30 replies to this topic

[ganonlord6000]

OK. I really need to end that debate with the guy on youtube who puts TMC after FSA. Can any of you post some links that confirm that TMC is a prequel to FS and FSA? That and the interview which confirmed that Ganon died in TWW?

Edited by ganonlord6000, 16 October 2009 - 07:03 PM.

[Person]

OK. I really need to end that debate with the guy on youtube who puts TMC after FSA. Can any of you post some links that confirm that TMC is a prequel to FS and FSA? That and the interview which confirmed that Ganon died in TWW?

There aren't any interviews talking about TMC's timeline placement because it's self-evident. Quit arguing with someone who can't see sense. And the PH intro says that Ganon died. I know there was also an interview that said it too but I don't have a link at the moment.

[ganonlord6000]

OK. I really need to end that debate with the guy on youtube who puts TMC after FSA. Can any of you post some links that confirm that TMC is a prequel to FS and FSA? That and the interview which confirmed that Ganon died in TWW?

There aren't any interviews talking about TMC's timeline placement because it's self-evident. Quit arguing with someone who can't see sense. And the PH intro says that Ganon died. I know there was also an interview that said it too but I don't have a link at the moment.

Wasn't there an interview with NOE in which Aounoma said it was a prequel? Obviously that guy can't figure out why 99% of us view TMC as a prequel. PH's intro never said that Ganon was dead, but it is implied. Especially by his final words in TWW. Oh. I was looking at that cryptic quotes thread on ZU and someone said that not only was most of Ganon's speech was removed from TP, but the scene when the mirror was destroyed. I have no idea who that was, but we did see the destruction of the mirror in TP didn't we?

[Person]

OK. I really need to end that debate with the guy on youtube who puts TMC after FSA. Can any of you post some links that confirm that TMC is a prequel to FS and FSA? That and the interview which confirmed that Ganon died in TWW?

There aren't any interviews talking about TMC's timeline placement because it's self-evident. Quit arguing with someone who can't see sense. And the PH intro says that Ganon died. I know there was also an interview that said it too but I don't have a link at the moment.

Wasn't there an interview with NOE in which Aounoma said it was a prequel? Obviously that guy can't figure out why 99% of us view TMC as a prequel. PH's intro never said that Ganon was dead, but it is implied. Especially by his final words in TWW. Oh. I was looking at that cryptic quotes thread on ZU and someone said that not only was most of Ganon's speech was removed from TP, but the scene when the mirror was destroyed. I have no idea who that was, but we did see the destruction of the mirror in TP didn't we?

The cryptic quote thread was nothing but typical Lex stuff. He turned the removal of a couple lines of dialogue from TP into a debate about the placement of FSA after TWW.

[ganonlord6000]

OK. I really need to end that debate with the guy on youtube who puts TMC after FSA. Can any of you post some links that confirm that TMC is a prequel to FS and FSA? That and the interview which confirmed that Ganon died in TWW?

There aren't any interviews talking about TMC's timeline placement because it's self-evident. Quit arguing with someone who can't see sense. And the PH intro says that Ganon died. I know there was also an interview that said it too but I don't have a link at the moment.

Wasn't there an interview with NOE in which Aounoma said it was a prequel? Obviously that guy can't figure out why 99% of us view TMC as a prequel. PH's intro never said that Ganon was dead, but it is implied. Especially by his final words in TWW. Oh. I was looking at that cryptic quotes thread on ZU and someone said that not only was most of Ganon's speech was removed from TP, but the scene when the mirror was destroyed. I have no idea who that was, but we did see the destruction of the mirror in TP didn't we?

The cryptic quote thread was nothing but typical Lex stuff. He turned the removal of a couple lines of dialogue from TP into a debate about the placement of FSA after TWW.

I didn't see anyone with that name on ZU. I know there was one here, but what is Lex's name on ZU? Any idea where Lex came up with the idea that the seal on Ganon wasn't broken in TWW even though Ganon told Link that it was broken?

Oh. I was just on ign and they call Zelda Wii Zelda Wii 2. What the heck? That site destroys our universal code of canon and names. Oh. Volvagia slayer is an idiot. Apparantly, he still thinks that TP's Ganon isn't OOT's Ganon when it is painfully obvious that it's the same guy.

Edited by ganonlord6000, 19 October 2009 - 05:28 PM.

[Volvagia_slayer]

Thanks for the kind words ganonlord. Nice to know that you're adult enough to debate with me in a civilized manner instead of going behind my back and insulting me. Shows a lot of class.

And by the way, no one over at IGN cares for Joe_Cracker (except for those who like to make fun of him), and only the noobs to the board call it Zelda Wii 2. Why demonize a community based on the people who aren't even a part of the community?

[Ikiosho]

Dear lord. Not this.

[Average Gamer]

I didn't see anyone with that name on ZU. I know there was one here, but what is Lex's name on ZU?

Lex's current name on ZU is Artemicion. He often changes it.

Why demonize a community based on the people who aren't even a part of the community?

The IGN community isn't "demonized" because of Joe Cracker; it's mainly looked down upon for its terrible theorizing, which consists of blatantly disregarding Miyamoto's and Aonuma's confirmation of the split timeline, thinking that OoT Ganondorf isn't TP Ganondorf, etc.

Edited by Average Gamer, 19 October 2009 - 06:37 PM.

[Volvagia_slayer]

Why demonize a community based on the people who aren't even a part of the community?

The IGN community isn't "demonized" because of Joe Cracker; it's mainly looked down upon for its terrible theorizing, which consists of blatantly disregarding Miyamoto's and Aonuma's confirmation of the split timeline, thinking that OoT Ganondorf isn't TP Ganondorf, etc.

Then help us out. Answer our questions instead of calling us stupid.

Of course the fact of the matter is that most of the posters that care about the timeline on IGN believe in the split timeline. I'm open to either idea, but I prefer the single because it has fewer holes and unanswered questions in it.

I just mentioned Joe_Cracker because he was one of the things used in this thread to put down IGN, along with the "Zelda Wii 2" thing, and the Oracles/goddess theory. The user who posted that theory doesn't believe it. He even said so in the theory. It was just a "what-if" discussion to pass the time, because in between Zelda games the IGN Zelda Board moves very slowly. I'm just concerned that it seems like so many people in this thread are so quick to pass judgment on the users on IGN when they're really just imposing the view of a minority onto the whole community.

[Ikiosho]

So you don't think that sites like IGN are too big and popular for actual intelligent discussion? I don't bother checking it or GameFAQ's for that reason. And that I'm just lazy.

[Volvagia_slayer]

So you don't think that sites like IGN are too big and popular for actual intelligent discussion? I don't bother checking it or GameFAQ's for that reason. And that I'm just lazy.

Maybe this is naive of me, but I wasn't aware that IGN was all that popular. I know that The Vestibule is pretty huge, but that's about it. And it's one of those "scum-of-the-Internet" places that most people who go to forums for actual intelligent discussion know to avoid. The Nintendo Boards, on the other hand, which do a little bit of Zelda discussion on their own are small. The Zelda Board is even smaller (unless a new Zelda game has just come out, and then the board is flooded with noobs for a few weeks before the board is left with just its regulars again).

There's definitely plenty of room for intelligent discussion, especially when the users doing the discussion can be patient and open-minded with one another.

[Ikiosho]

Mmkay, I guess that makes sense.

Edited by Ikiosho, 19 October 2009 - 07:10 PM.

[Raien]

I think what pisses off the people in this forum (it certainly pisses me off) is the lack of any accepted theorising standards. With the professional processes we see in the academic community, we can map out 90% of the games with complete certainty, but most people ignore them for whatever bullshit reasons they can think of. And whenever people put on the pressure to apply such standards, there's a wave of opposition because people don't like having their pet theories shattered by "facts".

It's like being a liberal on Fox News. Facts are washed away in a sea of ignorance and personal agendas.

[Average Gamer]

Then help us out. Answer our questions instead of calling us stupid.

We've tried. It has never worked.

[Volvagia_slayer]

^If it hasn't worked then you haven't answered our questions.

[Sign of Justice]

^Or, as I think Average Gamer is implying, the theorists there are just stupid

Oh and after taking a look at the boards, IGN makes ZD look amazing...

Oh and the common theorists of ZD have stated that they are NOT looking for the developer intended timeline... and I thought ZD couldn't get any worse...

Edited by Sign of Justice, 19 October 2009 - 08:49 PM.

[MikePetersSucks]

^If it hasn't worked then you haven't answered our questions.

We answer questions thoroughly and satisfactorily. But then of course, we have these people responding with "Well I don't like that explanation because it conflicts with my completely unsupported fan idea because, even though canon doesn't say so in any way, I think these two things are related."

[Volvagia_slayer]

^If it hasn't worked then you haven't answered our questions.

We answer questions thoroughly and satisfactorily. But then of course, we have these people responding with "Well I don't like that explanation because it conflicts with my completely unsupported fan idea because, even though canon doesn't say so in any way, I think these two things are related."

Well maybe everyone else's questions are being answered thoroughly and satisfactorily. I know at least two people from here have gone to IGN, joined in timeline discussions, and when I ask a question, I'm answered with what amounts to "the creator said so".

To me that's like me asking you why's the sky blue, and you respond "just because... it's blue because it's blue". I want to know how it works. So, like I said, I can appreciate what the split timeline does for the franchise, but it brings up a lot of questions for me. Why is time travel not consistent in OoT, why are there all of these mentions to games that didn't happen in the respective timelines, what happened to the Link that was already in the past when the Link from the future was sent back to the past... Things like that. I really hate when smart timeline theorists (which most of you probably are) just sweep these questions under the rug because the creators said something that makes it so we don't have to answer those questions if we just go with what the creator said and ignore the logic and narrative of the games (and if we're going to do that, it renders all debating instantly null, because it would mean that the players can't figure out the timeline on their own; as soon as the creators make up their minds or change their minds about something, it instantly becomes law and all of that debate amongst the players was without product; why make a timeline of the games if you can't consult the games?). That's incredibly close-minded, and it hinders discussion. Since when did "scholars" of anything become so close-minded and take this easy way out?

All of my theories have been based on evidence in the game or in the instruction booklets (and creator quotes in areas where the games and booklets fail to provide information). When I first played through TP my fan theory was that TP Ganondorf was the same guy as OoT Ganondorf, and the marks that appeared on the hands of those in TP were the Triforce. As I had more and more debates with different people and I became familiarized with more of the obscure quotes in the game, it became clear that my fan theory wasn't as concrete as I thought it was. So I adapted it to what was in the games.

I know there are people who don't like to hear evidence because it disagrees with their fan theories, but I can assure you that most of the smart timeline theorists on IGN are open to hearing smart debate, and then adapting their theories as they see fit. I only know of a handful of people on the board that stick with their pet theory no matter what in-game evidence is given to them, but they can be a vocal minority at times.

Edited by Volvagia_slayer, 20 October 2009 - 04:38 PM.

[Average Gamer]

Well maybe everyone else's questions are being answered thoroughly and satisfactorily. I know at least two people from here have gone to IGN, joined in timeline discussions, and when I ask a question, I'm answered with what amounts to "the creator said so".

To me that's like me asking you why's the sky blue, and you respond "just because... it's blue because it's blue".

The creators making an official statement regarding their series is not the same as saying the sky is blue "just because".

So, like I said, I can appreciate what the split timeline does for the franchise, but it brings up a lot of questions for me. Why is time travel not consistent in OoT,

Zelda split the timeline in the ending in an attempt to give Link a childhood while apparently trying to preserve the world that he just saved. The timeline was not split before Zelda did that.

why are there all of these mentions to games that didn't happen in the respective timelines,

Such as?

what happened to the Link that was already in the past when the Link from the future was sent back to the past

There were never two Links; Link's consciousness effectively traveled between the points in time. There is also no evidence that two Links ever simultaneously existed on a timeline (not counting Four Swords and Four Swords Adventures).

Things like that. I really hate when smart timeline theorists (which most of you probably are) just sweep these questions under the rug because the creators said something that makes it so we don't have to answer those questions

1. It's their series. They can decide how the games fit together.

2. Regarding the split timeline, the creators were clarifying something that the fanbase had not come to a conclusion on.

if we just go with what the creator said and ignore the logic and narrative of the games

We don't ignore the logic and narrative of the games.

When I first played through TP my fan theory was that TP Ganondorf was the same guy as OoT Ganondorf, and the marks that appeared on the hands of those in TP were the Triforce. As I had more and more debates with different people and I became familiarized with more of the obscure quotes in the game, it became clear that my fan theory wasn't as concrete as I thought it was.

Why would OoT Ganondorf not be TP Ganondorf? TP is only a hundred years or so after the Child Timeline ending of OoT, and Ganondorf was sealed in the Twilight Realm around a hundred years ago. Ganondorf also acts the same in OoT and TP, and as for his appearance, it's presumably a redesign. In OoT, Ganondorf was described as a Gerudo in black armor, even though he didn't wear actual armor. In TP, his appearance fits the description.

Also, why wouldn't the characters have the Triforce pieces? In OoT's ending we see the Triforce of Courage lit up on Link's hand, suggesting that the Triforce has somehow split on both timelines. The crests give special abilities to the characters in TP, even saving Ganondorf's life. The only other hand crests in the series didn't come close to the feats seen in TP.

[Volvagia_slayer]

The creators making an official statement regarding their series is not the same as saying the sky is blue "just because".

You're right. You misunderstand me. I'm talking about when the creators make a statement that doesn't seem to agree with what's in the games. To go back to my sky metaphor, it would be like someone (the creators) saying that the sky is blue because it reflects the colors of the ocean across the world. Now this is a feasible explanation on the surface, and it seems to work. However, when the curious person asks, "Well what about when the sky turns red or grey? What about when the oceans are more green than blue?" That's when you have to find an answer that works and fits ALL of the data... not just part of it.

Zelda split the timeline in the ending in an attempt to give Link a childhood while apparently trying to preserve the world that he just saved. The timeline was not split before Zelda did that.

Yeah, I know. That's not exactly what I'm talking about. I'm talking about the fact that during the game every time Link goes back in time he never manages to change the timeline or create an alternate timeline. In fact, where the Song of Storms is concerned he actually has a hand in fulfilling some event that is destined to happen in the timeline. So why did Zelda sending Link back in time create an alternate timeline when all time travel up to that point had not, and in fact had been something that had to occur in order for the events of OoT to play out in the first place?

Such as?

On Outset Island we are told that the young boys were dressed in the clothing of the Hero of Time whenever the children came of age (whenever they became the same age as the Hero of Time). TWW Link was just a child when he became the same age as the Hero of Time, so that means that Outset Island celebrates the child Link as the Hero of Time. In the adult timeline, however, the child Link did nothing except let Ganondorf into the Sacred Realm so he could steal the Triforce. In the child timeline, however, when Link went back in time, the legend of the Hero of Time got spread around and the child Link became famous as the Hero of Time before he left Hyrule in the events of MM. So the people on Outset Island appear to be referring back to an event that only happened in the child timeline.

The Legend of the Fairy in TWW opens up a back story on Tingle, telling you why there's a Tingle in TWW. According to the legend there was a Tingle long ago in another land that helped the Hero of Time when he was lost, and in remembrance of that Tingle, the guy in TWW dressed up as Tingle to carry on the role. The only time Tingle ever helped the Hero of Time was in MM. MM only happened in the child timeline. Another reference to the child timeline?

The King of Hyrule told TWW Link that the Hero of Time never returned to save them from Ganon because he left the land of Hyrule (or stepped through the flows of time). When this happened the Triforce of Courage broke into 8 pieces across the land. However, as you know, Link still had the Triforce of Courage with him when he appeared in the past at the end of OoT. So either the king was wrong and/or the mark on Link's hand at the end of OoT isn't the Triforce (even though there's no evidence suggesting it would be anything else given the context of the game), some time after Link leaves for Termina the Triforce of Courage pieces make their way back into the adult timeline (the Essence of the Triforce may be omnipotent and omniscient, but there's no evidence suggesting that this theory has any truth to it), the Triforce of Courage somehow duplicated itself when Link traveled back in time (which means you would have 4 pieces of the Triforce in the child timeline now), the adult timeline Triforce of Courage stayed behind in the future, but when he returned to the past the Triforce in the past automatically split and went to Zelda, Link, and Ganon (even though Zelda doesn't have a Triforce mark on her hand at the end of the game), or Link actually brought the Triforce of Courage back into the past with him, but there's no worries about it being around for TWW and the games after it because there's no alternate timeline is has to jump across to get where it needs to be (possible, but only if the single timeline is true). Those are the only possibilities I can think of off the top of my head and the flaws accompanied with each. So if the King's story is true, it leads to the possibility of a mention to the child timeline, and if it isn't it leads to a few other problems depending on the theory we go with.

There were never two Links; Link's consciousness effectively traveled between the points in time. There is also no evidence that two Links ever simultaneously existed on a timeline (not counting Four Swords and Four Swords Adventures).

This is the logic and narrative part I was talking about. If Link was just consciousness traveling between the two points in time then he shouldn't have been able to change time. He couldn't change time where the Song of Storms was concerned. He had to teach Guru-Guru the song in order to learn the song and be able to teach Guru the song to get the Lens of Truth. Even if we overlook the Song of Storms and say it's possible for a consciousness time traveler to change time, and we say that Link did change time when he was sent back in time by Zelda, why wasn't the adult timeline erased? Why did Link's new actions create a new, co-existing timeline instead of causing the old one to fade away into the new? But even if we decide that it happened "just because", doesn't that turn TWW and PH into what are essentially "what-if" games? Games that happen in this universe that was never supposed to exist? But just to shake up the possibility of Link only consciousness traveling: how can that be when the last scene has Link inside the Temple of Time, beyond the Door of Time, with no Spiritual Stones in the Altar of Time? Link never went through the Door of Time without setting the Spiritual Stones into place, so doesn't that mean that this last scene that is taking place isn't something that Link always did, thus making it physical time travel rather than just consciousness time travel?

And if we say that Link was consciousness traveling throughout all of OoT except for the very end at which time he time traveled in body when Zelda sent him back (which makes some amount of sense, given that when Link appeared in the past the Master Sword was already in its pedestal and Link wasn't touching it; this is unlike every other time Link reappeared in the past, where he is in the process of taking his hands off of the Master Sword when he arrives in the past), then that means we have a Link who is still in the past, who has never time traveled, who is still the same guy as the Link who was just in the future a moment ago, just without all of the memories or the Triforce. So if we go by this theory, what happens to that Link who is still in the past? Does he just live out the rest of his life as a Kokiri?

1. It's their series. They can decide how the games fit together.

That can be a little scary, especially when they've admitted that their own timeline confuses them. We've got plenty of theorists out there who perfectly understand the split. Why does it still boggle Miyamoto and Aonuma (who have confirmed it )?

We don't ignore the logic and narrative of the games.

I'm not accusing anyone.

Why would OoT Ganondorf not be TP Ganondorf? TP is only a hundred years or so after the Child Timeline ending of OoT, and Ganondorf was sealed in the Twilight Realm around a hundred years ago. Ganondorf also acts the same in OoT and TP, and as for his appearance, it's presumably a redesign. In OoT, Ganondorf was described as a Gerudo in black armor, even though he didn't wear actual armor. In TP, his appearance fits the description.

Read the following with an open mind because I'm not trying to convert you to my way of thinking. I'm merely answering your question. The reasons to believe that OoT Ganondorf and TP Ganondorf are the same guy is that they are both male Gerudo named Ganondorf (though, granted, most people won't let you get away with that argument if you're trying to prove one Link is the same as another), and because Aonuma alluded to as much in an interview.

The reasons to doubt that he's the same guy include that TP Ganondorf was said to have invaded Hyrule, which OoT Ganondorf never did (OoT Ganondorf invaded Hyrule Castle, but he was already within the kingdom, walking around as a guest of the the King of Hyrule before his attack, so unless we chalk it up to a stretched legend (which doesn't make much sense, IMO, since the people telling us the legend in TP lived through the events), a mistranslation (which is possible, as I can't read Japanese, so I have a very limited idea of what the games say when they're first released), or an invasion of Hyrule that occurred well after the events of OoT (and therefore likely after the events of MM's back story that take place in Hyrule, which then throws into question Aonuma's quote about Link and Zelda getting Ganondorf arrested and taken to the Arbiter's Grounds if Link wasn't in Hyrule any more), then that's one difference. Then there's the fact that TP Ganondorf invaded Hyrule in order to "establish dominion over the Sacred Realm". OoT Ganondorf appeared to have no interest in the Sacred Realm. Now we could shrug off this difference with the "getting the Triforce is basically the same thing as taking over the Sacred Realm" excuse or with another mistranslation (though in this case I wonder why he would have given up on trying to get the Triforce even if "Sacred Realm" should have been translated "Hyrule", because he sure didn't stop trying to get the Triforce in OoT after he had already taken over), but it's still another discontinuity. Then there's the fact that TP Ganondorf was "known as a demon thief, an evil-magic wielder renowned for his ruthlessness..." "Renowned." TP Ganondorf was famous for being as evil as he was. In OoT Ganondorf wasn't famous for being evil until after he had gotten the Triforce. So is it a different guy, did OoT Ganondorf manage to get this reputation anyway despite never getting the Triforce from the Sacred Realm, is it another mistranslation, or what? Then in the final battle when TP Ganondorf transforms into Ganon (possibly without the power of the Triforce, which is what it looked like he needed in order to transform during OoT), he transforms into a beast instead of an anthropoid pig-creature. This difference is a bit weaker and could simply be chalked up to the redesign and game's wolf mechanic, but it's still interesting to note.

So we've got a back story difference, a motive or objective difference, a reputation difference, a transformation difference, and even a title difference in the English version of the game (he's known as the King of Evil in OoT, but the Dark Lord in TP; I'm told that his title is the same in the Japanese versions, but again, I know I can't clarify that). So we've got 1. Male Gerudo, 2. Named Ganondorf, 3. Aonuma said so, going for him, and 1. Back Story, 2. Motive/Objective, 3. Reputation, 4. Power/Transformation, 5. (maybe, but probably not) Title, going against him. Since there's at least as much evidence there that makes their identities questionable as there is confirmation, I'd be hesitant before labeling him as any particular Ganon.

Also, why wouldn't the characters have the Triforce pieces? In OoT's ending we see the Triforce of Courage lit up on Link's hand, suggesting that the Triforce has somehow split on both timelines. The crests give special abilities to the characters in TP, even saving Ganondorf's life. The only other hand crests in the series didn't come close to the feats seen in TP.

We are told throughout the game that the Triforce marks on the hands of Link, Zelda, and Ganondorf merely mark them as those "chosen by the gods"; it is never stated to actually be the Triforce. The mark doesn't necessarily mean they have the Triforce either. The whole Triforce symbol glows when its powers are being activated in TP which is unlike what happened in OoT and TWW (in OoT and TWW, only the piece of Triforce that the person has is ever lit up, but in TP, sometimes the piece for each person will glow, sometimes the mark will disappear completely, and when the mark-bearer is actually using some sort of power, the entire mark glows). When Link entered the Twilight Realm, the Courage piece lit up on his hand, but when he was transforming into a wolf, the whole thing lit up and then dimmed out completely when he fell unconscious. When Ganondorf was being "executed" the Power portion lit up on his hand, but as he's freeing himself from the chains, the whole symbol is lit up. When he gets stabbed at the end of the game by Link, it dims out completely. Since we're told the marks only show Link, Zelda, and Ganondorf to be "chosen by the gods" throughout the entire game and are never called "the Triforce" (plus the fact that all of the "pieces" in the mark glow at some time or another and not necessarily just when the characters are with the others that have the marks), it seems that this mark was just given to those who were aligned with each portion of the Triforce and a portion of the goddesses' powers were bestowed upon those with the mark.

You note that the marks give them special abilities in TP. However, in TWW none of them got any special abilities (except maybe Tetra's wardrobe change). In OoT none of them got any special abilities (except maybe Ganondorf's transformation into Ganon at the end of the game). In AoL the mark wasn't the Triforce, but it allowed Link to read a language he couldn't read previously and to unlock a door that had been locked by magic. In the OoA the mark wasn't the Triforce, but the mark allowed him to move a boulder out of the way that couldn't be moved otherwise. So the mark that wasn't the Triforce gave Link abilities, and the mark that was the Triforce didn't give Link abilities. So since the mark in TP gives Link abilities, is it more likely that the marks are the Triforce or not?

Then we've got TWW more or less implying that the Triforce can't leave Hyrule (and OoT and MM back this up by showing Link with the Triforce at the end of OoT, but he doesn't have it during MM once he's left Hyrule), even though Link and Ganondorf spend significant portions of TP outside of Hyrule. And we've got the fact that dead people can't hang on to Triforce pieces. As soon as someone dies, that piece physically exits their body in every other game. Yet at the end of TP the Triforce of Power didn't come floating out of Ganondorf's corpse.

So we've got the powers leaning towards the marks not being the Triforce in TP (though not ruling out the possibility of them being the actual Triforce because of OoT Ganondorf's transformation), the glowing of the marks leaning heavily towards the marks not being the Triforce in TP (no game besides TWW has ever depicted a piece of the Triforce as anything other than a solid glow of the one triangle that coincides with the piece's wielder, and even in TWW this remains true except for in the very last scene when the single pieces are flashing on and off on Zelda's (and maybe Ganondorf's, I don't completely remember) hand), and the rules of the Triforce leaning towards the marks not being the Triforce in TP (i.e. someone has to touch the Triforce in order for it to split, it always physically leaves the bodies of corpses that are holding them, they can't (or don't) travel outside of Hyrule, etc.)

So with all of these differences present, why would the characters have the Triforce pieces (besides Zelda possibly)?

Edited by Volvagia_slayer, 20 October 2009 - 07:42 PM.

[Average Gamer]

Because your post was so long, my replies will take up two posts. You should really try to cut back on walls of text and run-on sentences.

Part One of Two.

You're right. You misunderstand me. I'm talking about when the creators make a statement that doesn't seem to agree with whats in the games.

The timeline split fits the games. OoT itself seems to imply a split timeline; when Link is sent back in the ending, instead of seeing a changed future created by him staying in the past, we see the time that he just left, apparently days later. There is no sign of Link on this timeline; Epona is even seen aimlessly running across Hyrule Field, hammering in the fact that Link is gone. It is only after that do we see Link again.

Yeah, I know. That's not exactly what I'm talking about. I'm talking about the fact that during the game every time Link goes back in time he never manages to change the timeline or create an alternate timeline. In fact, where the Song of Storms is concerned he actually has a hand in fulfilling some event that is destined to happen in the timeline. So why did Zelda sending Link back in time create an alternate timeline when all time travel up to that point had not, and in fact had been something that had to occur in order for the events of OoT to play out in the first place?

The time travel within the game involved the Master Sword and featured what is best described as Link's consciousness hopping between two points in time. Zelda's method, however, was different, and removed Link from the Adult Timeline entirely.

On Outset Island we are told that the young boys were dressed in the clothing of the Hero of Time whenever the children came of age (whenever they became the same age as the Hero of Time). TWW Link was just a child when he became the same age as the Hero of Time, so that means that Outset Island celebrates the child Link as the Hero of Time. In the adult timeline, however, the child Link did nothing except let Ganondorf into the Sacred Realm so he could steal the Triforce.

In the Japanese text, I think that they said that the children dressed up when they reached the age the Hero of Time was at when he started his journey, not when he ended it.

In the child timeline, however, when Link went back in time, the legend of the Hero of Time got spread around and the child Link became famous as the Hero of Time before he left Hyrule in the events of MM.

If I recall correctly, the intro of MM only said that the Royal Family spoke of it. The Hero of Time didn't become a widespread figure like he did on the Adult Timeline.

The Legend of the Fairy in TWW opens up a back story on Tingle, telling you why there's a Tingle in TWW. According to the legend there was a Tingle long ago in another land that helped the Hero of Time when he was lost, and in remembrance of that Tingle, the guy in TWW dressed up as Tingle to carry on the role. The only time Tingle ever helped the Hero of Time was in MM. MM only happened in the child timeline. Another reference to the child timeline?

The Tingle in TWW could have easily just been the Hyrulian parallel of the Tingle in MM. The legend of the Hero of Time was certainly well-known on the Adult Timeline, so Tingle could have heard of it and later made up the Legend of the Fairy. After all, this is the same guy who claims that "fairy magic" powers his tower when his brothers are working like slaves right in front of him.

The King of Hyrule told TWW Link that the Hero of Time never returned to save them from Ganon because he left the land of Hyrule (or stepped through the flows of time). When this happened the Triforce of Courage broke into 8 pieces across the land. However, as you know, Link still had the Triforce of Courage with him when he appeared in the past at the end of OoT.

Link left behind the Triforce of Courage of the Adult Timeline. However, because he was the worthy owner of the ToC, he obtained the Triforce of Courage of the Child Timeline when he was sent to the Child Timeline, thus splitting the Triforce and creating the "divine prank" mentioned in TP.

the adult timeline Triforce of Courage stayed behind in the future, but when he returned to the past the Triforce in the past automatically split and went to Zelda, Link, and Ganon (even though Zelda doesn't have a Triforce mark on her hand at the end of the game),

Triforce resonance is somewhat unpredictable; two pieces could be in close proximity and not respond (OoT, TWW), the pieces may have delayed responses (TWW), or all three could be gathered together yet only one acknowledges the others (TWW). Thus, the ToC can easily be reacting to the ToW even if the ToW hasn't shown up on Zelda's hand.

This is the logic and narrative part I was talking about. If Link was just consciousness traveling between the two points in time then he shouldn\'t have been able to change time.

By "traveling consciousness" I meant that he wasn't overriding any version of himself when he went back in time. There is only one Link in OoT.

He couldn't change time where the Song of Storms was concerned. He had to teach Guru-Guru the song in order to learn the song and be able to teach Guru the song to get the Lens of Truth. Even if we overlook the Song of Storms and say it's possible for a consciousness time traveler to change time, and we say that Link did change time when he was sent back in time by Zelda, why wasn't the adult timeline erased?

Zelda's method of sending Link back in time was different than the Master Sword's method, and thanks to the timeline split one timeline cannot erase the other.

Why did Link's new actions create a new, co-existing timeline instead of causing the old one to fade away into the new?

The Split Timeline was the result of Zelda's actions when she sent Link away, not Link's.

And if we say that Link was consciousness traveling throughout all of OoT except for the very end at which time he time traveled in body when Zelda sent him back (which makes some amount of sense, given that when Link appeared in the past the Master Sword was already in its pedestal and Link wasn't touching it; this is unlike every other time Link reappeared in the past, where he is in the process of taking his hands off of the Master Sword when he arrives in the past), then that means we have a Link who is still in the past, who has never time traveled, who is still the same guy as the Link who was just in the future a moment ago, just without all of the memories or the Triforce. So if we go by this theory, what happens to that Link who is still in the past? Does he just live out the rest of his life as a Kokiri?

As I said above, there aren't two Links. Nothing ever suggests that two Links would exist, not to mention that only one tunic-wearing minor hero was mentioned in Twilight Princess. Also, in the opening of Majora's Mask, Link is apparently looking in the Lost Woods for Navi. Since he is presumably investigating places that Navi might gravitate toward, chances are that he also looked for her in the Kokiri Forest. Since there is absolutely no mention of a "You're Link, but he's Link too!" scenario or dual Navis, there appears to be only one Link and one Navi.

That can be a little scary, especially when they\'ve admitted that their own timeline confuses them.

If you\'re referring to the 2003 interview, that final comment was probably meant to be a joke more than anything. Also, regarding the storyline, Eiji Aonuma has expressed a great interest in making the stories connect and make sense.

I'm not accusing anyone.

Your quote seemed to imply that you thought that listening to official creator statements was akin to throwing out logic and narrative.

The reasons to believe that OoT Ganondorf and TP Ganondorf are the same guy is that they are both male Gerudo named Ganondorf (though, granted, most people won't let you get away with that argument if you're trying to prove one Link is the same as another) and because Aonuma alluded to as much in an interview.

Aonuma didn't "allude" to OoT and TP Ganondorf being the same person so much as he blatantly stated it.

The reasons to doubt that he's the same guy include that TP Ganondorf was said to have invaded Hyrule, which OoT Ganondorf never did (OoT Ganondorf invaded Hyrule Castle, but he was already within the kingdom, walking around as a guest of the the King of Hyrule before his attack,

Link didn't go along with Zelda's plan on the Child Timeline, so Ganondorf's plan from OoT couldn't work. Presumably, he eventually just tried to conquer the land outright and assemble the keys to the Sacred Realm. Aonuma even said that Link's talk with Zelda in OoT's ending changed things between them and Ganondorf.

Then there's the fact that TP Ganondorf invaded Hyrule in order to "establish dominion over the Sacred Realm".

That's not a problem; Ganondorf wanted to rule the world, and the Triforce would greatly aid him. He also wanted to conquer Hyrule as well, and because he couldn't exploit Link and Zelda on the Child Timeline, he presumably had to take a more direct approach.

Then there\'s the fact that TP Ganondorf was "known as a demon thief, an evil-magic wielder renowned for his ruthlessness..." "Renowned." TP Ganondorf was famous for being as evil as he was. In OoT Ganondorf wasn't famous for being evil until after he had gotten the Triforce.

Ganondorf was the king of a race of thieves and, according to Nabooru, he stole from women and children and murdered people, violating the Gerudo code. He likely made a name for himself in the wars that took place before OoT began, and his Child Timeline reputation was also presumably bolstered by his assault on Hyrule. Wearing the Gerudo Mask in Castle Town reveals that most of the townsfolk are terrified of Gerudo, and at least one Gossip Stone states that Ganondorf plans to take over the world. Ganondorf (and the Gerudo in general) had fearsome reputations even in OoT.

Then in the final battle when TP Ganondorf transforms into Ganon (possibly without the power of the Triforce, which is what it looked like he needed in order to transform during OoT), he transforms into a beast instead of an anthropoid pig-creature.

That's just a variation of the Ganon form. Also, if he is substantially weaker, that's probably because of the scar from the execution.

So we've got a back story difference, a motive or objective difference, a reputation difference, a transformation difference,

Not really. It's rather obvious that he's the same guy. Also, the Ganon form has had many variants over the years.

and even a title difference in the English version of the game (he's known as the King of Evil in OoT, but the Dark Lord in TP; I'm told that his title is the same in the Japanese versions, but again, I know I can't clarify that).

His title is in fact the same in the Japanese version.

Edited by Average Gamer, 21 October 2009 - 01:32 AM.

[Average Gamer]

Part Two of Two.

We are told throughout the game that the Triforce marks on the hands of Link, Zelda, and Ganondorf merely mark them as those "chosen by the gods"; it is never stated to actually be the Triforce.

Triforce bearers have been stated to be "chosen by the gods" in other Zelda games. Also, no offense, but it's blatantly obvious that the characters have the Triforce pieces.

The mark doesn't necessarily mean they have the Triforce either. The whole Triforce symbol glows when its powers are being activated in TP which is unlike what happened in OoT and TWW

The entire Triforce mark has always appeared on a Triforce bearer's hand; it's just that the part corresponding to the piece they have is brighter than the other parts.

but in TP, sometimes the piece for each person will glow, sometimes the mark will disappear completely,

That happened in Ocarina of Time and in The Wind Waker as well.

and when the mark-bearer is actually using some sort of power, the entire mark glows).

That's not really strange, especially seeing as how Ganondorf and Tetra had flickering Triforce marks on their hands in the final battle of TWW.

When Link entered the Twilight Realm, the Courage piece lit up on his hand, but when he was transforming into a wolf, the whole thing lit up

Actually, if you look closely during Link's transformation, you can see that the Courage crest is the brightest.

Since we're told the marks only show Link, Zelda, and Ganondorf to be "chosen by the gods" throughout the entire game and are never called "the Triforce" (plus the fact that all of the "pieces" in the mark glow at some time or another and not necessarily just when the characters are with the others that have the marks), it seems that this mark was just given to those who were aligned with each portion of the Triforce and a portion of the goddesses' powers were bestowed upon those with the mark.

The pieces allow characters to do and endure incredible things, matching up with previous instances of people wielding the pieces of the Triforce. The only other cases of crests appearing on a person's hand do not match up to the feats seen in TP. Additionally, certain parts of the Triforce marks are brighter than others in TP, again matching up with previous instances of people wielding the pieces of the Triforce.

You note that the marks give them special abilities in TP. However, in TWW none of them got any special abilities (except maybe Tetra's wardrobe change).

Link was able to reenter the sealed Hyrule and Ganondorf was effectively immortal, not to mention that his power was greatly augmented.

In OoT none of them got any special abilities (except maybe Ganondorf's transformation into Ganon at the end of the game).

Ganondorf was stated to have become much stronger thanks to the Triforce of Power, and he was effectively immortal. Zelda's Sheik disguise may also have been created by the Triforce of Wisdom.

In AoL the mark wasn't the Triforce, but it allowed Link to read a language he couldn't read previously and to unlock a door that had been locked by magic.

And that's all it did. The manual even says that the mark only appeared because of the spell cast by the scroll writer. That's nothing compared to what we see in TP.

In the OoA the mark wasn't the Triforce, but the mark allowed him to move a boulder out of the way that couldn't be moved otherwise.

And that's literally all it could do. That can't compare to the feats seen in TP.

Then we've got TWW more or less implying that the Triforce can't leave Hyrule (and OoT and MM back this up by showing Link with the Triforce at the end of OoT, but he doesn't have it during MM once he's left Hyrule),

Triforce marks aren't constantly on a Triforce bearer's hand; Link's Triforce mark simply didn't show up MM. Also, TWW does not imply that the Triforce can't leave Hyrule.

And we've got the fact that dead people can't hang on to Triforce pieces. As soon as someone dies, that piece physically exits their body in every other game.

The only instance I know of where Link literally takes a Triforce piece off of the ground after defeating Ganon is in the Legend of Zelda, and Ganon had been reduced to a pile of ash by a Silver Arrow in that game. The ToP could be laying somewhere within Ganondorf's corpse or it could have easily just returned to the Sacred Realm in Twilight Princess.

So with all of these differences present, why would the characters have the Triforce pieces (besides Zelda possibly)?

Because the similarities stand out more, and the differences are minimal and ultimately unimportant.

Edited by Average Gamer, 21 October 2009 - 01:31 AM.

[ganonlord6000]

^Or, as I think Average Gamer is implying, the theorists there are just stupid

Oh and after taking a look at the boards, IGN makes ZD look amazing...

Oh and the common theorists of ZD have stated that they are NOT looking for the developer intended timeline... and I thought ZD couldn't get any worse...

ZD would be fine if they got rid of Basement (I can't stand him!!!). And why is Volvagia slayer here on LA? As if he wasn't bad enough on IGN. honestly. I've tried argueing against his TP Ganon =/= OOT Ganon and I haven't succeeded. Is he going to be the next mike peters or something (another picman would be worse)? TP is only 100 years after OOT and that Ganon was in the Twilight realm for about 100 years. Nintendo meant for it to be the same guy to completely seperate OOT from ALTTP by having him die on both timelines. Oh. I know this isn't exactly a kooky theory, but check out this "info" on Zelda Wii. Typical of IGN to come up with that. seriously. That is one of the stupidist things I have ever heard of. If that "info" is true, then Zelda Wii will not be canon.

Edited by ganonlord6000, 23 October 2009 - 05:37 PM.

[Sir Turtlelot]

Ganonlord, you do realize that was a joke right?

[ganonlord6000]

Ganonlord, you do realize that was a joke right?

Why do you think one of my replies to that to that says that I doubt that is real (it will be easy to see which posts are mine)? That isn't the first crazy thing I have seen.

[Volvagia_slayer]

Part One of Two

The timeline split fits the games. OoT itself seems to imply a split timeline; when Link is sent back in the ending, instead of seeing a changed future created by him staying in the past, we see the time that he just left, apparently days later. There is no sign of Link on this timeline; Epona is even seen aimlessly running across Hyrule Field, hammering in the fact that Link is gone. It is only after that do we see Link again.

How is this indicative of a split timeline? Link just went back in time, so we know that he's not in the future. TWW tells us that Link didn't return to Hyrule. The lack of Link in Hyrule could be from him being removed from one timeline and being put in another (which opens up the question of where the Link that was always originally from this new timeline was at), or Link just didn't come back to Hyrule seven years after MM.

The time travel within the game involved the Master Sword and featured what is best described as Link's consciousness hopping between two points in time. Zelda's method, however, was different, and removed Link from the Adult Timeline entirely.

Okay, so you do agree with me that Zelda's method is different. So if the Master Sword was consciousness traveling, then Zelda's method must have been physical for the two to be different, right? So this brings up that question of a second Link in the new timeline. You either have to explain where he was or explain why there was no Link in this timeline to begin with. If that's at all confusing to you, just look at Back to the Future for some alternate timeline time travel. When Marty ended up in the alternate timeline where Biff had become rich and taken over the whole town, we were told that the Marty of that timeline was away at boarding school. They acknowledge that this alternate timeline would have always had a version of the time traveler who never time traveled. Ocarina of Time should be the same way if there's a split.

If I recall correctly, the intro of MM only said that the Royal Family spoke of it. The Hero of Time didn't become a widespread figure like he did on the Adult Timeline.

The intro says, "In the land of Hyrule, there echoes a legend. A legend held dearly by the Royal Family that tells of a boy... A boy who, after battling evil and saving Hyrule, crept away from that land that had made him a legend..."

So the legend was all throughout the realm of Hyrule. It was just held dearly by the Royal Family. The intro doesn't even say that the Royal Family spoke of it, but that the entire land of Hyrule had made Link a legend.

The Tingle in TWW could have easily just been the Hyrulian parallel of the Tingle in MM. The legend of the Hero of Time was certainly well-known on the Adult Timeline, so Tingle could have heard of it and later made up the Legend of the Fairy. After all, this is the same guy who claims that "fairy magic" powers his tower when his brothers are working like slaves right in front of him.

How would that work though? The Hyrulean pairs don't know anything about their Terminian pairs, and vice-versa. They don't share any knowledge, and in some cases they don't even act alike. Besides, this is also unlikely because of the amount of time that separates MM and TWW. MM Tingle would have died long before TWW Tingle was born. And how could TWW Tingle have heard of the event if it only happened in the child timeline? The event occurred AFTER the split, so there's no way to get that knowledge into an alternate timeline after that.

Link left behind the Triforce of Courage of the Adult Timeline. However, because he was the worthy owner of the ToC, he obtained the Triforce of Courage of the Child Timeline when he was sent to the Child Timeline, thus splitting the Triforce and creating the "divine prank" mentioned in TP.

Minus the adult timeline part, that was my exact theory when I first played through TP. However, there's really no evidence to back it up. It's odd that Ganondorf wouldn't have received his piece of the Triforce immediately like Link did. It's odd that the Triforce would split in the first place without anyone touching it when Sheik specifically told us that someone touching it with an evil heart is what causes it to split in the first place. Then it's odd that the TP marks don't act like the OoT Triforce.

Triforce resonance is somewhat unpredictable; two pieces could be in close proximity and not respond (OoT, TWW), the pieces may have delayed responses (TWW), or all three could be gathered together yet only one acknowledges the others (TWW). Thus, the ToC can easily be reacting to the ToW even if the ToW hasn't shown up on Zelda's hand.

Well correct me if I'm remembering wrong, but from what I remember in TWW, the Triforce marks only resonated either when the person first got their piece of the Triforce or when it was resonating to another person's piece of the Triforce, and then the marks remained lit until they left the hands of those that held them. In OoT the marks first showed up when someone was either activating some sort of ability (Sheik turning into Zelda or Ganondorf turning into Ganon) or when the Triforce pieces were resonating to one another and trying to reform as Ganondorf told us. Then the marks stayed lit (except that the marks were only rendered on characters during cut scenes). TP is completely unlike that. In TP Link has the mark on his hand from the beginning of the game, then he goes through the twilight veil and the Courage portion lights up, then he is attacked by a Shadow Beast and transforms while the whole mark (all three portions) are lit up, and when he falls down unconscious the whole mark dims out. It's pretty much the same for Ganondorf.

By "traveling consciousness" I meant that he wasn't overriding any version of himself when he went back in time. There is only one Link in OoT.

I'm not proposing that there is a second Link beyond Link time traveling to before he time traveled, thus presenting the illusion that there are two Links, when in actuality there is only the one whose present and future are currently intersecting.

Zelda's method of sending Link back in time was different than the Master Sword's method, and thanks to the timeline split one timeline cannot erase the other.

Yes, but why did it split and preserve one timeline instead of erasing it? In the split timeline theory, Link's actions made sure that the same events wouldn't happen in this new timeline, so how did that keep the old one from disappearing? The only explanation I can come up with is one of parallel timelines, in which Link didn't create a new timeline at the end of OoT, but rather Zelda sent him to a completely separate timeline that had always existed. But if that's the case, it still brings up the question as to what happened to the Link who was already in this timeline? Either way you've got a question to answer. You have to answer why one timeline wasn't erased OR why there wasn't a second Link if you go with the split timeline.

The Split Timeline was the result of Zelda's actions when she sent Link away, not Link's.

So you're going by the theory that Zelda sent Link into an already existing, separate timeline right? If Zelda sent Link back in time in that same timeline, then it would have to be Link's actions changing time that created a separate timeline.

As I said above, there aren't two Links. Nothing ever suggests that two Links would exist, not to mention that only one tunic-wearing minor hero was mentioned in Twilight Princess. Also, in the opening of Majora's Mask, Link is apparently looking in the Lost Woods for Navi. Since he is presumably investigating places that Navi might gravitate toward, chances are that he also looked for her in the Kokiri Forest. Since there is absolutely no mention of a "You're Link, but he's Link too!" scenario or dual Navis, there appears to be only one Link and one Navi.

You're forgetting that those events take place months after the child portion of OoT. In other words, if the events of OoT were destined to be played out no matter what, and Link's past self was present at the same time as his future self, one Link would be asleep in the Sacred Realm during this time. Hyrule would only ever see one Link.

Your quote seemed to imply that you thought that listening to official creator statements was akin to throwing out logic and narrative.

It seems you merely inferred incorrectly then. No problem. I was saying that listening to official creator statements when logic and narrative disagrees with those statements is akin to throwing out that very same logic and narrative (which is self-explanatory). For example, using an outdated quote here, if we were to listen to Miyamoto say that LA can take place anywhere in the timeline and believe him, when we know very well that right now it can only take place after ALttP, that would be throwing out logic (that dictates that a game that is set up as a sequel can't take place just anywhere) and narrative (that LA Link has to have killed Ganon, be from Hyrule, and be on a journey of enlightenment).

Edited by Volvagia_slayer, 24 October 2009 - 11:08 PM.

[Volvagia_slayer]

Part Two of Two

That's not a problem; Ganondorf wanted to rule the world, and the Triforce would greatly aid him. He also wanted to conquer Hyrule as well, and because he couldn't exploit Link and Zelda on the Child Timeline, he presumably had to take a more direct approach.

But we're told in TWW and OoT that Ganondorf wanted to take over Hyrule. In TP we are told that Ganondorf wanted to take over the Sacred Realm, and then we are told that Ganondorf wanted to mix light and twilight in order to create darkness. Neither of those things are Hyrule. So neither of the stated objectives of TP Ganondorf have to do with taking over Hyrule. If he wanted to take over Hyrule, why didn't the game just say so? Why didn't Aonuma say so?

Ganondorf... likely made a name for himself in the wars that took place before OoT began

But apparently he wasn't renowned for being an evil demon prince and magic wielder because the King of Hyrule allowed him access into his throne room. The fact that Ganondorf was allowed in the country is hard to believe if Ganondorf's reputation was as bad as TP makes it out to be.

Triforce bearers have been stated to be "chosen by the gods" in other Zelda games. Also, no offense, but it's blatantly obvious that the characters have the Triforce pieces.

No offense taken. As I said, I thought they were the Triforce too when I first played TP. I just looked through some text dumps though and couldn't find "chosen by the gods" anywhere else. In OoT we've got "chosen by the Master Sword" and "chosen by destiny". In TWW we've only got "chosen by the Master Sword". I can't find "chosen by the gods" anywhere except for TP. (We do have "chosen one" in a few games, but that's too broad to say one way or another what they're referring to.) So if Triforce bearers have never been said to have been "chosen by the gods", does that necessarily mean that the TP characters have the Triforce?

The entire Triforce mark has always appeared on a Triforce bearer's hand; it's just that the part corresponding to the piece they have is brighter than the other parts.

You're misunderstanding me, I think. In TP the Power, Wisdom, AND Courage marks light up on both Link's and Ganondorf's hands during the game. That's never happened before in games where we know they have the Triforce. Now in the Oracles and AoL all three portions of the mark were the same brightness, so TP's marks seem to have something in common with those marks rather than the Triforce-bearer marks.

Actually, if you look closely during Link's transformation, you can see that the Courage crest is the brightest.

I just watched the scene again. It looks like all three portions are lit up equally in the part I'm talking about. It starts with just the Courage portion lit up, but then the other two sections light up as well.

The pieces allow characters to do and endure incredible things, matching up with previous instances of people wielding the pieces of the Triforce. The only other cases of crests appearing on a person's hand do not match up to the feats seen in TP. Additionally, certain parts of the Triforce marks are brighter than others in TP, again matching up with previous instances of people wielding the pieces of the Triforce.

What do the pieces do in OoT and TWW that are closer to the feats of TP than what the marks allow AoL and Oracles Links to do? You're right that the abilities granted to AoL Link and Oracles Link aren't nearly as epic as the abilities given to the TP characters, but in OoT and TWW there are almost no visible abilities granted (besides Zelda's and Ganondorf's transformations, and Ganondorf surviving the destruction of the castle, but we don't know that they couldn't do those things without the Triforce either; we know that the abilities that the characters of TP, AoL, and the Oracles exhibited only happened because of their marks).

Link was able to reenter the sealed Hyrule and Ganondorf was effectively immortal, not to mention that his power was greatly augmented.

But he was able to enter the sealed Hyrule once without the Triforce, and it's made fairly clear that it is the gods that control the opening of that portal, not the Triforce. As for Ganondorf being effectively immortal, do you mean the fact that he looks to be roughly the same age as from OoT? If so, remember that he was imprisoned in between realms for a while, so we don't know what that did to his age (Rauru seemed able to live in the Sacred Realm for a long enough time without a piece of the Triforce), and then Ganondorf was frozen in time when the Master Sword seal was placed on him (the seal that TWW Link broke when he pulled the Master Sword from its pedestal, that Ganondorf somehow managed to escape just prior to the events of TWW).

Triforce marks aren't constantly on a Triforce bearer's hand; Link's Triforce mark simply didn't show up MM. Also, TWW does not imply that the Triforce can't leave Hyrule.

According to TWW, "Once, long ago, he defeated Ganon and brought peace to the Kingdom of Hyrule... A piece of the Triforce was given to the Hero of Time and he kept it safe, much as Zelda kept hers. That sacred piece is known as the Triforce of Courage. When the Hero of Time was called to embark on another journey and left the land of Hyrule, he was separated from the elements that made him a hero. It is said that at that time, the Triforce of Courage was split into eight shards and hidden throughout the land."

This says that after the Hero of Time defeated Ganon, brought peace to Hyrule, and then kept his piece of the Triforce safe until he was called away on another journey. If they're talking about from the time he imprisoned Ganon to the time Zelda sent him back in time, that's not enough time to even mention that he kept his piece safe. However, if the journey away from Hyrule is to Termina (which would make more sense because being sent back in time doesn't seem like much of a journey), then it would make sense because he had been keeping his piece of the Triforce safe for several months.

ZD would be fine if they got rid of Basement (I can't stand him!!!). And why is Volvagia slayer here on LA? As if he wasn't bad enough on IGN.

Grow up ganonlord. If I can show you the courtesy of listening to your theory without insulting you, why is it so hard for you to do the same?

Oh. I know this isn't exactly a kooky theory, but check out this "info" on Zelda Wii. Typical of IGN to come up with that. seriously. That is one of the stupidist things I have ever heard of. If that "info" is true, then Zelda Wii will not be canon.

Ganonlord, you do realize that was a joke right?

Why do you think one of my replies to that to that says that I doubt that is real (it will be easy to see which posts are mine)? That isn't the first crazy thing I have seen.

If you had known it was just a joke, you wouldn't have said you doubt it was real. The guy made his post as ridiculous as possible so you'd know it was a joke. He wasn't trying to fool anybody.

[Average Gamer]

Volvagia_slayer, seeing as how this discussion takes two entire posts for each of us and I have a tight schedule, let's just end this after my responses.

Part One of Two.

How is this indicative of a split timeline?

TWW tells us that Link didn't return to Hyrule.

1. Link is completely gone from that timeline. He is an absent figure, and there's no "actual childhood" Adult Link running around. Also, if the final scene of OoT is any indication, Link went to Zelda so that he could make sure that things didn't pan out the same way on the CT. However, the adult time we see is clearly right after Link defeated Ganondorf and freed Hyrule, meaning that nothing changed, which clashes with the implications of OoT's final scene.

2. King Daphnes specifically says that Link left Hyrule by traveling through time, pointing toward a split timeline. Also, we clearly see that Link has made it back to Hyrule in the ending of Majora's Mask, and seeing as how he can apparently navigate the Lost Woods just fine, there's pretty much no chance of him becoming a Skull Kid or Stalfos. Before you mention the Hero's Shade from TP, I'd like to point out that he's actually a ghost, seeing as how he fades in and out and you can see a fleshy neck.

Okay, so you do agree with me that Zelda's method is different. So if the Master Sword was consciousness traveling, then Zelda's method must have been physical for the two to be different, right? So this brings up that question of a second Link in the new timeline.

I didn't say that Zelda's method had to be physical. In fact, seeing as how there appears to be only one Link on the Child Timeline, Zelda's method couldn't have been solely physical. If you really insist on a second Link though, you could argue that the two Links merely combined to form one entity.

If that's at all confusing to you, just look at Back to the Future for some alternate timeline time travel.

The Legend of Zelda =/= Back to the Future. There are no set rules for time travel.

The intro says, "In the land of Hyrule, there echoes a legend. A legend held dearly by the Royal Family that tells of a boy... A boy who, after battling evil and saving Hyrule, crept away from that land that had made him a legend..."

So the legend was all throughout the realm of Hyrule. It was just held dearly by the Royal Family. The intro doesn't even say that the Royal Family spoke of it, but that the entire land of Hyrule had made Link a legend.

Not necessarily. If Link barely did anything and Ganondorf had no idea who Link was/didn't recognize his clothes in TP, Link's actions and reputation on the CT couldn't have been very important or notable. The fact that it's specified that the Royal Family holds it dearly arguably suggests that they are the only ones who truly care about it.

How would that work though? The Hyrulean pairs don't know anything about their Terminian pairs, and vice-versa. They don't share any knowledge, and in some cases they don't even act alike.

You've misunderstood what I was saying. There could have been a Tingle who was the Hyrulian parallel of the Tingle from Majora's Mask. The legend of the Hero of Time was well-known in Hyrule before the Great Flood and it was still known on the Great Sea, so the Hyrulian Tingle could have made up his own story after hearing about the Hero of Time's exploits in Hyrule.

Minus the adult timeline part, that was my exact theory when I first played through TP. However, there's really no evidence to back it up.

The Triforce of Courage is blatantly glowing on Link's hand in OoT's ending and he technically was worthy of possessing the ToC (and actually had it) when he was sent across the timelines.

It's odd that Ganondorf wouldn't have received his piece of the Triforce immediately like Link did.

It's not that he didn't have it until the execution. He had it the moment the "Divine Prank" split happened; he just didn't realize it, similar to how Link didn't know that he had the ToC throughout most of OoT. The ToP only revealed itself during the execution.

It's also unlikely that the Goddesses spared Ganondorf in TP. They have never really favored Ganondorf and they personally sealed Hyrule beneath the Great Sea to thwart him in TWW's backstory. There's no reason for them to spare Ganondorf in TP.

It's odd that the Triforce would split in the first place without anyone touching it when Sheik specifically told us that someone touching it with an evil heart is what causes it to split in the first place.

The "Divine Prank" is a special case that nobody could have predicted.

Then it's odd that the TP marks don't act like the OoT Triforce.

No, they do in fact act like the OoT Triforce. Certain parts of the marks even glow brighter than the others, just like in OoT and TWW.

Well correct me if I'm remembering wrong, but from what I remember in TWW, the Triforce marks only resonated either when the person first got their piece of the Triforce or when it was resonating to another person's piece of the Triforce, and then the marks remained lit until they left the hands of those that held them.

In the Forsaken Fortress, the ToP reacted to a shard of the ToW even when the shard of the ToW didn't react to the ToP. When Tetra sees the Triforce mark first appear on her hand, it vanishes in the very next shot. When the ToC appeared on Link's hand, it disappeared after that cutscene and didn't reappear until Link was on the top of Ganon's Tower. Finally, even though all of the Triforce pieces were present in Puppet Ganon's room, only the ToP seemed to react to the others.

In OoT the marks first showed up when someone was either activating some sort of ability (Sheik turning into Zelda or Ganondorf turning into Ganon) or when the Triforce pieces were resonating to one another and trying to reform as Ganondorf told us. Then the marks stayed lit (except that the marks were only rendered on characters during cut scenes). TP is completely unlike that.

In TP, the marks only appear when a character is activating an ability (or their Triforce piece is acting for them) and the marks do not constantly appear on the hands of the Triforce bearers. That is just like OoT.

In TP Link has the mark on his hand from the beginning of the game, then he goes through the twilight veil and the Courage portion lights up, then he is attacked by a Shadow Beast and transforms while the whole mark (all three portions) are lit up, and when he falls down unconscious the whole mark dims out.

The black mark on TP Link's hand is exclusive to him, even when the rest of the series is taken into consideration. It may simply be the product of him having the ToC for what appears to be his entire life. Also, as I mentioned before, the Courage crest outshines the other two crests when Link is transforming into a wolf.

It's pretty much the same for Ganondorf.

Nothing suggests that Ganondorf had a black Triforce mark on his hand, and the Power crest was brighter than the other two crests at least once in every cutscene that featured his Triforce mark. Ganondorf could even will his mark to appear, as shown when he was speaking with Link and Midna in TP. He seems to similarly will it to appear in OoT, where he raises his arm to flaunt the mark before it even shows up. It should also be noted that the crest didn't appear until his speech was almost finished, whereas Link and Zelda's crests appeared shortly after Link entered the room.

Yes, but why did it split and preserve one timeline instead of erasing it?

Presumably because Zelda wanted to give Link a childhood without erasing herself and Hyrule while simultaneously negating all of Link's actions. Also, from a gameplay perspective, all of Link's actions being erased may have been a letdown to the players.

So you're going by the theory that Zelda sent Link into an already existing, separate timeline right?

No. You said that Link created the split timeline; I was merely correcting you there. Zelda blatantly messed with time while using the Ocarina of Time in OoT's ending, so she was most likely the one who split the timeline.

You're forgetting that those events take place months after the child portion of OoT. In other words, if the events of OoT were destined to be played out no matter what, and Link's past self was present at the same time as his future self, one Link would be asleep in the Sacred Realm during this time. Hyrule would only ever see one Link.

You had proposed the idea that the other Link would live out his days in the Kokiri Forest, which is what I was partially responding to. Sorry if my post was unclear.

Even if there was a second Link who went on a journey, why wouldn't the Link from the Adult Timeline try to stop him for the sake of Hyrule? He apparently tried to meet up with Zelda in OoT's ending to ensure that history didn't repeat itself, so why wouldn't he try to stop his counterpart as well?

Additionally, why would Zelda want Link to "live out his childhood" in a Hyrule that would be conquered and ravaged by Ganondorf for the span of said childhood?

I was saying that listening to official creator statements when logic and narrative disagrees with those statements is akin to throwing out that very same logic and narrative (which is self-explanatory). For example, using an outdated quote here, if we were to listen to Miyamoto say that LA can take place anywhere in the timeline and believe him, when we know very well that right now it can only take place after ALttP, that would be throwing out logic (that dictates that a game that is set up as a sequel can't take place just anywhere) and narrative (that LA Link has to have killed Ganon, be from Hyrule, and be on a journey of enlightenment).

However, the Miyamoto quote is pretty much the only instance where one of the creators said something that apparently clashed with the games themselves. People often mention the flaws in the "Miyamoto Timeline", and it was supposedly mistranslated and taken down from Nintendo's main Zelda site to boot.

In contrast, the statements referring to the split timeline have not clashed with the games.

Edited by Average Gamer, 25 October 2009 - 06:01 AM.

[Average Gamer]

Part Two of Two.

But we're told in TWW and OoT that Ganondorf wanted to take over Hyrule. In TP we are told that Ganondorf wanted to take over the Sacred Realm,

The wording in the execution scene in the Japanese version of TP is awkward. It is not made clear if the holy land in question is the Sacred Realm or Hyrule. However, it ultimately does not matter; OoT shows us that Ganondorf apparently wants to conquer both, and conquering the Sacred Realm would presumably give him the Triforce, which would greatly assist in conquering Hyrule. Also, Ganondorf did in fact conquer Hyrule in TP thanks to Zant; he was just keeping things covered up during the game.

and then we are told that Ganondorf wanted to mix light and twilight in order to create darkness.

That was said by Zant, who was a crazed pawn of Ganondorf. Also, Ganondorf didn't appear to have any interest in maintaining the Curtain of Twilight; he even insults the Twili when Link and Midna encounter him.

But apparently he wasn't renowned for being an evil demon prince and magic wielder because the King of Hyrule allowed him access into his throne room.

He may have still been feared as a demon thief, but he was offering his allegiance to Hyrule in a time of peace to boot. Also, as I said, his reputation in TP may have been bolstered by his assault on Hyrule.

Just to nitpick, Ganondorf was never called an "evil demon prince".

I just looked through some text dumps though and couldn't find "chosen by the gods" anywhere else. In OoT we've got "chosen by the Master Sword" and "chosen by destiny". In TWW we've only got "chosen by the Master Sword". I can't find "chosen by the gods" anywhere except for TP. (We do have "chosen one" in a few games, but that's too broad to say one way or another what they're referring to.)

I may have been thinking of the Japanese translations listed on this site, but I do recall some characters being chosen by the gods in the English versions. Certain characters are still said to be selected or aided by the gods in some games even when the phrase "chosen by the gods" doesn't appear. For example, Daphnes basically tells Tetra that her family was chosen by the gods to keep the Triforce of Wisdom away from Ganon.

Also, destiny could arguably be the will of the gods.

You're misunderstanding me, I think. In TP the Power, Wisdom, AND Courage marks light up on both Link's and Ganondorf's hands during the game.

I am aware of that and I know that the whole mark lighting up in that manner is seemingly exclusive to TP. However, TP also features the traditional "one crest is brighter" element from OoT and TWW. This is even present during Link's transformation, where the Courage crest is brighter than the Power and Wisdom crests, even though all three are incredibly bright.

Now in the Oracles and AoL all three portions of the mark were the same brightness, so TP's marks seem to have something in common with those marks rather than the Triforce-bearer marks.

However, the AoL and OoX crests did not perform feats on the level of those seen in OoT, TWW, and TP. Also, if I'm not mistaken, those crests did in fact stay on the hands of their bearers at all times (at least in OoX), contrasting with OoT, TWW, and TP.

I just watched the scene again. It looks like all three portions are lit up equally in the part I'm talking about. It starts with just the Courage portion lit up, but then the other two sections light up as well.

I recently watched a friend of mine play through TP and the Courage crest appeared to have been brighter than the other two throughout that cutscene.

What do the pieces do in OoT and TWW that are closer to the feats of TP than what the marks allow AoL and Oracles Links to do?

Ganondorf is basically immortal and his power is augmented greatly. Link can open a massive seal created by the Goddesses themselves and reenter Hyrule.

You're right that the abilities granted to AoL Link and Oracles Link aren't nearly as epic as the abilities given to the TP characters, but in OoT and TWW there are almost no visible abilities granted (besides Zelda's and Ganondorf's transformations, and Ganondorf surviving the destruction of the castle, but we don't know that they couldn't do those things without the Triforce either

The fact that the Triforce marks glow brightly when those events occur suggests that the pieces were an important part of said events. Also, seeing as how Ganondorf died from being stabbed in the head by the Master Sword in TWW, in contrast to his immortality in OoT, the ToP was apparently essential to Ganondorf's survival. Heck, it looks like it was keeping him alive even before the tower collapsed, seeing as how he fell over as though he were dead atop his tower.

and it's made fairly clear that it is the gods that control the opening of that portal, not the Triforce.

I checked and Daphnes did say that Link needed to show the Triforce of Courage to the gods to reopen the portal, so I was mistaken there. Daphnes still seems to have shut the portal, seeing as how it's his idea to leave Tetra in Hyrule. He also apparently believed that Ganondorf lacked an easy way back into Hyrule, seeing as how he is surprised and tells Link to return to Tetra ASAP when he learns that the Forsaken Fortress has been abandoned.

As for Ganondorf being effectively immortal, do you mean the fact that he looks to be roughly the same age as from OoT? If so, remember that he was imprisoned in between realms for a while, so we don't know what that did to his age (Rauru seemed able to live in the Sacred Realm for a long enough time without a piece of the Triforce), and then Ganondorf was frozen in time when the Master Sword seal was placed on him (the seal that TWW Link broke when he pulled the Master Sword from its pedestal, that Ganondorf somehow managed to escape just prior to the events of TWW).

Though Ganondorf was imprisoned within the Sacred Realm, nothing suggests that time does not pass in it. Also, according to the Japanese text, Ganondorf himself may have never been frozen in time; he only appears to have struggled with getting past the seal that kept Hyrule underneath the Great Sea. Ganondorf is also seemingly unfazed by Valoo's assault (what might sound like Ganondorf screaming in agony is actually, upon further investigation, some sort of draconic roar).

According to TWW, "Once, long ago, he defeated Ganon and brought peace to the Kingdom of Hyrule... A piece of the Triforce was given to the Hero of Time and he kept it safe, much as Zelda kept hers. That sacred piece is known as the Triforce of Courage. When the Hero of Time was called to embark on another journey and left the land of Hyrule, he was separated from the elements that made him a hero. It is said that at that time, the Triforce of Courage was split into eight shards and hidden throughout the land."

That's a mistranslation by NoA. The translators here looked at the quote and discovered that it actually said this:

Link, do you know the legend of the Hero of Time?

Long ago, the Hero of Time defeated Ganon and restored peace to Hyrule. He had a Triforce dwelling in him just like Zelda.

It was called the Triforce of Courage. It is said that when the Hero of Time traveled through time and left Hyrule, he was separated from the source of being a hero and the Triforce of Courage turned into 8 fragments and scattered throughout the land.

The Triforce of Courage split up and scattered when Zelda split the timeline and sent Link to the Child Timeline. It should also be noted that the "source of being a hero" could have been Link's age, since, as a child, he was too young to be the Hero of Time.

These posts are very long, and two of them are necessary. As stated in my first post, I'd like to end this conversation now. It was good talking with you.

[MikePetersSucks]

How is this indicative of a split timeline? Link just went back in time, so we know that he's not in the future. TWW tells us that Link didn't return to Hyrule. The lack of Link in Hyrule could be from him being removed from one timeline and being put in another (which opens up the question of where the Link that was always originally from this new timeline was at), or Link just didn't come back to Hyrule seven years after MM.

I'd like to interject here. In the Japanese script of TWW, The King of Red Lions specifically says that the Triforce of Courage was shattered when the Hero of Time "returned back into time," meaning he's referencing the time OOT Link returned to the past for the last time. It has nothing to do with his physically leaving the land of Hyrule.

Okay, so you do agree with me that Zelda's method is different. So if the Master Sword was consciousness traveling, then Zelda's method must have been physical for the two to be different, right? So this brings up that question of a second Link in the new timeline. You either have to explain where he was or explain why there was no Link in this timeline to begin with. If that's at all confusing to you, just look at Back to the Future for some alternate timeline time travel. When Marty ended up in the alternate timeline where Biff had become rich and taken over the whole town, we were told that the Marty of that timeline was away at boarding school. They acknowledge that this alternate timeline would have always had a version of the time traveler who never time traveled. Ocarina of Time should be the same way if there's a split.

Again, no. There's more to the metaphysics of time travel than whether you do it with your body or your mind. For all we know, she made Adult Link physically vanish, but only his consciousness returned to his original body. Zelda wouldn't be the first fantasy game to use that sort of mechanic.

How would that work though? The Hyrulean pairs don't know anything about their Terminian pairs, and vice-versa. They don't share any knowledge, and in some cases they don't even act alike. Besides, this is also unlikely because of the amount of time that separates MM and TWW. MM Tingle would have died long before TWW Tingle was born. And how could TWW Tingle have heard of the event if it only happened in the child timeline? The event occurred AFTER the split, so there's no way to get that knowledge into an alternate timeline after that.

Termina and other worlds like it shouldn't of been effected by the split, since they have their own flow of time. Hypothetically, one could use Termina to go from one timeline to the other.

Well correct me if I'm remembering wrong, but from what I remember in TWW, the Triforce marks only resonated either when the person first got their piece of the Triforce or when it was resonating to another person's piece of the Triforce, and then the marks remained lit until they left the hands of those that held them. In OoT the marks first showed up when someone was either activating some sort of ability (Sheik turning into Zelda or Ganondorf turning into Ganon) or when the Triforce pieces were resonating to one another and trying to reform as Ganondorf told us. Then the marks stayed lit (except that the marks were only rendered on characters during cut scenes). TP is completely unlike that. In TP Link has the mark on his hand from the beginning of the game, then he goes through the twilight veil and the Courage portion lights up, then he is attacked by a Shadow Beast and transforms while the whole mark (all three portions) are lit up, and when he falls down unconscious the whole mark dims out. It's pretty much the same for Ganondorf.

In all three games, the Triforce marks resonate when brought together or when used, and remain as dull marks with one lighter triangle remaining on their hands. There is no difference.

Yes, but why did it split and preserve one timeline instead of erasing it? In the split timeline theory, Link's actions made sure that the same events wouldn't happen in this new timeline, so how did that keep the old one from disappearing? The only explanation I can come up with is one of parallel timelines, in which Link didn't create a new timeline at the end of OoT, but rather Zelda sent him to a completely separate timeline that had always existed. But if that's the case, it still brings up the question as to what happened to the Link who was already in this timeline? Either way you've got a question to answer. You have to answer why one timeline wasn't erased OR why there wasn't a second Link if you go with the split timeline.

Why should it have erased the old timeline? During the game, Link kept jumping back and forth through the timeline, changing it and whatnot, but at the end, he had to Close The Door To Time. This event, we're being told, is when the split occurs. No matter what Link can do after this point, he'd be progressing time in a new, parallel direction. He can never walk down the road leading to that other timeline. He created a fork in the river of time.

But we're told in TWW and OoT that Ganondorf wanted to take over Hyrule. In TP we are told that Ganondorf wanted to take over the Sacred Realm, and then we are told that Ganondorf wanted to mix light and twilight in order to create darkness. Neither of those things are Hyrule. So neither of the stated objectives of TP Ganondorf have to do with taking over Hyrule. If he wanted to take over Hyrule, why didn't the game just say so? Why didn't Aonuma say so?

Dude, come now. He's mixing the worlds together and overrunning the place with evil monsters while having his right hand, Zant, try and take over as king, a king he himself would control. Do you really need to be told that Ganondorf wants to take over the world? Nintendo knows we're not babies who need every little obvious thing spelled out for us. Same reason they don't go out of their way to explain the Triforce; it's self-evident.

No offense taken. As I said, I thought they were the Triforce too when I first played TP. I just looked through some text dumps though and couldn't find "chosen by the gods" anywhere else. In OoT we've got "chosen by the Master Sword" and "chosen by destiny". In TWW we've only got "chosen by the Master Sword". I can't find "chosen by the gods" anywhere except for TP. (We do have "chosen one" in a few games, but that's too broad to say one way or another what they're referring to.) So if Triforce bearers have never been said to have been "chosen by the gods", does that necessarily mean that the TP characters have the Triforce?

In OOT, those who inherit the Triforce pieces are chosen by destiny. Now, who controls destiny? Keep in mind that explicitly mentioning deities and whatnot could've gotten Nintendo in hot water back in the 90's.

You're misunderstanding me, I think. In TP the Power, Wisdom, AND Courage marks light up on both Link's and Ganondorf's hands during the game. That's never happened before in games where we know they have the Triforce. Now in the Oracles and AoL all three portions of the mark were the same brightness, so TP's marks seem to have something in common with those marks rather than the Triforce-bearer marks.

It glows in every game with the Triforce Marks. Look very closely; in TP, one triangle shines the brightest.

just watched the scene again. It looks like all three portions are lit up equally in the part I'm talking about. It starts with just the Courage portion lit up, but then the other two sections light up as well.

I watched it. Courage is indeed brightest, dude. Not only that, but the color of it's light is paler and closer to a proper gold color.

What do the pieces do in OoT and TWW that are closer to the feats of TP than what the marks allow AoL and Oracles Links to do? You're right that the abilities granted to AoL Link and Oracles Link aren't nearly as epic as the abilities given to the TP characters, but in OoT and TWW there are almost no visible abilities granted (besides Zelda's and Ganondorf's transformations, and Ganondorf surviving the destruction of the castle, but we don't know that they couldn't do those things without the Triforce either; we know that the abilities that the characters of TP, AoL, and the Oracles exhibited only happened because of their marks).

The Triforce of Courage fills up Link's heart meter before the final boss.