138 replies to this topic

[Chaltab]

Er, yeah, well, the topic title pretty much sums it up. Anybody here left in favor of the single-timeline theory?

I don't really think that Twilight Princess has a huge effect on the timeline. It simply proves what many split and single-timeliners alike assumed for years--that in the Past, after Zelda sent Link back in time, Ganondorf was excecuted.

[Showsni]

I still prefer a single timeline at heart. And I don't like any kind of OoT future erasal, either...

Naturally, a split timeline is a lot easier than a single one. But then, that's kind of cheating, based on my approach to timelining, which means that for my personal satisfaction I have to come up with a good single theory.

[Chaltab]

My timeline does mostly erase the OOT future. Link and Zelda change the timeline, but the Ganondorf sealed away by the sages still exists. The Triforce of Power that ressurects Ganondorf post excecution, in my timeline, came from Sealed Ganon trying to help Past Ganon, and the TOP being taken away in the end of the game was Sealed Ganon taking it back and using it to ressurect Zant as Aghanim. (Which is admittitedly extremely fanfictiony, but with Aonuma against the single timeline it's not really easy to maintain a coherent single timeline without quite a bit of that.)

[BourgeoisJerry]

I don't really do timelines, but I prefer for all of Ocarina of Time to have happened exactly as it happened in one complete single timeline.

[Duke Serkol]

Maybe this topic should serve as Single Timeliners Reserve (S.T.R.) since they are now an endangered species.
That way the rest of us could drop by in safety vehicles and take pictures as they carry on their ages old activities. Could be a nice break from daily life (one could even work a profit out of it!).


(In case you guys can't tell, I kid. No offense )

[LionHarted]

It's pretty impossible to reconcile "TWW happens after Adult Link defeated Ganon in Ocarina of Time" with "Link went back in time, and as a result of his conversation with Zelda, Ganondorf was executed [leading into TP]", especially when a provision is made for these two situations being "parallel" (i.e., not intersecting).

So, no, I'm not still pro-single. There's nothing wrong with either of the above statements, and the developers made both of them about two different games.

[Vertiboy]

No offense to anyone, but Aonuma made his intentions perfectly clear. If you haven't accepted the split timeline as official by now, you are immune to facts.

Edited by Vertiboy, 28 March 2007 - 08:31 PM.

[FDL]

Yeah, when it comes to actual theorizing and my belief on the storyline, I'm a splitter. But when I think about the story of each individual game and when I play them, I like to only think of whatever games they reference. Such as, when I play ALttP I like to think of it as a sequel to OoT, and when I play TWW I think of it in the entire context of the OoT era, MM and all. But, again, when actively theorizing it's completely different.

[Chaltab]

No offense to anyone, but Aonuma made his intentions perfectly clear. If you haven't accepted the split timeline as official by now, you are immune to facts.

I don't care what Aonuma intended. Aonuma is not Miyamoto; nor does his timeline (or Miyamoto's timeline for that matter) have to reflect the fandom's timelines. When Miyamoto stated what he thought the timeline was after Ocarina, people contradicted it based on facts.

Well?

A split timeline as Aonuma stated it can't account for the Majora's Mask references in "The Wind Waker" or the existence of Tingle in that, or subsequent games. It also forces you to jump through hoops to explain how the Triforce of Courage can hop between timelines. (And yeah, a single timeline means that there is probably a duplicate Triforce of Courage, which is all the better for explaning the AOL backstory.)

It's pretty impossible to reconcile "TWW happens after Adult Link defeated Ganon in Ocarina of Time" with "Link went back in time, and as a result of his conversation with Zelda, Ganondorf was executed [leading into TP]"...

Ganondorf of the Past was excecuted, but the Ganondorf sealed within the Sacred Realm still exists outside of linear time. No contradiction.

Edited by Chaltab, 28 March 2007 - 10:24 PM.

[LionHarted]

Ganondorf of the Past was excecuted, but the Ganondorf sealed within the Sacred Realm still exists outside of linear time. No contradiction.

Two Triforces, one timeline?

That's more or less what you're arguing.

A split timeline as Aonuma stated it can't account for the Majora's Mask references in "The Wind Waker" or the existence of Tingle in that, or subsequent games. It also forces you to jump through hoops to explain how the Triforce of Courage can hop between timelines.

1) The Majora's Mask references were intended originally, but the enforcement of the split makes them null and void. Ever heard of a retcon? This is most certainly an example of one.
2) The existence of Tingle doesn't matter at all. Termina has a lot of characters present in Hyrule.
3) The Triforce of Courage doesn't have to jump between timelines. Ganondorf just has to touch the Triforce in both.

Edited by LionHarted, 28 March 2007 - 10:53 PM.

[The Missing Link]

*raises his hand* I have to join you on this one. I'm devoted too much time to the STT that I can't change now; that'd kill off my fan-novel/fan-history. I just cannot do it.

No offense to anyone, but Aonuma made his intentions perfectly clear. If you haven't accepted the split timeline as official by now, you are immune to facts.

With all due respect, Vertiboy, shut the hell up.

Yes, Aonuma said what he said; I think we're all competent enough to read it. I think that most of us have accepted the fact that he said it. I think most of us have accepted that future Zelda titles may likely continue down the road of a two-pronged timeline. I think most of us have accepted that we'll be talking about the split timeline more. I think most of us have accepted that, yay, split timeline for the win. That doesn't mean we have to like it. That doesn't mean we have to prefer it. That doesn't mean we have to consider it a superior timeline. That doesn't mean we have to drink your special Kool-aid and revel in it.

Besides, as far as I'm concerned, the AST (or you can call it Aonuma Standard Split, your choice) is about as contradictory as a strict linear timeline. We've got a whole thread devoted to trying to figure how anything else fits in with Aonuma's master plan, and so far I've yet to see much come out of it. The moment I see someone fit A Link to the Past cleanly into a two-pronged timeline (which, by the way, is precisely what Aonuma confirmed) is the day that I'll give split/parallel timeliners my permission to be cocky about the win over linearism. (Yes, I'll admit you've won, but it's still far from a flawless victory.) But until then, save your words of admonishment; instead, try and do something useful, like fixing your own timeline.

(By the way, as a small debating tip, if you're going to say the words "no offence to anyone," don't immediately proceed it with something as overtly inflammatory as "you are immune to facts." As you might have noticed, I did the very same thing as you with my first sentence, and I can imagine that you're not going to believe that I respect you worth a lick for saying that.)

Edited by The Missing Link, 29 March 2007 - 12:41 AM.

[spunky-monkey]

I don't care what Aonuma intended. Aonuma is not Miyamoto; nor does his timeline (or Miyamoto's timeline for that matter) have to reflect the fandom's timelines. When Miyamoto stated what he thought the timeline was after Ocarina, people contradicted it based on facts.

We've already said Shigeru Miyamoto never really cared about storyline as much as gameplay; being a games designer his priority was to make the adventures as engaging and playable for the audience as possible. That's why Zelda franchise is often considered the epitome of that specific genre.

Aonuma is taking over from Miyamoto (let's face facts the guy's getting older, and sadly won't be around forever) who also constantly needs to supervise other projects in R&D, and Eiji is now in charge of the series but unlike Shigsy, actually cares about retconning all the existing games to each other.

Disregarding what the creators say shows us you don't care about a Zelda chronology in the first place.

Edited by Ricky, 29 March 2007 - 03:41 AM.

[The Missing Link]

Disregarding what the creators say shows us you don't care about a Zelda chronology in the first place.

The opinions of the creators are possibly as transitory as any timeliner's; if a new game comes along and they get a new idea for how to relate games in there, they can certainly reverse course and plunge in a new direction. (Look at Twilight; while the comment that this is true is, unfortunately, off the record, I think there's a lot of evidence to support this.) Furthermore, a creator's influence over the Zelda series--while it exists over a much longer cycle of time--will wane as eventually someone else will be thrown in to replace him or her, and that could have even a larger impact on the series' direction. (After all, look at the gradation of influence from Miyamoto to Aonuma after time; even the timeline fragment that Aonuma provided is still broken or ugly in many ways because of that mishmash of influence.)

In this case, the overall timeline--from the creators' perspective--is more fluid than I think most people realise. We can follow the creators' comments as much as we want, but that will not always take us in a straight line from here to Chinatown. I can almost bet that one of these days some idea will change, and we'll be reversing track and thinking along a new tangent. Which means, historically speaking, that we were clearly in the "wrong" school of thought for some period of time... and that the creator himself (the very epitome of being "right") stood there as well with us. Therefore, the definition of "right" becomes quite paradoxical indeed.

Given the possibility of that issue, I am firmly adamant that following the storyline of the games will continue to be 3000% more canonical than the official opinion about the games (thereby making the latter irrelevant by comparison). I believe, like all works of art, that multiple meanings can be derived from it, and that uniformity of thought--even uniformity to the original artist's perspective--is not necessary. Such opinions should be considered and taken into account, of course, and cannot be denied, but alternate opinions are not necessarily wrong or inferior... just different.

However, I'm one of the few that apparently believe this concept, so I won't defend it further. I'm merely stating my long-held stance on this issue and leaving it there.

(P.S. If this by any means sounds grumpy or mean, I blame this due to the fact that I'm tired and potentially irritable, and I apologise for that. I think this sounds fine, but I have certain faith that my grumpiness filter is certainly off by this hour.)

Edited by The Missing Link, 29 March 2007 - 04:56 AM.

[Raien]

Although there is flexibility in the timeline, often that flexibility is due to how areas of the timeline are addressed by the developers. Before Aonuma, all the Zelda games were made to address their sequels (the predecessing games). Then Aonuma worked in a normal fashion and made every one of the main console games sequels to Ocarina of Time, effectively locking out any direct connections to the 2D games.

The FS saga is especially interesting because after TWW, there were two FS games being developed at the same time, by two different development teams. TMC was developed by Capcom, and the director reiterated that TMC-FS were meant to take place at the beginning of the timeline. However, the FSA team worked to base the game on ALTTP, since the team previously made ALTTP. As a result, TMC & FSA were not made with the same understanding of location and characters, which created inconsistencies. For example, FSA said that the Palace of Winds was built by Vaati, yet TMC told us that the Palace of Winds was built by the Wind Tribe.

[Vertiboy]

No, by all means, nobody has to like the split timeline. Yes, the Legend of the Fairy is a contradiction. That's because it is a video game, not real life. The geography of Hyrule has a loose continuity, and I don't see (much of) anyone complaining about that.

I can't make anyone accept the split timeline as fact, either. The fact of the matter is, though, Aonuma directed The Wind Waker and Twilight Princess, and it is his creation, not any of yours. If he says that there is a split timeline as far as his games are concerned, then so be it. Tell me where any of you think that you have the authority to say that the split timeline isn't official. When it is between the words of the director of a Zelda game and the opinions of the fans on the forums, I'd choose the director's words. I don't know if you egomaniacs can handle that, the fact that you have no authority whatsoever over what is a part of the official Zelda timeline, but it isn't up to me, or else I would let you have control just so you guys will stop complaining about it.

What if I came in saying that I don't like the idea of multiple Links? Someone would tell me that it is a fact and that I am ignorant for thinking otherwise. I am just doing the same. The split timeline is official. You don't have to like it, and you don't have to accept it. Heck, there are people around the world who deny that the Holocaust happened. If people can be ignorant enough to deny that, then surely you can ignore the facts and stick with your own opinion as well.

[Vertiboy]

Deleted.

Edited by Vertiboy, 29 March 2007 - 03:54 PM.

[MikePetersSucks]

*Arrests Vertiboy for poaching an endangered species for their hides*

[Duke Serkol]

*Gasps!* How could he!

[Vertiboy]

*Arrests Vertiboy for poaching an endangered species for their hides*

I swear, it was an accident! I was just stating facts, and they jumped right in front of me! I didn't mean it!

[The Missing Link]

I can't make anyone accept the split timeline as fact, either. The fact of the matter is, though, Aonuma directed The Wind Waker and Twilight Princess, and it is his creation, not any of yours. If he says that there is a split timeline as far as his games are concerned, then so be it. Tell me where any of you think that you have the authority to say that the split timeline isn't official.

So far, I am in complete and total agreement with you on this....

When it is between the words of the director of a Zelda game and the opinions of the fans on the forums, I'd choose the director's words.

And you have every right to do so. No problems here.

I don't know if you egomaniacs can handle that, the fact that you have no authority whatsoever over what is a part of the official Zelda timeline, but it isn't up to me, or else I would let you have control just so you guys will stop complaining about it.

Stop the tape!

Alright, I see where you're going with this. I know exactly what you're doing here, and you're wrong. Dead wrong.

(1) You speak of this whole timeline debate as if it matters to someone. This, unlike such things as the Holocaust or political stances, doesn't matter one iota in the grand scheme of life. Here's a clue: The world doesn't stop the moment that someone decides to not care about the official stance about the Zelda timeline. No one dies over it. No one gets hurt over it. Heck, no one's feelings should even be affected by it, yours included. If I choose to believe something different than the AST, why should you care? I don't promote my belief. I don't force you to believe what I believe. And I don't promote linearism as the great solution to all things. So what if I'm detached from "reality" and "facts" (as if the Zelda timeline is "reality" or "factual" to begin with)... These things are not worth spending hours and hours worrying over. Oh noes! Someone out there might choose to not care what Aonuma says. What a tragedy! Sure, uh huh... (Though if you are so worried, you might start your evangelical revolution over at the other forums at Legends Alliance. I'm sure you'll find a ton of people who aren't in this forum that don't care a whit what Aonuma said.)

(2) You speak as if we linearists are trying to say what the official timeline is. Bollywocks. Correct me if I'm wrong, but I don't think that any of us are trying to say that Aonuma can't have his opinion. For that matter, I also don't think any of us are saying that his opinion isn't official. What we are saying, at the very worst, is that his opinion sucks, that his opinion--however official it might be--is no better a solution for the whole series than half of the ideas that we've come up with already, and that includes to some extent linearism. Just because we think that linearism is a better solution doesn't mean we're trying to cast that as the official timeline. I can't speak for everyone, but as far as I'm concerned, I believe what I believe knowing full well that I'm defying Nintendo's belief. So what? Is the timeline police going to come after me and throw me in jail? Last I checked, we didn't have one of those, and so I'm perfectly capable of having my own opinion regardless of how far off the official stance I am.

What if I came in saying that I don't like the idea of multiple Links? Someone would tell me that it is a fact and that I am ignorant for thinking otherwise. I am just doing the same. The split timeline is official. You don't have to like it, and you don't have to accept it. Heck, there are people around the world who deny that the Holocaust happened. If people can be ignorant enough to deny that, then surely you can ignore the facts and stick with your own opinion as well.

Then I would ask you point blank WHY you believe what you believe. And if you gave a decent answer, then you know what? I'd defend you tooth and nail. You seem to be incapable of distinguishing between what a belief someone holds and why someone holds that belief, as if the former justifies the lack of the latter. The what is the least important thing you should be worrying about when why a belief is held is so much more important. If you can reasonably justify a belief--no matter how insane it sounds--then that is better than merely parroting Aonuma's word without being able to explain WHY you believe it.

[Hero of Legend]

If you want to make up a story, then make your own story. Write a fan fiction. Do whatever. Do not confuse it with, or try and pass it off as timelineing though, because it simply is not. Yes, searching for the "truth" in Zelda is meaningless, but so are the entirety of our lives, and I still don't see anyone trying to make an action movie out of Titanic.

Not that I'm trying to stop you from attempting, but it still seems kinda pointless to me...

And TML, you really should change that AST thing of yours. AST is BS*, if you get my point.

* Ancient Stone Tablets and BS Zelda, just so I don't get warned again.

Edited by Hero of Legend, 29 March 2007 - 04:36 PM.

[Showsni]

Do not confuse it with, or try and pass it off as timelineing though, because it simply is not.

And what exactly is "timelineing"? Putting the games in an order you like? If so, then there's nothing at all wrong with TML's approach. Or is it trying to discover the one true timeline that Aonuma et. al. know about, but haven't told us? If so, that's quite a different matter. Timelining means different things to different people. If person A's definition is "starting with the premise that each game is an ancient legend that's been passed down to us, I will attempt to knit together the history of Hyrule, filling in gaps with conjectures if necessary" and person B's is "using all available information from the makers of the games I will try to work out how they want the series to fit together" then both methods are fine for that person, and shouldn't be derided as wrong by anyone.

No timeline can be viewed as wrong simply because you don't accept the timeliners premise for timelining.

[Hero of Legend]

Technically it can.

And I assume that people want to figure out the truth about the Zelda timeline. If not, there is already another term for them to use, and its called fan fiction.

[Vertiboy]

*A bunch of stuff that I'm not going to quote because it will take up too much space.*

Okay, I understand now. I thought that you guys were refusing to believe that the split timeline was official, but I was wrong. I misunderstood, and I am sorry.

I want to clarify something, though. In my example of the Holocaust, I wasn't trying to imply that the Zelda timeline was significant or important to the world. The connection that I was trying to make was that if people could deny an event that big, then people could surely deny something as insignificant as the Zelda timeline. I see that you aren't saying that you believe that the single timeline is official. In my first post on this thread, I read the title and assumed that it meant if there are still any people who still believe that the single timeline is official. I don't know if that is what it implied, but at least I understand your goals regarding the single timeline now.

Basically, I misunderstood and thought that this was a "what is fact" thread, when it was really a "what do you think works best" thread.

[The Missing Link]

Okay, I understand now. I thought that you guys were refusing to believe that the split timeline was official, but I was wrong. I misunderstood, and I am sorry.

In that case, then no hard feelings. We're on the same page, and that's good.

If you want to make up a story, then make your own story. Write a fan fiction. Do whatever. Do not confuse it with, or try and pass it off as timelineing though, because it simply is not. Yes, searching for the "truth" in Zelda is meaningless, but so are the entirety of our lives, and I still don't see anyone trying to make an action movie out of Titanic.

Already did, actually. It exists in its own separate world that is not here, though.

And TML, you really should change that AST thing of yours. AST is BS*, if you get my point.

* Ancient Stone Tablets and BS Zelda, just so I don't get warned again.

We could always go with my alternate suggestion of "Aonuma Standard Split."

[Hero of Legend]

Already did, actually. It exists in its own separate world that is not here, though.

Would that be Titanic or your own fan fiction? *Humor* Anyway, if indeed the latter, yeah, so I heard. I'd read it if I didn't always get so riled up on details that I disagree with... Go figure.

And just so we are clear, my point was that if a fan that does not care for the true timeline was to debate with me, I'd have a hard time finding the point of it. When two people play by different rules, well, let’s just say the game rarely leads anywhere.

We could always go with my alternate suggestion of "Aonuma Standard Split."

Ass? Oh, Captain TML, you are a bold one! The Sith mods are sure to get you for this!

Edited by Hero of Legend, 29 March 2007 - 07:11 PM.

[Duke Serkol]

We could always go with my alternate suggestion of "Aonuma Standard Split."

I'm all for it (knowing what it would come out as only makes it funnier). Fyxe would kill you though (and you still haven't told me how my theories would conflict with it )

Edited by Duke Serkol, 29 March 2007 - 07:11 PM.

[The Missing Link]

Would that be Titanic or your own fan fiction? *Humor* Anyway, if indeed the latter, yeah, so I heard. I'd read it if I didn't always get so riled up on details that I disagree with... Go figure.

Yes, that is to what I refer.

And just so we are clear, my point was that if a fan that does not care for the true timeline was to debate with me, I'd have a hard time finding the point of it. When two people play by different rules, well, let’s just say the game rarely leads anywhere.

That's at least fair. There at least is a place for which talking about which timeline actually functions better is a fair discussion, but for many of these topics, that isn't the place for it.

Ass? Oh, Captain TML, you are a bold one! The Sith mods are sure to get you for this!

Oh c'mon, you have to admit it's clever. Besides, what I wouldn't do to be able to shove linearism up your Aonuma Standard Split. </joke> (Sadly, half of the people over at ZeldaBlog never got that joke. *cry*)

I'm all for it (knowing what it would come out as only makes it funnier). Fyxe would kill you though (and you still haven't told me how my theories would conflict with it )

Well, at some level, the alternate acronym does epitomise the frustrations we are experiencing with this theory in manufacturing a full-fledged timeline. However, I'll leave our discussion about precisely how you're wrong () for another time. Here in the Single Timeliners Reserve, we don't talk about the split if only because we get sniped at enough outside of the fences.

[Fyxe]

We could always go with my alternate suggestion of "Aonuma Standard Split."

Or just call it a fucking parallel timeline like he did. For god's sake. We don't need any more bloody acronyms. Blasted nerdoholics draining the fun from reality. Work in an office if you love acronyms. o.o

[The Missing Link]

Or just call it a fucking parallel timeline like he did.

Fyxe, what a splendid idea! FPT it is!

Edited by The Missing Link, 30 March 2007 - 11:51 AM.