Jump to content

IPBoard Styles©Fisana

Photo

Nintendo Confirms


  • Please log in to reply
156 replies to this topic

#31 Person

Person

    Famicom

  • Members
  • 1,047 posts
  • Gender:Male

Posted 22 July 2009 - 01:49 AM

Ganon doesn't recognize the Master Sword. I'd say it would be a bit of a stretch to say that he wouldn't remember the sword that killed him.

Not necessarily. He may just be acting all boastful. How likely is it for an egotistical villain to say something like "That sword ruined my shit, so you really have a chance"?

The pirates know about it, and Ganon was mentioned in the ancient legends in the prologue. And then we're still left with the OoT problem.

Still, not many people knew. Plus, there really wouldn't be a reason for the flood to come up specifically in TP if the legend is common knowledge. A story known by everyone is basically a universal "that one time."

You're still left with the problems of the TWW prologue. Link defeats Ganon and travels back in time, disappearing and not returning when Ganon breaks out of the Sacred Realm. We're also left with the ridiculous "The world de-flooded" argument that really has no basis given the finality of TWW's ending.

No, you're not. TWW doesn't specify how much time passes before Ganon rolls up. It could easily, easily be that he just comes back after Link dies of age. Link, being dead and all, wouldn't be able to return in that case. To the people, it would look like he "disappeared" because he presumably didn't do anything of note after returning from Termina.

No basis? Deku Tree? The fact that Ganondorf mentions "people that would one day awaken Hyrule"?

About the Master Sword, TP specifically seems to indicate that its placement isn't supposed to just shift around.
OoT-In the ToT
TP-In the ruined ToT, which have become overgrown. The ending even gives an exact parallel to the official art from ALttP depicting the MS in the Lost Woods.
ALttP-In the Lost Woods.

Eh, yeah. Still, this isn't hard proof for anything. Could be that the King placed it in the castle as part of his master plan, then it was put back in its "rightful place" after the world revived. Plus, if you're driving at those ultimately being the same place, you'd run into the problem of the place itself shifting around.

The only time it shifts placement is in the adult timeline, when its in the castle. This is ultimately inconsequential as it's stuck underwater and forever at the ending.

I'm assuming a single timeline, and, like I said, this doesn't really prove anything.


TWW mentions that Link went back in time, are you assuming that this happens on the same timeline as MM? And there is no problem with a place shifting around as Hyrule has never had a consistent geography. Ganondorf does mention that he wants the people to awaken Hyrule, but this is Ganondorf we're talking about, the bad guy. It doesn't happen because the King gets his wish. He tells Link and Tetra to go find a new land, but specifically says that their new land would not be Hyrule. Since TP is in Hyrule, and quite obviously the same Hyrule as OoT, it can't come after OoT.

Now I know you said not to pull Occam's razor on you, but I'm going to have to now. Most of your refutations have been fanficcy at best, and don't fit very well with the evidence. The simplest explanation is usually the best one, and as of TP it's the split timeline.

#32 joeymartin64

joeymartin64

    Optimistic Cynic

  • Members
  • 2,068 posts
  • Location:Shoreline, WA
  • Gender:Male
  • United States

Posted 22 July 2009 - 02:09 AM

I'm assuming that everything happens on one timeline, except maybe OoT's future. That's a can of worms we couldn't even figure out damn near ten years ago, so I'm kinda torn on it. But I digress here.

Ganondorf doesn't say that; he says that the goddesses left behind people who would one day awaken Hyrule.

So TWW Link doesn't live in a restored Hyrule. No big deal.

Yeah, I know it's fanficcy, and actually, that's sort of what I'm going for.

Recall:

Personally, I've kinda taken to not giving a rat's ass about Nintendo's intentions. I just kinda shove the games into an order that seems to fit, make shit up for the interim time periods, and shift/revise that as new releases require. As long as stuff isn't outright contradicted by anything, I throw it into a "good enough for me" category, and don't care about convincing anyone else. Much more enjoyable when it's not Serious Business.


I'm not trying to change your mind. In fact, more than anything else, I'm bouncing stuff off you just to make sure I didn't forget some detail that would make things completely impossible. I no longer care about a "true" timeline, as there isn't one. I just want one that's single-timeline, and isn't impossible, that I can hold as my own viewpoint. I have several fanwank theories about several properties that fall into the same "sure, why not?" category; I don't care if people espouse them, nor do I expect them to. It's just for fun.

Edited by joeymartin64, 22 July 2009 - 02:12 AM.


#33 spunky-monkey

spunky-monkey

    False hope of boobs

  • Banned
  • 1,922 posts

Posted 22 July 2009 - 08:49 AM

Timeline #1 LoZ –> AoL
Timeline #2 ALttP – >LA/DX
Timeline #3 OoT –> MM
Timeline #4 OoS < – > OoA
Timeline #5 WW –> PH
Timeline #6 MC –> FS –> FSA


WW and TP are confirmed sequels to OOT, but otherwise, more power to ya.

Just as Ocarina's confirmed sequel is Majora's Mask, but this I feel is where the similarities end. I'll explain why: TWW regurgitates the title Hero of Time often but does not give actual reference the plotline/story development of Ocarina/Majora properly. There is no doubt that Wind Waker had an impact among those in the gaming community on the series as a whole, possibly one far larger than OoT ever achieved in its day. Everyone's mixed reactions divided the fanbase over its cel-shaded style alone, but that's merely the tip of the iceberg - it not only shattered and laid to rest previous popular concepts such as the "One Link, One Hero" theories, but left so many ambiguities between OoT, MM and itself, it invoked time-paradoxes so anyone that trying to connect them together directly found themselves left with irresolvable plot-holes.

For example: How exactly was the King of Hyrule supposed to know the Hero of Time had gone to another land? The text is obviously referring to Termina and this borrows straight from Majora's Mask, except there’s a huge problem with this - Link never met the King in Ocarina. How could the KoRL possibly know this? How does he even know about Hyrule's parallel world in the first instance? There are other continuity errors as well, like Jabun knowing about the Hero, when they've never actually met either (notice a pattern here?). What this can be taken as is a very loose reference to Jabu-Jabu, with the emphasis on *loose* but it doesn't do anything for TWW's storyline. And for the record: Why are we playing as this arbitrary Hero of Winds and not the Hero of Time again anyway? Wind Waker caused such a stir that it single-handed spawned the split timeline theory, it was necessary for us to invoke two bloody endings not one since it felt so incompatible with Ocarina's climax.

One of the reasons I dislike Wind Waker with a passion was that it ruined the possiblity of there ever being a fully-functional timeline. This is why I really can't be bothered with including TWW after OoT, it's a different Link entirely, and while not trying to sound authoritarian, every Hero tells a different story in a different premise. There's room for only one Link in each mini-timeline, or else brave the pitfall that is that split timeline, giving false hope to those hell-bent on perfecting a single unworkable timeline.

Now with regards to Twilight Princess, that game's setting is vague, really vague. Where and what period in Hyrule is that game supposed to be set in? It doesn't even mention the Triforce by name, no central theme at the core gameplay mechanics (Ocarina had time travel, Majora had masks, Minish Cap had shrinking etc) which is unthinkable in Zelda. Heck, Ganondorf made an appearance if only to please the fans. But don't worry, it'll no doubt have its place in its own-timeline, something along these lines:

Timeline #7 TP –> Zelda Wii*

*title to be confirmed



He went back in time and starred in a sequel where he went to another world. "Disappeared" is a bit more ambiguous, but that's really all it can mean. Also, MM Link is seen back in Hyrule during the ending, so I have no bloody idea why anybody would think he never got back.

I always assumed that Ganondorf simply returned after OoT Link's natural life ended, and people just misunderstood the term "Hero of Time," thinking he could always show up, when in fact he was just a kid who happened to have some time-controlling trinkets, but couldn't come back from the dead.

Not quite, it's never explicitly stated anywhere in MM that that forest is the Lost Woods, the fans or majority have assumed it was said woodland because it was convenient for them to do so.

The game states several times that Link had long since left Hyrule to search for a beloved friend, the fairy noise at that moment, and how he stares fondly at Tael imply its Navi from Ocarina:-

PROLOGUE: In the land of Hyrule, there echoes a legend held dearly by the Royal Family of a boy who, after battling evil and saving Hyrule, crept away from that land that had made him a legend...

Done with the battles he once waged across time, he embarked on a journey. A secret and personal journey in search of a beloved and invaluable friend with whom he parted ways when he finally fulfilled his heroic destiny and took his place amongst legends.

ZELDA: "You are already leaving this land of Hyrule, aren't you?


Link has literally left Hyrule. The Lost Woods are a part of Hyrule. Therefore that forest is not the Lost Woods. It stands to reason that they're well outside the kingdom's borders, where exactly is unexplained, though I'd hazard a guess at the point where Termina's parallel dimension intersects with Link's own one.

#34 Duke Serkol

Duke Serkol

    Famicom

  • ZL Staff
  • 1,413 posts

Posted 22 July 2009 - 09:24 AM

it'll no doubt have its place in its own-timeline, something along these lines:

Timeline #7 TP –> Zelda Wii*

*title to be confirmed

Actually, Nintendo seems hellbent to making the next Wii Zelda unrelated to TP.
Still, it's possible TP will get its sequel in the future. I mean, TWW didn't get its own until after FSA and MC (the original FS having been released before TWW, even though it was conceptualized afterwards) and TP as well.

#35 GuardianNinja

GuardianNinja

    Famicom

  • Members
  • 1,489 posts
  • Location:Ohio
  • Gender:Male

Posted 22 July 2009 - 09:34 AM

Bravo, but about that word crept "A relatively small gradual change, variation or deviation (from a planned value) in a measure." or
"A slight displacement of an object: the slight movement of something" He could have just been wandering around not remaining in hyrule for long, but he most likely came back, just he could have been moving around [img]http://forums.legendsalliance.com/public/ALOT.png[/img], so it is a possibility he was back in hyrule.

#36 Person

Person

    Famicom

  • Members
  • 1,047 posts
  • Gender:Male

Posted 22 July 2009 - 11:55 AM

TWW did not ruin the possibility of having a functional timeline, it just split it in two. Games set after TWW take place in their own continuity and can tell their own story. If anything, it freed up the timeline from its prequelitis that it was suffering from beforehand.

#37 GuardianNinja

GuardianNinja

    Famicom

  • Members
  • 1,489 posts
  • Location:Ohio
  • Gender:Male

Posted 22 July 2009 - 12:09 PM

Thats not his point I believe, he meant it ruined like a real timeline, y'know, one that doesnt need to split to make a lick of sense, I think hes saying that WW killed it all.

#38 MikePetersSucks

MikePetersSucks

    Actual Japanese Person

  • ZL Staff
  • 4,174 posts
  • Gender:Male

Posted 22 July 2009 - 12:54 PM

@Joeymartin: According to Aonuma, when asked where TP went on the timeline, he called it "TWW's parallel." They occur at the same time on different timelines.

Just as Ocarina's confirmed sequel is Majora's Mask, but this I feel is where the similarities end. I'll explain why: TWW regurgitates the title Hero of Time often but does not give actual reference the plotline/story development of Ocarina/Majora properly. There is no doubt that Wind Waker had an impact among those in the gaming community on the series as a whole, possibly one far larger than OoT ever achieved in its day. Everyone's mixed reactions divided the fanbase over its cel-shaded style alone, but that's merely the tip of the iceberg - it not only shattered and laid to rest previous popular concepts such as the "One Link, One Hero" theories, but left so many ambiguities between OoT, MM and itself, it invoked time-paradoxes so anyone that trying to connect them together directly found themselves left with irresolvable plot-holes.


I'm sorry, but that's incredibly stupid. TWW references OOT's plot repeatedly, and sums it up as short as possible in the goddamn prologue. Or did, say, the stained glass portraits of the Seven Sages mean nothing? Also, I'd like to hear ONE "plot hole", because as far as I know, there aren't any (especially given how OOT's time travel actually works).

For example: How exactly was the King of Hyrule supposed to know the Hero of Time had gone to another land? The text is obviously referring to Termina and this borrows straight from Majora's Mask, except there’s a huge problem with this - Link never met the King in Ocarina. How could the KoRL possibly know this? How does he even know about Hyrule's parallel world in the first instance? There are other continuity errors as well, like Jabun knowing about the Hero, when they've never actually met either (notice a pattern here?). What this can be taken as is a very loose reference to Jabu-Jabu, with the emphasis on *loose* but it doesn't do anything for TWW's storyline. And for the record: Why are we playing as this arbitrary Hero of Winds and not the Hero of Time again anyway? Wind Waker caused such a stir that it single-handed spawned the split timeline theory, it was necessary for us to invoke two bloody endings not one since it felt so incompatible with Ocarina's climax.


1) KoRL wasn't speaking about when Link went to Termina, he was speaking of when he returned back in time. The Japanese text makes this more clear than the English, so I can't fault you for this. Even still, though, the Hero of Time disappeared, and the King didn't say anything about Termina, specifically. He could've just ASSUMED OOT Link went somewhere.
2) Jabundoesn't have to meet the Hero of Time to KNOW OF HIM.
3) Why WOULD we play as the Hero of Time again? Do you...like, know what Wind Waker is about? A huuuuge theme was about letting go of the past and building an unfettered future, culminating in the ending where the King decides to destroy Hyrule, leaving artifacts like the Master Sword in the sea and sending the Triforce away, and letting Tetra abandon her role as Zelda.

One of the reasons I dislike Wind Waker with a passion was that it ruined the possiblity of there ever being a fully-functional timeline. This is why I really can't be bothered with including TWW after OoT, it's a different Link entirely, and while not trying to sound authoritarian, every Hero tells a different story in a different premise. There's room for only one Link in each mini-timeline, or else brave the pitfall that is that split timeline, giving false hope to those hell-bent on perfecting a single unworkable timeline.


The split timeline is canonical, and it's perfectly workable. The mini-timeline having one Link thing was never feasible even before TWW was released.

Now with regards to Twilight Princess, that game's setting is vague, really vague. Where and what period in Hyrule is that game supposed to be set in? It doesn't even mention the Triforce by name, no central theme at the core gameplay mechanics (Ocarina had time travel, Majora had masks, Minish Cap had shrinking etc) which is unthinkable in Zelda. Heck, Ganondorf made an appearance if only to please the fans. But don't worry, it'll no doubt have its place in its own-timeline, something along these lines:


Uh...durr? The shifting to wolf form was the core gameplay mechanic. Now you're just bitching and whining like you're on a period, be fair. As for the setting, according to Aonuma, it's TWW's parallel, and it's really, really easy to tell from the context clues that it's inbetween OOT and LTTP at any rate.

Thats not his point I believe, he meant it ruined like a real timeline, y'know, one that doesnt need to split to make a lick of sense, I think hes saying that WW killed it all.


Anyone who feels that it's not a "proper" timeline unless there are absolutely no splits have obviously never read stories involving time travel before. It's extremely common and the most accurate way to settle time paradoxes, consistent with scientific theory the closest. I'm sure people would be bitching if Link instead created a timeloop in a single timeline, since the timeloop would have no origin point.

#39 GuardianNinja

GuardianNinja

    Famicom

  • Members
  • 1,489 posts
  • Location:Ohio
  • Gender:Male

Posted 22 July 2009 - 01:26 PM

There was a time loop in OoT, you teach yourself the song of storms. I dont recall much of any time traveling stories having multiple timelines, they usually have one, I dont even think donnie darko had more than one. We dont really know if the split is canon, its up to discussion how time works, I believe going back erased that "adult timeline" thats just me though. WW caused a disruption to anyone who believes thats how time works, because it messed with many things we thought would work.

#40 Selena

Selena

    Odinsdottir

  • Admin
  • 17,867 posts
  • Location:Behind you.
  • Gender:Female
  • Sweden

Posted 22 July 2009 - 01:32 PM

Uh...durr? The shifting to wolf form was the core gameplay mechanic. Now you're just bitching and whining like you're on a period, be fair.


He's playing devil's advocate. For fun. Something this part of LA never sees. Hahaha.



Excuse #4: "I'm only saying these things to him because he's OBVIOUSLY an idiot."
--Answer: Is it Picman? No? Then shut up.



Let's please try to prove that we're civil.

#41 joeymartin64

joeymartin64

    Optimistic Cynic

  • Members
  • 2,068 posts
  • Location:Shoreline, WA
  • Gender:Male
  • United States

Posted 22 July 2009 - 03:39 PM

Not quite, it's never explicitly stated anywhere in MM that that forest is the Lost Woods, the fans or majority have assumed it was said woodland because it was convenient for them to do so.

Link has literally left Hyrule. The Lost Woods are a part of Hyrule. Therefore that forest is not the Lost Woods. It stands to reason that they're well outside the kingdom's borders, where exactly is unexplained, though I'd hazard a guess at the point where Termina's parallel dimension intersects with Link's own one.


No, it doesn't. It just says that he left. No time frame provided. And that doesn't even come close to meaning he never returns. It's just a setup for a game that didn't occur in Hyrule. By that logic, we may as well say that OoT Link is a Kokiri, because the intro text said so.

@Joeymartin: According to Aonuma, when asked where TP went on the timeline, he called it "TWW's parallel." They occur at the same time on different timelines.

I don't care. I don't consider creator quotes canon. They don't give a shit (not that I hold that against them too much), so why should their words be the Word of God? Plus, there's a history (old, I know) of creator quotes being pretty damn nonsensical (yeah, the Miyamoto timeline.)

We dont really know if the split is canon, its up to discussion how time works, I believe going back erased that "adult timeline" thats just me though.

Alternate 1985? Link has the ToC during the ending, so, hell, let's say he got sent back to a time after the Triforce split, but before Ganondorf returned, meaning the big G couldn't return once the Master Sword was replaced and the Door of Time closed, thereby achieving basically the same thing as sealing him. Fanficcy? Absolutely? Only way? No. But it's a way.

He's playing devil's advocate. For fun. Something this part of LA never sees. Hahaha.

Insert "SERIOUS BUSINESS" joke here.

Edited by joeymartin64, 22 July 2009 - 03:42 PM.


#42 Person

Person

    Famicom

  • Members
  • 1,047 posts
  • Gender:Male

Posted 22 July 2009 - 04:53 PM

I don't care. I don't consider creator quotes canon. They don't give a shit (not that I hold that against them too much), so why should their words be the Word of God? Plus, there's a history (old, I know) of creator quotes being pretty damn nonsensical (yeah, the Miyamoto timeline.)


I guess there's no sense in arguing, but I've got to say that creator quotes need to be taken in context. The confirmation of the split was by Eiji Aonuma, director of the series, who had previously implied the split in a statement about TWW. It's the basic framework that the writers are working with, and Aonuma said that he wanted to tie all of the games together. Miyamoto did not, and his order contradicted the back of the ALttP box, so it's in doubt. The confirmation of the split, however, is not.

#43 GuardianNinja

GuardianNinja

    Famicom

  • Members
  • 1,489 posts
  • Location:Ohio
  • Gender:Male

Posted 22 July 2009 - 05:52 PM

Yeah creator quotes are hard to go by, but we may need to use them alittle since, its their game. But thats still not enough to convince me theres a split in the timeline, I would rather go with they all have there own timeline, emphasis on I, cause I doubt you two believe in it.

#44 joeymartin64

joeymartin64

    Optimistic Cynic

  • Members
  • 2,068 posts
  • Location:Shoreline, WA
  • Gender:Male
  • United States

Posted 22 July 2009 - 08:01 PM

I didn't consider IGA's removal of some of the Castlevania games to be canon (because that's kinda drastic) until the newer games were written with direct ties to what that changed (Trevor being the first Belmont to kill Dracula, ect). If a split is ever mentioned IN A GAME, I'll go for it, I guess, but not until then.

Edited by joeymartin64, 22 July 2009 - 08:01 PM.


#45 bjamez7573

bjamez7573

    Bard

  • Members
  • 69 posts
  • Gender:Male

Posted 22 July 2009 - 09:03 PM

I don't understand why anyone would consider ALL creator quotes to be non-canonical or shouldn't be considered when forming the timeline. Aren't they the ones who created the stories? (with the help of a team, of course).

Now, I know that not all creator quotes can be trusted, but if the person (who made the quote):

1) has a prominent place in the game's story development (Producer, Director, story writer are some examples of people who would be involved in the story)
2) his intentions are to make a workable timeline and
3) his quote doesn't outright contradict in-game evidence

Isn't that enough to take the creator quote seriously? I mean if there was a certain thought or vision behind something in the game, but the game doesn't explain it explicitly, but the creator of the game does, why shouldn't it be considered? He is telling us what something should have meant, when looking at by itself could have multiple interpretations.

From what I see, Eiji Anouma falls into this "trustworthy" category for several games (not all, as he wasn't involved in the story in some games) whereas Shigeru Miyamoto does not (since he says he cares nothing for the timeline).

I suppose if you just want to make your own timeline and don't care about how close your timeline matches what Nintendo envisions, then it doesn't matter. To me, trying to solve the puzzle of what Nintendo thinks the timeline should be is a lot more fun than making your own. But that's just me.

Edited by bjamez7573, 22 July 2009 - 09:04 PM.


#46 Person

Person

    Famicom

  • Members
  • 1,047 posts
  • Gender:Male

Posted 22 July 2009 - 09:06 PM

I didn't consider IGA's removal of some of the Castlevania games to be canon (because that's kinda drastic) until the newer games were written with direct ties to what that changed (Trevor being the first Belmont to kill Dracula, ect). If a split is ever mentioned IN A GAME, I'll go for it, I guess, but not until then.

I doubt that would ever happen, due to the nature of the time travel, only Link would remember it, and he never talks. But future games are going to be made with the split in mind. I doubt ST is going to match up with the eventual TP sequels and the 2D games ever, because it's in a new timeline.

If a creator quote does not contradict established canon, it itself is canon.

#47 joeymartin64

joeymartin64

    Optimistic Cynic

  • Members
  • 2,068 posts
  • Location:Shoreline, WA
  • Gender:Male
  • United States

Posted 22 July 2009 - 09:31 PM

I suppose if you just want to make your own timeline and don't care about how close your timeline matches what Nintendo envisions, then it doesn't matter. To me, trying to solve the puzzle of what Nintendo thinks the timeline should be is a lot more fun than making your own. But that's just me.

That's a good part of it. Plus, I don't think Nintendo/Aonuma/whoever actually care(s) as much as he/they claim they do. If they did, they wouldn't have completey omitted the word "Triforce" from TP.

We couldn't come to a real consensus even when there were only five or six games; there's no way in hell we're coming to one now. Thus, I gave up on finding a "right" answer, and decided to just come up with something I personally liked. You see, you can't please everyone, so you've got to please yourself. Any way you want it, that's the way you need it.

I doubt that would ever happen, due to the nature of the time travel, only Link would remember it, and he never talks. But future games are going to be made with the split in mind. I doubt ST is going to match up with the eventual TP sequels and the 2D games ever, because it's in a new timeline.

Few of the "arcs" really match up in a meaningful way. TMC, split or not, is in the same timeline of other games it has jack all to do with.

If a creator quote does not contradict established canon, it itself is canon.

In most cases, I agree with this. The All About books, Capcom's things about the Mega Man series, fine, dandy. But with something more plot-heavy like Zelda, it seems more like pidgeonholing, which can lead to stuff being retracted or contradicted later on. What of all the people who bought into the Miyamoto timeline back in the day? If something in-game renders one of my thoughts completely impossible (and I mean IMPOSSIBLE, not just more of a stretch than the general consensus), I'll rework it then.

Edited by joeymartin64, 22 July 2009 - 09:32 PM.


#48 MikePetersSucks

MikePetersSucks

    Actual Japanese Person

  • ZL Staff
  • 4,174 posts
  • Gender:Male

Posted 23 July 2009 - 01:03 PM

There was a time loop in OoT, you teach yourself the song of storms. I dont recall much of any time traveling stories having multiple timelines, they usually have one, I dont even think donnie darko had more than one. We dont really know if the split is canon, its up to discussion how time works, I believe going back erased that "adult timeline" thats just me though. WW caused a disruption to anyone who believes thats how time works, because it messed with many things we thought would work.


Well, the Song of Storms thing wasn't really a proper time loop, but we're straying from the point. The point is that yes, the timeline split is FACTUALLY CANON, and although it messed with people's theories, it didn't make theories impossible or unelegant.

He's playing devil's advocate. For fun. Something this part of LA never sees. Hahaha.


Playing Devil's Advocate is meaningless if you're going to deliberately falsify information to support your criticisms.

I don't care. I don't consider creator quotes canon. They don't give a shit (not that I hold that against them too much), so why should their words be the Word of God? Plus, there's a history (old, I know) of creator quotes being pretty damn nonsensical (yeah, the Miyamoto timeline.)


Miyamoto doesn't care, but Aonuma really, really does. He basically became the main head of the Zelda franchise with TWW, and he's expressed a strong interest in making a coherent timeline.

Alternate 1985? Link has the ToC during the ending, so, hell, let's say he got sent back to a time after the Triforce split, but before Ganondorf returned, meaning the big G couldn't return once the Master Sword was replaced and the Door of Time closed, thereby achieving basically the same thing as sealing him. Fanficcy? Absolutely? Only way? No. But it's a way.


While this can happen, theoretically, it presents problems. For one, it resolves nothing for TWW, as it references the OOT future events, and TP heavily implies that the Ganondorf of that game is the same one as OOT, and that his sealing was an equivalent to the sealing in the adult timeline. Parallels and shit.

Yeah creator quotes are hard to go by, but we may need to use them alittle since, its their game. But thats still not enough to convince me theres a split in the timeline


Can you explain why? Not being an ass here, but you'd think that you'd atleast have a tiny mini-timeline of:

OOT/MM-TP
|
TWW/PH

I didn't consider IGA's removal of some of the Castlevania games to be canon (because that's kinda drastic) until the newer games were written with direct ties to what that changed (Trevor being the first Belmont to kill Dracula, ect). If a split is ever mentioned IN A GAME, I'll go for it, I guess, but not until then.


The problem with this is; how do you establish the existence of a timeline split if each game, by basic metaphysics, takes place in one timeline or another? It's not like you could just go to another timeline or something; all of the Hyrule Multiverse's dimensions seem contained in one timeline together, to some extent. Personally, I think the impossibility of TWW and TP to be in the same timeline makes this clear enough, as they both require that no games (besides MM obviously) go between them and OOT.

That's a good part of it. Plus, I don't think Nintendo/Aonuma/whoever actually care(s) as much as he/they claim they do. If they did, they wouldn't have completey omitted the word "Triforce" from TP.


That's incredibly dumb. What does omitting "Triforce" have to do with the stability of the timeline? They did it because they wanted the focus of the story to be on Midna and her people and their magic and stuff, and avoid a "Triforce Assembly plot" that happens whenever the word comes up. However, it's incredibly obvious what the game is talking about with all the obvious nods, and since TP seems mostly fanservice to veteran fans, Nintendo probably figured they didn't have to say "TRIFORCETRIFORCETRIFORCE". God knows listening to KoRL say "Blank of THE GODS" got bland after awhile, amirite?

We couldn't come to a real consensus even when there were only five or six games; there's no way in hell we're coming to one now.


To be fair, the only problems back then were the Imprisoning War story and the stuff about Sleeping Zelda, but everyone agreed it went OOT/MM-LTTP/LA-LOZ/AOL.

Few of the "arcs" really match up in a meaningful way. TMC, split or not, is in the same timeline of other games it has jack all to do with.


But it's a prequel to FSA, which has strong ties to LTTP, which has strong ties to OOT, TP, LOZ/AOL, and has LA as a direct sequel.

In most cases, I agree with this. The All About books, Capcom's things about the Mega Man series, fine, dandy. But with something more plot-heavy like Zelda, it seems more like pidgeonholing, which can lead to stuff being retracted or contradicted later on.


I'm sorry, you didn't answer this question last time, or maybe I didn't see it; how is Zelda plot-heavy?

What of all the people who bought into the Miyamoto timeline back in the day?


Most people knew right from the get-go it was bullshit, since it has weird crap like LA in the middle of AOL.

#49 GuardianNinja

GuardianNinja

    Famicom

  • Members
  • 1,489 posts
  • Location:Ohio
  • Gender:Male

Posted 23 July 2009 - 01:27 PM

I wanna see proof the of the split that isn't a creator quote, then I will believe. How wasn't it a time loop? It was present, you closed it by obtaining the song. I dont even think that it was made clear in WW that the hero statues were OoT.

#50 Person

Person

    Famicom

  • Members
  • 1,047 posts
  • Gender:Male

Posted 23 July 2009 - 01:31 PM

There was a time loop in OoT, you teach yourself the song of storms. I dont recall much of any time traveling stories having multiple timelines, they usually have one, I dont even think donnie darko had more than one. We dont really know if the split is canon, its up to discussion how time works, I believe going back erased that "adult timeline" thats just me though. WW caused a disruption to anyone who believes thats how time works, because it messed with many things we thought would work.


Well, the Song of Storms thing wasn't really a proper time loop, but we're straying from the point. The point is that yes, the timeline split is FACTUALLY CANON, and although it messed with people's theories, it didn't make theories impossible or unelegant.

He's playing devil's advocate. For fun. Something this part of LA never sees. Hahaha.


Playing Devil's Advocate is meaningless if you're going to deliberately falsify information to support your criticisms.

I don't care. I don't consider creator quotes canon. They don't give a shit (not that I hold that against them too much), so why should their words be the Word of God? Plus, there's a history (old, I know) of creator quotes being pretty damn nonsensical (yeah, the Miyamoto timeline.)


Miyamoto doesn't care, but Aonuma really, really does. He basically became the main head of the Zelda franchise with TWW, and he's expressed a strong interest in making a coherent timeline.

Alternate 1985? Link has the ToC during the ending, so, hell, let's say he got sent back to a time after the Triforce split, but before Ganondorf returned, meaning the big G couldn't return once the Master Sword was replaced and the Door of Time closed, thereby achieving basically the same thing as sealing him. Fanficcy? Absolutely? Only way? No. But it's a way.


While this can happen, theoretically, it presents problems. For one, it resolves nothing for TWW, as it references the OOT future events, and TP heavily implies that the Ganondorf of that game is the same one as OOT, and that his sealing was an equivalent to the sealing in the adult timeline. Parallels and shit.

Yeah creator quotes are hard to go by, but we may need to use them alittle since, its their game. But thats still not enough to convince me theres a split in the timeline


Can you explain why? Not being an ass here, but you'd think that you'd atleast have a tiny mini-timeline of:

OOT/MM-TP
|
TWW/PH

I didn't consider IGA's removal of some of the Castlevania games to be canon (because that's kinda drastic) until the newer games were written with direct ties to what that changed (Trevor being the first Belmont to kill Dracula, ect). If a split is ever mentioned IN A GAME, I'll go for it, I guess, but not until then.


The problem with this is; how do you establish the existence of a timeline split if each game, by basic metaphysics, takes place in one timeline or another? It's not like you could just go to another timeline or something; all of the Hyrule Multiverse's dimensions seem contained in one timeline together, to some extent. Personally, I think the impossibility of TWW and TP to be in the same timeline makes this clear enough, as they both require that no games (besides MM obviously) go between them and OOT.

That's a good part of it. Plus, I don't think Nintendo/Aonuma/whoever actually care(s) as much as he/they claim they do. If they did, they wouldn't have completey omitted the word "Triforce" from TP.


That's incredibly dumb. What does omitting "Triforce" have to do with the stability of the timeline? They did it because they wanted the focus of the story to be on Midna and her people and their magic and stuff, and avoid a "Triforce Assembly plot" that happens whenever the word comes up. However, it's incredibly obvious what the game is talking about with all the obvious nods, and since TP seems mostly fanservice to veteran fans, Nintendo probably figured they didn't have to say "TRIFORCETRIFORCETRIFORCE". God knows listening to KoRL say "Blank of THE GODS" got bland after awhile, amirite?

We couldn't come to a real consensus even when there were only five or six games; there's no way in hell we're coming to one now.


To be fair, the only problems back then were the Imprisoning War story and the stuff about Sleeping Zelda, but everyone agreed it went OOT/MM-LTTP/LA-LOZ/AOL.

Few of the "arcs" really match up in a meaningful way. TMC, split or not, is in the same timeline of other games it has jack all to do with.


But it's a prequel to FSA, which has strong ties to LTTP, which has strong ties to OOT, TP, LOZ/AOL, and has LA as a direct sequel.

In most cases, I agree with this. The All About books, Capcom's things about the Mega Man series, fine, dandy. But with something more plot-heavy like Zelda, it seems more like pidgeonholing, which can lead to stuff being retracted or contradicted later on.


I'm sorry, you didn't answer this question last time, or maybe I didn't see it; how is Zelda plot-heavy?

What of all the people who bought into the Miyamoto timeline back in the day?


Most people knew right from the get-go it was bullshit, since it has weird crap like LA in the middle of AOL.

Miyamoto actually never said where LA was supposed to go. The old NoA timeline had LA in the middle of AoL.

#51 joeymartin64

joeymartin64

    Optimistic Cynic

  • Members
  • 2,068 posts
  • Location:Shoreline, WA
  • Gender:Male
  • United States

Posted 23 July 2009 - 04:05 PM

The point is that yes, the timeline split is FACTUALLY CANON, and although it messed with people's theories, it didn't make theories impossible or unelegant.

It's debatable, and using all caps isn't going to change that.

While this can happen, theoretically, it presents problems. For one, it resolves nothing for TWW, as it references the OOT future events, and TP heavily implies that the Ganondorf of that game is the same one as OOT, and that his sealing was an equivalent to the sealing in the adult timeline. Parallels and shit.

What doesn't present problems? Kid Link presumaby retained his memories of the erased future, just as Marty McFly did, and probably used his story, and his possession of the ToC, as proof that he was the Hero of Time. It takes some stretching to fit, but again, nothing doesn't, and I'm not really going for anyone else's approval.


The problem with this is; how do you establish the existence of a timeline split if each game, by basic metaphysics, takes place in one timeline or another? It's not like you could just go to another timeline or something; all of the Hyrule Multiverse's dimensions seem contained in one timeline together, to some extent. Personally, I think the impossibility of TWW and TP to be in the same timeline makes this clear enough, as they both require that no games (besides MM obviously) go between them and OOT.

Again, I don't believe in a split timeline, and I don't believe that both games require no non-MM games to occur between them and OoT.

That's incredibly dumb. What does omitting "Triforce" have to do with the stability of the timeline?

It's only "dumb" because you're misreading it. All I said was that I don't think the creators care as much as they claim to in interviews about clarifying the storyline. TP is ambiguous as shit regarding this stuff, yet they claim they're trying to clarify sutff? No sale.

To be fair, the only problems back then were the Imprisoning War story and the stuff about Sleeping Zelda, but everyone agreed it went OOT/MM-LTTP/LA-LOZ/AOL.

True, but the point is, there are way more things to disagree about, meaning a consensus on pretty much anything, including what had a consensus way back when, has been rendered essentially impossible.

But it's a prequel to FSA, which has strong ties to LTTP, which has strong ties to OOT, TP, LOZ/AOL, and has LA as a direct sequel.

Yeah. It's still in the same timeline as games it has nothing to do with. I never said it didn't have connections with anything.

This was a counter to:

I doubt ST is going to match up with the eventual TP sequels and the 2D games ever, because it's in a new timeline.

My point was that games not "match[ing] up" doesn't disqualify them from co-existing in a timeline.

I'm sorry, you didn't answer this question last time, or maybe I didn't see it; how is Zelda plot-heavy?

Yeah, I could have worded that better. It's plot-heavy compared to Mega Man or Street Fighter. Creator quotes being canon in those cases, I'll totally go for, mainly because there's very little story covered in the games themselves (especially Street Fighter), and the creators' comments really only cover stuff like who won which tournaments, who meets whom (Dan and Sagat, ect.), or what the flying hell the Zero Virus actually is. And I'm pretty sure that's the first time I've brought that up.

Most people knew right from the get-go it was bullshit, since it has weird crap like LA in the middle of AOL.

<NOT COMPLETELY SERIOUS>And Aonuma's stuff sounds like bullshit to me right from the get-go, since it has weird crap like a timeline split.</NOT COMPLETELY SERIOUS>

Also, I think that was zelda.com.

Edited by joeymartin64, 23 July 2009 - 04:06 PM.


#52 Person

Person

    Famicom

  • Members
  • 1,047 posts
  • Gender:Male

Posted 23 July 2009 - 05:07 PM

A timeline split is not a far-fetched idea in a story involving time travel. The BTTF time travel rules don't necessarily apply in Zelda. I mean, look at Star Trek. Star Trek IV had time travel without a split, then Star Trek XI goes and splits the timeline. The same thing happens with Zelda, the time travel rules aren't exactly consistent, but they're there.

And the old Zelda.com timeline was stupid because it contradicted canon. The idea of a split does not. If your theory requires you to assume more than is given in text, it's a weak theory. I could say that all games star the same Link and he just gets amnesia if I wanted, but it would still be wrong.

#53 bjamez7573

bjamez7573

    Bard

  • Members
  • 69 posts
  • Gender:Male

Posted 23 July 2009 - 07:17 PM

That's incredibly dumb. What does omitting "Triforce" have to do with the stability of the timeline?

It's only "dumb" because you're misreading it. All I said was that I don't think the creators care as much as they claim to in interviews about clarifying the storyline. TP is ambiguous as shit regarding this stuff, yet they claim they're trying to clarify sutff? No sale.

I don't think that clarifying the storyline means giving us outright answers. If it did, the incentive to timeline theorize and debate would be lost. With TP, they weren't very explicit, but they did have some implications for its connections to ALTTP. This was certainly better than the past game connections of OOT as the imprisoning war (which had problems with consistency) and the lack of any connection ALTTP has with the two NES games. This is, of course, during Miyamoto's era. After Aonuma took over starting with WW, he made a better story (as in more direct referencing and is consistent throughout) to connect with OOT. From what I know, Aonuma through the years has done a better job connecting the games than Miyamoto ever did. But I think he intends to keep some things up in the air so that they can continue to fill the timeline with new games in-between old ones. If he was solidify everything right away and then just add games to the end or beginning of the timeline, that wouldn't be as fun, would it?

#54 joeymartin64

joeymartin64

    Optimistic Cynic

  • Members
  • 2,068 posts
  • Location:Shoreline, WA
  • Gender:Male
  • United States

Posted 24 July 2009 - 02:21 AM

A timeline split is not a far-fetched idea in a story involving time travel. The BTTF time travel rules don't necessarily apply in Zelda. I mean, look at Star Trek. Star Trek IV had time travel without a split, then Star Trek XI goes and splits the timeline. The same thing happens with Zelda, the time travel rules aren't exactly consistent, but they're there.

Nor do the time travel rules of Star Trek.

Honestly, I wouldn't be so against a split if the two timelines reconverged at some point (like davo's waaaaay old Creation of the Dark World idea). It's just the idea of having two separate "universes" in the property that bothers me.

If your theory requires you to assume more than is given in text, it's a weak theory. I could say that all games star the same Link and he just gets amnesia if I wanted, but it would still be wrong.

I'm sorry, but everyone seems to have concluded the hero referred to in TP is the Hero of Time, despite the game never using that terminology, and won't hear a word against it. That's assuming more than is given in text.

Also, a single-Link theory falls into the "completely impossible" area, because of all the different origin stories, one game referring to the Hero of Time as long past, ect. As far as I can tell, nobody's been able to put anything I've said into that category. Again, I'm not saying my way is the only way, or even the best way, but it's not outright impossible. If it doesn't work for you, fine. There's no right answer, so look at it as you will, and I'll do the same

bjamez: I don't expect one game to provide all the answers. But not even using the word "Triforce" after claiming to want to clarify the timeline? Ambiguity is one thing, but TP seemed like it was intentionally dicking around a lot of the time to avoid providing information, especially in that regard.

#55 Person

Person

    Famicom

  • Members
  • 1,047 posts
  • Gender:Male

Posted 24 July 2009 - 12:13 PM

A timeline split is not a far-fetched idea in a story involving time travel. The BTTF time travel rules don't necessarily apply in Zelda. I mean, look at Star Trek. Star Trek IV had time travel without a split, then Star Trek XI goes and splits the timeline. The same thing happens with Zelda, the time travel rules aren't exactly consistent, but they're there.

Nor do the time travel rules of Star Trek.

Honestly, I wouldn't be so against a split if the two timelines reconverged at some point (like davo's waaaaay old Creation of the Dark World idea). It's just the idea of having two separate "universes" in the property that bothers me.

If your theory requires you to assume more than is given in text, it's a weak theory. I could say that all games star the same Link and he just gets amnesia if I wanted, but it would still be wrong.

I'm sorry, but everyone seems to have concluded the hero referred to in TP is the Hero of Time, despite the game never using that terminology, and won't hear a word against it. That's assuming more than is given in text.

Also, a single-Link theory falls into the "completely impossible" area, because of all the different origin stories, one game referring to the Hero of Time as long past, ect. As far as I can tell, nobody's been able to put anything I've said into that category. Again, I'm not saying my way is the only way, or even the best way, but it's not outright impossible. If it doesn't work for you, fine. There's no right answer, so look at it as you will, and I'll do the same

bjamez: I don't expect one game to provide all the answers. But not even using the word "Triforce" after claiming to want to clarify the timeline? Ambiguity is one thing, but TP seemed like it was intentionally dicking around a lot of the time to avoid providing information, especially in that regard.

Most people believe that TP is referring to the Hero of Time for a number of reasons:
1. Aonuma says so, and he made the game.
2. TWW's ending implies that the old Hyrule is dead and gone, and TP takes place in what is quite obviously the same Hyrule as OoT.
3. The Hero's Shade knows the songs from MM, leading some to believe that he is the ghost of OoT Link.
4. The hero's bloodline in TWW is wiped out, and TWW Link is unrelated to the Hero of Time, but TP Link is descended from a previous hero.
5. THe legendary hero can't be the Hero of Winds, because he did a bunch of stuff that TWW Link never did, but it's consistent with the theory that Link went back in time and did some stuff on this timeline that we never see, because the MM opening crawl refers to him as a "legend," while nobody in MM should remember the adult half of the game.

And two universes isn't a bad idea, because it allows creators to move the franchise in two opposite directions. The post-TWW games have a more stampunk/Ocean punk feel while the other games are more traditional medieval fantasy. And there's probably not any way that two timelines could merge. That old "creation of the Dark World" theory really had no basis in anything.

#56 spunky-monkey

spunky-monkey

    False hope of boobs

  • Banned
  • 1,922 posts

Posted 24 July 2009 - 02:09 PM

TWW did not ruin the possibility of having a functional timeline, it just split it in two.

GuardianNinja already answered what I thought of this for me.


I'm sorry, but that's incredibly stupid. TWW references OOT's plot repeatedly, and sums it up as short as possible in the goddamn prologue. Or did, say, the stained glass portraits of the Seven Sages mean nothing? Also, I'd like to hear ONE "plot hole", because as far as I know, there aren't any (especially given how OOT's time travel actually works).

Okay it's incredibly stupid. I'd mention Ganon getting around that whole perfect seal business after Ocarina's ending without someone else's help, and moving above and below with no limitations despite the Master Sword supposedly acting as the key to keeping time frozen, but that'd be incredibly stupid, so I won't.


1) KoRL wasn't speaking about when Link went to Termina, he was speaking of when he returned back in time. The Japanese text makes this more clear than the English, so I can't fault you for this. Even still, though, the Hero of Time disappeared, and the King didn't say anything about Termina, specifically. He could've just ASSUMED OOT Link went somewhere.
2) Jabundoesn't have to meet the Hero of Time to KNOW OF HIM.
3) Why WOULD we play as the Hero of Time again?

1) Oh, I wasn't aware of this. Flipping westernising/translation.
2) He's clearly referencing Jabu, abet a very bad one, or at least as far as the background music would suggest.
3) Why not? (I cropped the rest because it doesn't answer the question. Put yourself back in 2001/2 first MPS. Was there any GOOD reason why we couldn't play as the incarnation of Link we've all come to know and love most?)


The split timeline is canonical, and it's perfectly workable. The mini-timeline having one Link thing was never feasible even before TWW was released.

Not sure how its canonical when the creators can't give a rat's arse about it MPS. This is an inherent problem with Zelda's storyline, one I don't expect you or anyone else to resolve easily.


Uh...durr? The shifting to wolf form was the core gameplay mechanic.

You mean "gimmick" with regards to terminology. After you restore the Light Spirits early on in the game and converted Hyrule back to normal, the wolf form becomes pathetically obsolete. Half your changes into wolf-form aren't even intentional, they just plot devices, much akin to the useless pink rabbit Link from ALTTP.


He's playing devil's advocate. For fun. Something this part of LA never sees. Hahaha.

Excuse #4: "I'm only saying these things to him because he's OBVIOUSLY an idiot."
--Answer: Is it Picman? No? Then shut up.


Let's please try to prove that we're civil.

I'm playing what? And mind explaining what was that PM about anyway?


No, it doesn't. It just says that he left. No time frame provided. And that doesn't even come close to meaning he never returns. It's just a setup for a game that didn't occur in Hyrule. By that logic, we may as well say that OoT Link is a Kokiri, because the intro text said so.

Unlike Ocarina, at no point in Majora's Mask ever contradict the prologue or to state the contrary. Link was in Termina for the entire game and somewhere elsewhere for the intro and ending, not Hyrule.


Can you explain why? Not being an ass here, but you'd think that you'd atleast have a tiny mini-timeline of:

OOT/MM-TP
|
TWW/PH

Yeah we'll go with that IF ON THE BASIS that it makes you happy, which I doubt. To be honest I care for this now about as much as Shigeru Miyamoto does.

Edited by spunky-monkey, 24 July 2009 - 02:12 PM.


#57 Selena

Selena

    Odinsdottir

  • Admin
  • 17,867 posts
  • Location:Behind you.
  • Gender:Female
  • Sweden

Posted 24 July 2009 - 02:55 PM

I'm playing what? And mind explaining what was that PM about anyway?


Was referring to Joey, not you. And not sure what PM you mean.

#58 joeymartin64

joeymartin64

    Optimistic Cynic

  • Members
  • 2,068 posts
  • Location:Shoreline, WA
  • Gender:Male
  • United States

Posted 24 July 2009 - 03:01 PM

1. Aonuma says so, and he made the game.

Have I not made it clear enough that I don't care? Apologies if you're simply including this in your list for completion's sake, but I must have said this about six or seven times by now.

2. TWW's ending implies that the old Hyrule is dead and gone, and TP takes place in what is quite obviously the same Hyrule as OoT.

For the forseeable future, yes, but it does leave open the possibilty it being restored somehow, what with Ganondorf's spiel before the Phantom Ganon fight, and especially the Deku Tree's plan.

3. The Hero's Shade knows the songs from MM, leading some to believe that he is the ghost of OoT Link.

Plausible. I see 'em as easter eggs, but if you don't, dandy.

4. The hero's bloodline in TWW is wiped out, and TWW Link is unrelated to the Hero of Time, but TP Link is descended from a previous hero.

"The hero did not appear" doesn't mean the bloodline was wiped out. And "my child," doesn't necessarily imply a familial connection; it could just be a term of endearment from a mentor, unless there's something in the Japanese text I'm unaware of.

5. THe legendary hero can't be the Hero of Winds, because he did a bunch of stuff that TWW Link never did...

He did? Like what?

...but it's consistent with the theory that Link went back in time and did some stuff on this timeline that we never see, because the MM opening crawl refers to him as a "legend," while nobody in MM should remember the adult half of the game.

So is what I've said.

And two universes isn't a bad idea, because it allows creators to move the franchise in two opposite directions. The post-TWW games have a more stampunk/Ocean punk feel while the other games are more traditional medieval fantasy. And there's probably not any way that two timelines could merge. That old "creation of the Dark World" theory really had no basis in anything.

Yeah, I wasn't putting that up as an idea; it was just a somewhat similar idea someone had back in the day. It made some sense at the time, though.

And it has nothing to do with gameplay or feel. It's kinda similar to how a lot of Star Trek fans felt screwed by the new movie, since the reboot rendered all the previous media "illegitimate." I know that's not really the case, but that's how some people took it. It just feels cheap to me to know that some events happen in different universes, rather than being one unified series. And don't throw Termina or Koholint in my face; you know what I mean.

Unlike Ocarina, at no point in Majora's Mask ever contradict the prologue or to state the contrary. Link was in Termina for the entire game and somewhere elsewhere for the intro and ending, not Hyrule.

Despite the opening and ending area looking a hell of a lot like the Lost Woods, and despite the freaky sequence during the fall, and the freaky twisty hallway? Neither of those imply crossing over to a parallel world to you?

Was referring to Joey, not you. And not sure what PM you mean.

Whoa, whoa, whoa, what?

Edited by joeymartin64, 24 July 2009 - 03:03 PM.


#59 Selena

Selena

    Odinsdottir

  • Admin
  • 17,867 posts
  • Location:Behind you.
  • Gender:Female
  • Sweden

Posted 24 July 2009 - 03:10 PM

Whoa, whoa, whoa, what?




.....Because you said you were mostly debating for fun? O.o

Or perhaps I misunderstood. Whatever. Either way, no cause for anyone in the thread to get overly snippy at people. That's mostly what I meant when I made that post. I'll be on my way.

#60 joeymartin64

joeymartin64

    Optimistic Cynic

  • Members
  • 2,068 posts
  • Location:Shoreline, WA
  • Gender:Male
  • United States

Posted 24 July 2009 - 03:21 PM

Oh, the devil's advocate thing. That orignal post didn't mention me or quote me, so my name popping up just now was a bit confusing. No harm, no foul.




Copyright © 2021 Your Company Name