255 replies to this topic

[Vertiboy]

Before I begin, let me say that I believe the split timeline. I believed it before the new interview came out where Aonuma reiterated the idea of a split timeline (in detail, just to make sure we understand). Anyway, my question is why would Aonuma choose the split timeline? To me, it seems too complex for the casual Zelda fan. As one of Zelda Legend's articles said, if someone new to Zelda played the two newest 3-D Zelda games, Ganondorf's death at the end of both games might confuse people. Hardcore fans like us who come to a forum specifically to debate the timeline don't have a problem understanding it. We've looked into the timeline a little more than others. I just don't understand why he would want to make it more complex than it needs to be. If fans like us can't agree about the events between the child ending of OoT and the execution flashback of TP, then how will a casual fan understand?

Back before MM came out, the timeline was simple: OoT, ALttP, LA, TLoZ, then TAoL. Granted, there were only five games back then, but still, we don't have to worry about the exact order of events between the games or what game goes in what branch of the timeline.

I understand that is why some choose to follow the single timeline, but instead of being confusing because of different branches, it's confusing because of all the plot holes and inconsistencies.

That's why I don't see why Aonuma could have stuck with something easy for more casual fans to understand. What about a game telling us how Ganon got the Triforce of Courage and Wisdom between OoT and ALttP, or how they got there in the first place (did Link and Zelda have those Triforce all along?). What about a game between LA and TLoZ focusing on Ganon's revival and TAoL's backstory? I guess he could have did it for creativity, but still, OoT shows us how you can be creative even when you are telling a game's backstory (the Imprisoning War). I guess he could have also chose a split timeline in order to get the casual fans to buy the older games and play them to understand what's going on. Or maybe he had us hardcore fans in mind, wanting to give us a more complex series. What do you think?

[MikePetersSucks]

The casual fan probably doesn't give a damn or doesn't even know the interview even exists, so I don't see a problem. It was an interview directed at the timeline theorists. Plus it would've never been easy. A Simple Single Timeline is impossible once they throw in TWW. Hell, maybe even before then.

A split timeline isn't complex. Just unconventional. And it's nothing that isn't in thousands of other media.

[Gibdo Master]

Well, it kind of gives them more possibilities as far as stories go.

I mean, if they paint themselves into a corner, as they seem to have done with WW, then they can just move over to the other time line.

Honestly, I don't really see this whole thing as being any different than the revelation that there is more than one Link and Zelda.

It just opens up more possibilities and allows them to dig themselves out of any holes they've created.

Edited by Gibdo Master, 10 March 2007 - 12:45 AM.

[The Missing Link]

The casual fan probably doesn't give a damn or doesn't even know the interview even exists, so I don't see a problem.

Two thumbs up.

Actually you could easily spice that up with the "if the timeline truly mattered, they wouldn't have messed it up to kingdom come to begin with" sauce and it'd be even more appetising.

Well, it kind of gives them more possibilities as far as stories go.

Naturally. Inevitably, unless there's a conceited effort from the get go to keep things tied in very strictly over time, such is the inevitable fate. The jump from having one Link to two Links is a major jump in artistic liberty, not to mention 3, 4, 5, and 6 Links. Going from one timeline to two is even more so because they can effectively start over. And then later down the road, they'll create inevitably gaiden timelines, alternate universes, and completely isolated games whenever they don't want to be tied down to the past.

It's a good direction, I think, for the series to go, if only because it doesn't limit the creators to force themselves the same-old same-old every time. However, like an armageddon clock, each tick comes closer to the inevitable day when the timeline will be shattered beyond salvation, and no amount of extraneous theory will be able to save it. The ratchet only goes one way.

[SOAP]

Guys you're being way too over dramatic. At least it's just ONE split. It's not like Stargate SG-1 where you have all these confusing timeline splits, alternate realities, parallel dimensions, time loops and God knows what else. I'm suprised the spinoff series is totally unaffected by of SG-1 crazy time travel shenanigans.

[spunky-monkey]

Before I begin, let me say that I believe the split timeline. I believed it before the new interview came out where Aonuma reiterated the idea of a split timeline (in detail, just to make sure we understand). Anyway, my question is why would Aonuma choose the split timeline?

Why not? I've known since after completing Ocarina of Time there were two different alternate endings, which was way back in 1998/1999, so I'm surprised everyone else who believed in a single timeline has clung to their theories for so long.

Hardcore fans like us who come to a forum specifically to debate the timeline don't have a problem understanding it.

Strictly speaking, we can't call ourselves "hardcore fans" unless we own every single game and last bit of merchandise the Zelda series has to offer. Yes, that does include the CDi games. >=O

The casual fan probably doesn't give a damn or doesn't even know the interview even exists, so I don't see a problem.

Your casual gamer doesn't give a hoot for storyline though. Anyone can choose to ignore information that's given to them but this would eventually hinder them whenever they encounter people who take it as fact.

A split timeline isn't complex. Just unconventional.

To add to this, I would say the split timeline is only inconvenient to those fans who stuck by their single timeline.

[Fyxe]

Ahem...

PARALLEL.

Yes.

Edited by Fyxe, 10 March 2007 - 08:37 AM.

[Arturo]

No, it is ColoUr.

[Fyxe]

Um, it IS colour.

[Tekky]

Guys you're being way too over dramatic. At least it's just ONE split. It's not like Stargate SG-1 where you have all these confusing timeline splits, alternate realities, parallel dimensions, time loops and God knows what else. I'm suprised the spinoff series is totally unaffected by of SG-1 crazy time travel shenanigans.

Not to mention a program like Doctor Who, which is based on Time Travel!! Thinking about it gives me a headache...

[Duke Serkol]

why would Aonuma choose the split timeline? To me, it seems too complex for the casual Zelda fan.

Well, personally I'm still hoping for them to consider the child timeline concluded and start moving into a new direction with the adult one.
Before TWW came out and persuaded me of the split timeline's existence, I had been hoping that new Zelda games would begin telling us the story of a new land, like Termina, because we've already gone over the whole "Ganon tries to conquer Hyrule but gets killed/banished" so many times it's not funny.
TWW's ending is anexcellent chance to do just that, give the series a fresh new start in whatever new land Link and Tetra may find. Of course whater this actually happens (and is thus proven to be the reason they chose to go with this split, remains to be seen)

Why not? I've known since after completing Ocarina of Time there were two different alternate endings

Thumbs up Ricks, me I only managed to accept it when TWW came out (showing that this other timeline would not be neglected)

Strictly speaking, we can't call ourselves "hardcore fans" unless we own every single game and last bit of merchandise the Zelda series has to offer. Yes, that does include the CDi games. >=O

Maybe that's a bit too much... but I guess it does make me one

casual gamer doesn't give a hoot for storyline though.

Good point. I guess that's ultimately the reason they could pull this off, because casual gamers don't care, and hardcore ones can appreciate it (guess they might have given up on an ongoing story that can appeal to the masses... all the better for us hardcore )

[MikePetersSucks]

TML brung up a good point. Soon, Zelda will be like Marvel Comics.

*imagines a game where a bunch of Links from alternate universes fight in a single adventure*

LOL, a four player game device without the Four Sword.

[SOAP]

Ahem...

PARALLEL.

Yes.

Ahem...

Parellel world CREATED by a timeline split.

Edited by SOAP, 10 March 2007 - 02:14 PM.

[D~N]

Ahem...

SAME THING

Geeze, everyone's having a canary because of a couple 'a words.
Listen and listen good:

A Split Timeline derives from OoT's ending. A Parallel timline is a Split Timeline, with one difference. In a parallel, the timeline-split still derives from OoT's ending. However, certain games LINE UP. As such, TWW lines up with TP; Ganon dies in both endings. Ergo, these two games are parallel. Parallel. Parallel In a split, they are still in opposite timelines, but no such occurance is believed to happen.

I'm just getting that out of the way, so that this thread doesn't explode like the other one had.

Back on topic, I have a very wishy-washy opinion on this. For one, I used to be a casual fan, so I know what it's like. If I got confused, I'd stop playing Zelda. So if this ends up confusing casual players, that woun't be good for Nintendo. On the other hand, being confused about TWW is what made my come to LA in the first place. So I dunno. As long as this makes the timeline more fluid, and doesn't get TOO confusing for the casual player, I'm happy about this decision.

Who knows, maybe this will make it easier for casual gamers, too! That'd be ideal.

Edited by D~N, 10 March 2007 - 02:41 PM.

[Fyxe]

Back on topic, I have a very wishy-washy opinion on this. For one, I used to be a casual fan, so I know what it's like. If I got confused, I'd stop playing Zelda. So if this ends up confusing casual players, that woun't be good for Nintendo. On the other hand, being confused about TWW is what made my come to LA in the first place. So I dunno. As long as this makes the timeline more fluid, and doesn't get TOO confusing for the casual player, I'm happy about this decision.

I think as long as each game has a solid plot from start to finish, no matter how they connect to other games, then casual players won't give a monkeys.

[Kairu Hakubi]

Wait a minute, so you think that there's not only two timelines, but two timelines in which ganon is dead? Where the hell does that leave all the other obviously-much-later-on games where he's alive?
if you're gonna go purely by G-dorf's situation, you're gonna have a 3-pronged timeline at least... cuz ALttP, TP, and tWW all seem to fall 'directly' after OoT.. and then FSA messes it up worse.
I think Ganondorf's gonna have to be a write-off no matter what timeline you believe in... cuz he just gets into wayyy too much trouble.

[The Missing Link]

Wait a minute, so you think that there's not only two timelines, but two timelines in which ganon is dead? Where the hell does that leave all the other obviously-much-later-on games where he's alive?
if you're gonna go purely by G-dorf's situation, you're gonna have a 3-pronged timeline at least... cuz ALttP, TP, and tWW all seem to fall 'directly' after OoT.. and then FSA messes it up worse.
I think Ganondorf's gonna have to be a write-off no matter what timeline you believe in... cuz he just gets into wayyy too much trouble.

You could always put them before Ocarina.

Or you add fanfiction to make Ganondorf alive in one of the two. I mean, it's not like Ganondorf hasn't ever been resurrected.

Edited by The Missing Link, 10 March 2007 - 03:36 PM.

[MikePetersSucks]

Indeed. Ressurection, reincarnation, etc. When has death EVER stopped Ganon any more permanently than a Seal?

[Vertiboy]

Of course, Four Swords Adventures shows us that Ganon can also just be reborn like Link and Zelda instead of being revived. What's not to say that Ganon has never been successfully revived (Ganon is killed soon after being revived in the Oracles), but is just a new Ganon every time?

[Fyxe]

Problem is, in ALttP's backstory, Ganon was sealed in the Imprisoning War (which we were told was Ocarina of Time).

So what does that mean? THREE parallel timelines?

OoT - ALttP - LA - Oracles - TLoZ - AoL?
OoT - TWW - TMC - FS - FSA?
OoT - TP?

My god, who the hell knows. o.o Well done, splitists, well done, you won, now we're screwed. Chumps!

[Vertiboy]

Problem is, in ALttP's backstory, Ganon was sealed in the Imprisoning War (which we were told was Ocarina of Time).

So what does that mean? THREE parallel timelines?

OoT - ALttP - LA - Oracles - TLoZ - AoL?
OoT - TWW - TMC - FS - FSA?
OoT - TP?

My god, who the hell knows. o.o Well done, splitists, well done, you won, now we're screwed. Chumps!

Even with the split timeline, the timeline is still screwed up. The split timeline only helps explain the inconsistencies between TP and TWW. If Aonuma could somehow work ALttP into the adult timeline as a gaiden, then it would help a lot. The following is one of my theories, but not my main theory. (I guess I don't have a main theory to begin with, though.)

Adult I
TMC->OoT->ALttP->LA->OoA/OoS->TLoZ->TAoL

Adult II
TMC->OoT->TWW->PH

Child I
TMC->OoT->MM->TP->FS->FSA

The debate at hand is not the placement of TMC, FS, or the Oracles, so let's not worry about where I put them for now. What I want to focus on now is FSA. Many people believe that the original timeline was OoT->ALttP->LA->TLoZ->TAoL, all with the same Ganon. I don't know if this is true or not, but if we place FSA between LA and TLoZ, that would mean that TLoZ Ganon wouldn't be the same as ALttP Ganon (unless you consider FSA Ganon to be ALttP Ganon reincarnated). Debate about that how you will, but if you hold the belief that ALttP Ganon is TLoZ Ganon, and that FSA Ganon is a new one, then FSA would work well after TP.

I also know that PH hasn't been released yet, so we don't know if it will connect TWW to ALttP in some way or not. Maybe the Phantom Hourglass is an item that will allow Link to go back in time and prevent Ganon from escaping the Sacred Realm, leading into ALttP. That's fan fiction, though, which is why I did not count on that happening when I made this theory.

[D~N]

Wait a minute, so you think that there's not only two timelines, but two timelines in which ganon is dead? Where the hell does that leave all the other obviously-much-later-on games where he's alive?
if you're gonna go purely by G-dorf's situation, you're gonna have a 3-pronged timeline at least... cuz ALttP, TP, and tWW all seem to fall 'directly' after OoT.. and then FSA messes it up worse.
I think Ganondorf's gonna have to be a write-off no matter what timeline you believe in... cuz he just gets into wayyy too much trouble.

Well, yeah...Is that hard to fathom?

Look at my sig. For those with sigs off, I suppose I'll have to post my timeline anyway.

OoT - MM | TP | TMC | FS - FSA | ALttP - LA | LoZ - AoL | OoX
----╚ -----|TWW - PH |

You see, TP and wind waker line up. They are both the first reincarnation of Link after their seperate endings of OoT. Not only that, but Ganon dies at the end. Ganon's death is not the key here, but the fact that they each the first after OoT is. They line up because of that reason, and Ganon's death PROVES it, rather than the other way around. Now, Ganon is revived in FSA, right? Oh, look what comes next in my timeline! Then, FSA's geography was like ALttP's, right? Oh, look, ALttP comes next. I think my timeline wins, but I'd like to see what others have to say.

Edited by D~N, 10 March 2007 - 06:07 PM.

[SOAP]

Actually the FS games and possibly Oracles, could be yet another Gaiden timeline as well, with no connection with the split caused in OoT whatsoever. A purely parallel reality. We don't know how exactly these games connect with the rest of the series much less the split. Though personally I'd place FSA in the child timeline as well just for the slight pssible connection between the City in the Sky and the Palace of the Winds. If the PotFS is canon then it connects with ALttP as well. Spaeking of ALttP, even though TP pretty much severs OoT's connection to ALttP as the IW, TP's ending still screams of ALttP coming next in the timeline. Perhaps OoT isn't the IW after all and TP leads into the REAL IW. Even considering that it's hard to say where FSA fits into all the mess. It's probably just easier to just use three or even four timelines.

Pre TWW
OoT->ALttP->LA->(OoA/OoS?)->TLoZ->TAoL

Post TWW Split
OoT->TWW->PH
└MM->TP

Four Sword Gaiden
(OoA/OoS?)->TMC->FS->FSA->(OoA/OoS?)

Edited by SOAP, 10 March 2007 - 06:19 PM.

[Vertiboy]

The Oracles can obviously go after a game where Ganon dies, and, in my opinion, do can Four Swords Adventures. How can FSA Ganon be an ancient demon reborn if there was no Ganon before him?

[SOAP]

A previous Ganon could exist, it just doesn't have to be from a previous game. That is if FS series is it's own gaiden timeline. Ganon could have been just another random demon that was locked away in the chest in TMC's backstory and the Ganondorf in FSA just identifies with the demon and later starts taking on his traits after stealing the Trident of Power.

[Fyxe]

Ganon could have been just another random demon that was locked away in the chest in TMC's backstory and the Ganondorf in FSA just identifies with the demon and later starts taking on his traits after stealing the Trident of Power.

I see what you're going for, but there's a fairly major difference between demons (of which Ganon is the only one who's ever been called a proper 'demon') and measly little monsters, mind you.

I don't think the Four Sword games were designed as any type of 'gaiden', personally. The only problem with FSA is that it involves a second Ganondorf (but not necessarily a second Ganon), which shouldn't be much of a shock, considering, well, how many Links have we had now? I mean, we never even see Ganondorf in FSA. He's just some host for Ganon, who has been resurrected regularly in the series before. He's never been resurrected as Ganondorf, just as Ganon. Ganondorf existing again isn't odd, Link and Zelda do it all the time. Heck, MALON does it three times. Lets give poor Ganny a break and let him be reincarnated for once. I mean, he apparently gets taken over by his demonic past self pretty quickly anyway, so feh.

The other problem, of course, is Ganon being sealed in the Four Sword, but that's not really a major problem, it's just a loose end that's never tied up. There's loads of them in the series, and another Four Sword game might bring Ganon back from the sword.

[The Missing Link]

You all are wrong. THIS is the correct timeline:

[SOAP]

I see what you're going for, but there's a fairly major difference between demons (of which Ganon is the only one who's ever been called a proper 'demon') and measly little monsters, mind you.

I don't think the Four Sword games were designed as any type of 'gaiden', personally. The only problem with FSA is that it involves a second Ganondorf (but not necessarily a second Ganon), which shouldn't be much of a shock, considering, well, how many Links have we had now? I mean, we never even see Ganondorf in FSA. He's just some host for Ganon, who has been resurrected regularly in the series before. He's never been resurrected as Ganondorf, just as Ganon. Ganondorf existing again isn't odd, Link and Zelda do it all the time. Heck, MALON does it three times. Lets give poor Ganny a break and let him be reincarnated for once. I mean, he apparently gets taken over by his demonic past self pretty quickly anyway, so feh.

The other problem, of course, is Ganon being sealed in the Four Sword, but that's not really a major problem, it's just a loose end that's never tied up. There's loads of them in the series, and another Four Sword game might bring Ganon back from the sword.

It's not my personal theory. All I'm saying is, if need be, the FS series (with the possible inclusion of Oracles) could exist in it's own separate gaiden timeline from the rest of the series without any relationship to the split caused in OoT. It's my belief though that the FS games take place in the same timeline as TP.

[Crazy Penguin]

Of course, Four Swords Adventures shows us that Ganon can also just be reborn like Link and Zelda instead of being revived.

Not necessarily. It's still very uncertain what the real deal with Ganondorf is in Four Swords Adventures, or when it takes place.

You see, TP and wind waker line up. They are both the first reincarnation of Link after their seperate endings of OoT.

Again, not necessarily. The hero's spirit in Twilight Princess mentions how he wasn't able to pass on his knowledge to "the ones who came after him" (paraphrasing) and it's very possible that the hero's spirit is supposed to be Ocarina of Time's Link.


I'm quite pleased that Kotake and Koume's presence in the Oracle games finally makes sense, if adult Link never killed them in Ocarina of Time then there's nothing stopping them from still being alive post-Twilight Princess. Nintendo should use them as the major villains of the next big game.

[MikePetersSucks]

They've always made sense ever since OOX was released. If he goes back in time at the end of OOT and diverts the game's events, they never have to be killed, Split/Parallel Timeline or not.