220 replies to this topic

[spunky-monkey]

Statistics in Zelda? You are officially taking the piss now Vertiboy.

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?

Common sense, or otherwise known on the Internet as, 'not-so-common sense'. That mathematical pile of crap isn't going to convince anyone here because such things as probablity are irrelevant to Zelda Storyline, obviously.

[Arturo]

First, there IS a sequel to TWW and it's PH, for Nintendo DS. So it can't be just a "what if", because what ifs don't have any storyline consequence, and TWW has.

What you are arguing, in reality is for a Split timeline, since TWW has no consequence over the story of the other timeline, fopr example over ALttP.

Also, it is ridiculous using maths as a proof for Zelda, especially when Nintendo has been proved to ignore the most basic laws of physics.

[SOAP]

-snip-

Calm down. Breath. Take ten minutes to realize that this is a Zelda board, not life and death.

[Vertiboy]

Also, it is ridiculous using maths as a proof for Zelda, especially when Nintendo has been proved to ignore the most basic laws of physics.

The problem is, though, we aren't debating about the physics in the world of Hyrule. We are debating about which timeline theory, if any, is the official one. We are debating about which timeline Aonuma and/or Miyamoto chose when making TWW. With that being said, we are debating about an idea that exists in the real world.

Calm down. Breath. Take ten minutes to realize that this is a Zelda board, not life and death.

I know, I know. I realize that. I was at no point mad when typing. I just highlighted that one part about how using statistics in a debate help just to make sure it was known.

If you want to know which player has made the most shots in a basketball game, you use statistics. If you want to know the batting average of MLB players, you use statisics. If you want to know how many people break the terms of parole after being freed, you use statistics. You can use statistics for anything in this world.

Many people have the idea first, then look at the evidence later. I look at the evidence first, then come up with an idea from that. If you have the idea that there is a single timeline, then you look for evidence, you are going to have a bias when looking at the evidence. If you look at the evidence first without any preconcieved notions, you will have no bias, and you can put the evidence together to come up with the best theory.

Plus, why do you think that the numbers don't matter? That's like saying that the winner in hockey isn't the person with the highest score but the most effort. What if we had an NHL team play kindergardeners (like South Park)? The NHL team could be winning without hardly trying, while the kindergardeners will be struggling to even get the puck. If the score is NHL team: 100; kindergardeners: 0 at the end of the game, do the kindergardeners win because they put forth the most effort (because they "held their own")? No, as unfair as it was, the NHL team still wins. Plus, you completely ignored my analogy on why statistics are important in debates. Did you just not get around to it, or are you just hoping I'll forget about it. You say that statistics don't matter when debating the Zelda timeline, but it sure is funny that they help us determine what's best in all other aspects of this universe.

[Arturo]

Because you can't measure how big an assumption is with numbers, because it's something subjective, not objective. Therefore it can't be measured.


That's why Matsh are not useful here.

[spunky-monkey]

You say that statistics don't matter when debating the Zelda timeline, but it sure is funny that they help us determine what's best in all other aspects of this universe.

Listen up, mathematical statistical methods like observational studies can be used to draw conclusions on measurable things like "How many gamers can complete a game without dying?" where we would use age as a variable.

They cannot be used to interpret the chronology of the Zelda series, arranging events, or draw up a timeline in a narrative thread.

[Vertiboy]

Because you can't measure how big an assumption is with numbers, because it's something subjective, not objective. Therefore it can't be measured.

That's why Matsh are not useful here.

I now bring back my fake "release date" theory.

This is the "timeline":

TLoZ
TAoL
ALttP
LA
OoT
MM
OoA/OoS
FS
TWW
FSA
TMC
TP
PH

I think that Miyamoto was lying, and OoT isn't the first Zelda game. He has inconsistent quotes when talking about when games will take place. Aonuma also said that every game features a different Link, but since that's a lie, and since he knows that's a lie (he made MM Link the Hero of Time), Aonuma cannot be trusted either. I think that they are deliberately lying to us. Between TAoL and ALttP, (1)Ganondorf II is born, (2)the Triforce is placed back in the Sacred Realm, and (3)the people believe that the Triforce had been in the Sacred Realm since Hyrule's creation. Between LA and OoT, (4)Ganondorf III is born, (5)the Triforce is again placed in the Sacred Realm, and (6)the people believe again that the Triforce had been in the SR since creation. Between MM and OoA/OoS, (7)Ganondorf III is killed, (8) the Triforce of Power, (9)Wisdom, and (10)Courage are placed in Hyrule Castle, and (11) Ganondorf III gets the magic trident (from FSA) to become Ganon during the battle with Link at the end of the Oracles. Between the Oracles and TWW, (12) Ganondorf IV is born, and (13)events similar to OoT happen, but the Hero of Time is a new Link. Between TWW and FSA, (14)Ganondorf IV dies in order to make way for Ganondorf V. Between FSA and TMC, (15)the Four Sword is downgraded to the Picori Blade, (16)the Minish take the PB out of the FS Pedistal, (17) Vaati II is born as a Minish, and (18)Hyrule is refounded or unflooded. After TMC, (19)a third Hero of Time comes along (since the HoT mentioned in TP cannot be the one in OoT in order for this theory to work), (20)Ganondorf VI is born, (21)Ganondorf VI gets the Triforce of Power, (22)Zelda gets the Triforce of Wisdom...

You know what, I'm just going to give that up now. I can make my point, now. You say that there is no way to measure assumptions, but you don't agree with this theory. Now why is that? It's because it makes too many assumptions. I gave a good reason for it. Miyamoto and Aonuma have lied to us before. You can't say that there is no thought behind this theory. You don't agree with it because it makes too many assumptions. It's possible, but yet you still don't believe it. Deep down, you know that this theory above is false, whether it's possible or not. You know that it's because of the assumptions it makes. If you are saying that assumptions don't matter, just the thoughts behind them, then you are saying that my fake theory above is just as likely as the single timeline, or that OoT is the Imprisoning War, or whatever theories are legitimate. That is simply not true. Whether you realize it or not, you judge theories by assumptions.

They cannot be used to interpret the chronology of the Zelda series, arranging events, or draw up a timeline in a narrative thread.

Why not? You've kept on telling me that I can't do it, yet you haven't given me a reason why not. I gave you my reason for why I think I can. You can't just say, "Nuh-uh!" and expect me to consider that to be a legitimate arguement.

[MikePetersSucks]

You know what, I'm just going to give that up now. I can make my point, now. You say that there is no way to measure assumptions, but you don't agree with this theory. Now why is that? It's because it makes too many assumptions. I gave a good reason for it. Miyamoto and Aonuma have lied to us before. You can't say that there is no thought behind this theory. You don't agree with it because it makes too many assumptions. It's possible, but yet you still don't believe it. Deep down, you know that this theory above is false, whether it's possible or not. You know that it's because of the assumptions it makes. If you are saying that assumptions don't matter, just the thoughts behind them, then you are saying that my fake theory above is just as likely as the single timeline, or that OoT is the Imprisoning War, or whatever theories are legitimate. That is simply not true. Whether you realize it or not, you judge theories by assumptions.

No, we judge theories by ideas that don't work. Your "Timeline" Has like five games inbetween TWW and PH.

Why not? You've kept on telling me that I can't do it, yet you haven't given me a reason why not. I gave you my reason for why I think I can. You can't just say, "Nuh-uh!" and expect me to consider that to be a legitimate arguement.

Because narrative and math are on two opposite sides of the mental spectrum. Namely, unbridled, illogical creativity, and objective, emotionally stiffled, cold hard facts. You can't measure the length of a sandwich with minutes, and you can't measure the weight of a glass of water in inches. Just like you can't measure a story's timeline with mathematics.

[Vertiboy]

No, we judge theories by ideas that don't work. Your "Timeline" Has like five games inbetween TWW and PH.

You missed the point. I said that Aonuma and Miymoto were lying, so PH wouldn't actually come directly after TWW as they have said. If Aonuma and Miyamoto were lying (as they have before), then the timeline would work. I was saying that you can't prove that timeline wrong if I am allowed to make more assumptions than neccisary. Do I personally believe in that timeline? No, it was a fake, as I have said.

Since you don't want to debate with assumptions because you know you will get owned, let me give you my reasons for believing that TWW is just an alternate timeline branching off sometime after MM.

This is one I have given before. I believe that getting rid of Hyrule, Ganon, the Triforce, and the Master Sword at the end of TWW, all very important elements in the Zelda series, is symbolic of the end of the Triforce saga (at least in TWW's branch of the timeline). Hyrule is the only element that will eventually come back. It is symbolic of the fact that Link and Tetra are free of fate and now have an undecided future.

Also, it allows OoT to flow easier into ALttP, like originally intended. I'm pretty sure that back when OoT was being written, there was no plan to make a game like TWW, where everything important to a Zelda game is killed off.

I know what many will say. It is an easy way out of having to connect all of the Zelda games together. I ask you this: since when has the single timeline been the standard? Since when has anything else other than a single timeline been negative? Did you ever stop to think that maybe TWW wasn't ever intended to be any other games (besides OoT and MM, of course)? If you do think so, then why? What facts in TWW support a single timeline? What facts in any other games support a single timeline. Ganon has 2 origins, dies 6 times, and been revived once during the course of all the Zelda games. Something just doesn't add up. Looking at all of the facts in the Zelda series and coming up with a single timeline is like saying that 2+2=5. I believe in the "what if" timeline because I have looked at the facts, and only the facts. After reviewing the facts, I came up with a theory. When pick a theory first, then look at the evidence, you end up saying things like, "The 'what if' theory is a cop-out," when you have completely ignored the fact that a single timeline isn't neccisarily a standard in the first place.

Sure, Aonuma has said that he will try to connect all of the games together into one timeline, but he also said that every game features a different Link, that we'd have Twilight Princess by the end of 2005, that some characters from OoT will still be alive in TP.

(Ganondorf is one character, not characters)

Not only has he changed his word, but he straight out lied. He made MM, and he knew that Link in that game was the Hero of Time from OoT, so he knows that it's the same Link from another game. If you want to take Aonuma's word that he will fix the timeline, then go ahead. I don't trust liars.

Edited by Vertiboy, 30 November 2006 - 05:01 PM.

[SOAP]

Now you're just being asinine. People don't like your theory. You made your case now move on. Find someone else that'll listen to you.

[MikePetersSucks]

You missed the point. I said that Aonuma and Miymoto were lying, so PH wouldn't actually come directly after TWW as they have said. If Aonuma and Miyamoto were lying (as they have before), then the timeline would work. I was saying that you can't prove that timeline wrong if I am allowed to make more assumptions than neccisary. Do I personally believe in that timeline? No, it was a fake, as I have said.

I know you don't believe in that. Hence why I put "Timeline" in quotation marks.

Since you don't want to debate with assumptions because you know you will get owned, let me give you my reasons for believing that TWW is just an alternate timeline branching off sometime after MM.

It has nothing to do with being owned. (And that statement only makes you look like a jackass, by the way.) The point is that you're basically f*cking Occam's Razor in the ass.

This is one I have given before. I believe that getting rid of Hyrule, Ganon, the Triforce, and the Master Sword at the end of TWW, all very important elements in the Zelda series, is symbolic of the end of the Triforce saga (at least in TWW's branch of the timeline). Hyrule is the only element that will eventually come back. It is symbolic of the fact that Link and Tetra are free of fate and now have an undecided future.

The Triforce wasn't "Rid of." It was returned to the Sacred Realm. If someone finds a portal then it's back in the series. Though I do agree with the rest of the statement, the Triforce will forever be part of Hyrule's story. It's the "Foundation of the world."

Also, it allows OoT to flow easier into ALttP, like originally intended. I'm pretty sure that back when OoT was being written, there was no plan to make a game like TWW, where everything important to a Zelda game is killed off.

Hence split timelines.

I know what many will say. It is an easy way out of having to connect all of the Zelda games together. I ask you this: since when has the single timeline been the standard? Since when has anything else other than a single timeline been negative? Did you ever stop to think that maybe TWW wasn't ever intended to be any other games (besides OoT and MM, of course)? If you do think so, then why? What facts in TWW support a single timeline? What facts in any other games support a single timeline. Ganon has 2 origins, dies 6 times, and been revived once during the course of all the Zelda games. Something just doesn't add up. Looking at all of the facts in the Zelda series and coming up with a single timeline is like saying that 2+2=5. I believe in the "what if" timeline because I have looked at the facts, and only the facts. After reviewing the facts, I came up with a theory. When pick a theory first, then look at the evidence, you end up saying things like, "The 'what if' theory is a cop-out," when you have completely ignored the fact that a single timeline isn't neccisarily a standard in the first place.

Well, it's a standard since the Single Timeline was the only possibility until TWW arrived. But I digress. Your "What if" "Timeline" Is just a Split Timeline with all this condensating bullshit bogging it down.

It's not so much that the theory is a cop-out. It's just that it's the same theory people have been spewing for years, plus all this mathematical nonsense, and you claim to be some sort of asinine genius while putting people down if they even dare to challenge you.

Sure, Aonuma has said that he will try to connect all of the games together into one timeline, but he also said that every game features a different Link, that we'd have Twilight Princess by the end of 2005, that some characters from OoT will still be alive in TP.

Spoiler:(Ganondorf is one character, not characters)

Not only has he changed his word, but he straight out lied. He made MM, and he knew that Link in that game was the Hero of Time from OoT, so he knows that it's the same Link from another game. If you want to take Aonuma's word that he will fix the timeline, then go ahead. I don't trust liars.

Newsflash. The guys who translated the interviews (unprofessionally, at that) have to paraphrase what he says. Things could've been lost or misinterpreted in the translation.

[Showsni]

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

Mine has no assumptions then. Nice.

I ask you this: since when has the single timeline been the standard? Since when has anything else other than a single timeline been negative?

I invite you to look at a calender. Study, for instance, the month of December. Note how December the 2nd follows December the 1st. How December the 3rd comes immediately after that. And so on, throughout the month. Notice how there are no "What ifs" in December. Let us imagine for a second that there were. Let's say, the sixth of December is a what if date. We can write on the calender things that have happened on the sixth, or that will happen. But still, the seventh follows from the fifth - the sixth doesn't really exist. Thursday morning follows Tuesday night. That's what you're suggesting is natural. But it isn't. The single timeline is the default, because that's how time works in real life. Events follow one another in order, without not actually happening after all.

[Vertiboy]

The Triforce wasn't "Rid of." It was returned to the Sacred Realm. If someone finds a portal then it's back in the series. Though I do agree with the rest of the statement, the Triforce will forever be part of Hyrule's story. It's the "Foundation of the world."

Fan fiction. Find me a quote that proves the Triforce goes back to the Sacred Realm after a wish is made.

Hence split timelines.

It could be considered a form of split timeline that would actually be more possible than the theory that TWW branching off of the adult timeline and others branching off of the child timeline. A form of the split timeline theory, "what if" theory, gaiden theory, branch theory. Call it whatever you want. Nothing is in a name. It is the beliefs of the theory that matter. My timeline theory takes the best aspects out of the single and split timeline theory and combines them.

Well, it's a standard since the Single Timeline was the only possibility until TWW arrived.

Actually, it was possible until ALttP. Ganon dies at the end of ALttP. How is he revived between ALttP and TLoZ (or the other way around if you believe that way)? No canon evidence can prove that he was revived between the two games. It's possible, but not factual. Theory < Fact. The facts are that we have no explaination of how Ganon is allegedly revived between TWW and ALttP (or whatever game you place after TWW). Facts = No information about Ganon's revival or the rediscovering of the MS or Triforce. Theory = Ganon was revived and MS and Triforce are rediscovered. I have facts on my side. You have theory.

Newsflash. The guys who translated the interviews (unprofessionally, at that) have to paraphrase what he says. Things could've been lost or misinterpreted in the translation.

That's just it. They could have misinterpreted. It doesn't mean that they did. There you go again relying on possibility to prove your theory instead of fact.

Mine has no assumptions then. Nice.

True, it doesn't. Some people may believe that you have made many assumptions by putting OoT, MM, and TWW at the end of the timeline, though. If you would have asked me a few weeks ago, I would think that you were crazy. After seeing TP's ending, though, that made it completely obvious that...

...Aonuma and Miyamoto obviously like to mix the timeline up and change things around...

...I would no longer put it past them if they placed them last.

I invite you to look at a calender. Study, for instance, the month of December. Note how December the 2nd follows December the 1st. How December the 3rd comes immediately after that. And so on, throughout the month. Notice how there are no "What ifs" in December. Let us imagine for a second that there were. Let's say, the sixth of December is a what if date. We can write on the calender things that have happened on the sixth, or that will happen. But still, the seventh follows from the fifth - the sixth doesn't really exist. Thursday morning follows Tuesday night. That's what you're suggesting is natural. But it isn't. The single timeline is the default, because that's how time works in real life. Events follow one another in order, without not actually happening after all.

In real life, is there a magical land named Hyrule where an evil warlock pig kidnaps a helpless princess in order to steal the Triforce of Wisdom, who is saved by a young wonderer with a sword that shoots magic beams? Real life does not equal the Zelda universe. We cannot compare the two. Yes, I understand that one day happens after another. You just said that dates were chronological. What happens on those dates? Well, what if President Bush decided to resign before midterm elections at the beginning of November '06? What if John Kerry won the '04 Presidential election? What if Nintendo had decided to release Twilight Princess for the GCN only? The list goes on and on. In real life, we get no "what if" scenarios. We can only imagine them. The Zelda universe is imaginary. In an imaginary universe, we can have "what if" scenarios. That is why, in an imaginary universe, such as Zelda, the single timeline is not a standard.

Edited by Vertiboy, 30 November 2006 - 11:18 PM.

[spunky-monkey]

Why not? You've kept on telling me that I can't do it, yet you haven't given me a reason why not. I gave you my reason for why I think I can.

I did but you failed to quote my enitre response.

Fan fiction. Find me a quote that proves the Triforce goes back to the Sacred Realm after a wish is made.

Find me a quote that says the Triforce doesn't return to the Sacred Realm. You cannot call other people's assumptions 'Fan fiction' and still expect them to believe yours as fact... besides the term is rather offensive.

Actually, it was possible until ALttP. Ganon dies at the end of ALttP. How is he revived between ALttP and TLoZ (or the other way around if you believe that way)?

No it was OoT, MM, OoS, OoA and TWW that began to establish the common split timeline theory since all those games disproved the original 'single hero theory'. ALttP was always thought to occur before LoZ and AoL so naturally it couldn't silence all the random fanworks by itself.

That's just it. They could have misinterpreted. It doesn't mean that they did. There you go again relying on possibility to prove your theory instead of fact.

Fact says there were some problems with the translations. It often happens.

The Zelda universe is imaginary. In an imaginary universe, we can have "what if" scenarios. That is why, in an imaginary universe, such as Zelda, the single timeline is not a standard.

Truthfully the Zelda universe is not governed by the "what if scenario", but rather by Nintendo's employees and it's customers worldwide instead. Without people the imaginary universe cannot continue to expand or develop anymore.

[Arturo]

As a Sage said once:

*Bangs her head against a wall*

More productive.

This debate is insane.

[Vertiboy]

I did but you failed to quote my enitre response.

You said that statistics can only be used to answer questions like How many people completed Game X?. You didn't explain why it can only be used on questions like that.

Find me a quote that says the Triforce doesn't return to the Sacred Realm. You cannot call other people's assumptions 'Fan fiction' and still expect them to believe yours as fact... besides the term is rather offensive.

I don't expect them to believe mine as a fact. My assumptions are possible, but not factual, just like anyone else's.

I'm saying that it's an assumption because it is. There is no quote proving that the Triforce goes into the Sacred Realm. There is no quote proving that it does not go into the Sacred Realm. That's why it's an assumption. It's possible for the Triforce to go there, but it's not factual. It is an assumption. Deal with it.

I don't need a quote either way, however, because my theory doesn't require any more involvement from the Triforce. It could go back to the SR. It could remain in the King's possession. If he died, it could be on the floor of the Great Sea. I don't know, and I don't care, because with my theory, that is not relevant. The lack of evidence in the single timeline is the evidence that supports my timeline. My theory thrives off of the single timeline's weaknesses.

No it was OoT, MM, OoS, OoA and TWW that began to establish the common split timeline theory since all those games disproved the original 'single hero theory'. ALttP was always thought to occur before LoZ and AoL so naturally it couldn't silence all the random fanworks by itself.

That's just it. It was always thought to occur before TLoZ and TAoL. Where is the proof that it is before TLoZ? Where is your proof that ALttP and TLoZ/TAoL belong in the same timeline? Again, you must have proof.

Fact says there were some problems with the translations. It often happens.

What facts? Your facts? Proof. Official proof. Not theory proof.

It doesn't matter, anyway, because I win either way. If translation is a problem, then it's also possible that the Aonuma interview in which he said he would fit every game into one timeline was mistranslated. If not, then Aonuma is a liar, and we shouldn't trust him. There is no need to debate about this aspect of quotes from Aonuma and Miyamoto because I win either way.

Truthfully the Zelda universe is not governed by the "what if scenario", but rather by Nintendo's employees and it's customers worldwide instead. Without people the imaginary universe cannot continue to expand or develop anymore.

That proves what? It proves that people use their imagination to make Zelda, an imaginary universe where "what if"s are possible. I'm not saying that "what if"s are what govern the Zelda universe. I'm saying that somewhere along the line, Aonuma said, "Hey, what would happen if Ganon broke the seal after OoT?" then elaborated upon it in game form.

My point is that the single timeline is not the standard. There are no unspoken rules that prevent them from making a "what if" game. If they make a "what if" game, the real world will not cease to exist. When imagining a pretend universe, anything is possible. Would you like to see a man with the powers of a spider? You got it. What would happen if dinosaurs existed today? We have that, too. Who would win in a fight between the Fonz and Mayor McCheese? I'm sure somebody has at least thought about that other than myself.

Zelda itself is a "what if". Question: What if, long ago, there was a land named Hyrule? Answer: The Legend of Zelda. Imagination in general is a "what if". I'm not saying that "what if" is a standard, but I'm saying that making at least one "what if" game isn't against any "rules". These "rules" don't exist. They don't have to connect every single Zelda game in a single timeline because it is theirs, not yours. As far as the evidence shows (or the lack thereof), TWW is a gaiden. That is the evidence. You may not like the fact that you can't prove Ganon's, the Triforce's, and the Master Sword's fate after TWW, but too bad. That's the way it is. No matter how much you debate with me, you will not change the evidence. If your theory is going to rely more on speculation than mine does, then it's no contest. You believe that all 3 of the elements important to Zelda were brought back after TWW, even though nothing suggest that they were. There is little to no reason to think that there is a single timeline, not with the canon evidence we have been given. You can either accept that or keep on debating as if it will change your theory into a fact.

What led you to the conclusion that there is a single timeline? Did you just automatically assume it to be true without even taking the evidence (or lack thereof) into consideration? That's why it's a mistake to look at the evidence after a theory has been set in place.

EDIT: I have kind of a theory, but it's more speculation than truth, so I don't neccisarily believe it. I think that Aonuma has said that in Phantom Hourglass...

...Ganondorf is dead, but his evil influence has spread across the ocean. Maybe, somehow, that influence tricks Link into using the Phantom Hourglass (perhaps some sort of time traveling device) to go back in time to when Ganondorf was going to make a wish on the Triforce. Somehow, history is changed, and Ganondorf successfully touches the Triforce and wishes for Hyrule. Hyrule would then be unflooded. Perhaps something that Link has done in the dungeons throughout the game (awaken Sages, collect diamonds, etc.) will seal Ganondorf in the Sacred Realm with the Triforce, leading to A Link to the Past. Instead of that, maybe Ganondorf's evil influence realizes that it was a mistake for Ganondorf to leave the Sacred Realm in the first place, so it tricks Link to use the Phantom Hourglass to travel back before Ganondorf even escaped the Sacred Realm, so the flood never happens, and the game could lead into A Link to the Past.

Again, though, this is just more of a theory for theory's sake, not really a theory I believe.

Edited by Vertiboy, 01 December 2006 - 10:37 PM.

[Vertiboy]

I could keep going on all day about how much better the gaiden timeline is than the single timeline. For one, they have different motives. The single timeline thinks there is a connection between TWW and another game afterwards (like ALttP, FSA, or TLoZ). The gaiden timeline knows there is a connection between OoT and TWW, and it merely is trying to discover the type of connection that exist. The single timeline sets on the foundation of a connection that might not even exist. The gaiden timeline sets on a connection that exist, and it tries to determine what type of connection exist.

We have two games (or three if you bring TP into this) that have a direct story arc with OoT. They are ALttP and TWW. Though they can both be connected to OoT, they cannot be connected to one another in any canon way. It takes hardly any speculation at all, however, to say that they were never intended to be connected in the first place. Coincidence?

In a debate like this all speculation is equal. It all has the same merit: possible, but not factual. It doesn't matter what end of the "truthiness" scale an assumption is located. Is every game just one of Tingle's dreams? Possible, but not factual. Is OoX Ganon also ALttP Ganon? Possible, but not factual. Those are two assumptions at two separate ends of the "truthiness" scale.

There is little to no reason to think that every game is Tingle's dream, but it's still possible. There is just enough reason, however, to think that ALttP Ganon was the one revived in OoX. It doesn't matter, though. No matter how much reason you have for believing in something, if it's not true, then it's not true. That's not my opinion. That is fact.

In a debate, there are three categories of information: fact, possibility, and lie. No matter an assumption's place on the "truthiness" scale, it is still an assumption. It is not true. It is not false. It is a possibility. That's why, in a debate like this, all speculation is equal. Deal with it or don't reply (which you are obviously not doing because you have been properly owned).

Another weak point of the single timeline is the game that follows TWW (or more specifically, PH). Some say it's ALttP, others say FSA or TLoZ. I'm sure there's at least one person out there who would say OoX. It's hard to link TWW to any of those games when you can't even agree on which games come after it.

The gaiden theory has no such problem. It only has to focus on the link between OoT and TWW. It's as simple as that. Simple, not complex, like the single timeline's web of assumption upon assumption.

Also I discovered that Hyrule's return is still considered an assumption. Yes, the GDS will connect the islands someday. That's all the GDT said. Someone asked me before, "What else would they call it?" Well, a number of things. There is no quote saying, "The new land will be called Hyrule." If there is, feel free to point it out to me. I insist.

Not only that, but the King wished the ancient land of Hyrule be washed away. That means no Hyrule in that spot. Ever again. The new land would not only be "not Hyrule" in name, but in essence, as well. Bringing Hyrule back would be an assumption against the King's wish. It's funny how people such as yourselves "fail" to notice that.

It all comes down to this: no matter how you look at it, the gaiden timeline is the best theory. There is little to no reason to believe in the single timeline. (I've asked millions of times and no one has yet to give me a reason. Strange...) The lack of evidence for the single timeline is the premise of the gaiden timeline. As far as speculation and fan fiction go, the single timeline has the most. As far as canon evidence and proof goes, it has the least. This is a one-sided debate. You are comparing my sports car to your cart being pulled by a donkey. This debate was over before it began.

Occam's Razor exists for a reason. How am I butchering it? It's funny that you guys only apply it when it supports what you believe, but you dismiss it when it proves you dead wrong. At least I can keep a consistent arguement. You say your speculation-laiden theory is better than mine, but as soon as I apply your "logic" to the "release date" theory, I'm crazy for even bringing it up. Let me ask you a question: Why remain hypocritical when you have been discovered?

[Hero of Winds]

In real life, is there a magical land named Hyrule where an evil warlock pig kidnaps a helpless princess in order to steal the Triforce of Wisdom, who is saved by a young wonderer with a sword that shoots magic beams? Real life does not equal the Zelda universe. We cannot compare the two.

Exactly.

So, why then are you trying to apply real life boundaries and laws to the Zelda universe? Why are you trying to apply real life mathematics to a fictional universe that's been to known operate quite differently from the real world?

[MikePetersSucks]

I could keep going on all day about how much better the gaiden timeline is than the single timeline. For one, they have different motives. The single timeline thinks there is a connection between TWW and another game afterwards (like ALttP, FSA, or TLoZ). The gaiden timeline knows there is a connection between OoT and TWW, and it merely is trying to discover the type of connection that exist. The single timeline sets on the foundation of a connection that might not even exist. The gaiden timeline sets on a connection that exist, and it tries to determine what type of connection exist.

What the hell are you babbling about. The Single timeline KNOWS there's a connection between OOT and whatever. That's why it's a Single timeline and not a Split one.

We have two games (or three if you bring TP into this) that have a direct story arc with OoT. They are ALttP and TWW. Though they can both be connected to OoT, they cannot be connected to one another in any canon way. It takes hardly any speculation at all, however, to say that they were never intended to be connected in the first place. Coincidence?

Split Timelines, then. Your Gaiden bullshit is just redundant.

In a debate like this all speculation is equal. It all has the same merit: possible, but not factual. It doesn't matter what end of the "truthiness" scale an assumption is located. Is every game just one of Tingle's dreams? Possible, but not factual. Is OoX Ganon also ALttP Ganon? Possible, but not factual. Those are two assumptions at two separate ends of the "truthiness" scale.

No, it's not. Because Speculation needs factual support to even be considered. For example, there's evidence all but proving that the two Ganons are the same. The Tingle Dream model is never once even vaguely hinted at in the slightest. Speculation is not equal, because speculation is speculation, and shit like Tingle Dream is Crapshoot Hit and Miss Guessing.

There is little to no reason to think that every game is Tingle's dream, but it's still possible. There is just enough reason, however, to think that ALttP Ganon was the one revived in OoX. It doesn't matter, though. No matter how much reason you have for believing in something, if it's not true, then it's not true. That's not my opinion. That is fact.

In a debate, there are three categories of information: fact, possibility, and lie. No matter an assumption's place on the "truthiness" scale, it is still an assumption. It is not true. It is not false. It is a possibility. That's why, in a debate like this, all speculation is equal. Deal with it or don't reply (which you are obviously not doing because you have been properly owned).

Stop saying people's been owned. Especially when you haven't. You keep telling people they're arrogant know it alls, but you make yourself look like a hypocrite when you rub your imaginary, delusional victory in their faces. Anyway, Possibility can be split into further categories. Supported Possibilities, and Unsupported Possibilities. These branch further into Theory, Speculation, Hypothesis, Guess, etc., all of which having varying degrees of credibility.

Another weak point of the single timeline is the game that follows TWW (or more specifically, PH). Some say it's ALttP, others say FSA or TLoZ. I'm sure there's at least one person out there who would say OoX. It's hard to link TWW to any of those games when you can't even agree on which games come after it.

You're noting a game that's not even out yet as a weak point? You're an idiot.

The gaiden theory has no such problem. It only has to focus on the link between OoT and TWW. It's as simple as that. Simple, not complex, like the single timeline's web of assumption upon assumption.

Again, the Gaiden Theory is just the Split Timeline Theory with your bullshit math.

Also I discovered that Hyrule's return is still considered an assumption. Yes, the GDS will connect the islands someday. That's all the GDT said. Someone asked me before, "What else would they call it?" Well, a number of things. There is no quote saying, "The new land will be called Hyrule." If there is, feel free to point it out to me. I insist.

Oh my god. That's the one point we agree on.

Not only that, but the King wished the ancient land of Hyrule be washed away. That means no Hyrule in that spot. Ever again. The new land would not only be "not Hyrule" in name, but in essence, as well. Bringing Hyrule back would be an assumption against the King's wish. It's funny how people such as yourselves "fail" to notice that.

While I sort've see your point, there's always the "possibility" that the people can find and raise the old Hyrule, rebuild it, and call it Hyrule since they believe (accurately) To be the Lost Kingdom of Hyrule.

All speculation is equal, huh? Aren't you the one pulling out assumptions and making them facts with the two above statements of yours? Thought so, now shut up.

It all comes down to this: no matter how you look at it, the gaiden timeline is the best theory. There is little to no reason to believe in the single timeline. (I've asked millions of times and no one has yet to give me a reason. Strange...) The lack of evidence for the single timeline is the premise of the gaiden timeline. As far as speculation and fan fiction go, the single timeline has the most. As far as canon evidence and proof goes, it has the least. This is a one-sided debate. You are comparing my sports car to your cart being pulled by a donkey. This debate was over before it began.

No, it's just the Split Timeline VS Single Timeline debate with your condenscating, distracting pretenious bullshit.

Occam's Razor exists for a reason. How am I butchering it? It's funny that you guys only apply it when it supports what you believe, but you dismiss it when it proves you dead wrong. At least I can keep a consistent arguement. You say your speculation-laiden theory is better than mine, but as soon as I apply your "logic" to the "release date" theory, I'm crazy for even bringing it up. Let me ask you a question: Why remain hypocritical when you have been discovered?

Hypocrite ^^ Occam's Razor also supports a single timeline (Which I don't agree with. I'm an example of someone letting it prove me dead wrong) Because by principle, the Split/Gaiden Timeline requires more assumption than the Single Timeline, what with the bifurcation of the entire Space Time Continuum and stuff.

[Vertiboy]

What the hell are you babbling about. The Single timeline KNOWS there's a connection between OOT and whatever. That's why it's a Single timeline and not a Split one.

The single timeline theory believes there is a connection. It is not a fact. It cannot be proven. That's why it's called the single timeline theory and not the single timeline fact.

Split Timelines, then. Your Gaiden is just redundant.

How is it redundant if it simplifies things?

No, it's not. Because Speculation needs factual support to even be considered. For example, there's evidence all but proving that the two Ganons are the same. The Tingle Dream model is never once even vaguely hinted at in the slightest. Speculation is not equal, because speculation is speculation, and Tingle Dream is Crapshoot Hit and Miss Guessing.

What is the factual support behind the single timeline?

Plus, if it had factual support, then it would be a fact, not a theory.

Stop saying people's been owned. Especially when you haven't. You keep telling people they're arrogant know it alls, but you make yourself look like a hypocrite when you rub your imaginary, delusional victory in their faces. Anyway, Possibility can be split into further categories. Supported Possibilities, and Unsupported Possibilities. These branch further into Theory, Speculation, Hypothesis, Guess, etc., all of which having varying degrees of credibility.

Okay, I'll calm down. I have been arrogant, and for that, I appologize.

I have said my reasons for the speculation in my timeline. I'm hoping that you have read them. If you would like for me to repeat them or if you have missed them, just go ahead and ask.

You're noting a game that's not even out yet as a weak point? You're an idiot.

Bashing is not neccisary. If you are going to talk the talk, walk the walk. Don't tell me to calm down, then say, "Yo' momma is so..." in the next sentence. I'm calm now, so you don't have to worry about that.

Anyway, I guess I shouldn't take PH into account yet. It's not even out. It could still get canceled. It could still get changed. I forgot that if we rely on games that will come out, we can just say crap like, "Hey, the next Zelda for the Wii will fix the timeline, so I win," and other stuff like that. Anyway, until a game is released, I will not take it into account.

Now that that's out of the way, nobody who believes in the single timeline can agree with what game comes after TWW. I would guess that a majority of the people say that it's ALttP, but I've heard others say FSA, TLoZ, and I think I even heard someone say the Oracles. I was saying that it's hard to connect TWW to another game when you don't even know what game follows it. Yes, I know that it has been said that PH follows it, but since it's not out yet, I won't take it into account.

Again, the Gaiden Theory is just the Split Timeline Theory with your math.

That proves how much you have been paying attention. I'm kind of disappointed that you have been debating about how my theory is wrong, yet you just made it perfectly clear that you don't understand it.

My understanding of the single timeline is that the adult timeline splits off of the child timeline after Zelda sends Link back in time at the end of OoT. TWW takes place after the adult ending, and the other games take place after the child ending.

That creates two problems. First, how can the Legend of the Fairy mention events that happened in the child timeline (events of MM, of course). Second, how can the Triforce of Courage exist in both the adult timeline and child timeline if it went back to the child timeline at the end of OoT?

This is where you misunderstood our theory (or made a gross oversimplification of it). It fixes both of those problems. Whether adult OoT happens 7 years later or is separated when Link is sent back in time is irrelevant to this theory. This theory says that TWW takes place after the child timeline. That way, the Legend of the Fairy can mention some events of MM without causing a problem. Also, the Triforce of Courage doesn't need to "clone" itself to be in the child and adult timelines because there only needs to be one.

The main idea of this theory is simple. What if something different happened after OoT that resulted in TWW. It could be as simple as one event. In the scenario that leads to ALttP, Ganon remains in the Sacred Realm after being sealed there at the end of OoT. In the scenario that leads to TWW, Ganon escapes the SR and terrorizes Hyrule, resulting in the flood. It's the butterfly effect, to some extent. An event as small as Ganon remaining in or leaving the SR has a huge impact. I have yet to play TP, so I don't know which scenario I would place it after.

To make a long story short, the split timeline improves upon the single timeline because it fixes the four problems, while only creating two. The gaiden timeline improves upon the split timeline because it fixes the two problems, while only creating one. The gaiden theory is not "the split timeline with my B.S. math." (I cannot really take credit for statistics. I did not create it, therefore, it is not my math, but it is mathematical law, but whatever. The laws of math, my math. Who has time to distinguish them?) It is an improved version that combines the single and split theories and fixes their problems while creating merely one problem of it's own. 4>2>1. That's not my math. I'm sorry that you do not believe that math applies to everything. It's just that every teacher I've ever had my entire life has told me that, but okay, you're right. You can't apply math to Zelda. You must apply heart and truthiness. It doesn't matter what the facts say. It matters what the heart says. Yes, how could I have been so blind? The answer isn't in the facts or the numbers, but the heart. It's all so clear to me now. Thank you, my kind sir!

While I sort've see your point, there's always the "possibility" that the people can find and raise the old Hyrule, rebuild it, and call it Hyrule since they believe (accurately) To be the Lost Kingdom of Hyrule.

All speculation is equal, huh? Aren't you the one pulling out assumptions and making them facts with the two above statements of yours? Thought so, now shut up.

Uh, no. The King. The Triforce. The wish. I can't make it much clearer. It is a fact, not an assumption.

No, it's just the Split Timeline VS Single Timeline debate with your condenscating, distracting pretenious bull.

Yeah, that's why my theory works better. Okay. I forgot that you're not about the facts and all about the heart. I must not debate with my mind. If you think about logic, you will be doubtful. I must debate with my heart.

I wish I could be as naive, but I just have logical thoughts that get in the way.

Hypocrite ^^ Occam's Razor also supports a single timeline (Which I don't agree with. I'm an example of someone letting it prove me dead wrong) Because by principle, the Split/Gaiden Timeline requires more assumption than the Single Timeline, what with the bifurcation of the entire Space Time Continuum and stuff.

Wait, I'm confused. How does Occam's Razor support the single timeline? Did I miss something? Is this the point that I am supposed to use my heart and not my mind? I see what you are saying. The answer to the question is in my heart. OMFGWTFSTFULMAO THANK YOU!!!!

Look, I've said this at the beginning. I am about fact. If we are just having a debate where, "You can't prove me wrong!" is acceptable, then let me know. To be fair, you can't prove anything wrong. A future game may let us know that every game is one of Tingle's dream, or Link and Fonzie could team up and fight evil. I'm not about that. I am about fact. If your theory has less fact than another, then your theory is less likely to be true. That's the way it is. 4>2>1. It's mathematical fact. I can't believe that you are going to sit here and tell me that Zelda is the one thing in life to which mathematics doesn't apply. That is a lie. Math applies to everything in the universe. This is a universe of facts and evidence, not one of heart and belief. You are the biggest liar I know if you are going to waste your time telling me that mathematics cannot be applied to Zelda timeline theories.

No, this time I'm not going to gloat. I'm saying that, when logic is applied instead of "heart", my theory is the best and most likely. That is not gloating. That is stating a fact. It's like saying 2+2=4. If someone out there thought that it was 5, then I told them that, they would probably think that I was gloating and rubbing my "imaginary" victories (it's not so imaginary when math proves it's not) in your face. In conclusion, 2+2=4, 4 assumptions > 2 assumptions > 1 assumption, and single timeline < split timeline < gaiden timeline. I'm stating a fact, and I'm deeply sorry if your heart says otherwise.

Edited by Vertiboy, 04 December 2006 - 11:07 PM.

[MikePetersSucks]

The single timeline theory believes there is a connection. It is not a fact. It cannot be proven. That's why it's called the single timeline theory and not the single timeline fact.

The Single Timeline KNOWS it's connection just like you "KNOW" Your theory simplifies things.

How is it redundant if it simplifies things?

Because adding algebra and probability mathematics simplifies things so well.

What is the factual support behind the single timeline?

Plus, if it had factual support, then it would be a fact, not a theory.

Just because there's support behind something doesn't mean the theory is a fact. There's factual evidence of the dinosaurs, but if you use them to support the theory of evolution it doesn't become a fact.

Now that that's out of the way, nobody who believes in the single timeline can agree with what game comes after TWW. I would guess that a majority of the people say that it's ALttP, but I've heard others say FSA, TLoZ, and I think I even heard someone say the Oracles. I was saying that it's hard to connect TWW to another game when you don't even know what game follows it. Yes, I know that it has been said that PH follows it, but since it's not out yet, I won't take it into account.

Yea, but it's like that with all theories.

That proves how much you have been paying attention. I'm kind of disappointed that you have been debating about how my theory is wrong, yet you just made it perfectly clear that you don't understand it.

I understand it. It's just that it's just the Split Timeline with math.

My understanding of the single timeline is that the adult timeline splits off of the child timeline after Zelda sends Link back in time at the end of OoT. TWW takes place after the adult ending, and the other games take place after the child ending.

I think you mean split timeline.

That creates two problems. First, how can the Legend of the Fairy mention events that happened in the child timeline (events of MM, of course). Second, how can the Triforce of Courage exist in both the adult timeline and child timeline if it went back to the child timeline at the end of OoT?

1) A popular theory is that Tingle crossed from Termina to TWW's timeline. There's no reason to assume Termina, an alternate universe, was affected by Hyrule's time travel

2) Erm...you're confused. The theory is that Link received the Child Timeline's ToC when he lifted the Master Sword.

This is where you misunderstood our theory (or made a gross oversimplification of it). It fixes both of those problems. Whether adult OoT happens 7 years later or is separated when Link is sent back in time is irrelevant to this theory. This theory says that TWW takes place after the child timeline. That way, the Legend of the Fairy can mention some events of MM without causing a problem. Also, the Triforce of Courage doesn't need to "clone" itself to be in the child and adult timelines because there only needs to be one.

If the theory is irrelevant, don't bring it up. The theory isn't helpful at all, and it's a waste of space to discuss it, then.

The main idea of this theory is simple. What if something different happened after OoT that resulted in TWW. It could be as simple as one event. In the scenario that leads to ALttP, Ganon remains in the Sacred Realm after being sealed there at the end of OoT. In the scenario that leads to TWW, Ganon escapes the SR and terrorizes Hyrule, resulting in the flood. It's the butterfly effect, to some extent. An event as small as Ganon remaining in or leaving the SR has a huge impact. I have yet to play TP, so I don't know which scenario I would place it after.

Split Timeline effect is more like it.

To make a long story short, the split timeline improves upon the single timeline because it fixes the four problems, while only creating two. The gaiden timeline improves upon the split timeline because it fixes the two problems, while only creating one. The gaiden theory is not "the split timeline with my B.S. math." (I cannot really take credit for statistics. I did not create it, therefore, it is not my math, but it is mathematical law, but whatever. The laws of math, my math. Who has time to distinguish them?) It is an improved version that combines the single and split theories and fixes their problems while creating merely one problem of it's own. 4>2>1. That's not my math. I'm sorry that you do not believe that math applies to everything. It's just that every teacher I've ever had my entire life has told me that, but okay, you're right. You can't apply math to Zelda. You must apply heart and truthiness. It doesn't matter what the facts say. It matters what the heart says. Yes, how could I have been so blind? The answer isn't in the facts or the numbers, but the heart. It's all so clear to me now. Thank you, my kind sir!

Wow, that was an idiotic rant, and you missed the point about why everyone, and I mean everyone in the thread besides you, is telling you why the whole math thing is stupid. ¬_¬

Uh, no. The King. The Triforce. The wish. I can't make it much clearer. It is a fact, not an assumption.

Even the Triforce's wishes can be undone. IE, Ganon's wish from LTTP.

Yeah, that's why my theory works better. Okay. I forgot that you're not about the facts and all about the heart. I must not debate with my mind. If you think about logic, you will be doubtful. I must debate with my heart.

I wish I could be as naive, but I just have logical thoughts that get in the way.

I thought you said you were gonna stop being an asshole?

Wait, I'm confused. How does Occam's Razor support the single timeline? Did I miss something? Is this the point that I am supposed to use my heart and not my mind? I see what you are saying. The answer to the question is in my heart. OMFGWTFSTFULMAO THANK YOU!!!!

I really wish you could keep a promise made five paragraphs ago. Occam's Razor supports the single timeline because a single timeline doesn't involve the creation of a WHOLE NEW UNIVERSE.

Look, I've said this at the beginning. I am about fact. If we are just having a debate where, "You can't prove me wrong!" is acceptable, then let me know. To be fair, you can't prove anything wrong. A future game may let us know that every game is one of Tingle's dream, or Link and Fonzie could team up and fight evil. I'm not about that. I am about fact. If your theory has less fact than another, then your theory is less likely to be true. That's the way it is. 4>2>1. It's mathematical fact. I can't believe that you are going to sit here and tell me that Zelda is the one thing in life to which mathematics doesn't apply. That is a lie. Math applies to everything in the universe. This is a universe of facts and evidence, not one of heart and belief. You are the biggest liar I know if you are going to waste your time telling me that mathematics cannot be applied to Zelda timeline theories.

But you said earlier that your theory isn't about fact. It's about assumptions and what ifs. It can't be both.

No, this time I'm not going to gloat. I'm saying that, when logic is applied instead of "heart", my theory is the best and most likely. That is not gloating. That is stating a fact. It's like saying 2+2=4. If someone out there thought that it was 5, then I told them that, they would probably think that I was gloating and rubbing my "imaginary" victories (it's not so imaginary when math proves it's not) in your face. In conclusion, 2+2=4, 4 assumptions > 2 assumptions > 1 assumption, and single timeline < split timeline < gaiden timeline. I'm stating a fact, and I'm deeply sorry if your heart says otherwise.

Stop with the whole "Heart" bullshit. I never even once brought up the word. We are about logic, but you're taking it to ridiculous extremes.

[Vertiboy]

(A bunch of stuff)

Look, I'll be honest with you. I didn't read a word of what you said above. It wasn't out of disrespect. This is just one of those debates that could go on forever until a game is actually released that gives us the answer. I believe in the gaiden timeline, and I have given you my reasons. You believe in the single timeline, and you have given me your reasons. We are getting no where. Even though I didn't read what you said above, I'm pretty sure it wasn't, "Hey, Vert, I agree with you now! Time for a party!" I'm done trying to convince you to believe what I believe. If you want to believe a theory with little proof, then that's your preference.

I just have one more thing to say. We were debating about a theory, not a fact. The single timeline is a theory because it cannot be proven. There is no canon link between TWW and any other Triforce saga game to come afterward, like ALttP. At the same time, the gaiden timeline is a theory because it too cannot be proven. There is no canon evidence that something different happens after OoT to result in TWW. I know that the gaiden theory simplifies things in the sense that Nintendo won't have to make a bunch of B.S. up to explain how everything comes back between TWW and ALttP (or whatever game you prefer). I know that the single timeline simplifies things in the sense that every game is in one timeline, and there is no worry about what game branches off of what game and why it does so, etc. Of everything I believe, there is one thing that I know to be a fact. If you think that it is a fact that there is a single timeline, then you are wrong. It is a theory, not a fact. If you are going to be cocky and claim that things are fact that you can't prove, then you are not worth debating. I know that you are better than that. I can tell by the quality of your arguement. That was a compliment, not sarcasm, just in case you weren't sure.

If you want to look at this as a win for you, then go ahead. I am going to consider it a draw since the debate was going nowhere fast. I have my core beliefs, and you have yours. I won't try to change yours anymore. It was a good debate, and even though we did get out of control sometimes, I had fun and look forward to possible debates in the future.

[MikePetersSucks]

I don't believe in the Single Timeline.

Apparently you can't even read a person's signature.

[Vertiboy]

I don't believe in the Single Timeline.

Apparently you can't even read a person's signature.

My mistake. I usually don't pay attention to signatures. Okay, then. Take everything I just said and replace single timeline with split timeline. No need for hostility. That's in the past now, back when we were still debating.

Edited by Vertiboy, 06 December 2006 - 06:15 PM.

[Showsni]

Vertiboy, a "what if" timeline is all fine and well, but you can't really consider it side by side with most single/split timelines. Normally, a timeline debater is trying to put all of the games into a logical order, that they feel might be the true order in which the games happened. That is what a single timeline tries to do. There might be some contradictions, but each game has to fit into the order somewhere - people fix those contradictions until they are happy (by adding fanfic, shuffling the order, whatever). And they have a timeline. For a timeline made in this way to be good, it ideally wants as many connections between games as possible (e.g. if one game ends with Ganon owning the ToP and the other two being owned by Zelda, say, and the next one in their timeline has Zeldas descendant owning the ToC and ToW and Ganon's descendant owning the ToP, they'd chalk it up as a connection), as few contradictions as possible (if one game says that the Master Sword will never be used again, and the next in their timeline has it being used, this is a contradiction. They'd have to insert some fanfic to make it work, or argue that the point made in the earlier game was invalid, or this is a new sword, or something) and as few assumptions as possible (if one game ends with Hyrule a desolate wasteland, and the next in their timeline has a prosperous, bustling Hyrule, they'd have to assume it was rebuilt between games). Now the actual contradictions are what hurts the theory most. if they can't be satisfactorily explained the entire theory might need to be scrapped. Assumptions don't actually hurt the theory, but make it less likely. And connections make it more likely. Generally clearing up a contradiction requires a lot of assumptions - if a theory has a contradiction at all, it is impossible. So transforming it into a lot of assumptions is generally necessary.

A "what if" theory is different. It looks at contradictions, decides they can't be validated without incurring too many assumptions, so it gives up. Instead, it places them outside the timeline altogether, and ignores their existence. This might make the timeline smoother - well, it certainly will. It will reduce the number of assumptions needed, because any possible contradictions with the removed game are gone. So this is good, but it's not what a timeline theorist wants to do. Their goal is to put all the games in order, not just the ones that fit nicely. You can't compare a timeline which goes "ALttP - LoZ - AoL" with one that goes
"OoT (child half) - MM - LTTP-LA - TMC - FS-FSA - LoZ - AoL - Oracles
|
OoT (adult half) - TP - TWW - PH" or
"IW, aLttP, LA, AST, AoL backstory, TMC, FS, FSA, LoZ, AoL, Oracles, OoT, MM, TWW" because they're trying to do entirely different things. You might be happy that your three game timeline works with no assumptions, but you can't consider it on a par with a timeline that looks at every game.

[BourgeoisJerry]

Awe, I just got here and the debate's over? As I was reading there was a point I wanted to make, but waited until I was done reading to do so. Well, I guess I'll go ahead and say it anyway.

Okay, so there's this story about a princess and a dragon. The Dragon kidnaps the princess and flies off with her, so her father sends his army after the dragon, but they're all killed. The king offers a reward to any man that can save his daughter. Now, can you guess how the story ends?

It doesn't require any speculation to guess that the princess is never rescued, but to assume that she is rescued means there has to be somebody capable of defeating the dragon, or rescuing her in some other way. By the logic Vertiboy uses, the story likely ends with the princess never being rescued. Feel free to correct me if I'm wrong.

Edited by BourgeoisJerry, 07 December 2006 - 04:27 PM.

[MikePetersSucks]

Pwned.

[Vertiboy]

Awe, I just got here and the debate's over? As I was reading there was a point I wanted to make, but waited until I was done reading to do so. Well, I guess I'll go ahead and say it anyway.

Okay, so there's this story about a princess and a dragon. The Dragon kidnaps the princess and flies off with her, so her father sends his army after the dragon, but they're all killed. The king offers a reward to any man that can save his daughter. Now, can you guess how the story ends?

It doesn't require any speculation to guess that the princess is never rescued, but to assume that she is rescued means there has to be somebody capable of defeating the dragon, or rescuing her in some other way. By the logic Vertiboy uses, the story likely ends with the princess never being rescued. Feel free to correct me if I'm wrong.

Here's the difference. First, you are asking how a single story would end. We are debating about what happens between two different stories. Of course it's obvious that the princess is rescued. That would be the climax of the story. The problem is, though, The Legend of Zelda isn't just one story. It's a series of stories. TWW has a climax. It's the final battle with Ganon.

Yes, if Zelda were to start stories then end them before a climax as you have done with your story, then my logic would not apply.

Plus, apparently you don't understand my logic. I'm not saying that Ganon can't be revived after TWW. It takes an equal amount of speculation to say either option is definite. If you were to apply my logic to the story, I would say that I am not sure if she is rescued. If I were to say that she is not rescued, I would be using an amount of speculation equal to the amount it takes to say that she is rescued.

Basically, in the gaiden theory, it isn't required that Ganon be revived, the Triforce and MS be found, and Hyrule be re-established, and it just so happens that there is no canon evidence suggesting either way. My gaiden theory does not rely on those happenings in order to work, so it doesn't matter what becomes of those happenings.

Read this next statement because its very important. I think that there could possibly be a single timeline. It's just that, as of the evidence right now, we cannot connect TWW to ALttP, ALttP to TLoZ, TP to TWW, etc. Maybe it's not the case that TWW was intended to be a gaiden. Maybe TWW was just made in disregard to the other games, and they figured that they could just sort it out later. I don't like to jump the gun and say that there is a single timeline when it cannot be proven to be 100% correct. I don't like to say that there is a split timeline when it cannot be proven to be 100% correct. I will also say that, now, I realize that even though it makes the least speculation, the gaiden theory is not 100% correct.

This is the main debate I have, and sometimes I get out of hand. Basically, people who say that it's official that there is a single or split timeline are the ones who don't think much. Even though I said that the gaiden theory makes the least speculation, I also said early in the debate that there is still a chance that it is wrong. I know that I said that, and if any one thinks that they know what I say better than I do, then they obviously aren't thinking either.

In conclusion, that's part of the reason I've ended the debate. I should really be saying that there is no canon evidence of a single, split, or gaiden timeline.

Pwned.

Now what was that you told me about celebrating false victories. There is no victory for anyone. I cannot prove the gaiden theory is true, you cannot prove the split timeline is true, and others cannot prove the single timeline is true. If anyone is "pwned", it's everyone because nobody won the debate.

Edited by Vertiboy, 07 December 2006 - 08:18 PM.

[BourgeoisJerry]

Okay, I'm going to start off by saying that this post is all about the logic involved in this topic, and not about the theories themselves. It's not about which theory is correct, it's about that 4>2>1 thing you have going on.

Here's the difference. First, you are asking how a single story would end. We are debating about what happens between two different stories. Of course it's obvious that the princess is rescued. That would be the climax of the story. The problem is, though, The Legend of Zelda isn't just one story. It's a series of stories. TWW has a climax. It's the final battle with Ganon.

Yes, if Zelda were to start stories then end them before a climax as you have done with your story, then my logic would not apply.

Eh, sounds like a big assumption to me, that the princess gets saved. I haven't even mentioned if there was a hero. Anyway, I guess I'll try this example another way. Say I write two stories following the story in which the dragon was slain, both of which involve the sword that slew the dragon. One of the stories ends with the dragon slaying sword broken, while the other story ends with the death of a villain who was present in the previous story. Is it more likely that the author intends one story or the other as a "what if" situation, or is it reasonable to assume that the sword is reforged or the villain is revived? Neither of these things is stated within any of the stories, but it is also never said that one of the stories didn't actually happen.

Plus, apparently you don't understand my logic. I'm not saying that Ganon can't be revived after TWW. It takes an equal amount of speculation to say either option is definite. If you were to apply my logic to the story, I would say that I am not sure if she is rescued. If I were to say that she is not rescued, I would be using an amount of speculation equal to the amount it takes to say that she is rescued.

I never said that I believed that you said that Ganon couldn't be revived. The point is about what's more or less likely (that 4>2>1 thing.) Also, if it takes just as much speculation to say that she isn't rescued as it does to say that she is rescued (despite the fact that I never mentioned a hero or any person that would be capable of rescuing her) then why do you not put all the Zelda theories on equal footing? The details are just the details, and can easily be worked out by the creators if they want things to be one way or the other. If we say there's a 33% chance of the creators preferring any one of the three Zelda theories we're talking about, then the chances of any of them being true is 33% and the details will be taken care of.

Basically, in the gaiden theory, it isn't required that Ganon be revived, the Triforce and MS be found, and Hyrule be re-established, and it just so happens that there is no canon evidence suggesting either way. My gaiden theory does not rely on those happenings in order to work, so it doesn't matter what becomes of those happenings.

Basically, in the theory that the princess isn't rescued, it isn't required that the dragon have some sort of weakness, a hero brave enough to attempt saving the princess and wise enough to discover and exploit said weakness be found, the hero be able to locate the dragon and princess in the first place, and the princess be kept alive long enough for a hero to rescue her, and it just so happens that there is no canon evidence suggesting either way. My theory that the princess isn't rescued does not rely on those happenings in order to work, so it doesn't matter what becomes of those happenings as long as at least one of them doesn't happen.

However, if the author wants the princess to be rescued, she will be rescued. Now, when looking at the author's intention, we have a few resources. 1: we can look at things the author has said or done in the past to get an indication of the kind of person he is (or even if he has stated whether or not the princess will be rescued.) 2: we can look at the books he's written so far to get an idea of his style. 3: we can make guesses based on the general public (if 86% of people prefer the princess to be rescued, there's a fair chance the author will also be in favor of that option.) Looking at evidence strictly within the book and counting assumptions required for one option or another to be true isn't going to give you a good idea of what's more likely.

Edited by BourgeoisJerry, 07 December 2006 - 09:52 PM.

[spunky-monkey]

Now what was that you told me about celebrating false victories. There is no victory for anyone. I cannot prove the gaiden theory is true, you cannot prove the split timeline is true, and others cannot prove the single timeline is true. If anyone is "pwned", it's everyone because nobody won the debate.

That isn't quite what we're discussing in this storyline forum because it is impossible for anyone to label a particular theory as 'true' or 'false', so it is impractical to try and prove the split timeline to be right or wrong when people's perspectives and interpretation on the chronology varies. The debate concerns which theory the majority find most plausible based on accuracy to the series as a whole, meaning both split and single theories can't be dismissed until more logical ones are accepted.