340 replies to this topic

[Hero of Legend]

This actually seems to me to point to an Adult-timeline FSA, but that's just me.

Me too, although I take it to be more of an Easter-egg like reference than an actual connection.

Oh, and for the record:

To me storyline is important, and as producer, I am going to be going through, and trying to bring all of these stories together, and kind of make them a little bit more clear.

I see your point, but what proof do you have that Miyamoto didn't have an interest in the story of OoT while producing it? That seems like an opinion to me.

NP: Let's get back to Zelda. You said the game's "System" is more important than its "Story" when you develope a game. Is that true for Zelda this time?

Miyamoto: Yes, but since I have an excellent staff that is strong in every area, I think you'll find that the story-telling is a real strength in this game.

In past, when you thought about Ganon in Zelda, he was a pig. This time, when were collaborating ideas, we thought "He wouldn't be a pig, would he?" There were even some who thought "I don't want him to be a pig." But I still thought that at least the end should have Ganon as a pig. The whole time I wanted to know what Mr. Miyamoto thought, but in the end, I realized that Mr. Miyamoto didn't have an opinion on the matter, so I decided to do it the way I wanted.

Together, these quotes should indicate that Miyamoto pretty much left the story in the hands his team, while he focused on other things.

Edited by Hero of Legend, 04 April 2007 - 02:19 PM.

[Vertiboy]

Miyamoto just said that he thinks that system is more important than story. He did not say that he could care less about the story, though.

Also, the latter quote is very specific. As far as Ganon as a pig at the end of Ocarina of Time was concerned, Miyamoto didn't have an opinion. I really don't see what that effects storywise. Whether we saw pig Ganon or not, would OoT's story have been all that different? Plus, he didn't have an opinion on the specific matter of pig Ganon. We don't know what he thought about other elements of the story, like whether or not Ganondorf gets the entire Triforce, how specific the writers were about what happened the 7 years Link was in the Chamber of the Sages, etc.

[LionHarted]

To me storyline is important, and as producer, I am going to be going through, and trying to bring all of these stories together, and kind of make them a little bit more clear.

In an example with Four Swords Adventures, I was the producer.. I didn’t actually put the story for that game together...

HAHA PHAIL

[Hero of Legend]

Miyamoto just said that he thinks that system is more important than story. He did not say that he could care less about the story, though.

But he didn't make it. He said so himself, if the game has a good story, it is thanks to the staff he is working with, not himself. Therefore you can't expect him to know anything but the basic outline, same as any of us. It's as simple as that.

I really don't see what that effects storywise. Whether we saw pig Ganon or not, would OoT's story have been all that different?

Yes, it would change the entire ending, escape sequence and all (a prime example of how story affects gameplay). But the point was that if Miyamoto didn't care about this, he probably didn't care about even more superficial matters such as the details of what happened during the time Link was sealed in the SR, and whatever else you could come up with. The fact that OoT has a rather basic story doesn't help matters much.

HAHA PHAIL

Not quite. See, last I checked 'not working on' =/= 'not caring/knowing about.' Too much inference lately?

I kinda wonder where you got that quote from, also.

Edited by Hero of Legend, 04 April 2007 - 04:13 PM.

[LionHarted]

Not quite. See, last I checked 'not working on' =/= 'not caring/knowing about.'

"I am going to bring these stories together"
"I didn't actually put the story together."

The irony is that both of these interviews concerned the same game.

[Fyxe]

Actually, one of the answers concerns later games, while one of them concerns FSA specifically.

[LionHarted]

Actually, one of the answers concerns later games, while one of them concerns FSA specifically.

The irony is that both of these interviews concerned the same game.

But, yes, you're right.

[Hero of Legend]

The irony is that both of these interviews concerned the same game.

Yes, but Aonuma said he would work on connecting the stories of different games, not work on each game's story. He can still connect FSA to future games, because he knows the story in retrospective. And clearly, he did order them to make it a sequel to FS. Thus, there is no real contradiction between the two statements.

[LionHarted]

Yes, but Aonuma said he would work on connecting the stories of different games, not work on each game's story.

I'm sorry. That he said "all of these stories" kind of threw me off.

[Vertiboy]

It doesn't matter because I understand that a producer doesn't necessarily have to pay attention to the story of a game. We have quotes that suggest that Miyamoto doesn't pay attention to the story, but we don't have definitive proof like him saying, "I really don't pay attention or care about the stories of the games."

Edited by Vertiboy, 04 April 2007 - 08:27 PM.

[The Missing Link]

He's right actually, TML. You realise that there is more than one creator behind the Zelda series? Aonuma may be the director, but there's a whole team of people creating the games.

Has everyone so quickly forgotten the infamous 'Miyamoto timeline'? It went clearly against the intent of the scriptwriters and designers. Was what he said gospel? Nobody seriously thought that TLoZ came before ALttP.

And away I go again.

That's fine, and true. However, the public statements of a creator... are at the very least a subset of creator intent.

[Chaltab]

That's fine, and true. However, the public statements of a creator... are at the very least a subset of creator intent.

Statements in interviews don't carry as much weight as in-game evidence.

[Vertiboy]

Statements in interviews don't carry as much weight as in-game evidence.

Then how do we find out creators' intent? I mean, hopefully the in-game evidence is consistent with creators' intent, but the writers are human and will make mistakes that contradict what has been confirmed to be truth multiple times (the Legend of the Fairy, anyone?). I agree that we must be careful sometimes, but if Aonuma directs a game, and then he says it takes place roughly X years after X game, then the odds are that he is right. Some people may try to use the fact that quotes are not always reliable (depending on who says them) to disregard creators' intent, even when it is staring them in the face. I have known people who disregard certain quotes that are true just because they won't get their way if what the quote says is true, but they use the questionable reliability of certain quotes as an excuse.

Edited by Vertiboy, 04 April 2007 - 10:14 PM.

[Chaltab]

Okay, I should have phrased that better. What I'm saying is that in-game evidence should always supercede what a creator says in an interview. There are many people who work on a game and it's story. Aonuma may say one thing when the script writers meant to imply something entirely different. Again, the Miyamoto timeline, for instance.

Similarly, Aonuma says that Twilight Princess is parallel to The Wind Waker, and that TP takes place in the child timeline. Yet there are references to Majora's Mask (The legend of the Fairy, the Triforce of Courage splitting when Link left Hyrule) and other inconsitstencies.

For example, in Ocarina of Time, Zelda sent Link and the Master Sword back in time. Logically, the Master Sword cannot then be in the Adult Timeline. You either assume that a new sword was forged, or that the timelines didn't split. The same can be said of Link's age in TWW. His grandmother and the opening cutscene say that he was the same age as the Hero of Time, yet if that takes place in the adult timeline, why would the hero of time be remembered as a pre-adolescent?

This is why I think creator interviews shouldn't be the primary determinant of creator intent unless they obviously agree with the facts presented in the games.

[LionHarted]

To Chaltab's points on OoT:
The idea of a canonical split timeline, according to the MM references in TWW, is most likely a retcon.
Therefore any detail that arises from a split would obviously not be reflected in OoT, or in TWW.

[BourgeoisJerry]

For example, in Ocarina of Time, Zelda sent Link and the Master Sword back in time. Logically, the Master Sword cannot then be in the Adult Timeline. You either assume that a new sword was forged, or that the timelines didn't split. The same can be said of Link's age in TWW.

Did Zelda really send the Master Sword back? There was already a Master Sword in the child timeline (which would have been in his hand if he was sent back to a point after he pulled it, or in the pedestal if he was sent back to a point after he pulled it) so there's no reason to assume that she must have sent the future Master Sword back with him. I know I say that a lot, but people keep making statements that contradict this idea and nobody seems to argue with the idea.

Normally I'd be reluctant to say something so far off topic, but I think we lost the topic after the first few posts.

[LionHarted]

Did Zelda really send the Master Sword back?

If she sent Link back, and Link indeed disappeared, where did the Master Sword go?
It didn't stay behind when he vanished (otherwise we would have seen it).
It's a visual flaw within the ending.

Edited by LionHarted, 04 April 2007 - 11:10 PM.

[The Missing Link]

The only problem with focusing on developer intent is that it is impossible to truly know the developer's intent nine times out of ten. I mean, the truth of the matter is that we're guessing half the time, interpreting everything based upon the few clues that we've got... and even then, half the clues that are there are there more for artistic reasons rather than the clue us in on the timeline.

Granted, this may be the best thing to shoot for. However, it's also like hitting a moving target that also happens to be invisible.

Did Zelda really send the Master Sword back? There was already a Master Sword in the child timeline (which would have been in his hand if he was sent back to a point after he pulled it, or in the pedestal if he was sent back to a point after he pulled it) so there's no reason to assume that she must have sent the future Master Sword back with him. I know I say that a lot, but people keep making statements that contradict this idea and nobody seems to argue with the idea.

Normally I'd be reluctant to say something so far off topic, but I think we lost the topic after the first few posts.

...

Okay, let's get this straight once and for all.

Link as a child pulls the Master Sword. You see it pulled. It's out of the Pedestal of Time.

Seven years later, Link is still holding it.

There is no other timeline at this point. Because this is the future, not a separate timeline; it has been split yet.

Then when Zelda sends Link (who has the Master Sword) back, telling him to put the Master Sword BACK in the Pedestal of Time (and then creates the timeline split)... where in the world is the Master Sword if not in Link's hand? And if it's somewhere OTHER than Link's hand, why did Zelda tell him to put the Master Sword back in the Pedestal of Time?

[LionHarted]

Well, actually...
one could reconcile that situation by saying that Zelda herself doesn't send him directly back in time, but instead "sends him" to do her bidding, which will inevitably return him to his original time. Citing the disparity in visuals between the portal in the Zelda scene with the time portal shown in the past scene, I would say this has a pretty good chance of being the case, and has even more so since the "two endings" quote established that, yes, Adult Link's exploits carry into future games (prior to that, MM had me believing that Adult OoT would be made to never have happened, in which case the problem of the MS was nonexistent).

Then when Zelda sends Link (who has the Master Sword) back, telling him to put the Master Sword BACK in the Pedestal of Time (and then creates the timeline split)... where in the world is the Master Sword if not in Link's hand?

It was suggested by the text that closing the Door of Time was the act that caused the split.

Edited by LionHarted, 04 April 2007 - 11:53 PM.

[BourgeoisJerry]

If she sent Link back, and Link indeed disappeared, where did the Master Sword go?
It didn't stay behind when he vanished (otherwise we would have seen it).
It's a visual flaw within the ending.

I just double checked on Youtube, and we don't see Link disappear. The scene where Link is sent back is shown from his perspective: he's looking at Zelda, he looks up into... whatever, the screen goes gray, Zelda says thank you and goodbye, and it's off to the credits. After the credits (with the party and such in the background) the screen goes gray again and we come in at the Temple of Time with Young Link. There was no scene that the Master Sword should have been present in but wasn't.

Okay, let's get this straight once and for all.

Link as a child pulls the Master Sword. You see it pulled. It's out of the Pedestal of Time.

Seven years later, Link is still holding it.

There is no other timeline at this point. Because this is the future, not a separate timeline; it has been split yet.

Then when Zelda sends Link (who has the Master Sword) back, telling him to put the Master Sword BACK in the Pedestal of Time (and then creates the timeline split)... where in the world is the Master Sword if not in Link's hand? And if it's somewhere OTHER than Link's hand, why did Zelda tell him to put the Master Sword back in the Pedestal of Time?

Sorry, I can't tell whether you're arguing with me or not, because none of what you said really contradicts what I'm trying to say. The Master Sword has been in Link's possession ever since Link pulled it from the Pedestal of Time, so if Zelda sends him to any point in time after he has done so it would still be in his hand, meaning there's no reason to physically send him back, especially when Link either isn't physically sent back himself (unless Zelda somehow caused him to regress as he went back in time, which I highly doubt.)

Now, some people may not agree with the impression I got by what Zelda said, but to me it seemed implied that somebody could only be sent through time if "the road between times" was open, which is implied to be open when the Master Sword is removed from the Pedestal of Time and/or the Door of Time is open. But even assuming she could send him to a point before he opened the Door of Time, it seems kind of odd that she would send him to a point before the Door of Time was open and the Master Sword removed from the Pedestal with instructions to replace the Master Sword and close the Door of Time. In short, I think Zelda sent Link back to a point in time when the Door of Time was open and he had the Master Sword. Him having the Master Sword in his possession at that point makes it redundant to physically send the future Master Sword back with him.

Of course, this is all assuming Link isn't physically sent back in time, but rather his spirit was sent back to inhabit his young body. Most people don't seem to interpret things that way though.

[LionHarted]

I just double checked on Youtube, and we don't see Link disappear.

If Link went back in time (which he does eventually), and if Link creates a timeline split when he does so (which he does), when did he leave the Master Sword in the Adult timeline? He hands off the Ocarina to Zelda; he does no such thing with the sword, so we can reasonably say that it doesn't happen in that scene, since he's still carrying it when he is carried away by the portal. Any answer to that question that makes logical sense will do.

Of course, this is all assuming Link isn't physically sent back in time, but rather his spirit was sent back to inhabit his young body.

So...

1) What happened to his future body?
2) Why does TWW reference him entering the flows of time and leaving the land of Hyrule (as though literally) if this wasn't the case?

Edited by LionHarted, 05 April 2007 - 01:10 AM.

[The Missing Link]

Well, actually...
one could reconcile that situation by saying that Zelda herself doesn't send him directly back in time, but instead "sends him" to do her bidding, which will inevitably return him to his original time.

Uhm, what the hell are you smoking, LionHarted? I think Zelda knows perfectly well what she's doing...

ZELDA:
[...] Now, go home, Link. Regain your lost time! Home... where you are supposed to be... the way you are supposed to be...

She is sending him back in time for HIS sake... and then on top of that, asking him to close the Door of Time once he does so.

It was suggested by the text that closing the Door of Time was the act that caused the split.

First off, I don't believe that for a second unless you point me explicitly to something to back that claim.

Second off, I don't believe that for a second because guess what problem you just caused? You brought child Link back into the adult timeline. If Link is sent back in time--regardless of the above point--and then Link closes the Door of Time... and THEN the timeline splits, what then? Just as Zelda exists in both timelines at the fracture, so too must this iteration of Link. You've just created two Links in the adult timeline. No, if you're going to split the timeline, it has to happen with sending Link back in time. It's the only way to CLEANLY fracture the one timeline because Link can't be in both the second time around.

... Stuff ...

Believe it or not, I don't know whether you're arguing with me or not. But you've got the same basic premise as me. I think.

Zelda wants Link to put the Master Sword in place. She says it explicitly. Therefore, to send Link back in time without it would be beyond stupid. Thus, Link should have the Master Sword when he goes back in time. I do believe that that sounds like your most recent post.

This, however, does not sound like the post before that. I am trying to dispute the statement that "there was already a Master Sword in the child timeline." If you stand by that statement, I want to know WHERE it was. Perhaps a graphic will explain this better than I can:



There is that momentary lapse of red (where you see black) just after Link went to the future the first time... and when the actual split happened by Link getting sent back from the future. This amount of time (represented by the black) can be as long as needed, instantaneous if you even wish it so, but still... the sword was pulled, and the sword should be sent back.

Am I in line with you? If so, where is the sword for Wind Waker? If not, what did I draw that's wrong?

[EDIT: Fyxe's answer that the Master Sword is like an escalator is an acceptable answer, mind. (Took me a week of background mental crunching to finally get what she was driving at!) It doesn't solve the Ocarina, but one step at a time. I'm curious to know what you intend though.]

Edited by The Missing Link, 05 April 2007 - 04:47 AM.

[LionHarted]

ZELDA:
[....] Now, go home, Link. Regain your lost time! Home... where you are supposed to be... the way you are supposed to be...

She's telling him to go home.
Hardly necessary or operative if she's going to magically send him there, which is your suggestion.

First off, I don't believe that for a second unless you point me explicitly to something to back that claim.

"...lay the Master Sword to rest and close the Door of Time
...by doing this, the road between times will be closed."

You brought child Link back into the adult timeline. If Link is sent back in time--regardless of the above point--and then Link closes the Door of Time... and THEN the timeline splits, what then?

OH NO.

He's going to disappear from it in less than five minutes after returning to the past.

Just as Zelda exists in both timelines at the fracture, so too must this iteration of Link.

You don't have him splitting time until he returns the Master Sword to the pedestal, so you encounter the same problem, don't you?

Am I in line with you? If so, where is the sword for Wind Waker? If not, what did I draw that's wrong?

I propose that Zelda doesn't literally send him back in time
that he places the Master Sword in the pedestal IN THE FUTURE, leaving it there in the Adult timeline for TWW.
This allows him to RETURN TO THE PAST, then close the door between times, splitting the timeline.

Edited by LionHarted, 05 April 2007 - 11:03 AM.

[The Missing Link]

She's telling him to go home.
Hardly necessary or operative if she's going to magically send him there, which is your suggestion.

Okay, hold the phone, Mr. Guy. We need to have a little talking to.

Let's say Zelda STOPPED by saying, "Go return the Master Sword and close the time river thing!" Where in there is the remote suggestion that Zelda is saying, "Hey, Link, you're supposed to do that as a KID!"? It's nowhere. Can you imagine what Link would be feeling if, five seconds later after he had decided, "Well, let's go put the sword in the Temple of Time! And then back to make outs with the princess!" that he'd look around and realise that he's suddenly a kid again!? Without warning!? That'd be shell shock for the poor boy!

No, this line is bloody necessary... EVEN if only as a precursory warning that, "Hey, I'm-a gonna send-a you back-a, Link!"... but also to show that Zelda is a human being that literally cares about Link's emotions (something that has been shown to exist at some level for the rest of the game--and no, I don't mean in the shipper-sense, just in the watching over Link and being kind of a friend to him sense). Haven't you ever told someone that you were going to do something BEFORE you went and did it?

"...lay the Master Sword to rest and close the Door of Time
...by doing this, the road between times will be closed."

Pardon me, could you pass the Grey Poupon point out the words "split the timeline" in that sentence? Because, and I'll admit that, well, I'm no expert in English</sarcasm>, but that sentence seems to be telling ME... "Hey Link, I don't want anyone to time travel anymore. In fact, I have a dream... where all the black children and the white children live in a world of paradise... before any of this ever happened... and I wanna make that world... so I'm gonna split the timeline for ya... and then you need to ensure that no ones can ever time travel again! I have a dream!"

OH NO.

He's going to disappear from it in less than five minutes after returning to the past.

Okay. Pardon the sceptic in me: Why?

You don't have him splitting time until he returns the Master Sword to the pedestal, so you encounter the same problem, don't you?

Uhm, hello, no... that's not even remotely what I proposed.

Look at the graphic. Tell me WHERE in that picture I sent Link back in time... and then split the timeline? It doesn't look like it shows that, Mr. Guy. In that picture, Zelda splits the timeline BY sending Link back... and then when Link gets back... he only exists in the fragment timeline ONLY... and then he places the Master Sword in the pedestal.

I propose that Zelda doesn't literally send him back in time
that he places the Master Sword in the pedestal IN THE FUTURE, leaving it there in the Adult timeline for TWW.
This allows him to RETURN TO THE PAST, then close the door between times, splitting the timeline.

...

I'm not even going to debate this point. I believe that your argument packages the rebuttal to it in the same box.

Honestly, there's delusion... and then there's just plain effed up. -.-

Edited by The Missing Link, 05 April 2007 - 11:29 AM.

[Fyxe]

TML, this is why LionHarted is called Pinglesworth.

Learn it, recite it. Pinglesworth. Pinglesworth.

[LionHarted]

Where in there is the remote suggestion that Zelda is saying, "Hey, Link, you're supposed to do that as a KID!"? It's nowhere.

Yes.

Now, it may be just me, but you're the one suggesting that he's supposed to do that as a kid, not me.

Can you imagine what Link would be feeling if, five seconds later after he had decided, "Well, let's go put the sword in the Temple of Time! And then back to make outs with the princess!" that he'd look around and realise that he's suddenly a kid again!?

OH NO

IT'S LIKE I HAVEN'T DONE THIS A MILLION TIMES BEFORE!

Okay. Pardon the sceptic in me: Why?

Why does he disappear from the adult timeline in your scenario?

Pardon me, could you point out the words "split the timeline" in that sentence?

So "returning" him "to his original time" splits the timeline?

Is that what you're saying?

In that picture, Zelda splits the timeline BY sending Link back...

The implication from your ordering of your original description was

1) Zelda sends Link back
2) Link puts back the sword
3) splitting the timeline

I'm not even going to debate this point. I believe that your argument packages the rebuttal to it in the same box.

Which should make it easier, but apparently not.

Do you just not have a rebuttal? Because, if not, it might behoove you to admit it instead of being an ass.

Edited by LionHarted, 05 April 2007 - 11:52 AM.

[spunky-monkey]

Pardon me, could you pass the Grey Poupon point out the words "split the timeline" in that sentence? Because, and I'll admit that, well, I'm no expert in English</sarcasm>, but that sentence seems to be telling ME... "Hey Link, I don't want anyone to time travel anymore. In fact, I have a dream... where all the black children and the white children live in a world of paradise... before any of this ever happened... and I wanna make that world... so I'm gonna split the timeline for ya... and then you need to ensure that no ones can ever time travel again! I have a dream!"

Something's gone pear-shaped with your argument TML. You claim that Link didn't cause the timelines to branch off yet your diagram somehow wonderfully demonstrates that Link did actually cause the 'split' with the Master Sword closing the road between times; yes, you argue further that it doesn't but diagrams are in themselves always open to interpretation.

Also the only thing I noticed that shouldn't be missing is any mention of Majora's Mask following directly after the 'split'.

[Vertiboy]

WTF is going on? A split timeline debate? We don't see Link disappear when Zelda sends him back. We see a flash, and we don't see what is left after that. Even if my memory is bad, Ocarina was made almost 10 years ago! The split timeline probably wasn't around then, so there wouldn't be any evidence supporting it in OoT. Problem solved. Yes, there are a few holes in the split timeline (about the same amount as the single timeline, though), and this is a great example of when creators' intent is important. Even if there are some holes in a story, and even if elements in the game suggest otherwise (Legend of the Fairy), if the director confirms multiple times that there is a split timeline (more than one interview about TWW; the Nintendo Dream interview about TP), then the split timeline is fact. I think that we can excuse Aonuma and company for being human and putting a little contradicting evidence in the games. The idea that people seem to miss is that the Zelda universe is a fictional universe, so if there are a few contradictions, the space/time continuum won't come apart. Accidents happen. I don't even see why we are debating about the single vs. split anymore, unless we just want to come up with every single excuse possible to ignore Aonuma's multiple confirmations of what is a fact just because some people don't get their way if what Aonuma said (multiple times) is true.

This is a thread about evidence suggesting a pre-OoT and post-OoT TMC. I admit, though, that I am partly to blame for the conversation going off track. I am going to attempt to put it back on track, starting with the presence of monsters in TMC.

TMC's backstory revolves around the monsters that are commonplace in other Zelda games. They come to Hyrule somehow, and people are saying "0mfg m0n$73r$!!!" and running away. The hero of men comes, and uses the light force and the Picori Blade given to him by the Minish to seal the monsters away. The people of Hyrule celebrate the hero of men. Before TMC's backstory, monsters obviously weren't that common, or else Hyrule wouldn't have been in such an uproar. I mean, in all of the other games, does a hero have to rise up and seal away all of the Octoroks, Keese, Ropes, etc. because they are causing problems? No, nobody seems to care that the monsters are there. There are occasionally Hylian soldiers who are wussies and who are afraid to go through Hyrule Field because of the monsters (TP), but even then, no one seems to be in a big hurry to get rid of the monsters. The people seem to react the same way when the PB is broken in TMC, freeing all of the monsters. There had to be a few threats in Hyrule, namely the Armos, since their trophy says that the Minish built them for the Wind Tribe, so I doubt that they were sealed in the chest, but Octoroks, Keese, Ropes, Keatons, ChuChus, etc. were absent from Hyrule in the 100 years between TMC and its backstory. As I have said, I can't give you a quote from the King of Hyrule saying, "You know, Link, monsters have been absent from Hyrule ever since the hero of men sealed them away in the chest with the Picori Blade." I am glad that Capcom doesn't write scripts that crappy because I am not 5 years old, and I do not need every detail to be spelled out for me. I am with the 95% of the Zelda fandom who can see a few context clues and find out what was actually intended through them. That is why I believe that TLoZ, TAoL, ALttP, OoT, TWW, and TP (all of the Zelda games that take place in Hyrule or that aren't a part of the FS trilogy) cannot come between TMC and its backstory.

Edited by Vertiboy, 05 April 2007 - 02:45 PM.

[Chaltab]

WTF is going on? A split timeline debate? We don't see Link disappear when Zelda sends him back. We see a flash, and we don't see what is left after that. Even if my memory is bad, Ocarina was made almost 10 years ago! The split timeline probably wasn't around then, so there wouldn't be any evidence supporting it in OoT. Problem solved. Yes, there are a few holes in the split timeline (about the same amount as the single timeline, though), and this is a great example of when creators' intent is important. Even if there are some holes in a story, and even if elements in the game suggest otherwise (Legend of the Fairy), if the director confirms multiple times that there is a split timeline (more than one interview about TWW; the Nintendo Dream interview about TP), then the split timeline is fact. I think that we can excuse Aonuma and company for being human and putting a little contradicting evidence in the games. The idea that people seem to miss is that the Zelda universe is a fictional universe, so if there are a few contradictions, the space/time continuum won't come apart. Accidents happen. I don't even see why we are debating about the single vs. split anymore, unless we just want to come up with every single excuse possible to ignore Aonuma's multiple confirmations of what is a fact just because some people don't get their way if what Aonuma said (multiple times) is true.

With all due respect, Vertiboy, it's more than a small plot hole that the Master Sword could exist in both timelines. The Split Timeline just confuses things, and no matter what Aonuma said, there's no pretty way to make a split timeline work. (Granted the same could be said about a single timeline, but at least the single timeline doesn't have the Master Sword contradiction.)

And since we've probably hijacked this thread long enough, we should probably get back to debating The Minish Cap.

[BourgeoisJerry]

EDIT: You know what, I'll just create a new topic for this debate.

Edited by BourgeoisJerry, 05 April 2007 - 03:56 PM.