278 replies to this topic

[FDL]

I suppose I must've been mistaken at how you were mocking it/what you were making fun of. But I just don't think it's a theory that deserves mocking. Particularly when, IMO, it was done in a strawmanish way. But I apologize for calling you out on something if it was not your intention to do it.

[Impossible]

It wasn't a straw man. The idea that Ganondorf broke into the SR and touched the Triforce, even on the SR, is an existing theory held by some people (including everyone's favourite timeline troll), which I find to have many irreconcilable flaws.

Quote

I didn't say that's what you were arguing, I said that's what your theory inevitably leads to in my point of view.

...Hence you don't know what my theory is, hence to claim that it's the result is a straw man. I have no doubt that other theories could lead to those outcomes, but it's not relevant to me. You accused me of having a theory that meant the events of OoT didn't happen, which is a lie. You accused me of having a theory which involved a literal "divine prank", which is a lie. (It's not literal unless the goddesses were saying, "I'm bored. LOL, let's fuck those sages up, go Triforce power!") Those are straw men, you can't cover that up.

Quote

If you stopped treating the person you're talking to like a moron, belittling them and their arguments, and coming off generally as an arrogant jerk, people might be more open to listen to the point you're making and not get defensive.

Actually, all I did was make a general undirected statement of my observations of a SPECIFIC theory on an issue, which had previously been raised. I wasn't talking to or belittling anyone, so that's quite impossible. My last post is a different matter because I was pissed off at the straw men and unjustified attacks, which I didn't start.

Quote

That's a good point, but no matter what theory you subcribe to you have to speculate from what is said in the game. Nothing is said about a time paradox causing the Triforce to split or the Goddesses actually deciding Ganondorf needs to be revived either.

Fair enough. I'm just applying Occam's razor. If there were more events to the story, they would have been mentioned in TP, or at LEAST by Aonuma. Since they weren't, I'm assuming there are no other events, from which I'm trying to determine possible reasons why the Triforce came to Ganondorf. For the most part, it's a matter of fate. The sages say Link was "chosen by the gods and guided by fate", and Ganon was "chosen by the gods to have power". Ganon has his whole fate thing in the removed text before he dies, too.

Quote

I'm pretty sure there have been multiple translations of that line, some of which actually say Ganondorf did do something outrageous, not that he might've.

Actually, that was disregarded as a mistranslation a LONG time ago, I think it's already been checked. Thanks to jacen for confirming that, though. Especially with the word "later".

Quote

She's talking about correcting the mistake of getting Link involved in it, which he still pretty much has to do no matter when he goes back to.

So... Link is still involved. The mistake that was corrected was allowing Ganondorf to enter the Sacred Realm. She's correcting Link's mistaken actions that she led him to take. In any case, it's ridiculous to say Zelda wouldn't want to send Link back to before those mistakes. My issue is with how stupid Zelda and Link would both have to be in that particular course of events. And the sages. And Ganondorf. And Aonuma. So that's what, five idiotic parties? I've said this before: It doesn't matter if you can explain how a theory physically happens, it doesn't work if it requires irrational behaviour on the part of the characters (or developers). We all know what happens when someone ignores that to an extreme.

Quote

I'd say that depends on what Link did.

This just isn't good enough, though. Unless there's a legitimate, implied set of events we can use to fill in the gaps in these circumstances, we can't say that things happened differently on the Child Timeline "just because". That's just the opposite of my use of Occam's razor for my own "speculation", since it increases the number of assumptions.

Edited by Impossible, 18 March 2009 - 02:29 AM.

[FDL]

Impossible, on Mar 18 2009, 03:25 AM, said:

It wasn't a straw man. The idea that Ganondorf broke into the SR and touched the Triforce, even on the SR, is an existing theory held by some people (including everyone's favourite timeline troll), which I find to have many irreconcilable flaws.

It was a straw man because you claimed that the people subscribing to such a theory only do so because Link has the Triforce on his hands at the end of OoT. That's part of it, but it's certainly not the only or even the most important part.

Quote

...Hence you don't know what my theory is, hence to claim that it's the result is a straw man. I have no doubt that other theories could lead to those outcomes, but it's not relevant to me. You accused me of having a theory that meant the events of OoT didn't happen, which is a lie. You accused me of having a theory which involved a literal "divine prank", which is a lie. (It's not literal unless the goddesses were saying, "I'm bored. LOL, let's fuck those sages up, go Triforce power!") Those are straw men, you can't cover that up.

I meant literal divine prank as in "Ganondorf received the Triforce right when the sages killed him because the gods wanted him to". Because that's still taking the divine prank literally. The OoT events stuff wasn't aimed at only you or saying you even necessarily held such beliefs, but I've seen theories that result in that enough times to raise my objections to it. None of those were intended as straw men of you. And I'd like if you could explain your theory in more detail so I know exactly where you're coming from.

Quote

Fair enough. I'm just applying Occam's razor. If there were more events to the story, they would have been mentioned in TP, or at LEAST by Aonuma. Since they weren't, I'm assuming there are no other events, from which I'm trying to determine possible reasons why the Triforce came to Ganondorf. For the most part, it's a matter of fate. The sages say Link was "chosen by the gods and guided by fate", and Ganon was "chosen by the gods to have power". Ganon has his whole fate thing in the removed text before he dies, too.

But the thing is, we know how Ganondorf got the Triforce in OoT. I'm not an extremely technical/professional debater or theorizer, but isn't it just as Occam's Razor-y to assume that the Triforce splits the way we know it does, rather than coming up with an entirely new mechanism that the game never really mentions? You pretty much have to make assumptions and speculate no matter what theory you hold.

Quote

Actually, that was disregarded as a mistranslation a LONG time ago, I think it's already been checked. Thanks to jacen for confirming that, though. Especially with the word "later".

Yeah, but it doesn't really make sense to me. First of all, Ganondorf invaded Hyrule and attempted to take it over. This is said in TP. Secondly, I don't see the logic in the king suddenly going from fully trusting Ganondorf to executing him before he does a damn thing just because some kid said he traveled through time. Even if Ganondorf didn't get into the SR, I'd say it's pretty clear he did something. He's referred to as a "big criminal", not a "potentially big criminal" after all.

Quote

So... Link is still involved. The mistake that was corrected was allowing Ganondorf to enter the Sacred Realm. She's correcting Link's mistaken actions that she led him to take. In any case, it's ridiculous to say Zelda wouldn't want to send Link back to before those mistakes. My issue is with how stupid Zelda and Link would both have to be in that particular course of events. And the sages. And Ganondorf. And Aonuma. So that's what, five idiotic parties? I've said this before: It doesn't matter if you can explain how a theory physically happens, it doesn't work if it requires irrational behaviour on the part of the characters (or developers). We all know what happens when someone ignores that to an extreme.

At least in my version of that theory, I always thought that Zelda just didn't have the ability to send him back to a time before he even drew the Master Sword. That's, again, something we have to speculate on either way.

Quote

This just isn't good enough, though. Unless there's a legitimate, implied set of events we can use to fill in the gaps in these circumstances, we can't say that things happened differently on the Child Timeline "just because". That's just the opposite of my use of Occam's razor for my own "speculation", since it increases the number of assumptions.

Hm? I'm not sure what you mean. If you believe in any theory you have to assume something different happened in the CT. And I don't really see why Link and the Sages conniving and plotting against Ganondorf can only happen against a Ganondorf ignorant of his status as a Triforce-bearer. Unless you believe Link was actually the one who captured Ganondorf in one-on-one, fair, combat that is. But that'd go against the idea that he exposed a weak point, wouldn't it?

Edited by FDL, 18 March 2009 - 10:20 AM.

[Fin]

FDL, on Mar 18 2009, 03:17 PM, said:

But the thing is, we know how Ganondorf got the Triforce in OoT. I'm not an extremely technical/professional debater or theorizer, but isn't it just as Occam's Razor-y to assume that the Triforce splits the way we know it does, rather than coming up with an entirely new mechanism that the game never really mentions? You pretty much have to make assumptions and speculate no matter what theory you hold.

One of the main reasons I prefer the divine prank version is that it's the only explanation offered in Twilight Princess itself. Nintendo generally try to make stand alone plots for the games, and to have a pretty important part of the plot explained in another game just doesn't cut it for me, especially with all of Ganon's talk about how he's one of the "chosen" ones (I don't think he ever makes such a claim in any of the games where we definitely know he stole the Triforce). And, as I mentioned in an earlier post, he seems to lose the Triforce just before he dies, suggesting to me that the gods took it away from him after he played his part.

It's been mentioned at least once in this thread that this is a copout explanation, but aside from the fact that, copout or not, it's the interpretation that makes the most sense to me, I think there's still a bit to be said for it. To quote myself (),

Fintin O'Brien, on Mar 14 2009, 07:50 AM, said:

I think Raien mentioned something in another thread about the possibility that the gods allowed the events of Twilight Princess to occur so that Link would inspire the Hylians, which seems fitting with his role in the story (I'd also say to help inspire the Twili).

[Impossible]

Quote

It was a straw man because you claimed that the people subscribing to such a theory only do so because Link has the Triforce on his hands at the end of OoT. That's part of it, but it's certainly not the only or even the most important part.

What are you talking about? How is that even relevant? And after the crap I just corrected where you mistakenly believed that what I was saying "leads to" some bad ideas, you're giving me another straw man? In fact, I was arguing against the outcome, what it LEADS TO, in the same way. Except I was doing so legitimately rather than attacking a different theory to the one I should have been talking about. And no, you can't argue against this based on who has what theory, because my post wasn't directed at a person, it was directed AT THE EXACT THEORY that was being discussed. So you have the straw man, I don't. The reasons for it didn't even enter into my post, so this is a load of crap. Not only did I never even fucking mention the Triforce mark, it had nothing to do with what I was attacking - the result, not the reasons. I really wish you'd stop using me as some kind of scapegoat for you to attack a point of view you apparently saw from someone else. The straw men are getting annoying.

Quote

I meant literal divine prank as in "Ganondorf received the Triforce right when the sages killed him because the gods wanted him to". Because that's still taking the divine prank literally.

- No it's not. Especially not if it's argued in a way that actually makes rational sense, which people arguing against this version of the divine prank constantly fucking ignore (the whole idea of Ganondorf being "chosen" especially).
- Since I never once made anything resembling this claim in the post in question, or even stated how I believed Ganondorf received the Triforce, it still has nothing to do with anything.
- That's not even my goddamn theory! And due to the above, even if it were, it had nothing to do with my post. I don't believe it was literally a divine prank, I believe that from the perspective of the sages, it could be perceived to be a divine prank - which is simply the truth. This does not describe Ganon entering the Sacred Realm. Ganondorf being "chosen", by something potentially perceivable as a "divine prank" (again: sages' perception, not literal events!), does not in any way describe Ganon breaking into the Sacred Realm. It's not literal, but it's also not an inaccurate joke that the sages made up to mislead Link.

Quote

The OoT events stuff wasn't aimed at only you or saying you even necessarily held such beliefs

Which is why it was a part of your big straw man-filled response directly attacking my post.

Quote

But the thing is, we know how Ganondorf got the Triforce in OoT. I'm not an extremely technical/professional debater or theorizer, but isn't it just as Occam's Razor-y to assume that the Triforce splits the way we know it does, rather than coming up with an entirely new mechanism that the game never really mentions? You pretty much have to make assumptions and speculate no matter what theory you hold.

I explained this already. And in addition to what I said, there's what Fintin said, which is that we prioritise TP's story. What OoT shows isn't even relevant because those events are on the Adult Timeline. Why would TP rely so heavily on those events and yet completely fail to explain or even REFERENCE them in any way? And if not in the game, why didn't Aonuma?

Quote

Secondly, I don't see the logic in the king suddenly going from fully trusting Ganondorf to executing him before he does a damn thing just because some kid said he traveled through time. Even if Ganondorf didn't get into the SR, I'd say it's pretty clear he did something. He's referred to as a "big criminal", not a "potentially big criminal" after all.

...Did you just completely miss the part in OoT where Ganondorf attacked Hyrule Castle and attempted to steal the Ocarina of Time from its princess?

Edited by Impossible, 19 March 2009 - 03:34 AM.

[FDL]

Fintin O'Brien, on Mar 19 2009, 03:50 AM, said:

FDL, on Mar 18 2009, 03:17 PM, said:

But the thing is, we know how Ganondorf got the Triforce in OoT. I'm not an extremely technical/professional debater or theorizer, but isn't it just as Occam's Razor-y to assume that the Triforce splits the way we know it does, rather than coming up with an entirely new mechanism that the game never really mentions? You pretty much have to make assumptions and speculate no matter what theory you hold.

One of the main reasons I prefer the divine prank version is that it's the only explanation offered in Twilight Princess itself. Nintendo generally try to make stand alone plots for the games, and to have a pretty important part of the plot explained in another game just doesn't cut it for me, especially with all of Ganon's talk about how he's one of the "chosen" ones (I don't think he ever makes such a claim in any of the games where we definitely know he stole the Triforce). And, as I mentioned in an earlier post, he seems to lose the Triforce just before he dies, suggesting to me that the gods took it away from him after he played his part.

It's been mentioned at least once in this thread that this is a copout explanation, but aside from the fact that, copout or not, it's the interpretation that makes the most sense to me, I think there's still a bit to be said for it. To quote myself (),

Fintin O'Brien, on Mar 14 2009, 07:50 AM, said:

I think Raien mentioned something in another thread about the possibility that the gods allowed the events of Twilight Princess to occur so that Link would inspire the Hylians, which seems fitting with his role in the story (I'd also say to help inspire the Twili).

And I disagree with it and dislike the plot point. But as long as you don't belittle my opinion I don't mind. I'd discuss this stuff further my I'd like to finish my discussion with Impossible.

Impossible, on Mar 19 2009, 04:27 AM, said:

What are you talking about? How is that even relevant? And after the crap I just corrected where you mistakenly believed that what I was saying "leads to" some bad ideas, you're giving me another straw man? In fact, I was arguing against the outcome, what it LEADS TO, in the same way. Except I was doing so legitimately rather than attacking a different theory to the one I should have been talking about. And no, you can't argue against this based on who has what theory, because my post wasn't directed at a person, it was directed AT THE EXACT THEORY that was being discussed. So you have the straw man, I don't. The reasons for it didn't even enter into my post, so this is a load of crap. Not only did I never even fucking mention the Triforce mark, it had nothing to do with what I was attacking - the result, not the reasons. I really wish you'd stop using me as some kind of scapegoat for you to attack a point of view you apparently saw from someone else. The straw men are getting annoying.

Tell me how this isn't a straw man:

You said

Sh, no, a single inconsistent detail with many possible meanings and interpretations that has no real significance in the story is CLEARLY more important than endless examples of fucking insane stupidity of all the characters involved if Ganondorf had the ToP the whole time.

Nobody says that it's only that one "inconsistent detail" that leads them to believe that Ganondorf had the ToP the whole time. It's a part, sure, but not the only part. And I'm not trying to use you as a scapegoat, I'm responding to general ideas I've heard from people who believe that Ganondorf got the Triforce during his execution. I'm sorry I elect to share my general opinions in posts rather than directing my discussion at you and you alone, but that's just how I do it.

Quote

- No it's not. Especially not if it's argued in a way that actually makes rational sense, which people arguing against this version of the divine prank constantly fucking ignore (the whole idea of Ganondorf being "chosen" especially).
- Since I never once made anything resembling this claim in the post in question, or even stated how I believed Ganondorf received the Triforce, it still has nothing to do with anything.
- That's not even my goddamn theory! And due to the above, even if it were, it had nothing to do with my post. I don't believe it was literally a divine prank, I believe that from the perspective of the sages, it could be perceived to be a divine prank - which is simply the truth. This does not describe Ganon entering the Sacred Realm. Ganondorf being "chosen", by something potentially perceivable as a "divine prank" (again: sages' perception, not literal events!), does not in any way describe Ganon breaking into the Sacred Realm. It's not literal, but it's also not an inaccurate joke that the sages made up to mislead Link.

Alright, I guess I still haven't explained myself well. When I say "literal divine prank" I mean you take the line to mean he literally received the Triforce at that point from the gods. I don't mean you or anyone thinks that the sages were being asked if their refrigerator was running by the gods.

Quote

Which is why it was a part of your big straw man-filled response directly attacking my post.

Attacking your post? I did no such thing. I first explained what explanations I feel can be offered up to your points against the theory that Ganondorf stole the Triforce and then explained my objections in general with certain things I've seen argued. I've tried to be civil with you, and there's zero reason for you to be rude to me.

Quote

I explained this already. And in addition to what I said, there's what Fintin said, which is that we prioritise TP's story. What OoT shows isn't even relevant because those events are on the Adult Timeline. Why would TP rely so heavily on those events and yet completely fail to explain or even REFERENCE them in any way? And if not in the game, why didn't Aonuma?

My point is, we know how the Triforce works to a degree. If TP were to offer up a new mechanism for the Triforce or something, it would've been referenced beyond vague lines about Ganondorf being "chosen". You guys are arguing, if I'm not mistaken, that Nintendo expected us to actually extrapolate a new mechanism of the Triforce completely unrelated to anything we've heard before and new motives for the gods simply from lines about divine pranks and Ganondorf being chosen. And if I'm not mistaken about that, then it seems like a bit of a leap to me. And OoT DOES matter, because it's clearly TP's prequel and the game places importance on the past of Hyrule, specifically that time frame.

Quote

...Did you just completely miss the part in OoT where Ganondorf attacked Hyrule Castle and attempted to steal the Ocarina of Time from its princess?

I did not. But you were saying that Aonuma's quote suggests that Ganondorf was executed pre-emptively, I believe that's not true even if Ganondorf didn't get into the SR.

Now, I apologize for saying something that could be construed as a straw man of you. That was not my intention, my intention was to discuss my general opinions on the different theories I've seen about TP, and disagree with your seeming-assertion that there's one detail which causes everyone who holds the "Ganondorf already had the Triforce" theory to believe it. That's it. As I explained in my first post, I was worried I may not have expressed myself as well as I would have liked. Now, hopefully we no longer have to argue about straw men or anything like that.

EDIT: BTW, can you please explain to me how you view the events between OoT/MM and TP? I've looked for indications of it but I can't find any detailed descriptions in the topics that seem the most likely to hold 'em. After all this business about me mentioning things you don't believe, I'd like an in-depth look at how you perceive it.

Edited by FDL, 19 March 2009 - 06:59 PM.

[Impossible]

Huh, actually, I made some detailed posts the very previous time this was discussed explaining my view on the Divine Prank... I can either post what I've said before on that, or on the events of OoT's ending and how they led to Ganondorf's execution. (That whole argument of mine being a good example of how, despite the lies of certain trolls, I consider every single possibility and try to come to a rational conclusion - I didn't have a premade, biased conclusion in mind when I wrote that discussion. It's in my timeline analysis document, too.) Which one is it that you want? >_>

And you may claim to not have been directing your discussion at me, but it still looks pretty clearly like that was what you were doing. We were talking about a specific divine prank theory, and you responded to my attacks against it by attacking a theory that is completely unrelated to mine.

The Triforce mark comment, by the way, wasn't the one that produced my argument against this theory, it was just an aside responding to someone else's comment. It's also really the only actual evidence for the Triforce to have already been split, and it's the basis of how many people form their theory on this. And I think it gets blown out of proportion. Isn't the fact that Zelda doesn't have a Triforce mark on her hand in the same scene somewhat telling? Or the fact that Link would have to somehow have received the ToC after we know from TWW that he lost it? In any case, OoT was made in 1998, and newer games like TWW certainly take precedence in determining whether or not Link had the ToC.

[FDL]

Impossible, on Mar 19 2009, 08:40 PM, said:

Huh, actually, I made some detailed posts the very previous time this was discussed explaining my view on the Divine Prank... I can either post what I've said before on that, or on the events of OoT's ending and how they led to Ganondorf's execution. (That whole argument of mine being a good example of how, despite the lies of certain trolls, I consider every single possibility and try to come to a rational conclusion - I didn't have a premade, biased conclusion in mind when I wrote that discussion. It's in my timeline analysis document, too.) Which one is it that you want? >_>

I looked for that document of yours and could not find it. If you can direct me to that or repost something you've said, that'd be great.

Quote

And you may claim to not have been directing your discussion at me, but it still looks pretty clearly like that was what you were doing. We were talking about a specific divine prank theory, and you responded to my attacks against it by attacking a theory that is completely unrelated to mine.

Nah, that part was intended to raise my objections to various opposing theories, not any singular one. Again, I apologize for being unclear, as I did skip around a bit between what I was addressing.

Quote

The Triforce mark comment, by the way, wasn't the one that produced my argument against this theory, it was just an aside responding to someone else's comment. It's also really the only actual evidence for the Triforce to have already been split, and it's the basis of how many people form their theory on this. And I think it gets blown out of proportion. Isn't the fact that Zelda doesn't have a Triforce mark on her hand in the same scene somewhat telling? Or the fact that Link would have to somehow have received the ToC after we know from TWW that he lost it? In any case, OoT was made in 1998, and newer games like TWW certainly take precedence in determining whether or not Link had the ToC.

I'd say the presence of something is far more telling than the absence of it, particularly because Zelda's hand was in her mouth for that scene(which would potentially screw up the game graphics-wise). And TP mentions how Link had the ToC in the past too, which I would say is most likely a reference to OoT's ending. I'm starting to believe in a non-SR invasion theory, but I still believe they had the Triforce pieces at the very beginning/around the very beginning of the timeline split.

[Impossible]

Again, just tell me which part you want me to post, and I'll try to do that.

Zelda's hand was... what? We see her hand in a couple of positions, it would be extremely obvious if the graphics for it were there. But they didn't put them there, and there's no resonating of the Triforce pieces. Nor do I see how TP references OoT's ending as you're saying... I don't even remember any implications that the legendary hero had the ToC, but even if there is one, it doesn't say when he received it. He didn't have it when he become the hero recognised by the Gorons and Zoras.

Edited by Impossible, 19 March 2009 - 07:54 PM.

[FDL]

Impossible, on Mar 19 2009, 08:53 PM, said:

Again, just tell me which part you want me to post, and I'll try to do that.

Mainly what I want to know is what you believe happened from OoT/around that time and what didn't. I already kinda know what you believe happened with the Triforce.

Quote

Zelda's hand was... what? We see her hand in a couple of positions, it would be extremely obvious if the graphics for it were there. But they didn't put them there, and there's no resonating of the Triforce pieces.

Actually, the only time we see her right hand clearly is when it's in her mouth. And the fact that Link's Triforce was shining would imply resonance.

Quote

Nor do I see how TP references OoT's ending as you're saying... I don't even remember any implications that the legendary hero had the ToC, but even if there is one, it doesn't say when he received it. He didn't have it when he become the hero recognised by the Gorons and Zoras.

Faron says that the ancient hero had it. And I'm not sure where you're getting the stuff about the Gorons and Zoras either way.

[Impossible]

How the hell can there be resonance when there's no shining on Zelda's hand? Sorry, that just doesn't work. The visuals for that effect are VERY obvious and her hand is not obscured. If they meant to imply such a thing, they would have made the piece obviously present on both hands. It's simply not there, there's no argument that we can't make it out. They didn't put it there, even in the scenes where her hand is harder to see.

Quote

Faron says that the ancient hero had it. And I'm not sure where you're getting the stuff about the Gorons and Zoras either way.

Can't be bothered checking the quote, but I'll take your word for it... I'm getting the stuff about the Gorons and Zoras from OoT. Uh, duh?

Okay, so, here's my overly long attempt to work out OoT's ending... I tried to remove references to other parts of my document, hopefully I didn't miss anything.

There are many possibilities of exactly what happened at the end of OoT, and we need to rule as many of them out as we can, by proving and disproving certain aspects. Starting with Link’s return to the past – that is, the creation of the new timeline, where the important questions begin:

1. At what moment did Link arrive back in the past in OoT's ending?
A) Before ever setting out on his journey.
B) Immediately before his first meeting with Zelda.
C) After collecting the Spiritual Stones, but before Zelda flees Hyrule Castle
D) After collecting the Spiritual Stones and the Ocarina of Time, immediately before drawing the Master Sword.
E) AFTER drawing the Master Sword, having somehow returned it.

I argue that we can rule out A through C because they're just not physically possible. I don't see how Link can return to the Temple of Time at a point when he wasn’t in the Temple of Time. Then there would be two Links, the other one being wherever Link originally was at that time (and still on a quest to get to the Master Sword). It also contradicts the "time reversal" understanding of OoT’s time travel. Zelda sent Link back to a time, NOT to a place, and the only logical time for him to be sent back to was before causing Ganondorf’s rise to power, so, right before drawing the Master Sword. Link should have reversed time to a point when he was in the Temple of Time, and in addition, when the Door of Time has just been opened - otherwise, he would have been trapped inside the Master Sword chamber. Also important is that Zelda tells him to close the Door of Time, meaning it MUST still be open, because he just opened it.

Option C begins to seem needed when we consider some future questions, though, and it's just a matter of working out which points fit together. For one, Zelda gives Link the Ocarina of Time before he goes to Termina, according to MM, but with D, Link already has it. But this can be explained, too. The Ocarina doesn’t belong to Link; it belongs to the royal family. Link would have had to give it back to Zelda at the end of OoT. Then, when she sensed that he would need it, she gave it back to him. This is still a logical flow of events, and in fact it’s the only outcome that makes any sense anyway (Link shouldn’t keep the OoT), so it’s not a big flaw. On the other hand, with C, the Door of Time is still closed, so Link would be unable to leave, which is a much bigger problem. There’s another impossibility, too, which I’ll get to with the next question.

I think by asking this question first, we can rule out most possibilities, and make answering the other questions easier, even if it initially seems simpler for Zelda to never have fled Hyrule Castle. There are four major contradictions with Link returning to any point prior to opening the Door of Time. Firstly, it’s just not possible for the Door of Time to not be open when Link returns, or Link leaving the temple and Zelda’s command to close the door both become physically impossible. Secondly, at an earlier time, Ganondorf is still swearing allegiance to the king. He didn’t believe his own psychic daughter when she said he was evil, so there’s no way that the king will believe Ganondorf’s real goals, and sentence him to death, with no evidence and before Ganondorf’s treasonous attack. The next two reasons come from MM and TP respectively, and these definitely make A and B impossible, as if the Door of Time issue weren’t enough. In MM’s ending, Skull Kid refers to a boy teaching him a song in the forest. This is the Skull Kid who Link played Saria’s Song to in OoT. Link can’t even learn Saria’s Song until AFTER his first meeting with Zelda, so it is impossible for them to not have met. Similarly, in TP, the Gorons and Zoras both talk about a legendary hero, who is probably OoT’s Link. (Aonuma also implied that the mention of King Zora was a reference to OoT, in response to a question in the split confirmation interview.) So he must have collected the Spiritual Stones for them to see him in that way (Darunia and King Zora both would be very grateful to Link), or he wouldn’t have done much to make him a legendary hero.

I also think E doesn't work, because then Ganondorf should have entered the Sacred Realm. Which some people DO believe should be the case... But then he would have touched the Triforce, and it would have split, and everything would have been the same as in the Adult Timeline. It may explain a bit more easily why Ganondorf has the ToP in his execution, but there are many contradictions to that as well. Quite simply, the basis of the timeline split is that Ganondorf did NOT touch the Triforce. Zelda used her power to send Link back, and it would have been really stupid for her to send him to a time when it was still too late to stop Ganondorf – once he got the ToP, the MS was needed. Also note Aonuma’s statement that they believed Ganondorf would do something “outrageous” in his quest to gain the Triforce (as explained by TP’s sages) if left alone. This is a far cry from him being in the middle of a Triforce-empowered conquest of Hyrule. Finally, if it were this damn easy to stop Ganondorf, why didn’t Link just do it in the first place? He can already travel back in time to this point using the Master Sword. If the MS isn’t necessary, why not just go back in time that way and do the same thing? Because it’s too late to stop Ganondorf. It was Zelda’s power as the seventh sage that allowed her to send Link back at a time when Ganondorf could be stopped, specifically using the Ocarina of Time. Otherwise, the entire damn game was pointless.

This basically leaves D, which is my belief. But in some ways, C needs to be considered later, particularly because other people have argued it, so we’ll see where that leads. As I explained in my original description of the split, though, the entire choice Link made that led to events proceeding down two completely different paths was the decision to take or leave the Master Sword. So it by far makes the most sense for the timeline split to have occurred when that exact choice was made, at the moment when Link originally drew the sword.

2. When does Link meet Zelda in OoT's ending?
A) That's his first meeting with her.
B) Before Zelda flees Hyrule Castle.
C) After Zelda flees Hyrule Castle, having returned.
D) Some time after Link actually returns to the past.

A and B don't work because they assume one of A-C for question 1, which we already know are wrong. A in particular is impossible, because of Saria’s Song and the Skull Kid. They also wouldn't explain TP's backstory, as Ganondorf needs to do something bad in order to be executed. At that point in time, Link and Zelda couldn't do anything to stop Ganondorf, but the consequences of that meeting are supposed to be significant. So I think Link and Zelda had to have already met, based on what Aonuma said. The same evidence also creates a problem with B, and correspondingly, with C for question 1. Before Ganondorf attacks Hyrule Castle, Zelda tells the King that Ganondorf is evil, but he doesn’t listen. Why would anything change? There’s no evidence. It’s only when he attacks and attempts to take the Ocarina of Time that he reveals his true intentions, as told in TP: “establishing dominion over the Sacred Realm”. Without that having happened, we have no explanation for why Ganondorf was finally arrested, and what evil thing he did. But after the attack, it makes perfect sense, as this not only shows that he’s evil, but specifically that he was trying to enter the Sacred Realm. Yes, we can speculate that Ganondorf did something else, but we’re already speculating about how it’s possible for Link to leave the Temple of Time under that theory, and I want to choose the option that lets us minimise the number of plotholes. I think with C, there’s only one, and we can try to explain that.

As I’ll explain in the next part, option C does leave us with an event that, at first glance, has no window to occur... But B, which also has the “trapped in the Temple of Time” problem that C does not, is no better there. Because if Link has collected the Spiritual Stones, but Ganondorf hasn’t attacked Hyrule Castle yet, we have another insanely small window. Zelda flees Hyrule Castle almost IMMEDIATELY after Link gets the last Spiritual Stone, so Ganondorf’s attack on Hyrule Castle must have commenced by the time Link got Zora’s Sapphire. And since Link definitely did collect the Spiritual Stones in the Child Timeline (TP confirms that he helped the Gorons and Zoras), that basically makes the attack on Hyrule Castle totally unavoidable in the Child Timeline. Link can’t get back to Hyrule Castle before Ganondorf’s attack; this is a physical impossibility in the game. Even if he got back there, it would be far too late to warn Zelda, which is presumably what he would be doing at the end of OoT... And the King still wouldn’t listen, because he still trusts Ganondorf until the attack. The attack on Hyrule Castle was inevitable, and I don’t see any way in which Link and Zelda could have stopped it. Anyway, Aonuma didn’t say that Link warned Zelda, and logic suggests that this would have been the first priority of their conversation if that were still a future event. No matter what, Zelda fleeing Hyrule Castle is an unavoidable event that must have occurred on the Child Timeline. This leaves option B with three plotholes that I’ve explained, two of which relate to physical impossibilities (the attack and the Door of Time issue, while the other plothole is that there’s no reason for Ganondorf to be arrested). So while this is the most popular theory besides my own, because Zelda is still in Hyrule Castle and has the Ocarina of Time, it’s just not the best theory. As I’ve said, I believe I can propose a better a theory that only has one major problem, and even that problem can be explained. On the other hand, there’s no viable, principled explanation for physically impossible events.

Ultimately, Zelda must have already fled Hyrule Castle in the Child Timeline, which is why I’m assuming of D for question 1, and C or D for question 2. But why does Zelda return? How can she be sure it's safe? Do we assume that Ganondorf stopped chasing Zelda so quickly? It seems like he logically would have, because his real target was Link, who he was waiting for to open the Door of Time for him. But why on earth would Zelda have decided it was immediately safe to return to Hyrule Castle? She didn’t know that. In the Adult Timeline, she went into hiding (and became Sheik); this should be her instinct in the Child Timeline as well. That’s why I’ve introduced a fourth possibility, which is that their meeting occurs days later. The only logical approach here may be to assume there's a gap between Link's arrival in the past and his meeting with Zelda. This gives us a lot more wiggle room, so to speak, for these events to happen, rather than assuming a very strict and unlikely set of events. Impa and Zelda wait until they know Ganondorf isn’t chasing them and Hyrule Castle is safe. As a consequence of the first two questions, we have to somehow make the third one fit with them, and that, while being an unorthodox idea, may be the best way to do it. I’ll talk about the reason for that more with the next question. Both C and D are still possibilities.

There are also two other logical explanations for Zelda’s return. Firstly, she could have returned to Hyrule Castle to try and organise a force to combat Ganondorf, which would suggest the same thing happened on the Adult Timeline. But the more likely possibility is that she did this on the Child Timeline, but didn’t on the Adult Timeline, because she could sense Ganon’s power when he touched the Triforce, and knew that it wasn’t safe to go back. Correspondingly, she would have sensed that it was safe for her to return in the Child Timeline. Since Zelda actually received a Triforce piece on the Adult Timeline, she probably knew that this meant Ganon also had a piece, leading her to go into hiding. If Zelda and Impa waited until they sensed it was safe on the Child Timeline, it allows for a few days to pass, and also explains why she went back.

3. Where was Ganondorf when Link went back in time, and when Link met Zelda?
A) He was nowhere near any of them, as this was before he intended to get Link to open the Sacred Realm or chased Zelda out of Hyrule Castle.
B) He's still chasing Zelda, who returns to Hyrule Castle later.
C) He's stopped his chase of Zelda, this only being a ploy to trick Link (who he believed to have the Spiritual Stones), and is waiting for Link to open the Door of Time.
D) He's entered the Sacred Realm already.

A still doesn't work because Link wouldn't have the Spiritual Stones or have entered the Master Sword chamber, plus the same reasons A is impossible for every question. And D shouldn't be possible, as I explained before. Even if you assume E to question 1... Could he have gotten in and out of the Sacred Realm in that time? And then why wouldn't he have been able to take over Hyrule? Aonuma clearly said that events happened differently in the Child Timeline, and they were able to stop Ganondorf's plan before he did “something outrageous” – if he’d entered the Sacred Realm, he once again would have conquered Hyrule.

This leaves us with B and C. You'd think that for Zelda to be back in Hyrule Castle, C would be the case. So where is Ganondorf at the end of OoT? Why isn't he waiting for Link, at the entrance of the Temple of Time or something? He wouldn’t just ignore Link if his plan had gone wrong, he would have tried to force him to open the way for him. And this is where the great plothole arises. Ganondorf should be following either Link or Zelda. For OoT’s ending to be physically possible, he somehow must not exist in that time. If he were BEHIND Zelda, it should not be physically possible for Zelda to get back to Hyrule Castle before him. So Ganondorf must have stopped chasing Zelda and gone back to the Temple of Time BEFORE Zelda went back to Hyrule Castle, meaning that wherever Ganondorf goes, he should meet either Link or Zelda. His target was the Temple of Time, so it should have been Link, but he isn’t there. And if he’s not there yet, he must still be chasing Zelda, but Zelda is in Hyrule Castle! As you can see, this paradox is leading us in circles. The window of opportunity for Link and Zelda to meet is impossibly small – in fact, it seems nonexistent, unless there was some fortunate coincidence that distracted Ganondorf or involved him leaving the direct paths of both characters (which is still possible).

This is where answering D to question 2 (as well as 1) comes in, and this is the real reason I raised that option. It’s possible for us to separate Link’s return to the past and his meeting with Zelda, since we don’t actually know that he immediately goes to Hyrule Castle after returning. This makes B work, because he may chase Zelda for a few days before she and Link both go to Hyrule Castle again. But it doesn't all make sense. Ganondorf's plan all along was to get Link to collect the Spiritual Stones. (He's the one who planted the bottled message in Lake Hylia, which Ruto knows nothing about despite supposedly having written.) He should have been right behind Link, so his location isn't explained. Could he be in between chasing Zelda and returning to the Temple of Time, and have JUST missed Link? That would require insanely perfect timing, and wouldn't explain Zelda returning to Hyrule Castle. And if she returned later, then what was happening in between? Still, it’s probably our best option, due to the numerous reasons why Ganondorf must have already chased Zelda from Hyrule Castle, both logical (Ganondorf had to have committed a crime) and physical (Link must have opened the Door of Time, both in order to leave and in order to close it as we know he does).

I kind of feel like even Aonuma hasn’t really examined this closely enough to see the problem here. Depending on how you want to look at question 2, B and C are both possible here, but I’m beginning to prefer the idea that some time passes, making my choice B, as Ganondorf must still have been in his pursuit of Zelda when Link first reached the Temple of Time.

4. Why was Ganondorf arrested and sentenced to death?
A) Link and Zelda now had enough evidence to convince the King of his guilt.
B) He had already attacked Hyrule Castle and chased Zelda, making him guilty of treason, and his plans to conquer the SR were exposed.
C) Ganondorf, his original plan having failed, did something else bad, making it clear to the King that he had been betrayed.

I still think that Ganondorf must have already chased Zelda, which would be reason enough for the King to believe what he was told about Ganondorf trying to enter the Sacred Realm. As for A, I’m going to return to the idea of Link having travelled back to before Ganondorf’s attack. Is there really some way Link could have gone back to before Zelda left Hyrule Castle, rather than their meeting being after she returns? That's less messy, and it explains why Zelda gave Link the Ocarina of Time in the MM flashback, and avoids the problem of Ganondorf’s unexplained location. But then it doesn't make sense for Link to be in the Temple of Time at the end. He SHOULD be wherever he was originally at that time, following the time reversal logic. The Door of Time is open, otherwise he would be trapped. Which is why Link’s point of arrival makes the most sense by far immediately before he first drew the Master Sword. After all, that was the moment Link lost his childhood, which he was meant to get back. That was the moment Ganondorf became able to take over Hyrule. NOT when he attacked Hyrule Castle... That’s an arbitrary point before events were set into motion, it doesn’t make sense. Besides, as I showed above, the attack on Hyrule Castle was unavoidable, Link and Zelda couldn’t have prevented it.

So the only logical response to question 1 was D (Link returned immediately before drawing the MS), and we have to proceed from there... Which answers this question, as only B avoids speculation. It just doesn’t answer the real central question, which is the plothole I mentioned earlier, and that is question 3 (Ganondorf’s location). No matter what, we have to speculate. The window of time is basically impossible under our normal assumptions. There’s no way Link could get back to the castle before Ganondorf did. So my own theory is that Link waits a few days until things settle down, and then goes to meet Zelda and work out what to do. Aonuma says that this meeting impacts the future of that timeline, so it’s not something we can just discard. My theory has to speculate about a gap in time that the games don’t imply, but I think it’s a pretty minimal amount of speculation, and certainly less than any other theory, as the rest all have definite, obvious contradictions.

Now, based on these deductions, I want to make a complete attempt at tracing the events of OoT's ending:

Link appears back in the Temple of Time, moments before he first drew the Master Sword, as it still rests in its pedestal. He leaves, closes the (PREVIOUSLY OPENED) Door of Time, and takes the Spiritual Stones. (This causes the timeline to split off.) He manages to leave safely, with Ganondorf either still chasing Zelda, or not yet having reached the Temple of Time after ceasing his pursuit. At this point, there are two possibilities:

A) Link hides out for a few days, waiting until Hyrule Castle is safe, and Zelda does the same, causing Ganondorf to lose track of both, so he doesn’t meet either. They both return and meet at Hyrule Castle. The King of Hyrule (if he’s still alive) plans his counterattack on Ganondorf as a result of his betrayal, and begins the search for him. Some time in the next few years, Ganondorf does something foolish enough to get caught, due to his belief that he was invincible.

B) Impa noticed that Ganondorf didn't seem to be chasing them anymore, and she went back to Hyrule Castle with Zelda to inspect its current state and to ensure Zelda’s safety. Link goes to Hyrule Castle, and meets Zelda in the courtyard. By the time Ganondorf reaches the Temple of Time, Link is gone.

As for what Ganondorf did in either option... I do think he might have gotten pissed off that his entire plan had fallen apart, and at some point launched an attack on the Temple of Time. This explains what led to him being captured, and why the Temple of Time is in ruins in TP.

I know the "waiting a few days" part is strange, because it's never implied in the ending that any time has passed, but it's also the most logical sequence of events. With B, we have to ask just where the hell Ganondorf was. How is it that he's not following Link OR Zelda? If he were only chasing Zelda, it’s possible that he could have lost her, but there’s no way he would have exhausted all his efforts chasing Zelda. He correctly believed that Link had all the keys to the Sacred Realm. So I’m going to go with A, and leave the timeline split, as it relates to OoT and MM, there.

(To be honest, I want to add a comment on reading this again... The fact that I'm so damn self-conscious whenever I delve into speculation, and am usually reluctant to talk about speculative areas of the timeline like FSA-ALttP, has to say something about my approach to the idea... And my use of Occam's razor. My principles ARE consistent here, I don't speculate when it suits me the way many people, especially ZUers, like to do.)

Edited by Impossible, 19 March 2009 - 08:35 PM.

[FDL]

Thanks for that. As you thought, we are in agreement on quite a bit of this stuff, even though we are not completely. Again, sorry if it seemed like I was saying you were implying all these other things. That was my fault.

Impossible, on Mar 19 2009, 09:32 PM, said:

How the hell can there be resonance when there's no shining on Zelda's hand? Sorry, that just doesn't work. The visuals for that effect are VERY obvious and her hand is not obscured. If they meant to imply such a thing, they would have made the piece obviously present on both hands. It's simply not there, there's no argument that we can't make it out. They didn't put it there, even in the scenes where her hand is harder to see.

Her hand is obscured because it's in her mouth. And as I've said, I kinda think the relatively primitive graphics of OoT may have screwed it up if they tried to have it shine on her hand when she had it in her mouth like that. Just look at how screwed up Link's Triforce looks simply by having the Gold Gauntlets. Again, the presence of something takes precedence over the absence of something, particularly when the Triforce is known to shine at different times, rather than constantly doing so.

Quote

Can't be bothered checking the quote, but I'll take your word for it... I'm getting the stuff about the Gorons and Zoras from OoT. Uh, duh?

Man, I feel stupid. I meant to ask what you believe that implies.

Edited by FDL, 19 March 2009 - 08:59 PM.

[Average Gamer]

Impossible, on Mar 19 2009, 06:32 PM, said:

How the hell can there be resonance when there's no shining on Zelda's hand?

Triforce resonance has always been a weird thing in the series. The pieces never resonated when Link and Sheik were together in OoT, when Sheik turned back into Zelda Link's Triforce piece didn't resonate, Ganondorf seemingly had to make his piece resonate (whereas the ToC and the ToW resonated automatically), and that's just from OoT.

Personally, one piece resonating in OoT's ending is good enough for me.

Also, wasn't Link favored by the Gorons in TP because he killed some demon with an adult-sized bow?

Edited by Average Gamer, 19 March 2009 - 09:09 PM.

[Impossible]

I don't see how one piece resonating is enough - have we ever seen that happen with one piece, and yet not the one it's supposed to be reacting to? Zelda's hand isn't even in her mouth, it's in front of it, and her hand, although a bit small from that distance, is visible enough in other shots. The fact is, there's no claim that the graphic is there, it's ridiculous. If it were, we would be able to see it glowing, and it wouldn't be so insanely well-hidden from us. It's not there on the model. On the other hand, at the end of TWW, the Triforce pieces remain on people's hands after they leave their bodies. Isn't it fair to assume something similar could have happened here, where the piece continues to be illuminated briefly?

Jumbie translated the description of the Hero's Bow as this: "You've obtained the hero's bow! The hero of old left it behind, and it is passed on as a treasure in the Goron tribe." The US version added a bit too much to this. It's called the Hero's Bow, NOT the Fairy Bow, so it's obviously the bow from MM, which Link did indeed use to fight all kinds of things. It doesn't say why the Gorons saw him as a hero, but I think the fact that he saved them from dying of starvation would be enough of a reason.

Edited by Impossible, 20 March 2009 - 03:59 AM.

[Fin]

Average Gamer, on Mar 20 2009, 01:55 AM, said:

Triforce resonance has always been a weird thing in the series. The pieces never resonated when Link and Sheik were together in OoT, when Sheik turned back into Zelda Link's Triforce piece didn't resonate, Ganondorf seemingly had to make his piece resonate (whereas the ToC and the ToW resonated automatically), and that's just from OoT.

Personally, one piece resonating in OoT's ending is good enough for me.

Actually, in OoT didn't the pieces only resonate because all three of them were together? This was retconned in WW, I know, where the ToP resonates when near a piece of ToW, but from a 1998 viewpoint Triforce resonance seemingly depends on all three being near each other. A don't think the ToC at the end was meant to be taken too literally - just an indication for the player that Link kept his piece through the time travel. Given how this is treated in WW, with Link losing the Triforce upon leaving the timeline, I think it's reasonable to say it no longer counts.

[Average Gamer]

Impossible, on Mar 20 2009, 01:52 AM, said:

I don't see how one piece resonating is enough - have we ever seen that happen with one piece, and yet not the one it's supposed to be reacting to?

Yes. In TWW, when Ganondorf (apparently) tried to snap Tetra's neck and was interrupted by his Triforce piece, the ToP resonated but the fragment piece of the ToW did not.

Impossible said

On the other hand, at the end of TWW, the Triforce pieces remain on people's hands after they leave their bodies. Isn't it fair to assume something similar could have happened here, where the piece continues to be illuminated briefly?

I doubt it. In TWW the marks were flickering, while in OoT's ending the ToC is clearly on Link's hand, and it wasn't present on his hand in the Temple of Time either. Additionally, in TWW the flickering occurred just moments after the Triforce pieces left their chosen hosts. In OoT's ending however, even if Link immediately went to Hyrule Castle after leaving the Temple of Time, a good deal of time would have had to pass for him to reach the castle and bypass the guards, and he doesn't seem to be in any hurry either seeing as how he is walking.

Edited by Average Gamer, 20 March 2009 - 04:56 AM.

[Impossible]

Quote

Yes. In TWW, when Ganondorf (apparently) tried to snap Tetra's neck and was interrupted by his Triforce piece, the ToP resonated but the fragment piece of the ToW did not.

This still doesn't create any logic to it. It doesn't explain why only one would resonate, or even give a comparable example. There are other factors that make the circumstances completely different - it's a PIECE of the ToW, not the actual ToW. Not on Zelda's hand and not inside of her. A full Triforce piece responds to the presence of any part of the Triforce. Zelda in OoT would have had a full piece, if it had split.

Quote

I doubt it. In TWW the marks were flickering, while in OoT's ending the ToC is clearly on Link's hand, and it wasn't present on his hand in the Temple of Time either.

A minor visual difference isn't evidence here. Things change between games, it's ridiculous to expect absolute consistency. There are many things the mark in the ending scene can mean, but TWW saying that Link lost the ToC when he left can only mean one thing. TWW tells us that Link lost the ToC, and it came out after OoT. That's all we need to know.

[Average Gamer]

Impossible, on Mar 20 2009, 04:52 AM, said:

This still doesn't create any logic to it. It doesn't explain why only one would resonate, or even give a comparable example. There are other factors that make the circumstances completely different - it's a PIECE of the ToW, not the actual ToW.

The shard of the Triforce of Wisdom in TWW causes the ToP to resonate regardless. In fact, comparing that to OoT, the shard of the ToW seemingly did a better job of making the ToP resonate than the complete ToW and ToC, since the ToP didn't appear in OoT until Ganondorf willed it.

Impossible said

Not on Zelda's hand and not inside of her.

But later on, when Daphnes called forth Tetra's piece, the shard did in fact resonate and made the same sound effect that the ToP did earlier. The shards can clearly resonate.

Impossible said

A minor visual difference isn't evidence here.

Minor? In TWW the marks were clearly flickering into nothingness right after the wish, which was tied into the theme of the past being left behind/fading way. In OoT, however, the ToC is brightly resonating on Link's hand and not flickering in the slightest. If anything, the presence of the ToC was meant to be the surprising part of the ending, not Link revisiting Zelda.

Impossible said

TWW saying that Link lost the ToC when he left can only mean one thing.

Yeah, but he clearly had the ToC in the ending of OoT, and TWW (along with OoT's ending) makes it clear that the timeline was split anyway.

[FDL]

On the point about Zelda not having it: I'm aware of that. But what I'm saying is, there are a thousand possible(some OoU) reasons why it isn't there. On the other hand, they literally had to add the ToC to Child Link's character model in order to demonstrate it was there, which says a hell of a lot more than Zelda having her default model. Nothing actually negates it in any game, let alone OoT.

On the point about TWW: If anything, TWW's line about the ToC proves that Link had the Triforce of Courage from the child timeline at the end of OoT, rather than the one from the AT.

Edited by FDL, 20 March 2009 - 09:17 AM.

[MikePetersSucks]

Quote

I also think E doesn't work, because then Ganondorf should have entered the Sacred Realm. Which some people DO believe should be the case... But then he would have touched the Triforce, and it would have split, and everything would have been the same as in the Adult Timeline.

You're assuming that with E there's enough time for Ganondorf to actually get in there. I imagine the time between Link lifting and putting down the Master Sword would be much too small for Ganondorf to seize the opportunity.

[Impossible]

Quote

The shard of the Triforce of Wisdom in TWW causes the ToP to resonate regardless. In fact, comparing that to OoT, the shard of the ToW seemingly did a better job of making the ToP resonate than the complete ToW and ToC, since the ToP didn't appear in OoT until Ganondorf willed it.

Quote

But later on, when Daphnes called forth Tetra's piece, the shard did in fact resonate and made the same sound effect that the ToP did earlier. The shards can clearly resonate.

*sigh* I don't think you understand the point here. This is basically irrelevant. It's a completely different situation with things happening for completely different reasons. ToW is "resonating" with itself because the two pieces are meant to be joined together. How the hell does this relate to the idea that the ToW should have been on Zelda's hand in OoT's ending? It's not. This is going way off topic.

Quote

Minor? In TWW the marks were clearly flickering into nothingness right after the wish, which was tied into the theme of the past being left behind/fading way. In OoT, however, the ToC is brightly resonating on Link's hand and not flickering in the slightest. If anything, the presence of the ToC was meant to be the surprising part of the ending, not Link revisiting Zelda.

...But TWW came out after OoT! Do I have to keep making the same point over and over again? OoT doesn't take TWW's themes or visual choices into account. It's a minor graphical detail.

The Triforce mark is completely absent from both Link and Zelda's hands in MM's flashback, by the way.

[Average Gamer]

Impossible, on Mar 20 2009, 05:56 PM, said:

*sigh* I don't think you understand the point here. This is basically irrelevant. It's a completely different situation with things happening for completely different reasons. ToW is "resonating" with itself because the two pieces are meant to be joined together.

The Triforce of Wisdom pieces are not reacting to each other though. Daphnes specifically summons Tetra's piece to him, which is what causes it to resonate. The piece in his possession is only revealed when Daphnes calls it forth as well. The pieces of the ToW resonate just like a regular Triforce piece would.

Impossible said

How the hell does this relate to the idea that the ToW should have been on Zelda's hand in OoT's ending?

I'm showing that the ToC can easily be reacting to the ToW in OoT's ending without the ToW itself resonating.

Impossible said

...But TWW came out after OoT!

That doesn't mean TWW was trying to retcon OoT's ending there. The marks flickering away in TWW are clearly a special case arguably tied into the main theme of the game. The mark staying bright and constant on Link's hand in OoT's ending isn't a different display of the Triforce when compared to any other moment in the game, and it has no ties to any theme of OoT. It's essentially creating a surprise ending.

Impossible said

The Triforce mark is completely absent from both Link and Zelda's hands in MM's flashback, by the way.

It never showed up when Link and Sheik were conversing either.

[Link's Awakening]

Hi everyone.

I am new here and just wanted to share my brief opinion seeing as a trying to share it all would take days.

I am one that never bought the split timeline theory and still refuse to, although I won't deny totally that it doesn't exist and will acknowledge that it might be Nintendo's only recourse at this point.

However, I always felt that there is just one timeline and that there may have been two course of events happening on this one timeline and the two pivotal points in the timeline being Link opening the Door of Time and Zelda sending Link back. And at a certain point, they converge into one. My only sticking point in all this would have to be Ganondorf's seeming ignorance of the events of OoT(correct me if I am wrong. I haven't played TP in a long time) and of the events of TP in WW. I just find it hard to believe that a powerful object such as the Triforce would exist in two separate universes.

[Average Gamer]

Link's Awakening, on Mar 27 2009, 05:05 PM, said:

Hi everyone.

I am new here and just wanted to share my brief opinion seeing as a trying to share it all would take days.

I am one that never bought the split timeline theory and still refuse to

Aonuma confirmed it a few years ago.

http://www.zeldauniv...line-again.html

[MikePetersSucks]

Quote

I just find it hard to believe that a powerful object such as the Triforce would exist in two separate universes.

It's probably because it's so powerful that it's able to do so. If there is a split timeline, then the Goddesses are the ones who made the splitting occur, or atleast allowed it to happen.

[Showsni]

Link's Awakening, on Mar 28 2009, 01:05 AM, said:

I just find it hard to believe that a powerful object such as the Triforce would exist in two separate universes.

Why shouldn't it? If they're sperate universes, it would be more surprising to have one without the triforce in. Your statement is like saying "I'm surprised something as powerful as the one ring can exist in the Lord of the Rings books and the LotR movies."

[Link's Awakening]

Showsni, on Mar 30 2009, 03:04 PM, said:

Link's Awakening, on Mar 28 2009, 01:05 AM, said:

I just find it hard to believe that a powerful object such as the Triforce would exist in two seerparate universes.

Why shouldn't it? If they're sperate universes, it would be more surprising to have one without the triforce in. Your statement is like saying "I'm surprised something as powerful as the one ring can exist in the Lord of the Rings books and the LotR movies."

Actually, that is not what I am saying at all. I am not sure how that relates seeing as the LotR movies is based on the LotR books. Thus its essentially two interpretations of one universe in two different mediums. When we debate the timeline of Zelda, we are debating the events within this one medium, the video games. The reason I say that is because the Triforce is supposed to be portrayed as this all encompassing, nearly ominpotent representation of the power of the Goddesses. My feeling is that something like this would transcend space and time, thus not being able to exist in two seperate universes i.e the split timelines.

to MikePetersSucks:

Sure it could happen. But why would the Gods allow for such a loop whole in which their very essences would exist on two separate planes? Wouldn't there be danger in allowing for, in theory, someone like Ganon to possess two ToP pieces?

To Average Gamer:

I am well aware that Aonuma stated such. I personally think if Nintendo wanted to, this series could be put into a single timeline and I believe when all is said and done it will be. Of course they probably weren't thinking of such and didnt think this topic would be highly debated and speculated. So why not give yourself an out and just state that the timeline is split and that's that. I am not calling the guy a liar because that may very well be the path Ninty is going with. But I just really think its a copout. But that's just my opinion

[MikePetersSucks]

Quote

The reason I say that is because the Triforce is supposed to be portrayed as this all encompassing, nearly ominpotent representation of the power of the Goddesses. My feeling is that something like this would transcend space and time, thus not being able to exist in two seperate universes i.e the split timelines.

Being in multiple places and times at once is the very meaning of transcending time and space.

Quote

Sure it could happen. But why would the Gods allow for such a loop whole in which their very essences would exist on two separate planes? Wouldn't there be danger in allowing for, in theory, someone like Ganon to possess two ToP pieces?

The two timelines can't interact with each other, so there's no danger. But the Triforce is also a foundation for the world, so for a timeline to have a Hyrule, and all the parallel worlds connected to that Hyrule, like Termina, is basically dooming that timeline to death and destruction.

[Link's Awakening]

MikePetersSucks, on Apr 10 2009, 12:14 PM, said:

Quote

The reason I say that is because the Triforce is supposed to be portrayed as this all encompassing, nearly ominpotent representation of the power of the Goddesses. My feeling is that something like this would transcend space and time, thus not being able to exist in two seperate universes i.e the split timelines.

Being in multiple places and times at once is the very meaning of transcending time and space.

Quote

Sure it could happen. But why would the Gods allow for such a loop whole in which their very essences would exist on two separate planes? Wouldn't there be danger in allowing for, in theory, someone like Ganon to possess two ToP pieces?

The two timelines can't interact with each other, so there's no danger. But the Triforce is also a foundation for the world, so for a timeline to have a Hyrule, and all the parallel worlds connected to that Hyrule, like Termina, is basically dooming that timeline to death and destruction.

Ok, obliviously I used a bad choice of words to get my point across. My point being I just get the feeling that it cheapens the idea of the Triforce to say that two different timelines exist and each one has its own Triforce. Again, my personal feelings against the split timeline theory. Or are we suggesting there is one Triforce and it exist in both timelines? And I guess I am not clear on your point about why the timelines can't interact with each other or why one would be doomed?

[provehito]

Hey all. Haven't been here in a long time. Over a year, I think.

Anyway, the Divine Prank is pretty straight-forward. I didn't read all of this (first two pages, mostly), but it seems like everyone is missing a big point of the story. The Sacred Realm is timeless, and thus the Triforce, or at least its magical properties, may be as well.

So there's two timelines, and one Sacred Realm for both of them. When Ganondorf grabs the Triforce in from the Sacred Realm in OoT, it splits. Ganondorf inherits ToP, Zelda ToW, and Link ToC. However, this also corresponds to the other timeline after the split is fully made. Ganondorf in the CT becomes the chosen inheritor seemingly randomly, but it wasn't. He inherited it from the other Ganondorf's actions in the AT/Sacred Realm. Just like how the Zelda and Link of TP inherit their respective pieces.

This may have been agreed on already in the thread, but OoT specifically states that the Sacred Realm is timeless. AT Ganondorf's actions effect not only the AT Triforce, but also the Triforce's existence in the CT.

Beyond that, I agree with what Reflectionist was saying earlier. ALttP is a sequel to OoT and lies in the AT. Yes, Ganondorf is sealed in OoT with only the ToP, not the full Triforce we see in ALttP, but we also have TWW showing a combined Triforce at the end. Not to mention the fact that the Deku Tree is actively trying to reverse the flood in TWW through the use of trees. I see ALttP as happening well down the road, long after TWW/PH but still in the AT.

However, I'm more of a proponent of the "three timeline" theory these days. The original games and the later games are so out of sync with one another, that ALttP/LoZ/AoL/OoX almost have nothing to do with the other games.