killed he can be resurrected. Ganon is never a problem to deal with, although his placement is somewhat tricky. If WW happens before LTTP than Ganon would have to end up resealed in the Sacred Realm. The problem is...what happened to Ganondorf? Was he resealed in the Sacred Realm? Did he die? Was he simply sealed in a chunk of stone? What you're saying with a what if scenario is that it simply destroys everything we've known about the series and starts over, but Ganon can be revived, even without the Triforce, so that doesn't really solve anything. It's not like you can say he's permenantly destroyed, that's the end of him, we don't have to deal with him in the timeline again. Wind Waker is interesting because it's the only game where he is defeated as Ganondorf. This brings up even more questions. Does he retain all of his powers even as Ganondorf without the Triforce? Are Ganon and Ganondorf in essence interchangeable? See these are questions that have to be answered no matter what you believe because they heavily effect the outcome of the timeline, and right now there are no answers.

The Master Sword is just impossible to expain right now without more hints at it. As an aside, I find it funny that in Oracles you can get a broken sword from a Zora that turns into the Master Sword if you already have the Noble Sword. I'm not saying there's any connection at all. I don't believe crazy theories like that. But it's certainly coincidental. I don't think there's any way that Oracles happens before LTTP though.

The point is, there are obvious connections in WW that link to other games, most importantly OOT, so it has its place within the timeline. It's heavily infered that a new Hyrule comes to be, so we simply need a future game to explain what happens to the Master Sword and Ganon.

As for OOT, I formed a theory awhile ago that said the seal was retroactive. In other words when Link went back in time the seal itself was in place so Ganon was trapped there anyway. It's similar to what other people are saying without the need for an intemporal Sacred Realm. Of course this isn't very well thought out since there's no real explanation as how this could happen and it doesn't explain the emergence of the Seven Sages because they obviously play a future role in the series. And I haven't even thought about how it impacts the meeting between Link and Zelda at the end. I'll have to go back to the drawing board and flesh this out or make some changes. In fact I haven't really thought about the ending to OOT at all in the past eight years. It's just not that important to me. I even doubt whether Nintendo had a real meaning or real thought as to how it effected the rest of the series. Hopefully TP goes far to clean this up.

[Vertiboy]

The point is, Nintendo clearly inserted a number of references to make sure that Hyrule could be rebuilt. Obviously they didn't completely neglect future games in the series and mean WW as a stand alone thing in that respect.

Oh, yes, I agree with that. While they have provided ways for Hyrule to be awakened, whether or not they will actually use them is unseen. The whole point of assumptions is that it's something that's possible, but not true. Can we prove that the new land made by the Great Deku Sprouts will be called Hyrule? No, but it's a possibility. Can we prove that Link and Tetra were going to find a land to name Hyrule after TWW? No, but it's "THEIR land" so it's another possibility. The question isn't whether or not it's possible for Hyrule to return after TWW. The question is, "Will Hyrule return after TWW?"

[Chaltab]

The question isn't whether or not it's possible for Hyrule to return after TWW. The question is, "Will Hyrule return after TWW?"

Hm... I think it pretty much has to, because if it doesn't, it forces us to either put Wind Waker at the end or split the timeline, and both options leave much to be desired.

Edited by Chaltab, 16 November 2006 - 07:53 PM.

[Paviel]

Whether (and if so, when) Hyrule will be raised from the depths, or whether Link and Tetra found a new Hyrule, only the guys at Nintendo can decide.

It will be a long time yet, I'm sure, before they decide to answer every question there is about Zelda. It seems like each subsequent game raises more questions than it answers.

Maybe it's like every legend: The more it gets embellished, the less it makes sense as a whole.

Edited by Paviel, 16 November 2006 - 10:52 PM.

[LionHarted]

The question is, "Will Hyrule return after TWW?"

Yes, because TWW says it will.

[Vertiboy]

Hm... I think it pretty much has to, because if it doesn't, it forces us to either put Wind Waker at the end or split the timeline, and both options leave much to be desired.

I posted another option: TWW is a "what if". It doesn't have to be at the very end of a single timeline or part of a split timeline. What would happen if Ganon escapes the Dark World after OoT instead of remaining there until his death in ALttP? The answer is TWW. That's what would happen.
It takes one assumption to the single timeline's four assumptions. 50% vs. 6.25%. It's a no brainer.

Yes, because TWW says it will.

Even if the land that was once Hyrule is restored, will it be called Hyrule? Keep in mind that the land in TLoZ, TAoL, ALttP, LA's prolouge, the Oracles' prolouge and ending, etc. is widely acknowledged as Hyrule. I will acknowledge it as a fact that the land is restored since we have the GDS, but it is an assumption that the new land will be called Hyrule by the people of the Great Sea. That is very important. What's in a name? An assumption for the single timeline theory, apparently. The assumption changes but it is not taken away. The single timeline still has four assumptions, so it still has a 6.25% chance of being true.

[LionHarted]

And they left behind people who would
one day awaken Hyrule?!

Yes. ^^

[Vertiboy]

Yes. ^^

Okay, I'll give that to you. Sometime after TWW (hundreds or even thousands of years), the Great Deku Sprouts will form a continent, and the people will call it Hyrule. Even then, the single timeline still has 3 assumptions. That's means it has a 12.5% chance of being correct. That's still a long way from 50%.

[Chaltab]

Well assuming that TWW is a 'what if' also has a fairly large assumtion to it--that Nintendo is suddenly making what-ifs to their Zelda games. Granted the Japanese love their gaidens, but even the game once officially known as Zelda Gaiden (Majora's Mask) is part of the canon timeline.

[Paviel]

Even if the land that was once Hyrule is restored, will it be called Hyrule?

What else would they call it? Only Tetra would have any idea as to what to call it, and considering how bossy she is, I wouldn't put it past her to make the decision for everyone else.

Edited by Paviel, 17 November 2006 - 02:50 PM.

[Vertiboy]

Well assuming that TWW is a 'what if' also has a fairly large assumtion to it--that Nintendo is suddenly making what-ifs to their Zelda games. Granted the Japanese love their gaidens, but even the game once officially known as Zelda Gaiden (Majora's Mask) is part of the canon timeline.

There is no such thing as a large or small assumption. Something is either true, possible (where assumptions fit in), or false. Also, if for some reason Nintendo starts making Zelda gaiden games, they have to start somewhere, don't they? Plus, why would Aonuma do away with Ganon, the Master Sword, the Triforce, and Hyrule in an entire game if they had plans to continue that timeline (as far as the Triforce saga is concerned).

[Chaltab]

There is no such thing as a large or small assumption. Something is either true, possible (where assumptions fit in), or false. Also, if for some reason Nintendo starts making Zelda gaiden games, they have to start somewhere, don't they? Plus, why would Aonuma do away with Ganon, the Master Sword, the Triforce, and Hyrule in an entire game if they had plans to continue that timeline (as far as the Triforce saga is concerned).

Do away with?

That's a bit of an overstatement, don't you think? Ganon has been destroyed several times and always managed to return; the Master Sword could be recovered, and in fact some think that the Master Sword in the Oracle games is evidence of this, the Triforce flew away, presumably back to the Sacred Realm, so I don't know what you're talking about there, and there were at least two back doors left open (a 'New Land' and the Korok-planted trees) for Hyrule to return.