220 replies to this topic

[SOAP]

Vertiboy, I don't think you know what a theory is. A theory can't be proven at all. If they could, they'd be FACTS. Theories are just assumption that haven't been proven wrong. Yet. Contrary to what Ricky just said, they are proven wrong when they don't hold up against canon. You "what if" theory about TWW is proven wrong because TWW is part of Zelda canon. You can't just throw it out of the timeline because it does't fit. Also, because, as so many people have stated before, it's a cop-out. It doesn't explain anything about TWW's placement in the timeline, it just says it never happened. All you've explained is how superior your theory is to everyone elses. Then when you didn't manage to convince anyone, you claim everyone loses. Sorry Vertiboy, the world doesn't stop spinning because no one likes your little theory. It's not either you win or we all lose. Your theory doesn't hold and no amount of mathmetical statistics or topic bumping is going change that. So just accept your loss or do as I suggested earlier and find another audience.

Edited by SOAP, 08 December 2006 - 09:53 AM.

[Vertiboy]

Vertiboy, I don't think you know what a theory is. A theory can't be proven at all. If they could, they'd be FACTS. Theories are just assumption that haven't been proven wrong. Yet. Contrary to what Ricky just said, they are proven wrong when they don't hold up against canon. You "what if" theory about TWW is proven wrong because TWW is part of Zelda canon. You can't just throw it out of the timeline because it does't fit. Also, because, as so many people have stated before, it's a cop-out. It doesn't explain anything about TWW's placement in the timeline, it just says it never happened. All you've explained is how superior your theory is to everyone elses. Then when you didn't manage to convince anyone, you claim everyone loses. Sorry Vertiboy, the world doesn't stop spinning because no one likes your little theory. It's not either you win or we all lose. Your theory doesn't hold and no amount of mathmetical statistics or topic bumping is going change that. So just accept your loss or do as I suggested earlier and find another audience.

Again, that's part of the false belief that a single timeline is the standard. You are in essence saying that my theory is wrong just because it doesn't try to connect any game after TWW (besides PH, of course). You are not Aonuma or Miyamoto, so stop claiming that you know TWW is part of a single timeline. Yes, I understand that TWW is part of the Zelda canon. That's it. We don't know if it's part of a single timeline canon, split timeline canon, or gaiden canon. If you are saying that it's part of a single timeline simply because it's an official game, then you are saying that no matter what, Nintendo cannot make a gaiden game because you said. In the future, Nintendo could decide to make a game that might show what would happen if the Light World and Dark World merged in ALttP, and have a game start out where Ganon rules. If they say it's a "what if" game, then it is a "what if" game. If they don't say that it's a "what if" game, but then they also don't say that it's part of a single or split timeline, then we can't just assume that it's part of a single timeline. That is a false standard. You cannot say that one of my theory's faults is the fact that it doesn't connect any game after TWW just because you believe in the single or split timeline. If you can show me any quote from Miyamoto or Aonuma saying that there is a single timeline (not "was" a single timeline or "will be" a single timeline), then you can take away from my theory for that. Until then, you do not make the standards. I am not saying that the gaiden timeline is a standard. I'm simply saying that according to the math, it is the theory with the least problems that need to be solved. I aknowledge the fact that TWW is a part of the Zelda canon. Just because it's official, though, it doesn't mean that it absolutely has to fit into a single timeline, like you claim it must. Now if for some strange reason that ten years, you rule the world and tell Miyamoto and Aonuma that there must be a single timeline, then it will be a standard, and then you will have won the debate. Until then, it is a draw. I love how you and others get onto me for imaginary victories, but then you hypocritically do the same thing.

[Arturo]

A Single Timeline is the standard simply because , as far as I can tell, our history doesn't branch into several "what if"s or different timelines where Hitler won the WW2. That's teh simple reason.

My question is, what makes TWW be a "what if"? Is it that it doesn't have any consequences within the timeline? That's false, because both the Japanse version of FSA and PH show teh characters from TWW. If it were a what if, it shouldn't have consequences. But it does. Therefore it isn't a "whhat if".

In reality the split is nothing but an ellaborate version of the Gaiden theory. With the difference that it doesn't elliminate canon.

As Showsni said, I don't say that the Gaiden theory isn't avlid, but that it isn't on the same level as Singleor Split timeline.

[SOAP]

Except they never said it was a Gaiden Timeline. You just assume that, and so far you have yet convince anyone here that this is the case. Your theory doesn't hold because the only assumption it makes is that the game doesn't matter. That's not a theory. That's just taking the easy way out and here's why it's wrong:

The creators revealed that every game features a new Link. If they had planned for Zelda to have Gaiden timelines why feature a new Link in nearly every game besides direct sequels? Having multiple Links would be redundant in multiple what-if scenarios when they can just feature the same Link placed in different storylines. They also annouced this upon TWW's installment, and the the game itself made the Multiple Link Theory into a fact. So it's rather presumptuous to say TWW has no effect on the timeline because it does.

[MikePetersSucks]

Again, that's part of the false belief that a single timeline is the standard. You are in essence saying that my theory is wrong just because it doesn't try to connect any game after TWW (besides PH, of course). You are not Aonuma or Miyamoto, so stop claiming that you know TWW is part of a single timeline.

She wasn't saying it was part of a single timeline, but only that it was part of canon. It's not a what if. Whether it's part of a single or split timeline, it totally, undeniably happened in Hyrule's history, no if's, and's, or but's.

[Arturo]

SHE? SOAP is a guy, no matter if he hides himself after the female sign

[Vertiboy]

A Single Timeline is the standard simply because , as far as I can tell, our history doesn't branch into several "what if"s or different timelines where Hitler won the WW2. That's teh simple reason.

I agree with you on part of that. Our history has no what ifs. The problem is, though, that Zelda is not history. It is imaginary. Imagination in and of itself is a what if. You cannot compare history to Zelda. This is the real world, where a limited amount of things are possible, and Zelda is imaginary, where anything is possible. A single timeline is not only the standard in the real world but it is also the only option. In an imaginary universe such as that of Zelda, it is definitely not the standard. In a universe that is basically a what if when compared to reality, a single timeline is not the standard.

My question is, what makes TWW be a "what if"? Is it that it doesn't have any consequences within the timeline? That's false, because both the Japanse version of FSA and PH show teh characters from TWW. If it were a what if, it shouldn't have consequences. But it does. Therefore it isn't a "whhat if".

Well, I have no problem with PH coming after TWW. Even though it's not out, I really doubt that it's position in the timeline will change. We don't know anything about PH yet, though, so we can't just assume that it will or will not fix the problems we have.

Plus, which characters from FSA are in TWW? Take into account the fact that character models are used multiple times.

In reality the split is nothing but an ellaborate version of the Gaiden theory. With the difference that it doesn't elliminate canon.

The gaiden theory doesn't eliminate any canon. It just makes TWW a different kind of canon.

Except they never said it was a Gaiden Timeline. You just assume that, and so far you have yet convince anyone here that this is the case. Your theory doesn't hold because the only assumption it makes is that the game doesn't matter. That's not a theory. That's just taking the easy way out and here's why it's wrong:

The creators revealed that every game features a new Link. If they had planned for Zelda to have Gaiden timelines why feature a new Link in nearly every game besides direct sequels? Having multiple Links would be redundant in multiple what-if scenarios when they can just feature the same Link placed in different storylines. They also annouced this upon TWW's installment, and the the game itself made the Multiple Link Theory into a fact. So it's rather presumptuous to say TWW has no effect on the timeline because it does.

They could feature multiple Links in gaiden scenarios because they may want to make games take place in different ages. Aonuma chose to place TWW after OoT because he thought that it would be best for TWW's story. Take OoT to TWW for example. Plus, I'm not saying that Nintendo will never want to connect games together. If every single game was a gaiden timeline, then there would be no timeline at all, and that would be against what Miyamoto and Aonuma have been saying all along: there is a timeline. They never said what kind of timeline. They never said that it involves every single game. They did say that one existed, however, so if every single game were a gaiden, that would not be possible.

I don't care if I convince anyone if I'm right because I know I'm right. Again, math applies to everything, and math does not lie.


Now I think I need to clairify something. When I say I'm right, I don't mean that I'm right that the gaiden timeline is official. I was never debating about that, and I never said that I was debating about that, either. I said that the gaiden theory was the most likely to be true. I didn't say that it was absolutely true. There is a difference, and it's apparent that no one else knew that.

When I say that the gaiden theory is the best theory, I mean its the most likely to be true. I am fully aware of what you said, SOAP, about theories being called theories because they are not true. Never at any one point have I said that the gaiden timeline is true. You can look back to check. It is the best theory in the sense that it is the easiest solution. There is only one problem to fix, compared to the two and four problems of the other two theories. If Miyamoto, Aonuma, and friends were to sit down in a meeting and discuss the easiest solution, they would say that it's the gaiden theory.

Here's the problem with the single and split timelines: Aonuma has made it clear that gameplay, creativity, and surprise are most important in a Zelda game. Just think of the end of TP.

Who expected it to end with the flood or at least end on a note leading to the flood? I know I was. I was surprised by the ending. Though I haven't played the game, the story sounds creative and original. Yes, it uses OoT as a psuedo-backstory, but that's it. The rest is original. It's unlike OoT, that used the Imprisoning War as at the very least the inspiration for the story, taking away from the creativity and surprise.

I said that I was debating to win. The debate was whether or not the gaiden theory is the best in the sense that it is the easiest solution because it has the least problems to solve. It is the simplest solution in the fact that, in a theoretical future game, the one problem can be solved, and the rest of the game can be creative. If a game were to be made connecting TWW to ALttP (or another game), then reviving Ganon, finding the Triforce and Master Sword, and reviving Hyrule would be the main focus of the game. People would expect and know what would happen if that game were to be made.

If a game was made making use of the gaiden timeline, it would allow for more creativity. What is it that would happen differently after OoT that leads to TWW? Would Ganon escape the SR in one timeline and stay there in another? Would Ganon escape anyway, then in one timeline, be sealed back in the SR and the other, he would not? There are any number of creative solutions to this problem because it is vague. Vague is good becaues it allows creativity. After fixing the vague problem, the game could be about just about anything.

What if, in this game making TWW a gaiden, there is a new threat to Hyrule who wants to free Ganon? Maybe he doesn't even know about Ganon. Maybe she doesn't know about Ganon. Maybe the new antagonist unwittingly frees Ganon near the end of the game. This game, of course, would have two endings. Wouldn't that be creative as far as Zelda games are concerned? A Zelda game with multiple endings that both lead to differnt games. Yes, one ending would be the expected one where there is the flood, but the unexpected ending would lead to ALttP (or whatever). Would someone expect a game to have two endings? Would someone expect a game to lead to both TWW and ALttP with multiple endings if the fact that it leads to those games isn't even addressed until the very end? In short, the less problems a theory has, and the more vague those problems are, the more creative a game can be. I would think that TP's ending showed us that Aonuma favors creativity and surprise more than connecting every game into a single timeline.

The same thing applies to all gaidens in general. If a single timeline is the standard, then a creator of a game would be more worried about connecting all installments together than creativity and surprise. Seeing as how Zelda has always been more about creativity and less about a clear timeline, the gaiden timeline is more likely.

The debate about which theory is the best based on which has the least problems and which would allow the most creativity is over. The gaiden theory wins, hand down, whether you choose to aknowledge it or not. As problems go up, suprise and creativity go down.

Let me also say that I don't care if you like or agree with my theory or not. Since when has majority opinion had to equal truth? Long ago, a majority of people believed that the Earth was flat. Is the Earth flat, SOAP? Any time before the mid-20th century, a majority of people would have told you that they were positive we would never go to the moon, let alone outer space. The opinion of the majority does not always equal the truth. I'm not saying that the gaiden theory is true. I'm just saying that it doesn't mean a thing that the majority doesn't agree with it. It never has, and it never will. I can tell you that I know that is the truth, whether the majority agrees with it or not.

I acknowledge the fact that TWW happened in Hyrule history. Whether it happend in the same history of all other games (besides OoT, MM, and PH, of course) cannot be proven. That's part of the reason I have started calling it the gaiden theory. "What if" implies that TWW is what could have happened, while ALttP and the games following it are what actually happened.

Edited by Vertiboy, 08 December 2006 - 06:29 PM.

[BourgeoisJerry]

Would you please just forget about defending your theory for a moment and pay attention to our attacks at the logic you use in that whole 4>2>1 thing? I don't particularly care that your "what if" theory goes against what I believe, what bothers me is you claiming math proves anything. Some of your defenses, such as that bit about creative solutions to your one problem, are valid points. However, if the author intends for the princess to be saved, then the four problems I mentioned before aren't really problems. Same deal if Miyamoto and Aonuma intend for there to be a single or multiple timeline. You can say that the events of Wind Waker seem to indicate that they intended the game as a Gaiden story, but their intentions are the important thing.

Edited by BourgeoisJerry, 09 December 2006 - 04:00 AM.

[SOAP]

They could feature multiple Links in gaiden scenarios because they may want to make games take place in different ages. Aonuma chose to place TWW after OoT because he thought that it would be best for TWW's story. Take OoT to TWW for example. Plus, I'm not saying that Nintendo will never want to connect games together. If every single game was a gaiden timeline, then there would be no timeline at all, and that would be against what Miyamoto and Aonuma have been saying all along: there is a timeline. They never said what kind of timeline. They never said that it involves every single game. They did say that one existed, however, so if every single game were a gaiden, that would not be possible.

If they intended for Zelda to be multiple Gaiden timelines, they would have mentioned it but as far interviews go, they've only referred one timeline when asked a bout a games placement. Yes, the games vaguely connected at best but that doesn't make them Gaiden timelines. The only games that could be considered Gaidens are probably the Four Sword games because that's the only time the craetors have specified a seperate story arc (TMC and the FS games being the Light Force story arc and the rest of the series being the Triforce story arc). But then again, FSA makes lots of references to ALttP and TMC references OoX. Also TP seems to elate to FSA somehow.

But TWW is part the same story arc as OOT and MM. Before TWW, no Zelda game has ever made such a strong connection to a previous game before as TWW did. And OoT already connects to ALttP, as does ALttP does with LoZ. Vague as their connections are, they do connect. It may be hard to reconsile the inconsistencies between TWW and ALttP but that's waht split timelines are for. Or you can simply place TWW at the end of the timeline. At least that's what TP has laed many to believe. Yeah you'd have to come with the assumptions about how Ganon comes back to life and gets his ToP back but he's stolen the ToP back before in LoZ and AoL explains how he can be revived. Also FSA shows that he can even be reborn.

I don't care if I convince anyone if I'm right because I know I'm right. Again, math applies to everything, and math does not lie.

You're have a right to your opinion but if people don't want to haer it, you'd just make matters worse if you keep shoving it down everyone's throats. I mean, even if no one makes any posts after your last post, you still revive the topic again with an even longer post.

[Arturo]

I agree with you on part of that. Our history has no what ifs. The problem is, though, that Zelda is not history. It is imaginary. Imagination in and of itself is a what if. You cannot compare history to Zelda. This is the real world, where a limited amount of things are possible, and Zelda is imaginary, where anything is possible. A single timeline is not only the standard in the real world but it is also the only option. In an imaginary universe such as that of Zelda, it is definitely not the standard. In a universe that is basically a what if when compared to reality, a single timeline is not the standard.

It should be a standard in an imaginary universe, because the imagination reflects what we see in the world. I don't think there is room to splits or what ifs in most stories, take the Sleeping Beauty for example. But there are some exceptions to this rule.

Well, I have no problem with PH coming after TWW. Even though it's not out, I really doubt that it's position in the timeline will change. We don't know anything about PH yet, though, so we can't just assume that it will or will not fix the problems we have.

If PH came after TWW, TWW wouldn't be a "what if" just because the definition of a "what if" says that they don't have ANY TIMELINE SIGNIFICANCE. And TWW does have a significance.

If I am understanding you, in reality, you don't mean TWW is a what if. You are arguing for them to happen in different timelines (that is not the same as the split). You say we have a timeline with OoT>whatever and another with OoT>TWW>(PH). That is not the same as a Split, because the Split says the timeline divides after OoT, resulting in a timeline where the Adult oot events have happened and anothere where they haven't. Your theory just believes there are two possibilities after OoT. That is, it is a Multiple Timeline Theory.

Plus, which characters from FSA are in TWW? Take into account the fact that character models are used multiple times.

Not in the FSA you (might) and I have played, but on the Japanse one. There was a game called Tetra's Tracker's (or Navi's Trackers) that stars characters from TWW like Tetra, the pirates or the King of Red Lions (of the last obne I am not totally sure).

The gaiden theory doesn't eliminate any canon. It just makes TWW a different kind of canon.

It makes it an IRRELEVANT kind of canon. And if canon is irrelevant, it isn't canon.

I don't care if I convince anyone if I'm right because I know I'm right. Again, math applies to everything, and math does not lie.

You clearly don't know what you are speaking about.

Maths CAN'T be applied to anything, because they are totally exact.

Take an example in Physics. I have done many exercices where there are two possible mathematical solutions, but there is only one Physical solution, because the other one doesn't amke sense in the context of the world. Even though physics are more or less exact.

And this is not Physics, this is much more similar to Literature, where everything is subjective...

A theory isn't better because it has less assumptions, but because it has safer and smaller assumptions. But the concept of safeness of an assumption CAN'T BE MEASURED, because it is a SUBJECTIVE concept. You can't measure the love or the friendship, and you can't measure how safe an assumption is. It's teh first thing you learn in teh first class of Physics of your life, at least it is that way in my country.

Maths doesn't apply to anything, just because they don't lie. And reality (and much more the imaginary reality) does lie. You are dealing with a company that ignores even the most basic laws of Physics, come on.

Now I think I need to clairify something. When I say I'm right, I don't mean that I'm right that the gaiden timeline is official. I was never debating about that, and I never said that I was debating about that, either. I said that the gaiden theory was the most likely to be true. I didn't say that it was absolutely true. There is a difference, and it's apparent that no one else knew that.

If it is the most likely, why does it contradict canon?
Why does it contradict Oot's Ending then?
Why do the characters from TWW star TT if TWW was just a what if?
Where is PH then, if TWW is a what if?

You don't even understand the consequences of your own theory. Namely, no other game can connect to TWW, because it never happened. It is a what if.

That's why I said you in reality are not for the Gaiden theory, butfopr the Multiple Timeline theory.

But even teh Multiple Timeline theory has its problems, since it conttradicts OoT's ending (as does teh Single Timeline too) and doesn't take into account the creators saying there is A timeline, not a kajillion timelines.

When I say that the gaiden theory is the best theory, I mean its the most likely to be true. I am fully aware of what you said, SOAP, about theories being called theories because they are not true. Never at any one point have I said that the gaiden timeline is true. You can look back to check. It is the best theory in the sense that it is the easiest solution. There is only one problem to fix, compared to the two and four problems of the other two theories. If Miyamoto, Aonuma, and friends were to sit down in a meeting and discuss the easiest solution, they would say that it's the gaiden theory.

Of course it is easy. It is easy saying too that Zeklda is nothing more than variations on the very same myth, that there is not a timeline.But both solutions contradict canon.
Theories have to be the easier teh better, but AS LONG AS THEY EXPLAIN EVERYTHING AND DON'T CONTRADICT CANON.

Here's the problem with the single and split timelines: Aonuma has made it clear that gameplay, creativity, and surprise are most important in a Zelda game. Just think of the end of TP.

Who expected it to end with the flood or at least end on a note leading to the flood? I know I was. I was surprised by the ending. Though I haven't played the game, the story sounds creative and original. Yes, it uses OoT as a psuedo-backstory, but that's it. The rest is original. It's unlike OoT, that used the Imprisoning War as at the very least the inspiration for the story, taking away from the creativity and surprise.

That is not a problem of single or split timelines. That is a problem of timelines in general. But wait, teh creators said there was one....

I said that I was debating to win. The debate was whether or not the gaiden theory is the best in the sense that it is the easiest solution because it has the least problems to solve.

It is the easiest solution, but certainly not the one with less problems.

If a game was made making use of the gaiden timeline, it would allow for more creativity. What is it that would happen differently after OoT that leads to TWW? Would Ganon escape the SR in one timeline and stay there in another? Would Ganon escape anyway, then in one timeline, be sealed back in the SR and the other, he would not? There are any number of creative solutions to this problem because it is vague. Vague is good becaues it allows creativity. After fixing the vague problem, the game could be about just about anything.

Of course it is good. But there is no reason to believe TWW is a "what if" and many to think it isn't. "What if"s can't have a sequel. And TWW has two.


Conclusion.

You just don't understand your own theory.

Sometimes you say TWW is a "what if" and sometimes you say it isn't, that it is in another timeline with OoT, MM and PH. You are contradicting yourself. If I have understood you, in reality you mean the second possiblity, taht is "less wrong" than the first one.

But I want to ask you: What advantages does this theory have over a Split one?

None, apart from the simplicity

What disadvantages does it have?

It completely ignores the Ending of OoT.

Is Relativity better than Classic Physics?
Yes, because it explains many more things.

But is it easier?

No, Classic Physics is about 100000000000000000 times easier.

Easier=/= Better

Occam's Razor is only used when both theories explain the same things with the same results. Then it is the easier the better. But in this case it isn't. Because your explanation doesn't fit with canon.

[Showsni]

Posts deleted. Stay on topic.

[Arturo]

The thing is, it doesn't seem he will ever answer my post.

[Vertiboy]

When playing Twilight Princess, I realized something. It's not related to that game, so there are no spoilers.

The split timeline theory has one more assumption that I never noticed. It's the Master Sword. How can that sword exist in both the child and adult timelines? It's similar to the assumption this theory makes about the Triforce of Courage. In order for the sword to exist in both timelines, it would have to copy itself or something. Maybe the assumption is that another Master Sword is forged.

That brings the split timeline theory assumption total to 3, the single timeline theory is still at 4, and the gaiden theory still has one sole assumption.

That's not all though.

In Twilight Princess, Link has the Triforce of Courage. I will not debate about this because it is a fact. The game never directly comes out and says, "Link, you have the Triforce of Courage," but it does everything else to indirectly tell us that he does. This contradicts what the Hero of Time legend in The Wind Waker tells us. It says that the Triforce of Courage split up when the Hero of Time left Hyrule. There is a contradiction, unless you use fan fiction. You could say that the legend is wrong, or you could say that it did split up, but then it was gathered again and given to Link before TP. Either way, it's obvious that TP and TWW don't happen in the same timeline.

In case you are impervious to fact, and you still believe that TP is part of the adult timeline, allow me to crush that belief. In TP, there is a mysterious person that helps Link and teaches him sword moves. He has two forms. One is a golden wolf that is almost ghost-like, and the other is a knight looking ghost with old and cracked armor. He is left handed. He knows the Song of Healing and the Prelude of Light. Know who it is yet? "OMFG! BLASPHEMY! HE'S NOT THE HERO OF TIME!" Okay, let me go on. After teaching Link one of the sword moves, the mysterious being says something along the lines of, "These moves must never leave our bloodline." Okay, if TP takes place in the adult timeline, then WTF is the Hero of Time doing there? The legend said that he left, remember? If this is the adult timeline, then the Hero of Time cease to exist in it. I will not debate about whether or not it is the Hero of Time because, like Link having the Triforce of Courage, it does everything it possibly can to let you know that it's him besides saying, "Hey, by the way, my name is Link, and I was once the Hero of Time, and I am related to you." Aonuma and Miyamoto expect us to use common sense, so they aren't going to spell everything out for us. You either agree with that or you don't.

Okay, now I have something to say to all of you who think that I'm stupid just because I apply math to the Zelda timeline ("OMFG! Zelda is above math! Zelda is greater than God and/or any force of the universe!!!!"). There are some people in the world that do not believe that the Holocaust during World War II happened. Despite all of the photographs of the camps, the ruins of those camps, first hand witnesses who were in the camps and who were soldiers who liberated them, etc., some people still don't believe that the Holocaust happened. How? Apparently they think that it is a big hoax. What kind of people would look at the evidence, then come to a conclusion that makes many assumptions, when a much simpler answer is right in front of them that is more consistent with the evidence given? Yes, in order for those people to say that the Holocaust never happened, they must make a number of assumptions. The photos and videos are all fake. The hundreds, maybe even thousands, of soldiers and eye witnesses are all lying one big, coincidentally consistent lie. Those are the reasons that they give. Now I don't know what you think, but I think that's really extreme. There is a chance that it's possible (a very, very, very small chance), but it's not very likely. You are similar to those people. No, I'm not saying that you hate people of the Jewish race. I'm not saying you are a Nazi or certain type of Muslim. I am saying that, despite the evidence, your own personal beliefs and expectations do not allow you to clearly look at the evidence and come to the best conclusion. You can huff and puff at that statement all you want, you know that it is true. When you say that the single or split timeline theories are just as likely or even more likely than the gaiden theory, you are not using common sense. Again, you can disagree, but it is the truth.

A lack of a fact can be evidence. We don't know the fates of Hyrule, Ganondorf, the Triforce, and the Master Sword after TWW. It obviously wasn't that important to TWW's timeline placement, or else the writters would have put it in the game. Don't give me the "we have to wait for a future game" crap. I could just as easily use that defense. We are looking at the evidence we have, not the evidence we might get. The evidence we have says that we don't know the fates of the 4 elements mentioned. Don't try to debate that. You can't. Stop it. Why do you even try? You know that there is no evidence there. Stop trying to find it. I don't care if you disagree because math, logic, and common sense are on my side.

[Arturo]

The split timeline theory has one more assumption that I never noticed. It's the Master Sword. How can that sword exist in both the child and adult timelines? It's similar to the assumption this theory makes about the Triforce of Courage. In order for the sword to exist in both timelines, it would have to copy itself or something. Maybe the assumption is that another Master Sword is forged.

That brings the split timeline theory assumption total to 3, the single timeline theory is still at 4, and the gaiden theory still has one sole assumption.

Yes, all right and fine.

Okay, now I have something to say to all of you who think that I'm stupid just because I apply math to the Zelda timeline ("OMFG! Zelda is above math! Zelda is greater than God and/or any force of the universe!!!!").

You just don't know what you are talking about.

Zelda is not above maths, it's maths what is above Zelda.
Maths are perfect, so perefect that they can't be applied exactly to things that are more or less exact. How many times have you found that the solution of a problem of physics is the square root of a negative number? That has no physic sense, but it has a mathematic sense.
What you are doing is like using maths for Madame Bovary, for example. It just doesn't make sense, becauser they are IMPERFECT creations of the man, while maths are PERFECT. The more imperfect things are, the less you can use maths on them.

Also, you are ignoring some BASIC things: subjective things can't be measured. If you think otherwise, you are an idiot. I just hope you don't think otherwise.

THIS IS THE FIRST THING YOU LEARN AT PHYSICS

I am saying that, despite the evidence, your own personal beliefs and expectations do not allow you to clearly look at the evidence and come to the best conclusion. You can huff and puff at that statement all you want, you know that it is true. When you say that the single or split timeline theories are just as likely or even more likely than the gaiden theory, you are not using common sense. Again, you can disagree, but it is the truth.

One thing, if you are so right, why didn't you comment my last post? I am going to tell you the answer. YOU ARE A COWARD WHO CAN'T ADMIT HIS MISTAKES. If you were right, why didn't you try to disprove me?
I have given you LOGICAL reasons, based in MATHS and PHYSICS and COMMON SENSE.

If you think you are right, read my post. I am not going to respond to any of your nonsensical posts on this until you comment my post.

I don't care if you disagree because math, logic, and common sense are on my side.

You forgot to mention God. ZOMG GOD MATHS AND LOGIC ARE ON MY SIDE!!!!!!!!

You just have ignored my post. Why? Because you are afraid of the truth.
So, how good a theory is, depends on the number of assumptions only, right?

So, according to you, it's a much better theory saying there is no timeline, why? Because it only makes an assumption, while saying there is a timeline makes many more assumptions, for example that there is a timeline, that Ganondorf can be resurrected, that each Zelda and Link are people with the same name...

So, according to you, there is no timeline.

Fine.

As I said before, I will say nothing until you comment my post

And drop the "I am superior to you all maths-ignorants", from what I have read on your posts (I might be wrong) you just don't know anything of maths... I might be wrong, unlike you, though.

Edited by Arturo, 18 December 2006 - 10:40 AM.

[MikePetersSucks]

When playing Twilight Princess, I realized something. It's not related to that game, so there are no spoilers.

The split timeline theory has one more assumption that I never noticed. It's the Master Sword. How can that sword exist in both the child and adult timelines? It's similar to the assumption this theory makes about the Triforce of Courage. In order for the sword to exist in both timelines, it would have to copy itself or something. Maybe the assumption is that another Master Sword is forged.

When you have a Split Timeline, a whole new universe is being created for the other branch of the timeline. That includes everything in it, like the Master Sword. Do you know nothing about time travel physics?

[BourgeoisJerry]

He's also ignoring my posts in this topic, thus I'm also going to stop replying to this and the other topic until I get a reply.

[SOAP]

But you are replying.

[Vertiboy]

In case some people have been wondering why I haven't posted in a while, it is a combination of different reasons. I got Twilight Princess, my computer stopped working, I was busy with Christmas, etc.

Another reason I haven't been posting is that I haven't been responding to everyone. When people stop making legitimate points and start the name calling because they cannot think of anything better to say, I ignore them. I do this in every debate. If someone is not intellegent enough to know that name-calling like a two-year old will not help them win the debate, then they are not worth my time. They should stop trying to get my attention because I stopped caring about what they had to say a long time ago when it was obvious that they didn't know how to debate.

Also, I am human (EDIT: I fixed it. I am human this time.), so I have been prone to call someone an idiot just because they don't agree with what I am saying. Most of the time, I make sure I have a reason to insult someone, but sometimes, I make mistakes. I am not perfect. Most of the time, I appologize if I verbally attack someone with little to no reason. I am sorry for any mistakes that I have made.

Now then, let me get onto this post. I have thought about it, and I agree that every assumption is not equal. We, however, are not the authority to say what is and is not a "good assumption" in most cases. That is the job of Miyamoto, Aonuma, and others involved in the making of Zelda games. As far as a debate goes, that is why I think that every assumptions is equal, unless there is a legitimate reason to believe otherwise. It is kind of like what Martin Luther King, Jr. said. I am judging the theories not by "the color of their skin," but by "the content of their character." I look at any assumption as equal first, like Ganondorf is revived after The Wind Waker, or every game one of Tingle's dreams. If I were to treat a person with the appearance of a biker (with a long beard, tattoos, black leather) worse than I would treat a person with the appearance of a rich business man (like Bill Gates, Donald Drumpf, etc.), then in my opinion, this would be ethically wrong. Only after I find out more about their personality will I have a different opinion about both of them.

Just because you do not like the gaiden theory, it doesn't mean that it is any less likely. The majority opinion does not always equal the truth, as the Earth is quite clearly round, though the majority thought that it was flat long ago. Truth is not relative. I looked at the "content" of the single and split timeline theories' "character", and I have found that they have more problems than the gaiden theory. Name one time in Zelda in which the easiest answer was not the simplest. As far as the single timeline's character, there is no actual canon evidence of a single timeline. The canon suggest otherwise.

I usually just ignore it when you say, "g0 @w4y n0b0dy 1!k3$ ur 7h30ry n00b!!!111!!11!1" but I've had enough of that. Quit saying that as if it actually means something.

Edited by Vertiboy, 31 December 2006 - 08:00 PM.

[BourgeoisJerry]

Man, does Vertiboy remind anybody else of Mike and Luigi64? Not as bad, but he does make his theory out to be superior to others, much like they did. His style of argument is very different though. Anyway, there's something I'd like to ask somebody, but I said I wouldn't post in the relevant topic until he responded to my posts, and the following comment is as close as he's come to doing so:

Another reason I haven't been posting is that I haven't been responding to everyone. When people stop making legitimate points and start the name calling because they cannot think of anything better to say, I ignore them. I do this in every debate. If someone is not intellegent enough to know that name-calling like a two-year old will not help them win the debate, then they are not worth my time. They should stop trying to get my attention because I stopped caring about what they had to say a long time ago when it was obvious that they didn't know how to debate.

That was in response to either me or Arturo. Anyway, can somebody please point out an instance in which Arturo or I acted like two-year olds (not counting the ironic statement at the beginning of this post, assuming that'd count)? I'm seriously drawing a blank here. I thought we were making valid points (though I didn't pay enough attention to know what all was said by Arturo).

Edited by BourgeoisJerry, 31 December 2006 - 03:58 AM.

[MikePetersSucks]

Also, I am not human

WHAT?!

[Vertiboy]

Here is one final thought for now. I do not know if I will post on this thread again because it has served its purpose. I have an analogy dealing with cars.

One day you wake, and you have no car. You need to go to a dealership to get a new one, or at least one that is new to you. When you get to the dealership, there are only two cars. One of them looks like a piece of crap. Springs are sticking from the seats, it has over 100,000 miles, it needs an oil change, it steers left when the wheel is untouched, and it has many other problems. It is drivable, though. It will get you to your destination. The other car is brand new. It has nice leather seats, it has 0 miles, it has recently had an oil change, it steers perfect, and every aspect of the car is perfect but one. This car has no cup holders.

Both cars cost the exactly same price to buy. They are not only the same price moneywise, but they are both affordable with your budget. There is no catch at all.

You are looking for a "perfect car". What this means is that you want the best car you can possibly find for the lowest price you can possibly find it. Since there is no chance you will get the best car in the world for free, you have told yourself that you will get the car closest to perfection as possible. The car closest to perfection is the car with the car with the fewest flaws. These flaws are fixable, and both cars could potentially one day be perfect cars, but you are not focused on what the cars could one day be. You are focused on how close to perfection that they are in their current state. Both of the cars before you have flaws, but one has less than the other.

I have to stress that the brand new car does not have cup holders. The crappy car has them, though. You love to drink sodas while driving. How could you possibly get a car without cup holders? Again, the problems are fixable, but you are looking at what the cars are and not what they could become. You hate the new car because it does not have a cup holder. You do not want to buy it because you are focused on getting a car with cupholders rather than getting the car closest to perfection as possible. You buy the crappy car just because it has cup holders, even though it has many other flaws.

It is sad, but if you all apply the same logic to an everyday situation like this that you all apply to timeline theories, then you would screw yourself (figuratively, not literally) from getting a good car.

This is how I try to theorize; I try to find the theory that is closest to perfection as possible. The problems that each theory have are fixable, and they could both potentially be facts some day, but we are looking at the problems as they stand now. I am not worried about side goals, like finding a car with a cup holder, or finding a theory that successfully connects every single game together. As I have said, there is no single timeline standard in the Zelda series. Yes, I am fully aware that there is but one timeline in real life, but we are not discussing real life, so the same principles do not neccisarily apply in this fantasy universe. You are forgetting that the goal is to find a theory closest to fact, not find a theory that can connect every single game together. The more theorizing that a theory does, the farther away it gets from the truth. That is a fact of life. That is a fact of theorizing. I guess that theorizing does not have to be about finding the explaination with the fewest flaws, but if you are going to debate about which theory has said fewest flaws, then stop debating about a non-existant single timeline standard.

I guess that you may see the idea of theorizing differently. Maybe you see the goal as cramming every game into one timeline. That just means you are looking for the best single timeline theory. That doesn't mean that you are looking for the best theory of them all.

If that's what the standard of most of you debating here is, however, then I would have to say that this, in my opinion, is one of the single timeline theories that involve the least theorizing.

The Minish Cap
Ocarina of Time
Majora's Mask
Twilight Princess
The Wind Waker
Four Swords (It could even go between TMC and OoT, or between LA and FSA. I just placed it here to keep the geography more consistent between said games.)
A Link to the Past
Link's Awakening
Oracle of Ages/Oracle of Seasons (It could even go after TAoL, but I placed it here to keep the magic trident consistent, since Ganon has it in ALttP, but not in TLoZ.)
Four Swords Adventures
The Legend of Zelda
The Adventure of Link

I left Phantom Hourglass off the list since it hasn't been released yet. In my opinion, there are nine Links in the timeline above. This is just what I would think the single timeline would be if I were to choose.

That's the problem, though. It is a fantasy universe, so a single timeline isn't a law that must be followed. Why have animes and other TV shows made gaidens if it is a law that gaidens suck?

I can, however, see a reason to believe in any of the three timeline theories discussed. There are pros and cons to both of them.

Let me end with this.

WHAT?!

See, I made another mistake. I am human (at least to all of my understanding...). Let me fix what I said. I am human. I do make mistakes. I do bash people who do not always deserve it. I get a big ego a lot. I am sorry.

I have another analogy. You (everyone debating on this thread) and I take a test in school. I score a 54%, and you score a 35%. While 54% > 35%, we both still failed the test. That is the way it is with our theories. I have realized this all along, but I never really thought about it. Though by some standards, my theory is better, and by other standards, your theory is better, but in the end, neither of the theories pass the "fact" test. As many of you have said before, they are theories, not facts. I understand and fully acknowledge that now.

I am sorry for saying that my standard of timeline theorizing is better than yours. I have a very strict standard, and others may not follow it. I still believe the gaiden theory is correct, but I'm not saying that I believe in that theory any more passionately than you all believe in the single timeline or split timeline.

Though I do not believe that truth is relative, and my beliefs are still the same, I appologize for having such an attitude about it. What made me realize this?

Man, does Vertiboy remind anybody else of Mike and Luigi64?

Yeah, I've debated with Luigi64 before, and it is not fun. I do not think that I am as bad as him (at least I can give a logical reason for why I believe what I believe), but I know that it isn't fun, and I know that I debate for fun, so I am a douchebag for taking that enjoyment away from you all.

The analogy above with the cars is just to help put my beliefs into perspective. I wrote it before I read the remark about Luigi64, so if I am a little harsh in it, then you know why.

That's it, I guess. We can debate about other topics on this thread. After all, it was originally about more than just the gaiden theory. Still, I see no reason to continue the debate on the gaiden theory unless anyone feels it is neccisary. If we do, I will try not to be such a jerk this time.

P.S.:

That was in response to either me or Arturo. Anyway, can somebody please point out an instance in which Arturo or I acted like two-year olds (not counting the ironic statement at the beginning of this post, assuming that'd count)? I'm seriously drawing a blank here. I thought we were making valid points (though I didn't pay enough attention to know what all was said by Arturo).

That wasn't directed at you or Arturo. Truthfully, I don't always look at the name of the person who is posting, and sometimes, when I am extra busy, I will look over the post of certain people all together. It isn't always because I think that they are acting like children. From what I have read, not you nor Arturo is guilty of acting juvenile. If you haven't been name calling, or using counterpoints like, "ur 7h30ry !$ 73h $uck$ $0 ! w!11 ign0r3 !7!!!11!!1112111!!!1" then it wasn't directed at you.

Edited by Vertiboy, 31 December 2006 - 08:06 PM.

[BourgeoisJerry]

Okay, gonna skip most of your post since I don't really need this post to be incredibly long and the main reason I was arguing with you in the first place seems to be dying down.

Yeah, I've debated with Luigi64 before, and it is not fun. I do not think that I am as bad as him (at least I can give a logical reason for why I believe what I believe), but I know that it isn't fun, and I know that I debate for fun, so I am a douchebag for taking that enjoyment away from you all.

You're not nearly as bad as he is. The only thing that's really been annoying about you is your claiming your theory to be better by counting assumptions. That'd be sort of like simply counting the cons listed on a car report rather than paying attention to what those cons actually are. You end up with a car with only one flaw, but that one flaw could be something as minor as lack of cup holders or major as terrible steering. The fact is that none of us can accurately gauge how accurate a theory is, and saying a given assumption has a 50% chance of being true is just as meaningless as saying it has an 80% chance of being true.

That's it, I guess. We can debate about other topics on this thread. After all, it was originally about more than just the gaiden theory. Still, I see no reason to continue the debate on the gaiden theory unless anyone feels it is neccisary. If we do, I will try not to be such a jerk this time.

It's not the gaiden theory I have a problem with, it's just you making claims about the accuracy of your theory when in reality the only claim you can make is that it has a small list of assumptions. The theory itself can easily enough be debated in other ways, but treating a test in which correct answers to different questions are worth different amounts of points as if all correct answers are equal and claiming to have done the best simply because you got the fewest answers wrong is annoyingly arrogant. We won't know how we all did until the final test scores are posted, so until then we really have no way of knowing for sure who was closest to scoring 100%.

[Vertiboy]

When I type this post, keep in mind that I now fully acknowledge that the problems a theory has are not always equal, and I do not always think that assumptions can be used to measure the validity of a theory. I stress the not always.

Anyway, it still wouldn't hurt us to look at the problems of each theory. Ever since playing Twilight Princess, I have pretty much given up the gaiden theory, so I don't plan on mentioning it. I am a supporter of the split timeline now.

Single Timeline (OoT->MM->TP->TWW->Other Games)
1. Is Ganon revived after TWW?
2. Is Hyrule refounded after TWW, contrary to the King of Hyrule's wish?
3. Is the Master Sword rediscovered after TWW?
4. Is the Triforce rediscovered after TWW?
5. Is the Hero of Time legend in TWW wrong about the Triforce of Courage?

Split Timeline (OoT [Child]->MM->TP->Other Games AND OoT [Adult]->TWW)
1. Does the Hero of Time leave the Master Sword in the adult timeline, effectively "cloning" one for each timeline?
2. Does the Hero of Time leave the Triforce of Courage in the adult timeline, effectively "cloning" one for each timeline?
3. Is there some reason why the Legend of the Fairy can describe events in the child timeline, even though TWW takes place in the adult timeline?

Those are the problems in both theories that, while solvable, cannot be proven with the current canon. Any thoughts?

[Showsni]

What about other theories? My single timeline doesn't have any of those particular listed problems.

[SOAP]

When I type this post, keep in mind that I now fully acknowledge that the problems a theory has are not always equal, and I do not always think that assumptions can be used to measure the validity of a theory. I stress the not always.

Anyway, it still wouldn't hurt us to look at the problems of each theory. Ever since playing Twilight Princess, I have pretty much given up the gaiden theory, so I don't plan on mentioning it. I am a supporter of the split timeline now.

Single Timeline (OoT->MM->TP->TWW->Other Games)
1. Is Ganon revived after TWW?
2. Is Hyrule refounded after TWW, contrary to the King of Hyrule's wish?
3. Is the Master Sword rediscovered after TWW?
4. Is the Triforce rediscovered after TWW?
5. Is the Hero of Time legend in TWW wrong about the Triforce of Courage?

Split Timeline (OoT [Child]->MM->TP->Other Games AND OoT [Adult]->TWW)
1. Does the Hero of Time leave the Master Sword in the adult timeline, effectively "cloning" one for each timeline?
2. Does the Hero of Time leave the Triforce of Courage in the adult timeline, effectively "cloning" one for each timeline?
3. Is there some reason why the Legend of the Fairy can describe events in the child timeline, even though TWW takes place in the adult timeline?

Those are the problems in both theories that, while solvable, cannot be proven with the current canon. Any thoughts?

I don't understand why people believe the ToC has to be "cloned" from the from one in the future in in order for Link to have it in the past. He always had it, from the moment he first entered the Sacred Realm as a child, had it all those whole seven years he was in stasis, and continues to have it the remainder of the game. Her didn't obtian it in the future. He had it all along. He just never realizes he has it until he confront Ganon for the final time and all three peices begin to resonate among them.

While still speculative, Link must've been sent back to a point in time to after he already opened the Sacred realm and the Triforce split, but according to TP, it had to have been before Ganondorf gained dominion over Sacred Realm and kept the Sages from intially hearing their awakening call. Thus an alternate timeline follows where his seven year reign ends before it even begins and the Sages awakened in what I believe is their true forms bring him to justice.

However, they don't take in account that the Triforce had split though and Ganondorf had a piece until he uses it to revive himself after they execute him. He kills one of them and the Sages rush to to the Twilight Mirror and seal him in the Twilight Realm.

[Arturo]

I don't understand why people believe the ToC has to be "cloned" from the from one in the future in in order for Link to have it in the past. He always had it, from the moment he first entered the Sacred Realm as a child, had it all those whole seven years he was in stasis, and continues to have it the remainder of the game. Her didn't obtian it in the future. He had it all along. He just never realizes he has it until he confront Ganon for the final time and all three peices begin to resonate among them.

It is a requirement of the Split Timeline. In a Single Timeline it isn't nmecessary, but in the Split it is, because there are two timelines, so there must be two ToC.

[Vertiboy]

What about other theories? My single timeline doesn't have any of those particular listed problems.

As far as OoT, MM, and TWW are concerned, I see no problems at all. Overall, however, some people may view it as a problem that you don't have OoT as the first Triforce saga game. I personally believe that OoT is the first (Triforce) game, but it seems as if nothing in the timeline is set in stone anymore. Either that, or we never knew what was set in stone to begin with.

With that being said, the regular single and split theories have their share of overall problems, too, so it's not like your theory sucks or anything because of the placement of OoT.

I don't understand why people believe the ToC has to be "cloned" from the from one in the future in in order for Link to have it in the past.

Even after the Hero of Time is sent back to his childhood, TWW, in the theoretical adult timeline, has the Triforce of Courage. Twilight Princess and other games, in the theoretical child timeline, has the Triforce of Courage.

If the Hero of Time no longer exist in the adult timeline because he went back to his childhood and changed the future, then the Triforce of Courage and the Master Sword would have to either be in one timeline or the other.

Or so I thought.

In Majora's Mask, your Hero's Shield can be stolen. If you play the Song of Time and travel back to Day 1, you will have your shield again. Theoretically, the same principle applies to the split timeline. Before getting sent back to the child timeline, Link gives Zelda the Ocarina of Time. Theoretically, he could leave the ToC and MS in the adult timeline, then when he arrives in the child timeline, he will have the ToC, MS, and OoT. That would theoretically "clone" the ToC and MS (and maybe the OoT if a future game in the adult timeline uses it), leaving one copy of each in each timeline.

Also in MM, Link can get a bow, go back in time to before he obtained the bow, and he will still have it. The same applies to the ToC in theory. Even if he is sent back before Ganondorf entered the SR and touched the Triforce, he would still have the ToC.

Edited by Vertiboy, 17 January 2007 - 02:26 PM.

[SOAP]

Correct me if I was wrong but wasn't I the one who first suggested that theory Showsni and you kinda adopted it? I don't know but with so many things no longer set in stone, OoT might as well be after ALttP.

[Showsni]

Correct me if I was wrong but wasn't I the one who first suggested that theory Showsni and you kinda adopted it? I don't know but with so many things no longer set in stone, OoT might as well be after ALttP.

Maybe you suggested it, but I definitely adopted on my own before that, I think. In fact, I remember coming up with it shortly after completing Wind Waker, lying in bed one night, based on the picture at the start of Wind Waker and thinking about the ALttP manga. Viz. thinking what if Ganon's returning to Hyrule via the Death Mountain SR portal, which wasn't sealed in OoT because everyone had forgotten it?

[SOAP]

I remember it wasn't in your sig until then. but it was too long ago for me to be certian. I just remember you were one of the few that actualy like the idea when I suggested it.