220 replies to this topic

[MikePetersSucks]

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.

The fact that that was one of Mike Peters' ideas makes it wrong by that virtue alone. Also, if you make TWW a what-if, it again raises the possibility for stupid Single-Link timelines.

[Vertiboy]

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.

The question isn't whether or not those things could come back. It's whether or not those things do come back. What is possible and what is the truth are two separate entities. TAoL and the Oracles shows us that if Ganon is killed, it is possible to bring him back to life. Possible < factual. I'm sure anyone can make up some possible fan fiction as to how the actual resurection takes place, or how the Master Sword and Triforce are found, but as far as an official, in-game, and canon explaination is concerned, the single timeline is just out of luck.

The fact that that was one of Mike Peters' ideas makes it wrong by that virtue alone. Also, if you make TWW a what-if, it again raises the possibility for stupid Single-Link timelines.

I've never heard of Mike Peters, so if you are afraid I got this idea from him, then don't worry. I don't see how the "what if" theory makes single Links possible. Let's just look at the story arcs we all know about.

OoT->MM->TP(?)->TWW->PH

You have OoT/MM Link, TP Link, and TWW/PH Link. There are three Links in that story arc alone.

OoT->MM->ALttP->LA

You have OoT/MM Link again and ALttP/LA Link. That's two Links in that story arc.

TMC->FS->FSA

There is TMC Link, FS Link, and FSA Link. Some think that FS Link and FSA Link are the same, and right now, that doesn't matter. There are either two or three Links in that story arc.

The only games that cannot actually be linked to other games are TLoZ, TAoL, OoA, and OoS. Of course, TLoZ and TAoL go together, and OoA and OoS go together. That's common sense, of course. Anyway, since Ganon is dead at the start of the Oracles, those games could be linked to TLoZ/TAoL to make two Links in that story arc, or they could go after LA, making three Links in that story arc. Basically, if one does not pay attention to the story or the words of the creators, then one will think that there is only one Link. The single Link theory is no longer a possibility.

[MikePetersSucks]

Even if you didn't get it from him, It was still one of his ideas, and as a rule, none of his ideas ever actually worked in application. And yes, you're right about the rest of your post, but even then, people still argued that Link was somehow surviving as one Link through all the games, logic be damned, and TWW was the game that laid it to rest once and for all. Even still, it's a cop out to say TWW is a what if. I could call OOT a what if because it contradicts the Imprisoning War story from LTTP, by that logic, and I'd get my ASS kicked.

[Vertiboy]

Even if you didn't get it from him, It was still one of his ideas, and as a rule, none of his ideas ever actually worked in application. And yes, you're right about the rest of your post, but even then, people still argued that Link was somehow surviving as one Link through all the games, logic be damned, and TWW was the game that laid it to rest once and for all. Even still, it's a cop out to say TWW is a what if. I could call OOT a what if because it contradicts the Imprisoning War story from LTTP, by that logic, and I'd get my ASS kicked.

What if he says that OoT and MM feature the same? Would it then be wrong? What if he said that TLoZ comes before TAoL? Would it then be wrong? The fact of the matter is if you are going to say a theory is wrong soley because he says it and not because you examine it yourself, then there's not much I can do but say that's really shallow logic. This idea of coin flipping is mathmatical. If you disagree with me, then you are disagreeing with math. Forget Mike Peters for a second. He has nothing to do with this debate or my idea. The more you flip a coin, the less of a chance it has of landing on heads every time. The more you make assumptions in a theory, the less of a chance it has of being correct. It's simple mathmatical probability. Math is not wrong. 50% ("What If" Theory) > 12.5% (Single Timeline Theory). That is math. It has been proven. I don't believe the "what if" theory simply because I like it. I believe it because when probability is applied, it is the best. People have always wanted to know how much of a chance a theory has of being true, and the laws of chance and probability have done that for us. I don't know Mike Peters. I don't know if he even took mathmatics into consideration when he came up with this idea. I'm not saying that he's smart. I'm not saying that he's stupid. I'm saying that he's on the right track when it comes to TWW's placement, and the laws and mathematics of probability will strongly back that claim.

Mathmatical and Probability Logic and Laws > Mike-Peters-Sucks-So-I'll-Disagree-With-Any-Idea-He-Has-No-Matter-How-Much-Mathmatical-Evidence-Supports-It Logic. There is a reason that one is a subject we learn in school and the other is not.

[LionHarted]

This idea of coin flipping is mathmatical. If you disagree with me, then you are disagreeing with math.

Not all assumptions are untrue or formulated with equal evidence. Therefore math and probability are fairly inapplicable. I made a lot of assumptions about Twilight Princess, very few of which have been contradicted so far (yes, I mean to say that I predicted almost every plot twist and new story device in the game).

[Raien]

Indeed, a lot of my theories have been emphasised within TP as well.

Fact=What is literally stated
Inferrence=Using facts to show an event is very likely
Speculation=Completely making up an event with no form of referencing

Most successful theories work with inferrences and you would be a fool to ignore them. ALTTP after TWW is an inference because there is much evidence to show the potential of this sequence of events.

Edited by jhurvid, 19 November 2006 - 07:53 PM.

[MikePetersSucks]

[quote]What if he says that OoT and MM feature the same? Would it then be wrong? What if he said that TLoZ comes before TAoL? Would it then be wrong?[/quote]No, but those wouldn't be ideas that HE'S inventing with no canon support, like I said.

[quote]The fact of the matter is if you are going to say a theory is wrong soley because he says it and not because you examine it yourself, then there's not much I can do but say that's really shallow logic.[/quote]

I did examine it myself. Which is why I disagree with his ideas.

[quote]This idea of coin flipping is mathmatical. If you disagree with me, then you are disagreeing with math.[/quote]Irrelevant.

[quote]. The more you flip a coin, the less of a chance it has of landing on heads every time. The more you make assumptions in a theory, the less of a chance it has of being correct. It's simple mathmatical probability. Math is not wrong. 50% ("What If" Theory) > 12.5% (Single Timeline Theory). That is math. It has been proven. I don't believe the "what if" theory simply because I like it. I believe it because when probability is applied, it is the best.[/quote]

Whether or not TWW is a what if has nothing to do with math.

/quote]Mathmatical and Probability Logic and Laws > Mike-Peters-Sucks-So-I'll-Disagree-With-Any-Idea-He-Has-No-Matter-How-Much-Mathmatical-Evidence-Supports-It Logic. [quote]

Wow. That's not even what I said. And again, something being a "What if" has nothing to do with math EVER. There's no what ifs in math, and you're an idiot if you think there is.

[Vertiboy]

No, but those wouldn't be ideas that HE'S inventing with no canon support, like I said.

What canon support does the single timeline theory have, then?

Whether or not TWW is a what if has nothing to do with math.

Yes, it does, as I explained in the topic post. The more assumptions (fan fiction, leaps of faith, or whatever you would like to call it) that a theory makes, the less likely it is to become true. That's Occam's Razor. That's probability. In order for the single timeline to work, it must make three assumptions. Is Ganon revived/reborn after TWW? Is the Triforce found after TWW? Is the Master Sword found after TWW? We have no canon answer to these questions. In order for the single timeline to be true, the answer to all of these questions must be "yes." Each question has a 1/2 chance of being answered "yes." 1/2 times 1/2 times 1/2 is 1/8, or 12.5%. Probability.

The "what if" theory makes only one assumption. Does something different happen after OoT that will lead to TWW instead of ALttP? In order for the "what if" timeline, the answer to this question must be "yes." That means there is a 1/2 chance, or 50%, this theory is correct. Again, probability.

I have explained why probability does in fact make a difference on whether or not TWW is a "what if." You can either choose to accept it...

Wow. That's not even what I said. And again, something being a "What if" has nothing to do with math EVER. There's no what ifs in math, and you're an idiot if you think there is.

...Or you can continue to get upset with me just because math proves you wrong and you don't have the capabilities to comprehend it. I want to have an intelligent debate, and if you want to stoop to the level of ignoring the evidence that I have put right in front of your face and bashing me because I proved you wrong with math and facts, then start another debate thread for people who want to make theories without all the "inconvienence" of the truth and the fact that it's different than what you believe.

Edited by Vertiboy, 19 November 2006 - 11:13 PM.

[LionHarted]

What canon support does the single timeline theory have, then?

Pretty much the entire plot of Twilight Princess. =/

At the very least, it forces FSA to be after TWW; at best, it forces ALttP and the rest of the series to follow suit.

Edited by LionHarted, 19 November 2006 - 11:50 PM.

[Doopliss]

Vertiboy, I don't think your reasoning is correct. The existence of multiple timelines or not is a separate aspect from everything else. The probablity that there is a single timeline is 50%, or if you take into account the what if theory, the probability is 1/3. You shouldn't consider other factors to determine what is the probability of each option because their probability doesn't depend on other factors than the three possibilities by themselves. In other words, it isn't necessary for Ganon to be revived/reborn after TWW, the Triforce to be found after TWW, nor the Master Sword to be found after TWW for a single timeline to exist, since it exists as a separate entity from these three. Otherwise, I could also say that there is an infinite number of events that can take place after OoT instead of ALttP, thus reducing the what if theory's probability to 0%. We can't use probability to comprehend the nature of each separate entity, since we can't experiment with them. As you have seen, it's pointless to use probability to prove what of the three timeline thoeries is correct, since we have nothing to determine which of them is more probable. We could only use it to know the probability of a certain games order, since it's something that doesn't exist by itself and it depens on multiple factors. In addition, there are some assumptions that are much wilder than others, so we should also use common sense to determine which theory is more factible.

Mike Peters is probably the most stubborn and close minded member who has ever been in this storyline forum. He was banned in late 2003 because it was absolutely impossible to discuss with him. Your point of view on TWW is absolutely respectable because you are backing it up with a reasoning, but Mike Peters basically believed that because he didn't like TWW's style.

Edited by Doopliss, 20 November 2006 - 01:14 AM.

[Mgoblue201]

Again, the timeline has nothing to do with mathematical probability in terms of more assumptions being less correct. The timeline consists of things like logic, facts, inference, and common sense, not to mention the crucial human component of the creators. Let's say the creators have a timeline already set. That timeline is 100%. Say you're choosing a timeline for yourself. You're at a branch. Let's say you begin with OOT and are now deciding on single timeline or split timeline. You choose one, you're at 100%. You keep going down the right path and you will be 100%. All the other branches have a certain correctness to them summed up in a percentile, but they can never be 100%. You're saying that by assuming you're automatically cutting your chances in half. However, that is not entirely correct. By assuming more and more your chances of finding the correct path go down dramatically, especially if you start making assumptions that aren't supported by fact as much as another assumption. But it still doesn't change the fact that if you go down the right path, no matter how many assumptions, than you'll be correct. You're saying each path is 50%. I'm saying one is 100%, the other is 0% because one is right and one is wrong.

Of course this assumes that the creators have a timeline, but if they don't, than there is no set timeline. There's only educated guesses. And even if there is no set timeline, making more assumptions doesn't cut your percentage down. A set timeline very well could have more assumptions than not, so what you're saying still doesn't correlate. The whole point of your coin analogy is to land heads or tails as many times as possible. The whole point of the timeline is to find a correct one. If we have to make a few more assumptions than so be it. If we made more coin flips than the possibility of landing on heads every time does indeed go down.

Edited by Mgoblue201, 20 November 2006 - 06:23 AM.

[Vertiboy]

Pretty much the entire plot of Twilight Princess. =/

Wait a second. Does TP's plot give canon evidence of a single timeline, or does it give evidence that there is no split timeline? There is a difference. With the former, only the single timeline is possible. With the latter, either the single or some form of "what if" theory is possible.

(Sorry, I wanted to save space. -Vertiboy)

I see your point, but you are forgetting one thing. What if I want to add a theory that says it was all a dream of Tingle's? What if I want to add a theory that says the Hero of Winds goes back in time and prevents the flood from happening? What if I wanted to add a theory that has a twist ending where OoT actually takes place after TWW, and Aonuma has been lying all this time to keep us guessing? That would make the possibility of one theory 1/6. I could even add more theories.

You see, the reason I add up assumptions and give percentages is because not every theory is created equal. Saying that out of 3 theories, one theory has a 1/3 chance of being true is saying just that. By saying that, the single timeline would be equal with the BS timeline theory I was kidding about where TWW is before OoT, and Aonuma was just lying. Not all theories are equal, and the coin flip method is the best way I have found to measure that. What it boils down to is the more fan fiction, the less chance a theory has of being true. I'm not saying that the single timeline has no chance. I'm saying that it has less of a chance. I won't yell at anyone if you want to believe the single timeline theory because it's possible. To be personal for a second, I am a born again Christian. I'm not trying to start any debates or shove my religion down your throats, so calm down. As far as scientific proof goes, I have yet to see evidence of God (that can't in some way be interpreted another way). Despite this, I believe in God. This is real life, so to count out the assumptions for believing and not believing God would be impractical. My point is that if we used the coin flip method in real life, aetheism might have the upper hand. Again, despite this, I believe in God. It's the same with the single timeline theory. There is a chance it could be right. It's not impossible.

I'll respond to you later, Mgoblue201, but I have to go to school now.

[LionHarted]

Wait a second. Does TP's plot give canon evidence of a single timeline, or does it give evidence that there is no split timeline? There is a difference. With the former, only the single timeline is possible. With the latter, either the single or some form of "what if" theory is possible.

It establishes a lot of plot connections which would only be present in a single timeline. While no direct connection to MM has been established (yet), from about the 60 minutes worth of videos I've seen, there are ties between the Adult ending of OoT and TWW (already-existing prior to TP), between OoT/TP and FSA (forcing an FSA placement that is after TWW and effectively shutting up the "TWW is last" advocates), and some weak ties that may later be strengthened to ALttP (and therefore LA, the Oracles, LoZ/AoL). PM me if you'd like to hear details--a lot of people won't be too happy if I post them here.

Edited by LionHarted, 20 November 2006 - 09:28 AM.

[Doopliss]

Wait a second. Does TP's plot give canon evidence of a single timeline, or does it give evidence that there is no split timeline? There is a difference. With the former, only the single timeline is possible. With the latter, either the single or some form of "what if" theory is possible.
I see your point, but you are forgetting one thing. What if I want to add a theory that says it was all a dream of Tingle's? What if I want to add a theory that says the Hero of Winds goes back in time and prevents the flood from happening? What if I wanted to add a theory that has a twist ending where OoT actually takes place after TWW, and Aonuma has been lying all this time to keep us guessing? That would make the possibility of one theory 1/6. I could even add more theories.

You see, the reason I add up assumptions and give percentages is because not every theory is created equal. Saying that out of 3 theories, one theory has a 1/3 chance of being true is saying just that. By saying that, the single timeline would be equal with the BS timeline theory I was kidding about where TWW is before OoT, and Aonuma was just lying. Not all theories are equal, and the coin flip method is the best way I have found to measure that. What it boils down to is the more fan fiction, the less chance a theory has of being true. I'm not saying that the single timeline has no chance. I'm saying that it has less of a chance. I won't yell at anyone if you want to believe the single timeline theory because it's possible. To be personal for a second, I am a born again Christian. I'm not trying to start any debates or shove my religion down your throats, so calm down. As far as scientific proof goes, I have yet to see evidence of God (that can't in some way be interpreted another way). Despite this, I believe in God. This is real life, so to count out the assumptions for believing and not believing God would be impractical. My point is that if we used the coin flip method in real life, aetheism might have the upper hand. Again, despite this, I believe in God. It's the same with the single timeline theory. There is a chance it could be right. It's not impossible.

I think you have misunderstood me. Probably because I wasn't clear enough. Sorry sbout that, but English is not my mother language. What I was trying to say is that you can determine a theory's validity by mathmatically calculating its probability only if it depends on mupltiple factors. An obvious example of what I'm talking about is an X game order that is compared a Y game order. X and Y are the result of a certain combination of games that requries a certain number of assumptions. If X needs less assumptions than Y, then probably X is correct. Now, we can mathmatically determine which game order, X or Y, is correct, because they depend on multiple factors (the games) to exist. However, a multiple timeline, a single timeline or a what if timeline doesn't depend on anything else than themselves to exist, as I said before:

In other words, it isn't necessary for Ganon to be revived/reborn after TWW, the Triforce to be found after TWW, nor the Master Sword to be found after TWW for a single timeline to exist, since it exists as a separate entity from these three.

If it isn't clear enough, I can give you an example.

[Vertiboy]

I see everyone's point of view. No, I haven't changed my mind, but I also don't have much more to say about it, either.

All I can say is that I'm not a big fan of fan fiction, and I like to eliminate as much as I possibly can in my theories. I understand that every theory will have some fan fiction (or else it wouldn't be called a theory), but I see no need for X amount of fan fiction compared to Y when X > Y. Basically, I follow Occam's Razor.

There's nothing else I can really think of adding right now. If I think of something, I'll post it.

[Vertiboy]

There is another point that I would like to bring up that supports my way of viewing evidence. What if I were to make a theory that said the timeline of the games is the same as the release dates. That would be TLoZ, TAoL, ALttP, LA, OoT, MM, OoA/OoS, FS, TWW, FSA, TMC, TP, and PH. I am fully aware that is wrong, but for the sake of this, let's say I believe it. This theory could work, but it would take a lot of fan fiction/assumption in order to be true. I'm not even going to count out the number of assumptions this theory would have to have because they are probably too great to count. Anyone who has common sense knows that this theory is wrong. Why? It makes too many assumptions.

Now what I ask you is when do we say enough is enough? When exactly do we draw the line and say, "X number of assumptions are okay, but any more than that is not acceptable"? Who are we, only fans of the games and not the makers, to say that X number of assumptions is okay, but Y number is not? That's why I believe this: you either believe that all fan fiction/assumption is okay, meaning every theory is equal, or you think that the least amount of fan fiction/assumption should be used. There is no in between. We are either accepting of as much as possible or as little as possible. Saying anything in between is like saying that you have the authority to make such a decision in a game series you had no hand in creating.

Also, the makers put clues and evidence in games for a reason. The intro to MM mentions a boy who wages battles across time to save Hyrule. It mentions a dear friend left him when he became a legend. These facts were put into the game to let the player know that MM Link is the Hero of Time. When you follow a theory besides the one that makes the least assumptions, then you are basically saying, "My 'evidence' is equal to the evidence given by the makers themselves. I think that a theory with assumptions I have made are just as great as the actual facts in the game, so I think that all theories are created equal." Assumption < Fact. Theory with more assumption < Theory with less assumption. That's just math. Math is not wrong.

Edited by Vertiboy, 27 November 2006 - 11:08 PM.

[SOAP]

Vertiboy, you've gone WAY past kicking a daed horse and are now raping it. I Granted a theory with less assumptions is much more likely to be true but not always. It could simply ignore facts altogether, like your theory about TWW being a 'What if' ignores the fact that it does exists asa legitament peice of the Zelda storyline and you can't just toss it aside because it doesn't fit well. Zelda continuity isn't perfect and sometimes details clash. Assumptions must be made to peice them together. As long as common sense is used, the reasons for the assumptions are explained, and facts aren't ignored, there's no reason why a theory can't make a couple of assumptions. And no one's trying to set any rules on where to draw the line on how many assumptions is acceptable... except you of course. :/ The number of assumptions is not always the problem. A theory can have less asumptions than the next one but if the assumptions are to big or completely offbase, it wouldn't matter if it was just one assumption, it still doesn't make the theory any better than a theory that makes more assumptions but their little and are conceiveable within the Zeldaverse. Math may not be wrong but you're forgetting a whole bunch of other factors.

[Vertiboy]

Math may not be wrong but you're forgetting a whole bunch of other factors.

What other factors? The factors that aren't canon? I look at the information given to me by the game and the game alone, then I come to the best conclusion. The information is put into the game for a reason. We are to follow it.

Basically, I will follow the best conclusion until we have canon information that changes that conclusion. There is no canon evidence that suggest a single timeline. The multiple deaths of Ganon, irregular and inconsistent placement of the Triforce, etc. suggest multiple timelines, or at the very least, multiple branches of the timeline. You cannot sit here and tell me that there is evidence of a single timeline because there is none.

[Arturo]

A single timeline isn't that difficult. That is, if we exclude TWW. But that's how split timelines work

[Paviel]

I think that we should stop using the word "assumption" and start using the words "inference" and "speculation".

Assumptions really aren't as simple as tossing a coin. Inferences, having at least some basis in canon, tend to have a greater than 50% probability. I'd say that speculation would be closer to a coin toss.

[Vertiboy]

I think that we should stop using the word "assumption" and start using the words "inference" and "speculation".

Assumptions really aren't as simple as tossing a coin. Inferences, having at least some basis in canon, tend to have a greater than 50% probability. I'd say that speculation would be closer to a coin toss.

Okay, that makes sense. I'll try to remember to use "speculations" instead of "assumptions." If I don't at least you understand what I mean.



For those of you who still don't agree with me, let me give you a scenario. You and a friend go to a MLB game. Your seats are not behind home base, so if a ball is hit into the stands where you sit, it would be a homerun. Sometime during the game, a player goes up to bat with a wooden bat. All of a sudden, someone behind you makes a scene because he has broken his leg. You and your friend turn to look at him. While you both are turned, you hear a bat crack, then a second later, you get hit in the back of the head with a ball. When you turn back around, the batter is running around the bases because he hit a homerun.

You think that it's obvious that the player hit the ball towards you, and it hit you. It wasn't on purpose, but it was because of the batter that you were hit. Your friend, however, thinks that shortly after the ball was hit, it went to another section, and it was just somebody in the stands who threw the ball at your head. While both explanations are possible, the first one is more likely. What actually happened depends on your surroundings. If you were at The Seventh Annual Douchebag Convention, then it would be more likely that some random person threw the ball at you than it would be that the ball was accidentally hit at you. Again, surrondings play a part.

With that being said, what are the surroundings of the Zelda series? Out of the 8 games Ganon has appeared, he has died 6 times[spoilers](TLoZ, ALttP, OoA/OoS, TWW, and TP)[/spoilers]. He has been revived once (OoA/OoS). He has been given two origins (ALttP/OoT, FSA). The state of the Triforce and location of the Master Sword are never consistent. There is no canon way to link every single Zelda game together. Zelda's surroundings are chaos. That is why I don't believe in a single timeline. With the current surroundings, it is possible there is a single timeline but not as possible as a branching timeline or multiple timelines.

Yes, Miyamoto and Aonuma have both said that there is a timeline. At no time do I remember, however, that they have said there is a single timeline. Even if they have, are you really going to take their word for it. Miyamoto said that TWW was going to be the first chronological Zelda game. Aonuma said that in his opinion, every Link in every game is a different Link, even though we know that isn't true.

I'm not trying to regulate the amount of speculation that is done when making theories. I trying to regulate consistency, which some people have problems with. You can't just say, "The speculation in Theory A (see: split timeline) is too much for me, but the speculation in Theory B (see: single timeline) is okay because I can in some way relate it to the game, even if it's in the vaguest possible way." That is inconsistent and hypocrital, and I refuse to debate with someone who can't even decide what they believe or who changes their arguements in different debates to suit their beliefs.

If you are going to say that speculation/fan fiction/etc. is okay, then every theory is equal, and you cannot criticize a theory because of it's flaws. If you are going to say that it's not alright, then not every theory is equal, and the theory with the least speculation is the best. In order to be a respected debator, you must remain consistency in your arguements. If you say that you don't like the split timeline because it has too much speculation, then you shouldn't like the single timeline either since it contains more speculation. (Just for the record, the single timeline has 3 speculations, the split timeline has 2 speculations, and the gaiden, or "what if" timeline, has 1 speculation.)

[Raien]

A single timeline isn't that difficult. That is, if we exclude TWW. But that's how split timelines work

A single timeline is perfectly fine if we include TWW.

OoT is set in the Hylian age.
ALTTP is set after the Hylian age ended.
TWW is set during the event that ended the Hylian age.

Now we don't have to speculate how the Hylian age ended.

Edited by jhurvid, 28 November 2006 - 05:07 PM.

[CID Farwin]

A single timeline is perfectly fine if we include TWW.

OoT is set in the Hylian age.
ALTTP is set after the Hylian age ended.
TWW is set during the event that ended the Hylian age.

Now we don't have to speculate how the Hylian age ended.

My problem with this: TWW also ended the land of Hyrule. Both of the possibilities of hyrule coming back left open by TWW require Hyrule to have changed, wheras the land of hyrule in OoT and ALttP is a few mountains and a forest away from completely identical, both of which could have easily happened over a few hundred years.

The timeline was very solid, and hardly disputable, through MM. The release of TWW really messed things up.

The things that lead to a split timeline(all at OoT's end):
1. Link lays the master sword to rest, and closes the door of time, preventing it from being open in the future.
2. Link leaves Hyrule WITH Epona, making Epona unavailable in the future.
These lead one to infer a split timeline, wheras debating them requires speculation.

[Showsni]

If you are going to say that speculation/fan fiction/etc. is okay, then every theory is equal, and you cannot criticize a theory because of it's flaws. If you are going to say that it's not alright, then not every theory is equal, and the theory with the least speculation is the best. In order to be a respected debator, you must remain consistency in your arguements. If you say that you don't like the split timeline because it has too much speculation, then you shouldn't like the single timeline either since it contains more speculation. (Just for the record, the single timeline has 3 speculations, the split timeline has 2 speculations, and the gaiden, or "what if" timeline, has 1 speculation.)

Some speculaton is clearly more acceptable than others. If someone's theory assumes that Link returns to Hyrule after LA, and someone else's assumes that Impa is immortal and secretly works to help Ganon, then by your logic both are assumptions so tehy are equally invalid. This patently isn't true. A timeline with no assumptions at all isn't a timeline, since it doesn't actually fit the games together. It's possible to have such a timeline in any order, if you claim that no game relates to any other at all and a very long time happens between each, but it entirely defeats the point.

Similarly, a "what if" timeline (and, in my opinion, a "split timeline") fall into the same trap - they're cop outs. They don't really even try to fit the games together, which is the whole point. Yes, a timeline with fewer assumptions is better; but if that timeline doesn't have any actual links between games, it becomes worse again.

If you're going to accept every game as canon, you can't throw it out as a "what if." And if you accept every part as canon (NB I'm being pedantic here), you can't have a split timeline either - LoZ makes it clear that the games are set in our world, and our world hasn't split into two and then joined again.

And I'm curious - what are these 3, 2 and 1 speculations you claim?

Edited by Showsni, 28 November 2006 - 06:29 PM.

[Raien]

My problem with this: TWW also ended the land of Hyrule. Both of the possibilities of hyrule coming back left open by TWW require Hyrule to have changed, wheras the land of hyrule in OoT and ALttP is a few mountains and a forest away from completely identical, both of which could have easily happened over a few hundred years.

How do you know it ended the land of Hyrule? Considering that Hyrule was raised by forest magic, we cannot assume that it will have any different geography to what we see in OoT.

[Vertiboy]

And I'm curious - what are these 3, 2 and 1 speculations you claim?

Single Timeline
1. Is Ganondorf revived/reborn after TWW?
2. Is the Master Sword recovered?
3. Is the Triforce found?

Split Timeline
1. Is the Legend of the Fairy somehow false or non-canon?
2. Does the Triforce of Courage "clone" itself, where the child timeline (ALttP, etc.) gets one and the adult timeline (TWW) gets the other?

"What if" Timeline
1. Does something happen differently after OoT that would result in TWW instead of ALttP (or whatever game would come afterwards), like Ganon staying in the Sacred Realm in one timeline but escaping in another?

These are all speculations that cannot be proven with canon evidence. They are possible, but they are not facts.

Similarly, a "what if" timeline (and, in my opinion, a "split timeline") fall into the same trap - they're cop outs. They don't really even try to fit the games together, which is the whole point. Yes, a timeline with fewer assumptions is better; but if that timeline doesn't have any actual links between games, it becomes worse again.

What says that the games have to fit into the same timeline? What makes the idea of a single timeline (not the arguement for a single timeline) any better than the ideas of a split or "what if" timeline?

My idea was that TWW was never originally intended to be fit into a single timeline. TWW basically left Hyrule flooded, Ganondorf was killed off, the Master Sword at the bottom of the Great Sea, and the state of the Triforce unknown. Hyrule, Ganon, the Master Sword, and the Triforce are all important elements of a Zelda game (unless it's a side game, like LA, MM, etc.). Everything that makes a (Triforce saga) Zelda game is gone at the end of TWW. We have a chance that Hyrule will eventually be restored (thanks to the Great Deku sprouts), but the fates of the other three Zelda elements that were killed off are left ambiguous. To me, this is symbolic. It shows that Link and Tetra are no longer slaves of fate. They have control of their future. It shows that this branch of the timeline has served its purpose (unless PH is more than just a side game similar to LA and MM). If I need a reason to believe in the "what if" theory other than the fact that it contains the least speculation, that is it.

The problem is, however, if all it takes is a mere reason for every amount of speculation to be "acceptable" and equal, then what reasons are "acceptable"? What is a good reason? What is a bad reason? What if I want to say that I think every game is a dream of Tingle's because he is clearly not in a sound state of mind? Is that a good reason? I somehow connected that belief to the games, so is it acceptable? That's just it. When it comes to reasons, there is no way to measure how "good" they are. Someone could put more less thought in an idea that is considered to be "good" than an idea with more thought that is considered to be "bad". If I can give enough reasons, the fake "release date" theory could be equal to the single timeline theory. Now tell me that you honestly believe that. Why is it that you don't believe it? Why is it that you believe that even if a person gives enough reasons for the "release date" theory, you would still think that it's wrong? Simple, it's obsurd to believe a theory with that much speculation. That's where my stance on fan fiction, assumptions, speculation comes into play. I went over this all in my head, and I knew that it was futile to measure a theory on the reasons given for it. In my mind, I know that just about anyone who sees the "release date" timeline will know that it is wrong because of all the speculation. It is hypocritical to judge that theory for that reason, then to follow the single or even the split timeline theory when they have more speculation than the "what if" theory. Ideas cannot be measured. That is why if we wish to measure the validity of theories, we cannot do it by reasons for the theory. We have to do it by how much speculation is in a theory. When making this thread, I already went through all this in my head. I just cut out the middle-man (measuring theories by the ideas behind them).

[SOAP]

Vertiboy. What pisses me off about your theory is not that it's cop-out (many theories are but I don't usually dismiss them). It's that you made up a whole other theory about how your theory is better than anyone elses. If taht's not arrogance I don't know WHAT is.

I know your theory is bad right away because you wouldn't need a second theory to back it up.

[Vertiboy]

Vertiboy. What pisses me off about your theory is not that it's cop-out (many theories are but I don't usually dismiss them). It's that you made up a whole other theory about how your theory is better than anyone elses. If taht's not arrogance I don't know WHAT is.

I know your theory is bad right away because you wouldn't need a second theory to back it up.

It is not a theory backing up my "what if" timeline. It is fact. Mathematical fact. Laws of probablity and chance. How many times do I have to say that math isn't wrong? If my "what if" theory is wrong because mathematical facts and laws support it, then what does it take to be correct?

[SOAP]

You shouldn't have to bring numbers in it. Of course when you look at the math by itself your theory and any theory that makes the same number of assumptions works. But your theory should be able hold on it's own.

[Vertiboy]

You shouldn't have to bring numbers in it. Of course when you look at the math by itself your theory and any theory that makes the same number of assumptions works. But your theory should be able hold on it's own.

I've explained why I believe the "what if" theory with reasons other than the math. I believe that every element that makes a (Triforce saga) Zelda game (Hyrule, Ganon, Master Sword, Triforce) was killed off or lost at the end of The Wind Waker for a reason. It was done to end that particular branch of the timeline (as far as the Triforce saga is concerned; with all the information we have now, it seems as if Phantom Hourglass will be a psudo-sequel like Link's Awakening or Majora's Mask). What purpose would killing off all the main Zelda elements serve if Aonuma plans on continuing the Triforce saga after TWW? It's like Hamlet. Had Shakespeare planed on making a Hamlet II, he wouldn't have killed off everyone at the end. If George Lucas had planned on making Star Wars Episode VII featuring Darth Vader, he wouldn't have killed Vader off in Star Wars Episode VI. In some cases, like the Mario series, Bowser is killed at the end of some games, but then comes back in the next game. You can't compare Zelda to Mario, however, because (1)Mario games have been, for the most part, released in chronological order (with the exception of Super Mario World 2: Yoshi's Island and remakes, like the Super Mario Advanced series), and (2)the story of the Mario games isn't as important as it is in Zelda games. That is why I believe that TWW is just in a different "branch" of the timeline than ALttP, etc.

After I say that, you'll say something like, "It is at least possible for all of those elements to return to the timeline after TWW." Then I'll say, "Yes, I know, but what's possible isn't as strong as what's fact." Then you'll say, "It's not neccisarily the facts supporting a theory that makes it strong but the idea behind it." Then I'll say, "We can't judge a theory by the idea behind it because there is no way to measure whether an idea is good or bad other than opinion, and no one opinion is better than another. If you are saying that, you are in essence saying that all theories are equal," and then I make up some fake example theory that's a bunch of crap and say, "If you are saying all theories are equal, then you are saying that your theory is equal to this B.S. theory I just made up off the top of my head. You know that is not true, so we cannot judge a theory by the idea behind it. The best way to judge a theory is the facts supporting it or the lack thereof." It keeps going on and on and on. If by "hold it's own" you mean my theory can keep up an endless debate, then yes, it can do that. If by "hold it's own" you mean my theory cannot be proven wrong, then again, yes, it can do that. If by "hold it's own" you mean that it must have reasons that tie into the game for believing it, then for the third time, yes, it can do that.

I understand that in debates, the focus isn't always about "winning". I realize that sometimes debates are just pointing out the pros and cons of two or more points of view on an issue. If that is the kind of debating that you have been doing all along, then please, tell me so I can stop. I, however, am not into that, at least not on this thread. I am not trying to look at the pros and cons here. I am trying to find out which theory has the best chance of being correct. If we are going to base which theory is great because it can "hold its own", then we will be debating in circles all day.

Let me use another analogy. Let's say that two people are debating about paroling prisoners. A pro of parole is that it gives changed people another chance. It's rewarding people for good behavior. If a person murders another person, regrets it and swears never to do it again, and is serious, then it may not be a problem for that person to go out into the world again. Another pro is that it encourages good behavior from prisoners both in prison and in the outside world. If a prisoner is good, he/she can leave prison a few years early if he/she maintains the good behavior on the outside. A con is that some prisoners may pretend to behave, with the intention of going back to a life of crime (albiet a more careful one) and that parole may not affect and alter behavior at all. A pro of not allowing parole is that it will keep the fake "changed men" in prison so they cannot return to a life of crime. A con is that is screws the people over that have actually changed.

Now if this were a debate just to view the pros and cons, the debate would be over. If this were a debate to win, however, simply looking at the pros and cons would not be enough. If you were on either side of this parole debate, what would you do in order to win the debate?

YOU WOULD BRING IN STATISTICS!!!

If you could pay some scientific researchers to look into the subject of debate, you could get some good statistics. What percentage of people in the United States have broken the terms of their parole? What percentage of people who are given parole then break the terms claim to be "changed people"? How many people who remain in prison for their entire sentence claim to be "changed people"? The list of questions that would give us statistics is endless.

(Note: The following statistics are an example only. I do not know if they are true.)
The side that is against parole shows that 84% of prisoners who are given parole break the terms. Out of those who get parole and break the terms, 97% claimed to be changed men. This would be a victory for the side that is against parole.

I don't know what kind of debate this is to you, and I don't care. If you are debating just to view the pros and cons, then you have succeeded and can move on. If you are debating to win, then statistics are definitely a deciding factor. The statistics are in my favor as of right now. I don't write the rules, I just point them out.