156 replies to this topic

[joeymartin64]

It's kinda hazy. Newer usually does Drumpf older. If a game that's very clearly supposed to come after ALttP featured the Master Sword, most people (I'm guessing here) would chalk it up to a retcon, or say that the FOREVER was just intended to be epic, from the POV of the population of Hyrule circa ALttP, or something similar.

Japanese texts are usually more accurate to the creators' intentions. I know I've said I don't really care about that, but in-game, I do. Mistranslations and/or embellishments on the part of localizers can bunk things up pretty badly, and although I can't point to a Zelda example off the top of my head, deferring to the Japanese text in cases of inconsistency is a pretty common practice. And, I know you probably only used the word "Jap" as an abbreviation, but I wouldn't recommend that; it's a racial slur.

[Showsni]

LttP ending says the master sword rests forever is that supposed to be true?

Well, how do you view the games? If they're, say, a series of stories being passed down from an earlier time (as ALttP's manual states) then the "Master Sword sleeps forever" line is presumably contemporary with the events of the game. Then how could they know it would sleep forever? Either the line is a prophecy (which seems unlikely, given the context) or they're just guessing. And they've got good reason to be hopeful; Link has the triforce, Ganon is dead, everything seems like the Master Sword won't be needed again... So the line might well be wrong, in that case.

If you view the fame as being told by an infallible narrator, then it's harder to see how the line could be wrong. Although since the next game in the timeline (AST) uses the Master Sword, it must be. Then you get into debates about the canonicity of AST.

[CID Farwin]

If WW a newer game isnt concrete when it says something, does that mean an older game would be the same way? I think I was ignored when I said my post before. LttP ending says the master sword rests forever is that supposed to be true? And Im getting sick of all this script stuff, Im about ready to say were not f'ing japs and that the english games are for english speaking people, I mean seriously..

Heh, I was gonna reply to that but forgot.

Generally, it doesn't really matter, as most people only put the first two games(neither of which feature the Master Sword) after ALttP.

The problems really arise if
1) you have Master Sword games after ALttP
or
2) you consider the Sattelite games such as Ancient Stone Tablets as canon

[GuardianNinja]

I read in a game pro magazine from 1998 that OoT was supposed to be a prequel to LttP, im guessing this was Shig M's words, so would that be true, or would we rub it off as a developer error?

Edit:

And this ^ was a preview for OoT just to tell you how old/information.

Edited by GuardianNinja, 27 July 2009 - 05:08 PM.

[joeymartin64]

There's pretty much no denying that it was intended to be true story, the not "obscured by the mists of time" account of the Imprisoning War. The words of the creator in question (Miyamoto or otherwise) hardly matter now, because the game itself was pretty clear-cut that it absolutely was meant to be a prequel at the time. Whether or not it still is the IW depends on how you want to look at it. Some still believe it is; some don't.

[GuardianNinja]

I was totally expecting a post along the lines of scan that page, I would have to spend days looking for it o___o
If it was intended then thats how ima go about it, in a no take backs policy. I need to run through minish cap or something I wonder if theres anything in there?

Edited by GuardianNinja, 28 July 2009 - 09:51 AM.

[joeymartin64]

It sets up the other Four Sword-related games. That's really about it.

[bjamez7573]

"But what if I see that differently then you?"
"you're wrong."
"Why?"
"[elaborate explanation that really can be summed up with "you're wrong"]"
"But what if I see that differently then you?"
"Then you're looking at it wrong."
"I can't have a different point of view?"
"no, because it's wrong."
Rinse and repeat until one side or the other gets sick of it and gives up.

That's pretty much what it seems like.

Having your theories trampled over, being told "you're wrong" seventeen different ways, and being made out to be stupid aren't what I consider to be fun.

It's not even really that. If someone rolled up with a single-Link theory, got that trampled over by someone pointing out the different origin stories, family backgrounds, events of other games recounted as legend, ect., that would be a perfectly legitimate "trampling," as long as the person wasn't outright insulted. What I'm talking about is the fact that people seem immovable on things that can have multiple interpretations. I don't mind being shot down by hard facts, but when one explanation makes more sense to someone, and that causes them to think that any other explanation is null and void as a result, it gets rather frustrating. People keep saying that TWW's Hyrule can not, under any circumstances, be revived, ever, period end. The game is nowhere near that concrete about it, yet nobody will even consider anything else.

While legitemate, there could be less 'trampling'. People around here could use more tact rather than just 'pwn1ng n00bz' with their 'l33t t1m3l1n3 sk1llz'

But yes, there definitely is a problem where they do the same things with something that has multiple interpretations (like OoT's ending, or TWW's)

I agree. I when I first started to post here, I felt a little intimidated by the way I was "trumped" for showing my ideas, and although I don't mind being wrong, it felt like people here were way too serious about it. I agree with you CID, there does need to be more tact sometimes. It is supposed to be fun, after all.

There is something else here too that I think sheds a lot of light as to why this happens. Basically, there are 3 different camps of people:

1) those who wish to find the official timeline

this group adheres to evidence only as a way to create the timeline and speculates only when absolutely necessary. The most probable interpretation is the only right one. They're looking at creator intent to see what timeline Nintendo is trying to tell us.

2) Those who wish to make their own timeline

this group will adhere to the aspects of the games they like and make stuff up so that the timeline will be the way they like it

3) everyone in between - people will draw various lines as to what they can make up to suit their timeline and where the evidence should play a role in deciding the timeline.

It seems to me that many of the regulars here are in Camp 1 and it sometimes hard for them to accept people who are in the other two camps or are new to timeline theorizing and don't know all of the facts or how to access them. So when someone brings up their theory and it might contradict some fact, people who are in camp 1 are like "what the hell? how did you come up with that conclusion? You're wrong, there is no other way to look at it" (many don't say that outright, but that is the feeling that comes across sometimes). This is, as least, what I see. I haven't been here very long so I could be wrong.

But going back to the debate:

The game is concrete about that, though. People keep misinterpreting the Deku Tree's dream to mean "revive Hyrule" when it's really "unite the islands." The king's wish was to have Hyrule washed away and for Link and Tetra to find a new land. It's all there in the text.

No, it isn't. And uniting the islands to create a new land where the old Hyrule was as part of a plan initiated by somebody from Hyrule wouldn't make for a new Hyrule? That's not a misinterpretation. It's just a different intrepretation than the one you have. People around here seem to have taken to confusing those two concepts. This is getting rather tiresome.

I think what Person meant was reviving the old hyrule. You are certainly right that having a new hyrule is perfectly probable considering what the deku tree said and considering that the King did talk about finding a new land - they could definitely call it Hyrule if they wanted. However, only two games have a hyrule that's possibly different from OOT: LOZ and AOL. Those two are the only ones that can could possibly go after WW, as ALTTP, TP and FSA's Hyrule is the same as OOT's. To have the new hyrule be the same as the old hyrule is very improbable. From what I see, it is far more probable to have a split timeline with each game (TP and WW) to be on 2 separate timelines right after OOT. That way those 2 facts wouldn't contradict.

[joeymartin64]

Yeah, I'm torn on the exact details, but I honestly don't think that it matters. Real-world logic and physics do not apply. I said before that I can see a sort of mesh of new and old Hyrules going on, and I completely understand how that's absolutely illogical. But then, how logical are nigh-omnipotent golden triangles, parallel worlds twisted by evil to mirror the geography of the original, OTHER parallel worlds whose inhabitants are basically body doubles of each other, a human sharing a lucid dream with a whale god, or pretty much anything else that Zelda has? I'm not saying to throw logic entirely out the window, and I'm not saying that anything goes. I'm just saying that Hyrule being remade in this method isn't beyond the mystical magical bullshitting (and I use that word affectionately) that the Zelda series has used before.

As for landmarks and geographic similarities, why not? Why wouldn't the New and Improved Hyrule ™ bear resemblance to the old one? Why couldn't old man-made landmarks be rebuilt/restored?

Edited by joeymartin64, 28 July 2009 - 09:24 PM.

[GuardianNinja]

I was playing OoT again today.

Whats your name?.... Link? that sounds familiar

Why does it sound familiar? is this to say that all happened already? was it supposed to be a prequel at all? is it farther down the timeline? Its messy.

[joeymartin64]

Prophetic dreams? Visions of the coming hero? Limited clairvoyance?

[CID Farwin]

A nod to the player?

[bjamez7573]

Yeah, I'm torn on the exact details, but I honestly don't think that it matters. Real-world logic and physics do not apply. I said before that I can see a sort of mesh of new and old Hyrules going on, and I completely understand how that's absolutely illogical. But then, how logical are nigh-omnipotent golden triangles, parallel worlds twisted by evil to mirror the geography of the original, OTHER parallel worlds whose inhabitants are basically body doubles of each other, a human sharing a lucid dream with a whale god, or pretty much anything else that Zelda has? I'm not saying to throw logic entirely out the window, and I'm not saying that anything goes. I'm just saying that Hyrule being remade in this method isn't beyond the mystical magical bullshitting (and I use that word affectionately) that the Zelda series has used before.

As for landmarks and geographic similarities, why not? Why wouldn't the New and Improved Hyrule ™ bear resemblance to the old one? Why couldn't old man-made landmarks be rebuilt/restored?

Why? What really indicates that they would build the exact replica of the past? Specifically when the King wished for that old hyrule to vanish and for Link and Tetra to find a new land? I agree with you that magic can be used to lift the ancient land. But the magic must counteract the Triforce. Nothing but the Triforce itself (which the King has all 3 pieces) and the Master Sword (which is designed to fight evil only) can do this.

Edited by bjamez7573, 29 July 2009 - 09:52 AM.

[MikePetersSucks]

Yeah, I'm torn on the exact details, but I honestly don't think that it matters. Real-world logic and physics do not apply. I said before that I can see a sort of mesh of new and old Hyrules going on, and I completely understand how that's absolutely illogical. But then, how logical are nigh-omnipotent golden triangles, parallel worlds twisted by evil to mirror the geography of the original, OTHER parallel worlds whose inhabitants are basically body doubles of each other, a human sharing a lucid dream with a whale god, or pretty much anything else that Zelda has? I'm not saying to throw logic entirely out the window, and I'm not saying that anything goes. I'm just saying that Hyrule being remade in this method isn't beyond the mystical magical bullshitting (and I use that word affectionately) that the Zelda series has used before.

Technically, they ARE logical, they're just not consistent with our reality. They're logical because despite being fantastic, we can explain these phenomena without having to just say "It's just fiction" or appealing to special pleadings.

As for landmarks and geographic similarities, why not? Why wouldn't the New and Improved Hyrule ™ bear resemblance to the old one? Why couldn't old man-made landmarks be rebuilt/restored?

Well, for one, it's UNBELIEVABLY UNLIKELY that a new land would form that looked just like their old one, and that people who forgot Hyrule completely will be able to build all the same towns and give everything the same name (According to TWW, people don't even remember the name "Hyrule" anymore).

Why does it sound familiar? is this to say that all happened already? was it supposed to be a prequel at all? is it farther down the timeline? Its messy.

Remember, Zelda is trying to stop Ganondorf because she had dreams of the future.

[joeymartin64]

Why? What really indicates that they would build the exact replica of the past? Specifically when the King wished for that old hyrule to vanish and for Link and Tetra to find a new land? I agree with you that magic can be used to lift the ancient land. But the magic must counteract the Triforce. Nothing but the Triforce itself (which the King has all 3 pieces) and the Master Sword (which is designed to fight evil only) can do this.

First, it's not really an exact replica. That's tenuous, I know, because the maps are never exact, but there there you go. Plus, the king is dead. What happens when the one who controls the entire Triforce dies? That's a whole other can of worms. TP kinda sorta though not really seems to imply that Triforce pieces at least get passed down through heredity (spiritual or biological), so it's possible it was transferred to Zelda, a descendant of whom did eventually revive Hyrule. Eh.

Technically, they ARE logical, they're just not consistent with our reality. They're logical because despite being fantastic, we can explain these phenomena without having to just say "It's just fiction" or appealing to special pleadings.

Don't patronize me; you know damn well that's what I meant. And the explanation, as I recall from the old days, was usually "magic." If that's changed, and there actually ARE explanations for these beyond such a thing, I'd love to hear it.

Well, for one, it's UNBELIEVABLY UNLIKELY that a new land would form that looked just like their old one, and that people who forgot Hyrule completely will be able to build all the same towns and give everything the same name (According to TWW, people don't even remember the name "Hyrule" anymore).

Before TP came out, I probably would have called it "UNBELIEVABLY UNLIKELY" that they'd throw yet another parallel world into this ness. Look what happened there. And it's not like the person/deity/tree/whatever behind it wouldn't tell anybody what was going on.

[Showsni]

Hint that Link is her brother?

[bjamez7573]

Why? What really indicates that they would build the exact replica of the past? Specifically when the King wished for that old hyrule to vanish and for Link and Tetra to find a new land? I agree with you that magic can be used to lift the ancient land. But the magic must counteract the Triforce. Nothing but the Triforce itself (which the King has all 3 pieces) and the Master Sword (which is designed to fight evil only) can do this.

First, it's not really an exact replica. That's tenuous, I know, because the maps are never exact, but there there you go. Plus, the king is dead. What happens when the one who controls the entire Triforce dies? That's a whole other can of worms. TP kinda sorta though not really seems to imply that Triforce pieces at least get passed down through heredity (spiritual or biological), so it's possible it was transferred to Zelda, a descendant of whom did eventually revive Hyrule. Eh.

Not exact replica? Each game (FSA, TP and ALTTP) has all of the major landmarks that OOT has, clearly indicating that it is meant to be the same place. Granted, the orientation is different, but maps aren't the best source of timeline evidence. Too much can be read into them. What I am saying doesn't have to do with the map, but simply what Hyrule has. All of the places (like death mountain, lake hylia, the Desert etc.) that are in OOT exist in FSA, TP, ALTTP. Plus, the knowledge of the Kingdom of Old was lost, how could it have all come back?

I don't think that just because he died at the end doesn't mean the Triforce's power is weakened or his wish can somehow be negated any more than when he's alive. And part of his wish was for his destiny to be fulfilled (which obviously meant dying) and he wouldn't say that unless he was confident that the Triforce's wish would prevail, even though he (the king) would not.

What in TP kinda sorta implies that the Triforce gets passed down? I've never noticed anything, but maybe I missed something. If anything, OOT mentions that when the Triforce is split because the user didn't believe in all three in balance, the other two were chosen by destiny.

Also, his wish was to destroy the old hyrule and leave it behind, for good - including Tetra's connection to royalty. She is no longer apart of the royal family, as there is none, even though technically she is descended from them biologically. I think WW would have shown that the Triforce passes to Zelda if what you are saying could be possible (I mean, the other parts of understanding the nature of the Triforce are explained, like the fact that you must touch it to use it, and the joining of all three).

Before TP came out, I probably would have called it "UNBELIEVABLY UNLIKELY" that they'd throw yet another parallel world into this ness. Look what happened there. And it's not like the person/deity/tree/whatever behind it wouldn't tell anybody what was going on.

Even before TP came out, WW made pretty clear that the story it was referencing was the adult story in OOT and the fact that the King mentioned that Link "journeyed through the flows of time" indicating that we went to a different time period. The only thing you could do is to negate the child time-period from existing, but the end of OOT clearly does not show that. Not to mention that Ganondorf in TP seemed (although it just an intrepretation) to not be shocked when fighting the Master Sword (therefore not knowing its true power). And you still have the problem of counteracting the Triforce at the end of WW.

On the flip side, no game indicates that Hyrule was ever lifted out of the water or that the Triforce's power was negated by something other than itself or the Master Sword.

Edited by bjamez7573, 29 July 2009 - 08:38 PM.

[Person]

I think this can all be chalked up to various translation inaccuracies in TWW. If the "flows of time" line was as explicit in English as it was in Japanese, we probably wouldn't be having this discussion. Leave it to NoA to mess things up. First it was the single-Link theory, now it's the single-timeline.

[joeymartin64]

Not exact replica? Each game (FSA, TP and ALTTP) has all of the major landmarks that OOT has, clearly indicating that it is meant to be the same place. Granted, the orientation is different, but maps aren't the best source of timeline evidence. Too much can be read into them. What I am saying doesn't have to do with the map, but simply what Hyrule has. All of the places (like death mountain, lake hylia, the Desert etc.) that are in OOT exist in FSA, TP, ALTTP. Plus, the knowledge of the Kingdom of Old was lost, how could it have all come back?

Oy, yeah. Maps aren't exact, which is why I think that argument is kind of a dead end. Death Mountain is supposedly Dragon Roost Island, and why wouldn't a new lake and desert exist?

As for knowledge of the old kingdom, it wasn't all lost. The people of Outset at least knew some of it, and post-TWW games (going by my timeline, which I should probably post, but whatever) don't make any references that would necessarily have to be traced to pre-TWW.

I don't think that just because he died at the end doesn't mean the Triforce's power is weakened or his wish can somehow be negated any more than when he's alive. And part of his wish was for his destiny to be fulfilled (which obviously meant dying) and he wouldn't say that unless he was confident that the Triforce's wish would prevail, even though he (the king) would not.

I never said that. I was speculating as to what could have happened to the Triforce post-TWW.

What in TP kinda sorta implies that the Triforce gets passed down? I've never noticed anything, but maybe I missed something. If anything, OOT mentions that when the Triforce is split because the user didn't believe in all three in balance, the other two were chosen by destiny.

The fact that Link has the ToC, and is unaware of it until the events of the game. This split occurs way before TP, what with Ganondorf having been sealed long ago, so there's no way it could have gone directly to him upon the split. Ditto with Zelda's ToW, except that she actually knew it. Also notice that it stayed with the Royal Family in that case.

Even before TP came out, WW made pretty clear that the story it was referencing was the adult story in OOT and the fact that the King mentioned that Link "journeyed through the flows of time" indicating that we went to a different time period.

I always saw that as the Hero of Time returning to the child era.

The only thing you could do is to negate the child time-period from existing, but the end of OOT clearly does not show that.

Actually, I have the adult era getting Altrenate 1985'd out of existence, but Link, retaining his memories of it, passes the info along. Also, since he has the ToC in the ending, that means the Triforce is split, and since he closes the gateway to the Sacred Realm, Ganon is effectively sealed there. Yeah, I know, Zelda's in the castle during the ending; it's not perfect.

Not to mention that Ganondorf in TP seemed (although it just an intrepretation) to not be shocked when fighting the Master Sword (therefore not knowing its true power). And you still have the problem of counteracting the Triforce at the end of WW.

I still say that it's possible, if not likely, that he was boasting and trying to psyche Link out. Again, would you rather he said, "That sword has totally wrecked me a few times, but I can take it this time, I'm sure! Really!"?

On the flip side, no game indicates that Hyrule was ever lifted out of the water or that the Triforce's power was negated by something other than itself or the Master Sword.

Already addressed that. Also, I don't think you were here during the start of this, so I'll quote myself from the first page, emphasis new:

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. Not that I actually have a timeline written down anywhere. It's been years since I've done that.

Also, that last sentence is no longer accurate, as I have written up a timeline since this all began.

Edited by joeymartin64, 29 July 2009 - 09:49 PM.

[MikePetersSucks]

Don't patronize me; you know damn well that's what I meant. And the explanation, as I recall from the old days, was usually "magic." If that's changed, and there actually ARE explanations for these beyond such a thing, I'd love to hear it.

The magic is consistent with itself and with the laws of the Hyrule universe, thusly, logical.

Before TP came out, I probably would have called it "UNBELIEVABLY UNLIKELY" that they'd throw yet another parallel world into this ness. Look what happened there. And it's not like the person/deity/tree/whatever behind it wouldn't tell anybody what was going on.

He seemed pretty content letting people remain ignorant for the hundreds of years it's already been. The Deku Tree also technically expressed a wish to recreate Hyrule, so it's not like he's duty-bound to revive the legends of Hyrule.

Actually, I have the adult era getting Altrenate 1985'd out of existence, but Link, retaining his memories of it, passes the info along. Also, since he has the ToC in the ending, that means the Triforce is split, and since he closes the gateway to the Sacred Realm, Ganon is effectively sealed there. Yeah, I know, Zelda's in the castle during the ending; it's not perfect.

This works on a split timeline if you kind've ignore TP, but on single timeline, you still have people treating the Hero of Time as a sort of demigod who'll show up at any time to save them, whom personally sealed Ganondorf with the Master Sword with the seven Sages. I doubt just some kid with a Triforce piece telling the story would have that much of an emotional impact on the people; no, they actually remember that someone in green saved their entire country, and their ancestors were around to see it. Either OOT Link is in a semi-time loop and the child era leads into the adult era and into TWW, or the timeline splits. Either way, TWW keeps one from negating the events of OOT's future.

We even see everyone celebrating in the future after Link went back in time and should have already changed history.

I still say that it's possible, if not likely, that he was boasting and trying to psyche Link out. Again, would you rather he said, "That sword has totally wrecked me a few times, but I can take it this time, I'm sure! Really!"?

That's effectively what he said in TWW.

[joeymartin64]

The magic is consistent with itself and with the laws of the Hyrule universe, thusly, logical.

Yet something no more asinine like the flood subsiding and/or islands becoming part of a new land somehow isn't? We don't know where the line is, so it's totally possible.

He seemed pretty content letting people remain ignorant for the hundreds of years it's already been. The Deku Tree also technically expressed a wish to recreate Hyrule, so it's not like he's duty-bound to revive the legends of Hyrule.

It was very early in the plan.

I doubt just some kid with a Triforce piece telling the story would have that much of an emotional impact on the people; no, they actually remember that someone in green saved their entire country, and their ancestors were around to see it.

I don't doubt it. This is the Triforce. Up until then, it had been elaborately sealed away, so anyone with a hunk of it is probably taken pretty damn seriously.

Either OOT Link is in a semi-time loop and the child era leads into the adult era and into TWW, or the timeline splits. Either way, TWW keeps one from negating the events of OOT's future.

Not necessarily.

We even see everyone celebrating in the future after Link went back in time and should have already changed history.

Of course they're celebrating. Ganondorf just effectively ate it, and he's been ruling them iron-fisted for the last seven years. Plus, it makes for a nice backdrop for the staff roll.

That's effectively what he said in TWW.

That sort of plays into my point.

"You need the Power to Repel Evil ™ to defeat me!"
"''Kay!"
"...Better not let that one slip again."

[Person]

If Ganon wasn't going to "let that one slip again," then why does he not even recognize the sword in TP?

And an un-flooding of old Hyrule would contradict the fictional rules of how magic works in Zelda. As bjames pointed out, the only things able to counteract the Triforce are the Triforce itself or the Master Sword.

[joeymartin64]

If Ganon wasn't going to "let that one slip again," then why does he not even recognize the sword in TP?

It never says that. He may simply be not tipping his enemy's hand to him. Notice how he seems not to give a shit about Link at all, despite having been owned by at least one Link no matter how you look at it. Mind games? Not saying this is confirmed, but it does make some sense.

And an un-flooding of old Hyrule would contradict the fictional rules of how magic works in Zelda. As bjames pointed out, the only things able to counteract the Triforce are the Triforce itself or the Master Sword.

And I provided a possible scenario where the Triforce is involved.

[Person]

If Ganon wasn't going to "let that one slip again," then why does he not even recognize the sword in TP?

It never says that. He may simply be not tipping his enemy's hand to him. Notice how he seems not to give a shit about Link at all, despite having been owned by at least one Link no matter how you look at it. Mind games? Not saying this is confirmed, but it does make some sense.

And an un-flooding of old Hyrule would contradict the fictional rules of how magic works in Zelda. As bjames pointed out, the only things able to counteract the Triforce are the Triforce itself or the Master Sword.

And I provided a possible scenario where the Triforce is involved.

The reason he doesn't care about Link is that he never fought Link before, and thus does not recognize his sword. It would be pretty hard to believe that after he made a point of draining the sword's power in TWW, he would suddenly not care in TP.

And what's the scenario you propose with the Triforce? For all we know it went back into the SR when its wielder died, as the king's last descendant Tetra doesn't seem to have it.

[joeymartin64]

The reason he doesn't care about Link is that he never fought Link before, and thus does not recognize his sword. It would be pretty hard to believe that after he made a point of draining the sword's power in TWW, he would suddenly not care in TP.

Okay, this is the fourth bloody time I'll have said this. In fact, you're missing my point so hardcore, I can just quote my last post:

It never says that. He may simply be not tipping his enemy's hand to him. Notice how he seems not to give a shit about Link at all, despite having been owned by at least one Link no matter how you look at it. Mind games?

He recognizes it, he cares, but he's not letting Link know that. Is that clear enough now? After four times? And let's not forget:

Not saying this is confirmed, but it does make some sense.

And what's the scenario you propose with the Triforce? For all we know it went back into the SR when its wielder died, as the king's last descendant Tetra doesn't seem to have it.

What happens when the one who controls the entire Triforce dies? That's a whole other can of worms. TP kinda sorta though not really seems to imply that Triforce pieces at least get passed down through heredity (spiritual or biological), so it's possible it was transferred to Zelda, a descendant of whom did eventually revive Hyrule. Eh.

Link didn't know he had the ToC in TP, so it's not impossible that Tetra is unaware of her possession of the whole thing.

[CID Farwin]

And what's the scenario you propose with the Triforce? For all we know it went back into the SR when its wielder died, as the king's last descendant Tetra doesn't seem to have it.

For all we know it could be sitting on some beach, basking in the Island sun with one of those drinks with an umbrella. The last we see or hear of it is when it's rising into the ocean.

Also: why is it impossible for a Triforce-wised-back Hyrule to be the same as the old one? or for one drudged out of the water to have similar landmarks?

[bjamez7573]

Oy, yeah. Maps aren't exact, which is why I think that argument is kind of a dead end. Death Mountain is supposedly Dragon Roost Island, and why wouldn't a new lake and desert exist?

But I am not talking about maps or the placement of the different places on it or how they match. I merely talking about what places exist in the Hyrule's of the different games. All of the major landmarks in OOT, which is the anicent Hyrule the king wished away, are present in FSA, ALTTP and TP, strongly indicating that they are the same place.

Rito's were apparently supposed to evolve from the Zora's, where did you get that Death Mountain was supposed to be Dragon Roost Island? Because of Din's Pearl?

As for knowledge of the old kingdom, it wasn't all lost. The people of Outset at least knew some of it, and post-TWW games (going by my timeline, which I should probably post, but whatever) don't make any references that would necessarily have to be traced to pre-TWW.

Granted, that's possible, but ALTTP seemed to have a richer history of the past than what WW kept.

I don't think that just because he died at the end doesn't mean the Triforce's power is weakened or his wish can somehow be negated any more than when he's alive. And part of his wish was for his destiny to be fulfilled (which obviously meant dying) and he wouldn't say that unless he was confident that the Triforce's wish would prevail, even though he (the king) would not.

I never said that. I was speculating as to what could have happened to the Triforce post-TWW.

I know you didn't say that, I'm sorry if it sounded that way. I was merely trying to point out that the Triforce's power was still in full effect after he died. I suppose you could speculate that someone found the Triforce after that (or what you said about Zelda) and reversed the King's wish. Doesn't that seem odd, though? People have already established a culture with the islands, Link and Tetra are the only ones who know the wish, and at the end they seemed to accept it, even though they didn't agree. There doesn't appear to be any motive in WW to bring the old Hyrule back.

The fact that Link has the ToC, and is unaware of it until the events of the game. This split occurs way before TP, what with Ganondorf having been sealed long ago, so there's no way it could have gone directly to him upon the split. Ditto with Zelda's ToW, except that she actually knew it. Also notice that it stayed with the Royal Family in that case.

I guess that could be. But that was the result of the Triforce splitting, which didn't happen when the King wished on it (this may or may not affect the Triforce "passing down through the generations")

I always saw that as the Hero of Time returning to the child era
................................
Actually, I have the adult era getting Altrenate 1985'd out of existence, but Link, retaining his memories of it, passes the info along. Also, since he has the ToC in the ending, that means the Triforce is split, and since he closes the gateway to the Sacred Realm, Ganon is effectively sealed there. Yeah, I know, Zelda's in the castle during the ending; it's not perfect.

The problem is, the King said that the Hero of Time journeyed through time, and he said that he left. This has to be in the same timeline as WW and the adult timeline in OOT, as that is the only one where he left through time. Therefore, the adult timeline must exist because WW itself exists.

I still say that it's possible, if not likely, that he was boasting and trying to psyche Link out. Again, would you rather he said, "That sword has totally wrecked me a few times, but I can take it this time, I'm sure! Really!"?

That's true, that could be the case. But notice the different actions of Ganondorf in TP and WW. In WW, he took measures to see that the Master Sword lost its power, because he knew of its power to defeat him. TP's Ganondorf did absolutely nothing about it. Given what he did in WW, he would be really stupid to not take measures against the Master Sword if he knew about its power.

On the flip side, no game indicates that Hyrule was ever lifted out of the water or that the Triforce's power was negated by something other than itself or the Master Sword.

Already addressed that. Also, I don't think you were here during the start of this, so I'll quote myself from the first page, emphasis new:

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. Not that I actually have a timeline written down anywhere. It's been years since I've done that.

Also, that last sentence is no longer accurate, as I have written up a timeline since this all began.

I know that's your intention. I am just trying to understand why you would put the games in a single timeline (which requires events to happen that the games do not indicate) over putting them in a split timeline (which the games seem to indicate more). You said, shove them in an order that seems to fit. Why does a single timeline "seem to fit" better than a split? I mean, anyone can create any order of the games they wish if you make enough stuff up. I am not trying to be pushy, just curious to hear why you think the way you do as I haven't debated a single timeline theorist before.

[joeymartin64]

Rito's were apparently supposed to evolve from the Zora's, where did you get that Death Mountain was supposed to be Dragon Roost Island? Because of Din's Pearl?

I should have emphasized "supposedly." DM is stated to be the highest mountain in Hyrule, which means it would probably be the highest island on the Great Sea. There's also the smoke ring. I kinda "sure why not" this point, rather than considering it an indisputable fact, but there is some stuff that kinda points to it.

Granted, that's possible, but ALTTP seemed to have a richer history of the past than what WW kept.

"Granted, that's possible," is all I want to hear. Plus some stuff could be rediscovered, and/or newer history established; a lot of time passes between the two.

People have already established a culture with the islands, Link and Tetra are the only ones who know the wish, and at the end they seemed to accept it, even though they didn't agree. There doesn't appear to be any motive in WW to bring the old Hyrule back.

The motivation could be the Deku Tree's. And there are a few different ways to explain why the Hylians would want to repopulate: Simple nostalgia. It's not too uncommon for people to visit the homeland of their ancestors and want to stay there. Or, the new land/culture is a shithole, and a new old homeland is basically a godsend (somewhat literally).

I guess that could be. But that was the result of the Triforce splitting, which didn't happen when the King wished on it (this may or may not affect the Triforce "passing down through the generations")

Naturally. But again, I'm just speculating.

The problem is, the King said that the Hero of Time journeyed through time, and he said that he left. This has to be in the same timeline as WW and the adult timeline in OOT, as that is the only one where he left through time. Therefore, the adult timeline must exist because WW itself exists.

"Journeyed through time"=Returning to the child era in the ending. This would be included in what kid Link passes along.
"Left="Termina.
Problem solved.

TP's Ganondorf did absolutely nothing about it. Given what he did in WW, he would be really stupid to not take measures against the Master Sword if he knew about its power.

He's basically a god in TP (however the hell that happened). He may mistakenly believe it's just not strong enough to take him.

I know that's your intention. I am just trying to understand why you would put the games in a single timeline (which requires events to happen that the games do not indicate) over putting them in a split timeline (which the games seem to indicate more). You said, shove them in an order that seems to fit. Why does a single timeline "seem to fit" better than a split? I mean, anyone can create any order of the games they wish if you make enough stuff up. I am not trying to be pushy, just curious to hear why you think the way you do as I haven't debated a single timeline theorist before.

First of all, I want to thank you for going about this respectfully. Second, I've stated my reasons for this, but I think I did so before you came into this.

Quotes, emphasis new:

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.

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.

And the biggest one:

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.

There's more than that, but that should cover it pretty well. And yes, I do like Journey.

Edited by joeymartin64, 30 July 2009 - 09:06 PM.

[Fin]

Hint that Link is her brother?

Along with a whole other bunch of circumstanctial evidence, that was always one of my favourite bits of fanwank.

[GuardianNinja]

Oh noesss! she offered to marry him in Four Swords! what will the kids be like?!