75 replies to this topic

[wring]

Seriously, why is the Split Timeline Theory almost universally hated, even by the people who believe it? I don't understand what's wrong with it, its extremely common in fiction. Comics split timelines all the time, and other games involving timetravel use the Split Timeline, aswell, Sonic 360 is one that comes to mind.

On one end of the timeline, Elise Dies, Iblis destroys the world, and Silver and Blaze live and Mephiles sends them back in time. And on the other side, Sonic saves Elise, Elise cries, Mephiles and Iblis combine and destroy both timelines.

People also say that the split timeline wasn't originally intended, and was retconned later on, but I doubt that, most likely they always intended to have the split timeline. Split Timelines are used to explain paradoxes like the Grandfather Paradox. IF you go back in time and kill your grandfather, there is no paradox because its a different timeline, with a different grandfather. At the end of OCarina of Time a Paradox is created. Link goes back in time and stops Ganondorf from taking over. But if Ganondorf never took over, LInk would have no reason to go back in time. So Link couldn't have gone back in time to stop Ganondorf, meaning Ganondorf did take over, meaning Link did go back in time, meaning Ganondorf didn't take over, Meaning Link didn't go back in time meaning....... See the Paradox? This paradox is solved with the Split Timeline theory. Link went back to a different timeline, stopped a different Ganondorf from taking over. No Paradox is created because they are seperate timelines. BEsides, its common to have timetravel explained with splitting timelines, there's no reason to think it wasn't intended from the very begining.

So why do people not like the split timeline? I can't figure it out, there's no logical reason to not like it.

[MikePetersSucks]

Who the hell hates it? I certainly don't. Infact, on this board it seems to be the one of the more universally accepted theories, and the people who don't accept it are treated as fools.

Who the hell are you talking about, then?

[Raien]

Certainly the timeline would be infinitely simpler if it was one sequence of events, rather than two (not that TWW really causes much anxiety unless you accept Lex's theory). I wouldn't be surprised if people hate the split timeline for that reason alone.

Edited by Raian, 10 September 2008 - 02:58 PM.

[Showsni]

Link doesn't go back in time, though. He stops Ganondorf in the future, so your argument makes no sense. Taken alone, OoT works perfectly well without a split timeline of any kind.

A split timeline only came into vogue with the release of TWW; if one assumes OoT leads into ALttP, and OoT clearly leads into TWW, you have problems, and neither OoT-ALttP-TWW or OoT-TWW-ALttP is that appealing, with OoT as the IW. If OoT is not the IW, you can distance it from ALttP and there is again no problem. So the split timeline was originally for those OoT=IW people, a way of tidying up the inconsistencies between TWW and ALttP both attempting to follow OoT.
Now, though, we have TP. Not content with three possible direct sequels to OoT, we get another one. And now we either have to have an unwieldy three pronged timeline, a mass of inconsistencies, or some other option. The original ALttP TWW inconsistency is joined by a TP inconsistency which makes one wonder what the designers where thinking. If OoT leads into ALttP, neither TWW or TP follow satisfactorily. OoT into TWW is pretty much a certainty, but that messes up the field for ALttP and TP. And TP looks like it wants to be OoT's sequel too, but leaves little room for the others. So what can one do?
Well, the first option is to throw the OoT=IW idea out the window. It's been a hotly debated topic for a long time, and removing it helps stick closer to canon events and removes a third of the inconsistency. If you don't want to do that, you either have a rambling mess of a theory where you start entertaining ideas like "Maybe ALttP's backstory has nothing to do with ALttP!" or you go for the three pronged timeline, which leads to the "Cop Out" solution that I'll mention in a bit.
You're still left with TWW and TP eyeing each other across the divide. Now, you'll find precious few people who argue agaisnt OoT into TWW, so we can pretty much take that as read. But what of TP? There are several options.
First, the revival of the split timeline you just eradicated by losing the OoT=IW connection. But instead of ALttP and TWW, the splits lead to TWW and TP.
Second, ignoring TP's links to OoT. But if OoT leads to TWW, that either means an unflooding (nasty), a TP in the gap post OoT pre flood (confusing) or a pre OoT TP (but what about the fisherman?). Unless a sequel to PH indicates otherwise, I don't like to entertain the unflooding idea. A TP in the gap means two Ganondorfs existing simultaneously, one trapped in the SR, one in the TR, the ToP somehow belonging to both or not appearing in TP after all, and enough confusion to get anyone laughing at you. Placing TP before OoT means saying that the fisherman's photo Hena has just happens to look like her descendant, so actually has the least contradictions of the three.
So, why do people not like the split timeline much? Possibly they see it as something of a cop out. If we can throw in a split to clear up ALttP and TWW, and then again for TWW and TP, why bother having a timeline? You may as well throw in a new split for each game, and you're sorted! No contradictions, right? The problem is, that's hardly a timeline theory. A good timeline theory has as few internal contradictions as possible, but as many working connections as possible. The timeline which states put all the games in any order, but make each millenia apart, and assume events not show in games occur before and after each to give the right conditions works. It has no internal contradictions; but none of the game connections. The more timeline splits, the less you care about the timeline; hence why the three pronged timeline isn't all that popular, even amongst those who would have placed TWW and ALttP on opposite sides of a split originally. TP has usurped ALttP's place rather than adding a split because people don't want to distance the games too much. Finding the connections between games is as much a part of theorising as iroing out the inconsistencies.

Edited by Showsni, 10 September 2008 - 04:33 PM.

[Lexxi Aileron]

Certainly the timeline would be infinitely simpler if it was one sequence of events, rather than two (not that TWW really causes much anxiety unless you accept Lex's theory). I wouldn't be surprised if people hate the split timeline for that reason alone.

I could say the reverse about TP.

TP and TWW are really the factors that are most confusing. While TWW offers a number of story-related continuity links, TP offers a number of atmospheric ones. Both games end in such a way that the inclusion of other games in the known series after each becomes difficult: TWW ends with Hyrule buried under the sea, TP ends with Ganondorf dead, the Mirror of Twilight (which was a bold reference to FSA) destroyed, and the Triforce still split up in a way that does not offer timeline consistency with any already-released title, and fails to offer an IW-type scenario for the Child Timeline.

TWW leaves two roadblocks-- a dead Ganon and a flooded world- but at least offers a way out-- the Deku Tree wants to reconnect the islands to form one large landmass and the goddesses ordained people to build a new country, with the King of Red Lions kickstarting the initiative with his use of the Triforce. LoZ/AoL take place in a world that very much appears to have suffered the Great Flood and we see that a previous king has left the Triforce behind for a new "great king" who will be his successor, so we find a kind of consistency here. The dead Ganon problem can inevitably be resolved by FSA, who is sealed in the ending.

TP cuts off multiple avenues, destroying the Mirror of Twilight and seemingly cutting off FSA in the process and failing to offer that OoT-alternative IW for the Child timeline. It also offers no solutions to these problems-- indeed, the sole reference to Ganondorf's inevitable return is in fact removed from the ending of the game.

The biggest question is "to which era does ALttP belong?"-- the era when "Hyrule was one kingdom" shown in OoT or the era after Hyrule is broken up before LoZ/AoL/possibly related to TWW? Miyamoto has in effect already answered this question-- twice. First by saying the timeline goes OoT-LoZ/AoL-ALttP; next by saying TWW is indeed before other games in the timeline. I know no one believes him, but I once refused to believe that the timeline was split and a number of you know how far that got me.

The original ALttP TWW inconsistency is joined by a TP inconsistency which makes one wonder what the designers where thinking.

1) TP's description of the pre-OoT history actually more closely resembles the pre-IW history than OoT's self-described history itself did. If the developers are trying to abolish the connection they certainly have no idea how to go about it.

2) When ALttP was re-released, the Ganon element of the IW was completely removed from the manual, whereas the details that cement the IW's placement at the OoT era (namely, that the Triforce was in the Sacred Realm from creation to the time the entrance to the realm was opened) remained intact. Other changes to the ALttP story text involving translation consistency with OoT were made in regions outside Japan, but these changes are frankly unnecessary unless they serve as linking elements to OoT (otherwise, "wise men" is a perfectly acceptable description of the IW sages).

3) While TP does evoke more of ALttP than TWW does, storywise it looks more like a parallel, and it offers fewer continuity links (in terms of story): 1) TWW shows the "period when Hyrule was one kingdom" ending as AoL implies; 2) TWW makes the only other reference to an actual naming tradition in the series besides AoL's; 3) TWW is the only game in which the Triforce passes into the hands of a king (making it a better candidate for linking to LoZ/AoL than ALttP); etc. etc.

Edited by Lexxi Aileron, 10 September 2008 - 06:04 PM.

[MikePetersSucks]

TP cuts off multiple avenues, destroying the Mirror of Twilight and seemingly cutting off FSA in the process

Only if you accept the two mirrors are the same.

Miyamoto has in effect already answered this question-- twice. First by saying the timeline goes OoT-LoZ/AoL-ALttP; next by saying TWW is indeed before other games in the timeline. I know no one believes him, but I once refused to believe that the timeline was split and a number of you know how far that got me.

The difference here, though, is that things run smoother in direct opposition to both those statements.

3) While TP does evoke more of ALttP than TWW does, storywise it looks more like a parallel, and it offers fewer continuity links (in terms of story): 1) TWW shows the "period when Hyrule was one kingdom" ending as AoL implies; 2) TWW makes the only other reference to an actual naming tradition in the series besides AoL's; 3) TWW is the only game in which the Triforce passes into the hands of a king (making it a better candidate for linking to LoZ/AoL than ALttP); etc. etc.

1) How do you get that?

3) Erm...except he ruled from "UNDER TEH SEE" and had the Triforce for a whole 20 seconds, instead of a lifetime.

[Chiaki]

Er...simply answering the questing initially asked, I dislike the split timeline theory because it closes opportunity for extending the story in either direction and referencing to events that happened in the past, or foreshadowing events to happen in the future. Making one consistent timeline is complex enough, but throwing another in there and splitting the events and dividing them around makes things too complicated, especially when no one is in agreement to start with.
But I never claimed to be big on timeline theorizing, so I doubt my reasons will hold much water here.

[Lexxi Aileron]

Only if you accept the two mirrors are the same.

The two mirrors either are or are not intended to be the same, regardless of what anyone "accepts"

The difference here, though, is that things run smoother in direct opposition to both those statements.

Only among a heap of unproven assumptions dating prior to those statements' release.

1) How do you get that?

3) Erm...except he ruled from "UNDER TEH SEE" and had the Triforce for a whole 20 seconds, instead of a lifetime.

1) Um, the period when Hyrule was "one kingdom" started in OoT (OoT says this) and the Great Flood disrupted this period.
3) He had a shard of the Triforce for hundreds of years and was certainly king before the flood.

Edited by Lexxi Aileron, 10 September 2008 - 11:31 PM.

[davogones]

I think different people had different reasons for hating the idea.

- It seemed too "science-fiction-y" for medieval/fantasy-themed Zelda.
- It destroys the cherished belief in one unified timeline.
- It opens the door to explain any inconsistency away by placing the game in another timeline.

In my view, split timelines are supported by the creators and are the only explanation for certain facts. Three Zelda games feature some form of time travel. Split timelines are a natural extension of time travel, so there's really no reason to hate them or resist them so much.

[MikePetersSucks]

The two mirrors either are or are not intended to be the same, regardless of what anyone "accepts"

Yea, and most likely, they're not the same.

Only among a heap of unproven assumptions dating prior to those statements' release.

Looking at just the facts, without assumptions, the statements still require more work.

1) Um, the period when Hyrule was "one kingdom" started in OoT (OoT says this) and the Great Flood disrupted this period.
3) He had a shard of the Triforce for hundreds of years and was certainly king before the flood.

1) So who says a revived/new Hyrule can't be "one kingdom" afterwards?
2) A shard of the Triforce != WHOLE TRIFORCE LOLOL. Plus the SZ legend's King died and passed on every part of the Triforce he had. The two aren't really connected.

[wring]

I really don't think the split timeline is really that complicated. Atleast, not any more complicated then the regular timeline.

The biggest question is "to which era does ALttP belong?"-- the era when "Hyrule was one kingdom" shown in OoT or the era after Hyrule is broken up before LoZ/AoL/possibly related to TWW? Miyamoto has in effect already answered this question-- twice. First by saying the timeline goes OoT-LoZ/AoL-ALttP; next by saying TWW is indeed before other games in the timeline. I know no one believes him, but I once refused to believe that the timeline was split and a number of you know how far that got me.

Do you have the quote? It sounds like a good timeline.

[Impossible]

First by saying the timeline goes OoT-LoZ/AoL-ALttP;

Never mind that we have no source for his actual words, and we're trusting a translation that NoA no longer acknowledges, since Miyamoto asked them to remove inaccurate story information from their web site, and from a time when their Zelda translator wasn't fluent in Japanese. AND it's 10 years old and hence outdated anyway, and it's contradicted by the back of ALttP's box, and by the story of ALttP itself which implies IW->ALttP->LoZ. Oh yeah, there really is so much basis to call LoZ/AoL-ALttP an official ordering. Especially when it contradicts all the other developer quotes from exactly the same period that talk about OoT-ALttP. But let's just ignore those and only listen to the MOST CONTRADICTORY one. Wait, don't you need those quotes to claim that OoT is the IW?

next by saying TWW is indeed before other games in the timeline.

Using this as evidence is laughable. Who the hell relies on pre-release quotes? Many of them turned out to be wrong once the game actually came out. And what he said was that it was first, which we know for a fact is false. In no way did he suggest that it precedes any specific game. In all likelihood, TWW was originally intended to be before OoT, but the story was changed, at which point they decided they don't care about the OoT-ALttP connection anymore. The reason for that being what I keep trying to point out, which is that they're focused on new games, and don't want old ones getting in the way of the story. There's no damn way that a quote made meaningless by the game itself is stronger evidence than all the in-game points. Except you've taken to prioritising developer statements, regardless of the context and timing, as gospel, even if they contradict each other, and even if they've been contradicted by games. Great principles you have there. Miyamoto's words are about as timeless as Ganondorf's seal. By which I mean, LOL. And gospel is the perfect word, considering how much your arguments resemble that of fundamentalist Christians.

And your use of Miyamoto quotes is especially pathetic considering how I've seen you misuse them in the past. When posting a list of such quotes, you deliberately took Miyamoto out of context in order to imply that he calls ALttP a story sequel to LoZ, when in fact he says no such thing. The sad thing is, you KNEW you were taking him out of context, because you must have seen the original interview you copied it from. He says that AoL was a different direction, and hence they see ALttP as the true sequel (in terms of GAMEPLAY) to LoZ. But you don't search for evidence as a basis for a theory, or read the evidence and then naturally come up with a theory to fit it. You make up your own theory, and then search for anything to use as ammo, regardless of its real meaning, and regardless of what everyone else sees is actually being said (a perfect example being your use of TWW quotes). That just demonstrates a real high level of professionalism and integrity. GameSpot reviewers would be proud.

Finally... Aonuma is in charge of the timeline now. When the hell will you get over that? Miyamoto has NEVER been involved in the story of the Zelda series, it was mainly handled by other people, and so Miyamoto mostly spoke in terms of gameplay (as with the above example). Aonuma is much more in control of the story, and if he decides, for example, that OoT is no longer the IW, and this is reflected in his games, that's just how things are now. He was given the power to retcon the series in order to insert his own vision into it, rather than being constrained by the games of others. Aonuma's Zelda timeline isn't the same as Miyamoto's was 10 years ago, not that we can even be sure about what his timeline was. Why do you care more about ancient quotes from someone who wasn't concerned with story than Aonuma's intent?

Edited by Impossible, 12 September 2008 - 10:34 PM.

[MikePetersSucks]

Impossible.

Help yourself to my naughty bits, because that was AWESOME.

[Raien]

I will now use my understanding of Lex logic to predict Lex's response:

Never mind that we have no source for his actual words, and we're trusting a translation that NoA no longer acknowledges, since Miyamoto asked them to remove inaccurate story information from their web site, and from a time when their Zelda translator wasn't fluent in Japanese. AND it's 10 years old and hence outdated anyway, and it's contradicted by the back of ALttP's box, and by the story of ALttP itself which implies IW->ALttP->LoZ. Oh yeah, there really is so much basis to call LoZ/AoL-ALttP an official ordering. Especially when it contradicts all the other developer quotes from exactly the same period that talk about OoT-ALttP. But let's just ignore those and only listen to the MOST CONTRADICTORY one. Wait, don't you need those quotes to claim that OoT is the IW?

LOL, Miyamoto only contradicts YOUR assumptions. Miyamoto > you.

Using this as evidence is laughable. Who the hell relies on pre-release quotes? Many of them turned out to be wrong once the game actually came out. And what he said was that it was first, which we know for a fact is false. In no way did he suggest that it precedes any specific game. In all likelihood, TWW was originally intended to be before OoT, but the story was changed, at which point they decided they don't care about the OoT-ALttP connection anymore. The reason for that being what I keep trying to point out, which is that they're focused on new games, and don't want old ones getting in the way of the story. There's no damn way that a quote made meaningless by the game itself is stronger evidence than all the in-game points. Except you've taken to prioritising developer statements, regardless of the context and timing, as gospel, even if they contradict each other, and even if they've been contradicted by games. Great principles you have there. Miyamoto's words are about as timeless as Ganondorf's seal. By which I mean, LOL. And gospel is the perfect word, considering how much your arguments resemble that of fundamentalist Christians.

Until someone says Miyamoto is wrong, he is right. Miyamoto > you.

And your use of Miyamoto quotes is especially pathetic considering how I've seen you misuse them in the past. When posting a list of such quotes, you deliberately took Miyamoto out of context in order to imply that he calls ALttP a story sequel to LoZ, when in fact he says no such thing. The sad thing is, you KNEW you were taking him out of context, because you must have seen the original interview you copied it from. He says that AoL was a different direction, and hence they see ALttP as the true sequel (in terms of GAMEPLAY) to LoZ. But you don't search for evidence as a basis for a theory, or read the evidence and then naturally come up with a theory to fit it. You make up your own theory, and then search for anything to use as ammo, regardless of its real meaning, and regardless of what everyone else sees is actually being said (a perfect example being your use of TWW quotes). That just demonstrates a real high level of professionalism and integrity. GameSpot reviewers would be proud.

There is nothing wrong with my interpretation because I respect developer statements rather than assume they are wrong because they don't fit your theory. Miyamoto > you.

Finally... Aonuma is in charge of the timeline now. When the hell will you get over that? Miyamoto has NEVER been involved in the story of the Zelda series, it was mainly handled by other people, and so Miyamoto mostly spoke in terms of gameplay (as with the above example). Aonuma is much more in control of the story, and if he decides, for example, that OoT is no longer the IW, and this is reflected in his games, that's just how things are now. He was given the power to retcon the series in order to insert his own vision into it, rather than being constrained by the games of others. Aonuma's Zelda timeline isn't the same as Miyamoto's was 10 years ago, not that we can even be sure about that. Why do you care about ancient quotes from someone who wasn't concerned with story, over Aonuma's intent?

How do you know what Miyamoto does with the Zelda series? Do you work for Nintendo? As long as Miyamoto is involved with the series, we can assume that the timeline still follows his will. Miyamoto > you.

Edited by Raian, 12 September 2008 - 03:45 PM.

[Impossible]

What happened to the days when Lex could deny a creator quote that WASN'T contradicted or outdated or otherwise erroneous, and refuse to accept "Aonuma > you" as a response? Since Miyamoto contradicted other statements by people working on OoT, including HIMSELF, I really do wonder what brought about this over reliance on old quotes.

[Raien]

What happened to the days when Lex could deny a creator quote that WASN'T contradicted or outdated or otherwise erroneous, and refuse to accept "Aonuma > you" as a response? Since Miyamoto contradicted other statements by people working on OoT, including HIMSELF, I really do wonder what brought about this over reliance on old quotes.

Lex has always been like this. I think back to that "sealed away from the world" debate three years ago, and I shudder at the thought that my grades may have suffered as a consequence of such a pointless topic. And you know what my very first topic on Zelda Universe was? Contesting Lex on his OoT=IW argument.

[Arturo]

People, people... I think this is too near to insults for my taste...

And what was the "sealed away from the world"?

[MikePetersSucks]

Wasn't that the one where he tried to argue that the end of OOT had him sealed in ALL TIME PERIODS?

[Lexxi Aileron]

What happened to the days when Lex could deny a creator quote that WASN'T contradicted or outdated or otherwise erroneous, and refuse to accept "Aonuma > you" as a response? Since Miyamoto contradicted other statements by people working on OoT, including HIMSELF, I really do wonder what brought about this over reliance on old quotes.

OoT-related statements:
OoT=IW
OoT-LoZ/AoL-ALttP

First of all, why deny OoT-LoZ/AoL-ALttP? Clearly TWW and TP have shown us that OoT and ALttP aren't directly connected, just like Miyamoto said in 1998. Why still argue he was wrong at all?

Secondly, why additionally deny OoT=IW in 2003 because OoT and ALttP aren't directly connected, when this was stated when the OoT=IW link was announced in 1998?

It seems like you're convinced to say that the developers are wrong just so you can be right, even though if you take both quotes together OoT was not a direct prequel to ALttP in 1998 and thus TWW changes nothing about its relationship to ALttP as now we would have OoT-TWW-ALttP anyway which brings up the same consistency "problem" you had with the Miyamoto order. If ALttP falls in a split timeline in which Adult OoT didn't happen that even further loosens the evidence against the Miyamoto order being wrong as now OoT doesn't connect to ALttP AT ALL.

Forget that Miyamoto is the one who brought up the split timeline in the TWW interview anyway. He's obviously not credible, even though all the evidence supposedly proving him wrong was rendered irrelevant in future installments.

[Raien]

And what was the "sealed away from the world"?

On Zelda Universe, Lex tried to argue that Ganon was sealed in the Dark World at the end of FSA, using this argument: In FS's manual, Vaati was said to be sealed in the Four Sword and hidden in Hyrule. But at the end of FSA, the maidens Ganon was "sealed away from the world". According to Lex logic, since "away from the world" cannot mean "in the world", then Ganon had to be sealed in a place not in Hyrule; namely the Dark World.

It took two FUCKING months of page-long debating for me to convince Lex that "away from the world" was a common expression meaning "away from contact with the outside world". And after I thought that topic was over and done, Lex decided to pull his usual "I can't remember my argument having been refuted" bullshit and he made the same argument again earlier this year on LA. I was able to finally finish it by posting a news article using the expression, but I have never forgiven Lex (and I doubt I ever will) for putting me through all that crap.

Edited by Raian, 13 September 2008 - 01:34 PM.

[MikePetersSucks]

First of all, why deny OoT-LoZ/AoL-ALttP?

Because LTTP is a prequel to LOZ,and is only a "sequel" in terms of gameplay.

[Impossible]

First of all, why deny OoT-LoZ/AoL-ALttP? Clearly TWW and TP have shown us that OoT and ALttP aren't directly connected, just like Miyamoto said in 1998. Why still argue he was wrong at all?

Huh, I find it odd that the fact that there are massive contradictions in OoT-LoZ/AoL-ALttP, and always have been, doesn't factor into your judgement of that theory's accuracy.

In the first place, as I've already explained, it's damn hard to trust a quote which it's very doubtful is really what Miyamoto said. And when it contradicts other quotes and information, including a different Miyamoto quote connecting OoT-ALttP, at the time. So I see no reason why he would have said that. But more importantly, developer statements are less important than solid in-game facts that directly contradict them. You know that damn well, because you won't accept FS being first either - even though there's only a little bit of evidence against that, and it's not massively contradictory like the "Miyamoto Timeline". Forget ALL the other games. OoT-LoZ-ALttP makes NO sense. LoZ-ALttP made NO sense in 1991, because ALttP gave us the origins of Ganon, and his sealing up through to ALttP. OoT effectively replaced those origins, until we had a second Ganon come along (who hence needed to go through everything ALttP's manual said anyway, which is why there's no POINT in OoT being the IW).

And even if you disconnect ALttP from OoT, that doesn't change the fact that the order was wrong. There's no hope in hell that a timeline that was never true before is going to magically become true even though Nintendo have done NOTHING to emphasise that fact, simply because you now perceive it as possible. Aonuma did NOT retcon anything back to a mistranslated 1998 comment. That makes NO sense. Particularly as he's the one deciding things, not Miyamoto, so what you're doing is the exact damn opposite of their behaviour for years. And even today, LoZ-ALttP is contradictory, because FSA introduces that Ganon, and FSA-ALttP makes the most sense.

A retcon can be assumed if the games themselves suggest that the developers are assuming it. That means the order of the old games can't be retconned, only their placement as a group can, since the old games are the same as they ever were. They'd have to completely change the story of one, and officially and tell us that they're doing it. ALttP GBA is NOT that, and it in no way was intended to direct us towards it being after LoZ. That's not implied anywhere.

And is your memory so damn bad that you would suggest I'm doing anything for the sake of my own theory? I didn't even remove my OoT = IW argument from my document, it's there if you want to see what I thought until DP (poster) and TP (game) convinced me otherwise. The fact is still that Nintendo have never prioritised storyline connections, especially old ones.

All this crap is doing absolutely nothing to further timeline discussion. We're not learning anything or exploring something new. Maybe if you would concede one damn point, we could get back to something real. I know you can't be THAT bad, people on YouTube still argue a single timeline, and follow even fewer of the established facts than you do.

[Lexxi Aileron]

Because LTTP is a prequel to LOZ

Quote? (one more recent than Miyamoto's preferably)

Huh, I find it odd that the fact that there are massive contradictions in OoT-LoZ/AoL-ALttP

Were any of these not eventually confirmed anyway?

OoT effectively replaced those origins, until we had a second Ganon come along (who hence needed to go through everything ALttP's manual said anyway, which is why there's no POINT in OoT being the IW).

Fun fact: when the second Ganon came along, the current version of the ALttP manual doesn't describe him going through anything at all.

OoT-LoZ-ALttP makes NO sense.

OoT= Ganondorf takes the Triforce of Power and is sealed by the seven sages
LoZ= Ganon escapes and the Triforce of Power is recovered
AoL= The Triforce is united and wished upon and returns to its resting place
ALttP= [a reincarnation of] Ganondorf rediscovers the Sacred Realm, wishes on the Triforce, and attempts to break the seal

Fun facts: OoT/TWW and LoZ Ganon share the title of "Big Demon King," while ALttP (and FSA) Ganon has a different title entirely. LoZ Ganon is NOT the same Ganon we see in ALttP.

OoT,WW, LoZ: Dai maou; Big Demon King
FSA, aLttP: Jaaku no Ou; King of Evil

Additionally, OoX is referred to as the "Gerudo King," which seems more like a reference to OoT's Ganondorf than anything else.

There has been an internal consistency between OoT and LoZ Ganon that OoT lacks with ALttP's Ganon ever since OoT was released; that is, they share the same title and both have the Triforce of Power. FSA Ganon obtains the title "Jaaku no Ou" in accordance with what seems to be a prophecy about the trident. This title was originally applied to Ganon in the Seal War as well.

FSA introduces a trident that used to belong to a demon being reclaimed; so it additionally makes sense that a game featuring Ganon wielding the trident would come BEFORE FSA.

The fact is still that Nintendo have never prioritised storyline connections, especially old ones.

They never prioritized the original plot of ALttP, either! They have, however, extensively expanded the OoT-verse.

[MikePetersSucks]

Quote? (one more recent than Miyamoto's preferably)

Back of the LTTP box.

OoT= Ganondorf takes the Triforce of Power and is sealed by the seven sages
LoZ= Ganon escapes and the Triforce of Power is recovered
AoL= The Triforce is united and wished upon and returns to its resting place
ALttP= [a reincarnation of] Ganondorf rediscovers the Sacred Realm, wishes on the Triforce, and attempts to break the seal

The problem was that Ganon still had the Triforce of Power when sealed by the Sages, so a transition from OOT to LoZ doesn't work without massive fanfiction. You also make the assumption that AoL Link would hide the Triforce instead of letting it create a new age, but that's more forgivable.

[wring]

LOL there's only one Ganon. If the original Ganon died then so would the Dark World, but the dark world clearly appears in Ocarina of Time and lasts until A Link to the Past where it gets destroyed. Just cus Ganon didn't stay in the Dark World doesn't make a difference. Either that or you have to have the Dark Worlds both being created out of the sacred realm at two different times, as well as two Ganon's, 14 Sages, and two seals, and twice evil started pouring out of the Sacred Realm. Talk about freak coincedences....

[Raien]

How can there be only one Ganon when:
a) the two direct sequels to OoT, Twilight Princess and The Wind Waker, kill Ganondorf on both timelines?
b) FSA clearly creates the origins for a completely new Ganon?

The fact is that the Triforce must have been taken twice and the Dark World must have been created twice. And since the OoT-verse doesn't relate to the ALTTP-verse, we might as well argue that there are two IWs.

[MikePetersSucks]

Either that or you have to have the Dark Worlds both being created out of the sacred realm at two different times, as well as two Ganon's, 14 Sages, and two seals, and twice evil started pouring out of the Sacred Realm. Talk about freak coincedences....

Wasn't TWW one big freak coincidence? There's a word for it in the Zelda universe: Fate.

[wring]

If the Creators/the games/and logic all say Ocarina of Time is the Imprisoning War, why do we need another one, or another Ganondorf? Besides, Ganondorf dies off all the time. You might as well say LOZ/AoL have a different Ganon then ALttP and Oracles has a different Ganon then both of them, cus he dies at the end of each game.

[Lexxi Aileron]

Well, that depends. "Ganon" (the demonic essence; the maou) can only be killed by the Silver Arrows, but we see "Ganondorf" (the human essence) die by the Master Sword twice. "Ganon" could have survived either/both of those deathstrokes.

The problem was that Ganon still had the Triforce of Power when sealed by the Sages, so a transition from OOT to LoZ doesn't work without massive fanfiction.

He still has the Triforce of Power in LoZ...

Back of the LTTP box.

Talks about the ancestors of Link and Zelda, which could be the knights and sages- the given ancestors of Link and Zelda.
Or, conversely, talks about the "time when Hyrule was one kingdom," later known as OoT.

Depends if you assume the box is referring to the backdrop of the game or the beginning. It's rather vague.

Edited by Lexxi Aileron, 17 September 2008 - 03:52 PM.

[Raien]

Besides, Ganondorf dies off all the time. You might as well say LOZ/AoL have a different Ganon then ALttP and Oracles has a different Ganon then both of them, cus he dies at the end of each game.

Ganondorf in OoT was a human, the leader of the Gerudo tribe, who transformed into the Demon King, Ganon.
Ganondorf in FSA was a human, the leader of the Gerudo tribe, who transformed into the Demon King, Ganon.

There is more than one Ganon. Fact.