302 replies to this topic

[Fatgoron]

What is inconclusive about WW being after the Adult ending of OoT? We know the adult ending is clearly the ending where Link is an adult. We are told WW occurs after that. This is circled out from the child ending. It can only logically mean that WW is after the Adult ending, and not the child ending - otherwise why the hell would be specify which? It's the only way the statement makes sence. It's also the only way that OoT can be the prequal to both aLttP and WW. With this much reasoning, it's clear what the creator was saying.

Aonuma and Miyamoto's discussion sounded like they were talking about the specific amount of time which passed between OoT and WW to me.
The difference between them would be seven years, and it sounds to me like a worthwhile nit-pick.

[mohammedali]

Hmmmm. All I have to say Mohammed is...where the heck were you over a year ago, when I was like the only one here defending the split timeline. I could've used you back then...lol. All of your explanations have made since to me from the start, I just wasn't sold on it.

Dude, if I had an OoT of my own things may have been different, but it's cool - we can start the revolution now

Here's my version of the split:

This was actually one of my older split theories. The major problem people have with it is that Link has the ToC at the end of OoT, but your explination seems acceptable. I think this is also a plausable theory but I avoid it because of OoT ending. Maybe if TP shows us more about how the Triforce mark works, then we could give it more credability.

Ok enough with my version of the split. If there is a split then why would Aonuma say that TP takes place several decades after OOT but before TWW? Do you think he means TP takes place several decades after the so called 'adult ending' of OOT? Then that would help and also place TP on the same timeline as TWW. Then again if Aonuma would've meant to specifically say "TP is after the adult ending" then he would've said it. I mean if you're willing to take into consideration his quote referring to TWW as happening after the adult ending to imply a split, then why would he say specifically--back then--what part of OOT the TWW take place after, but not specifically say...what part of OOT does TP take place after. Keep in mind the quote about TWW was made before that game was released, just like the quote about TP is obviously before it.

Currently, the information about TPs placing is very conflicting, so I'm not giving any of it much weighting. However, there's no reason it can't go between OoT and WW.
The statement about WW was originally "its after OoT", but Miyamoto pushed for a lenghtier explination and then Anouma explained the whole Adult ending thing. Also, the statement was made around a month before release unlike the TP one which is almost a year before. I also don't really trust a statment that has been suggested by the interviewer - e.g. If Anouma says the game comes after OoT and the interviewer says "before WW?", he's most likley to say "yeah" as he doesn't expect most gamers to understand. Having said that, it doesn't really matter at this point as we haven't really got much to go by yet that is reliable. It's too early to tell.

So, adult Link vanishes from the timeline when Zelda "sends him back in time" - he is actually moved to a different dimension, not sent back in time. And I meant what happens to Link as a child, in the adult split - i.e. in the past, but the past of the adult section.

He's not in a different dimension. He goes to the past but because of this, and the fact that he'll live it all out differently means that this will all be in a different timeline.

As for Link in Adult Links past, he is stuck in the SR for 7 years, unlike the child Link in the other timeline who is enjoying his life.

Mohammed Ali

[mohammedali]

Aonuma and Miyamoto's discussion sounded like they were talking about the specific amount of time which passed between OoT and WW to me.
The difference between them would be seven years, and it sounds to me like a worthwhile nit-pick.

Definately not. They said WW is hundreds of years after OoTs Adult Ending. Some interviews mistranslate this as the singular is the same as the plural in Japanese, and we know from the ending that it was hundreds of years rather that a hunderd. Hundreds of years plus 7 = Hundreds of years. Hence there would be no difference between it being hundreds of years after either ending if it was supposed to be a matter of just 7 years. To say it was a nitpick sounds a crazy. The only rational for stipulating the ending is to confirm that both endings have different futures. One would have to be in serious denial to see the statement as anything else.

Mohammed Ali

[Fyxe]

Without knowing the tone or seeing exactly how they said the words, they could of easily just been nitpicking with each other. I've seen the transcript. It's not obvious what they're talking about. The problem is, as timeline theorists, when they answer a timeline question you think they're talking to you guys, but they're not, they're responding to an interviewer. They could of simply been making it clearer that it's unrelated to the events of Majora's Mask.

Besides, would it be denial to accept the infamous 'Miyamoto order' as a misjudged response in an interview?

If an interview response is contradictary to in-game evidence (such as the whole 'Legend of the Fairy' thing and whatnot) then it should be taken with a grain of salt or two, or at least no jumping to conclusions should be made.

[mohammedali]

Without knowing the tone or seeing exactly how they said the words, they could of easily just been nitpicking with each other.  I've seen the transcript.  It's not obvious what they're talking about.  The problem is, as timeline theorists, when they answer a timeline question you think they're talking to you guys, but they're not, they're responding to an interviewer.  They could of simply been making it clearer that it's unrelated to the events of Majora's Mask.

I've read the exact transcript rather than the paraphrased version, and had it translated by different people. As I don't see how the 'tone' they use would have a significant effect on the message, I can safely say that it's clear they aren't just nitpicking. Miyamoto was pushing Anouma to give more information, after which Anouma emphasised on the fact it was after OoTs adult ending. Also note that if it were a single timeline then being after the adult ending would not only make this whole statement redundant, it would also assume that MM happened and so it doesn't make it clear it's unrelated to MM at all. This interview was given very close to the release of the game, and the only way it makes any sence is if it is suggesting different futures to the 2 endings.

Besides, would it be denial to accept the infamous 'Miyamoto order' as a misjudged response in an interview?

This quote on the other hand had no explination, no follow up question (or a related question before it), and was answered YEARS after any Zelda game had been released - not to mention it blatently contradicts the canon via ingame quotes and the instruction booklet and box. This is clearly very different. One shouldn't be on either extreme with quotes. Each should be evaluated independantly.

If an interview response is contradictary to in-game evidence (such as the whole 'Legend of the Fairy' thing and whatnot) then it should be taken with a grain of salt or two, or at least no jumping to conclusions should be made.

The Legend of the Fairy does not disprove a timeline split. There have been threads already made on this topic so I'm not going to go into it again. As I've said before, a split is perfectly possible, and given what happens in OoTs ending, the storyline of WW and aLttP conflicting, and the quotes from the creators themselves, there is no doubt in mind that a split must have occured. You can try to discredit the quote if you want, but it's clear that it is one that holds meaning and to deny it is simply to be ignorant of an important fact the creators have told us. A split sorts out many problems and a quote that supports that should be a blessing to those looking for the 'ultimate timeline'.
Anyway, this is all very off topic now. Coming back to the last point... Is there any reason to doubt that OoT is aLttP BS that I haven't already gone over?

Mohammed Ali

[SOAP]

As far as the Miyamoto Order goes, I don't believe he simply didn't know what was talking about. I think he simply changed his mind at that point to better fit with the Sleeping Princess story coming first or it may have been his idea all along and just had let the writers do whatever up until then. I don't know. Ignoring the backs of boxes and official guides and junk, there's no reason to believe LoZ comes before ALttP unless you still want to defend OoT as the IW. Even still I myself have qualms placing LoZ and AoL before OoT even. And if TMC is first as they claim, then it'd make sense from geographical standpoint at least.

But to say Miyamoto just didn't know what he was saying, c'mon! Give the guy more credit than that. Afterall, people weren't so nitpicky about interviews back then.

[mohammedali]

As far as the Miyamoto Order goes, I don't believe he simply didn't know what was talking about. I think he simply changed his mind at that point to better fit with the Sleeping Princess story coming first or it may have been his idea all along and just had let the writers do whatever up until then. I don't know. Ignoring the backs of boxes and official guides and junk, there's no reason to believe LoZ comes before ALttP unless you still want to defend OoT as the IW. Even still I myself have qualms placing LoZ and AoL before OoT even. And if TMC is first as they claim, then it'd make sense from geographical standpoint at least.

It's also said in the instruction book that aLttP is before LoZ and AoL, so unless you take the manual as non-canon there should be no disputing it. It's even mentioned in OoT ingame quotes how LoZ has to be after OoT. It was against the canon when he made that satement, and given the circumstances as well, it seems extremely likely this was a slip-up.

But to say Miyamoto just didn't know what he was saying, c'mon! Give the guy more credit than that. Afterall, people weren't so nitpicky about interviews back then.

Dude, he went against the established canon in an interview years after any game without explaining his thoughts or anything. If ever there was a quote to ignore, this would be it. No matter how you look at it, aLttP cannot be last without contradicting the canon.

Mohammed Ali

[Nevermind]

If the guy creates a canon. Then goes against it and creates another canon. Which is the canon?

I mean come on. He MADE the canon. If he changes his mind, we have a disconinuity issue. However, because he makes the new decision, it also becomes canon.

[SOAP]

Ali, the guy made the series, he can whatever he wants. He can one day decide that LA is last and all the rest of games were just one big crazy deam Link had and continue the rest of the series with just one Link. It's his story. We don't know what he has planned for the series. He's probably taking in consideration things we don't know about yet. That's not to say he doesn't slip up but the games, like you said, have been out for quite a while. He had plenty of time figure out how they peice together. If he gave no explanation to his theory it's the interviewer's fault for not harping on that with a follow-up question, not his.

What in-game quotes say LoZ HAS to be after OoT?

[Fatgoron]

Miyamoto: Well, wait, which point does the hundred years start from?

I'd say that sounds like nitpicking over the exact quantity of time that has passed.

[Tri-Enforcer]

I've read the exact transcript rather than the paraphrased version, and had it translated by different people. As I don't see how the 'tone' they use would have a significant effect on the message, I can safely say that it's clear they aren't just nitpicking. Miyamoto was pushing Anouma to give more information, after which Anouma emphasised on the fact it was after OoTs adult ending. Also note that if it were a single timeline then being after the adult ending would not only make this whole statement redundant, it would also assume that MM happened and so it doesn't make it clear it's unrelated to MM at all. This interview was given very close to the release of the game, and the only way it makes any sence is if it is suggesting different futures to the 2 endings.

I have something that could help to disprove the split timeline--it's taken from the TWW--the very game you give reason for there being a split (I never thought I'd be doing this:

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.

Then here's something from MM--which is suppoesedly on another line with the rest of the games:

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

Now...going back to the quote from the TWW. It says the Hero of Time kept the ToC for safekeeping. Then it says he embarked on a journey, very similar to what the MM backstory says. Keep in mind, at the end of OOT as soon as Ganon was sealed, Zelda sent him back immediately--we see this. The idea that he kept the ToC for safekeeping and and then later embarks on a journey, implies that he was around a little longer after Ganon was sealed. But this was not the case, we see Link being sent back right away. So what is all this referring to? It's referring to child Link (not Adult Link) keeping the ToC after Link returned to the past. Also, in TWW BS--after it mentions the Hero of Time defeating Ganon (then later it says the Hero of Time did not return)--we see him riding off on a horse....hmmmm Link wasn't on a horse when he was transported back in time, but he certainly was with Epona at the start of MM. So that journey, Link embarked on, was really his search for Navi (that's the friend he 'parted ways' with at the end of OOT after 'fullfilling his heroic destiny') but he ended up in Termina--away from the 'elements' or the 'land' that made him a 'hero' or 'legend'.

MM references OOT and TWW references both OOT and at least the beginning of MM. If there's a split then TWW wouldn't make reference to MM.

[mohammedali]

If the guy creates a canon. Then goes against it and creates another canon. Which is the canon?

The thing is, Miyamoto is human. Having not touched a Zelda game for years, it's not impossible that he got a little muddled when making that statement. Had he said this around the time aLttP was released, along with some form of explination then maybe it would have been different. Actually, even then I would be sceptical as it goes against something that is set in stone. I think we need to annalyse quotes by the creators and keep them in context, and also note that what is written in the game cannot be contradicted.

What in-game quotes say LoZ HAS to be after OoT?

When Zelda mentions how Ganon turned into the King of Evil (after revieling herself as Sheikh). This is also spoken about in aLttP BS where it implies the player should already know who this King of Evil is. This is why I take OoT - aLttP - LoZ - AoL as definate.

I'd say that sounds like nitpicking over the exact quantity of time that has passed.

The correct translation should be
Miyamoto: "Well, wait, which point do the hundreds of years come after?"
The fact that its hundreds of years means it can't be a nitpick, as 7 years would make no difference to the plural.

Mohammed Ali

[Tri-Enforcer]

@Mohammed

Hey, you forgot to respond to my post above....(or did u? hehehe)

[mohammedali]

I have something that could help to disprove the split timeline--it's taken from the TWW--the very game you give reason for there being a split (I never thought I'd be doing this:

This quote is fine. He fought Ganon, and then crept away from the Hyrule that made him a legend and went back to the other timeline. Upon leaving Adult Timeline the Triforce split. Simple.

Then here's something from MM--which is suppoesedly on another line with the rest of the games:

Notice the difference between the MM quote and WW quote. Here there is no mention of Link fighting Ganon, but instead it talks about Evil. It talks about him essentially doing what he had to do and looking for a friend (who, given the fact this is said in MM BS, is Skull Kid IMHO). Link can be seen as a legend for what he did in the other timeline. Heck, he can be seen as a legend for being able to unite the pendants and use the MS. There is no contradiction here.

Now...going back to the quote from the TWW. It says the Hero of Time kept the ToC for safekeeping. Then it says he embarked on a journey, very similar to what the MM backstory says. Keep in mind, at the end of OOT as soon as Ganon was sealed, Zelda sent him back immediately--we see this. The idea that he kept the ToC for safekeeping and and then later embarks on a journey, implies that he was around a little longer after Ganon was sealed. But this was not the case, we see Link being sent back right away. So what is all this referring to? It's referring to child Link (not Adult Link) keeping the ToC after Link returned to the past.

Think about when Link received the ToC. Not after beating Ganon. It was when he was a child and he kept it safe for over 7 years. That's a fairly lengthy amount of time if you ask me.

Also, in TWW BS--after it mentions the Hero of Time defeating Ganon (then later it says the Hero of Time did not return)--we see him riding off on a horse....hmmmm Link wasn't on a horse when he was transported back in time, but he certainly was with Epona at the start of MM. So that journey, Link embarked on, was really his search for Navi (that's the friend he 'parted ways' with at the end of OOT after 'fullfilling his heroic destiny') but he ended up in Termina--away from the 'elements' or the 'land' that made him a 'hero' or 'legend'.

On the same pictures we also see the same looking Link fight Ganon. Are you suggesting that Child Link fought Ganon? Obviously not. The pictures don't work if you consider them to show Link as a child because he's shown fighting Ganon, and they don't work if you take them literally as an adult. Hence, the logical conclusion is to look at what we do know for sure. Adult Link fought Ganon and hence IMHO, the picture is of Adult Link. The fact it shows Link riding off just seems like what the people assumed what happened. Hence I maintain, there is no proof against a timeline split - only evidence for.

Mohammed Ali

EDIT:

@Mohammed
 
Hey, you forgot to respond to my post above....(or did u? hehehe)

lol. I figured this would be a long post, and completely seperate topic to the whole Miyamoto timeline posts, so I decided to keep them seperate. The sneeky comment at the end made me laugh though

Mohammed Ali

[SOAP]

That still doesn't explain what you meant by in-game quotes that prove that LoZ (not ALttP) has to come after OoT.

[mohammedali]

That still doesn't explain what you meant by in-game quotes that prove that LoZ (not ALttP) has to come after OoT.

Zelda says that Ganon turned into the King of Evil during OoT when he touched the Triforce. LoZ says that Ganon is the King of Evil. Hence, LoZ has to come after OoT.

Mohammed Ali

[Tri-Enforcer]

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... Done with the battles he once
waged across time, he embarked
on a journey.

Notice the difference between the MM quote and WW quote. Here there is no mention of Link fighting Ganon, but instead it talks about Evil. It talks about him essentially doing what he had to do and looking for a friend (who, given the fact this is said in MM BS, is Skull Kid IMHO). Link can be seen as a legend for what he did in the other timeline. Heck, he can be seen as a legend for being able to unite the pendants and use the MS. There is no contradiction here.

Uhmmm looking at the MM quote alone, we should know that the 'evil' is Ganon. I mean it's a sequal to OOT, it mentions time travel in that quote as well. You put 2 and 2 together--and you got the 'evil' as being Ganon from OOT. Hence: 'A boy who after battling evil and saving Hyrule, crept away from that land that had made him a legend... Done with the battles he once waged across time, he embarked on a journey'.

A secret and
personal journey... A journey in search of a
beloved and invaluable friend... A friend with whom he parted
ways when he finally fulfilled his
heroic destiny and took his place
among legends...

Uhmmmm, who was the friend at the end of OOT that Link parted ways with...? The same person who we saw flying off after child Link placed the MS back in the Temple of Time--that's right, Navi. Skull Kid? I don't think so.

On the same pictures we also see the same looking Link fight Ganon. Are you suggesting that Child Link fought Ganon? Obviously not. The pictures don't work if you consider them to show Link as a child because he's shown fighting Ganon, and they don't work if you take them literally as an adult. Hence, the logical conclusion is to look at what we do know for sure. Adult Link fought Ganon and hence IMHO, the picture is of Adult Link. The fact it shows Link riding off just seems like what the people assumed what happened. Hence I maintain, there is no proof against a timeline split - only evidence for.

As suggested by the TWW intro and by the MM intro, the 'boy's tale' was a legend held 'dearly' by the Royal Family. When the story of Link's exploits across time gets passed along, people have there own vision of how Link and other characters in that alternate future might have looked. Keep in mind Zelda has been known to have clairvoyant and telepathic powers, so she could've seen in Links head what he might've been through. This story becomes dear to her and the Royal Family and it's passed along to the people of Hyrule from generation to generation.

Of course these people had there own idea of how this boy might have looked or how old he was (even Adult Link was a 'boy'--teenager to be exact). Maybe as the legends were past along, they didn't understand the concept of the way Link was able to travel through time. If I walked up to a person who never played OOT and say I'm a time traveller, they would think that I, the traveller, would look the same when I arrive in the future. (Just like the guy in Back to The Future looked the same when he time traveled--but of course us gamers know OOT works a little different) They wouldn't think I had to sleep for 7 yrs and my body had to grow, then I awakened, but when I travel back I'll revert back to a younger age. So as the legends were passed on the people assumed that he looked the same throughout his time travels.

[SOAP]

Zelda says that Ganon turned into the King of Evil during OoT when he touched the Triforce. LoZ says that Ganon is the King of Evil. Hence, LoZ has to come after OoT.

Mohammed Ali

Obviously a LoZ before OoT timeline can't work if you assume that's still just one Ganon (at least in a physical sense). The Ganon in LoZ would be the first King of Evil who was slain by LoZ Link and the Ganondorf from OoT would be a reincarnation, much like the one FSA, that assumes the same title when he seizes the ToP for himself as well. Of course, it'd still be one Ganon, and reincarntion would just be another one of the many ways he keeps getting ressurected.

[Fyxe]

Ali, the guy made the series, he can whatever he wants.

Actually, Miyamoto did not make the series. He produced it, but he did not design every single aspect of the game (Anouma does more work on the games these days, after all), and he has himself admitted that timeline is somewhat down on his list of priorities, I believe. Nothing wrong with that either.

Zelda is created by a team of people that has changed and adjusted over time, as the games have.

In fact, the best person to ask about the plots of various games would be the script writer, surely. As he WRITES the damn things. The character designer would also be a very important person to ask.

The directors and producers are pretty crap people to ask about timelines, when you think about it, since they're mainly interested in gameplay.

Also, we see by the translations of games like ALttP (mainly the manual) that one person in the team can have a major effect on the appearance of a game.

By the way, I should point out that 'King of Evil' is just a title, and means sod all really. Not that I think the original Zelda came before OoT, that's just silly. OoT is a prequel to the prequel of the original game. That's clearly what was intended.

[Fatgoron]

The correct translation should be  
Miyamoto: "Well, wait, which point do the hundreds of years come after?"
The fact that its hundreds of years means it can't be a nitpick, as 7 years would make no difference to the plural.

How do you know it's the correct translation when the plural and singular are the same word?

[mohammedali]

Obviously a LoZ before OoT timeline can't work if you assume that's still just one Ganon (at least in a physical sense). The Ganon in LoZ would be the first King of Evil who was slain by LoZ Link and the Ganondorf from OoT would be a reincarnation, much like the one FSA, that assumes the same title when he seizes the ToP for himself as well. Of course, it'd still be one Ganon, and reincarntion would just be another one of the many ways he keeps getting ressurected.

Well, aLttP BS references the same Ganon from LoZ in the manual (as it references Ganon in a way that the player should know who this Ganon is from LoZ), and OoT references the same event(s) in aLttP BS, hence OoT references the same Ganon from LoZ.

Uhmmm looking at the MM quote alone, we should know that the 'evil' is Ganon. I mean it's a sequal to OOT, it mentions time travel in that quote as well. You put 2 and 2 together--and you got the 'evil' as being Ganon from OOT. Hence: 'A boy who after battling evil and saving Hyrule, crept away from that land that had made him a legend... Done with the battles he once waged across time, he embarked on a journey'.

Firstly, there is no reason we should just assume the evil referred to was Ganon as it could simply be a reference to the 3 bosses Link faces to get the stones. Having said that, there is every chance that the legend the family passes down is that Link fought Ganon in another Timeline and is a hero for it. Fact is, the quote still doesn't disprove anything in either case.

Uhmmmm, who was the friend at the end of OOT that Link parted ways with...? The same person who we saw flying off after child Link placed the MS back in the Temple of Time--that's right, Navi. Skull Kid? I don't think so.

This is really going off topic now, but I agree with the concept that to understand who is being spoken about in MM BS we should consider MM, and MM alone. There is a great article about why the 'friend' is the Skull Kid. When I first heard the idea I thought it was rediculous, but after reading the article I go with that theory. Have a search around for it.

As suggested by the TWW intro and by the MM intro, the 'boy's tale' was a legend held 'dearly' by the Royal Family. When the story of Link's exploits across time gets passed along, people have there own vision of how Link and other characters in that alternate future might have looked. Keep in mind Zelda has been known to have clairvoyant and telepathic powers, so she could've seen in Links head what he might've been through. This story becomes dear to her and the Royal Family and it's passed along to the people of Hyrule from generation to generation.
 
Of course these people had there own idea of how this boy might have looked or how old he was (even Adult Link was a 'boy'--teenager to be exact). Maybe as the legends were past along, they didn't understand the concept of the way Link was able to travel through time. If I walked up to a person who never played OOT and say I'm a time traveller, they would think that I, the traveller, would look the same when I arrive in the future. (Just like the guy in Back to The Future looked the same when he time traveled--but of course us gamers know OOT works a little different) They wouldn't think I had to sleep for 7 yrs and my body had to grow, then I awakened, but when I travel back I'll revert back to a younger age. So as the legends were passed on the people assumed that he looked the same throughout his time travels.

If this theory is correct, it would only prove a timeline split rather than disprove one. If the people of Hyrule assume that Link went into the future the same age as Child Link, then they must not have actually seen Link when he did fight Ganon as an Adult. Hence, having never seen what really happened, it must have happened in another timeline. So this theory suggests there is a timeline split, but with WW in the Child Link universe. I personally don't agree with this interpretation of WW BS, but as it is rather ambiguous on certain points I think it's far pushed to use some of the little details on the picture as proof or disproof of a theory. The text however, seems to be much more reliable (partially because it's ambiguos), and hence I give it more weighting.

Mohammed Ali

[Fyxe]

Some people think too much about things that are not meant to be nearly so complex and have about a snowball's chance in hell of being that complex.

You can read whatever you want into any line of the game and it'll mean sod all if you're merely stretching a point.

I would consider the whole Skull Kid being the friend thing an example of this. I consider any convoluted theories about time travelling differently in Termina to be another example of this.

Some things are obvious implications but if you *wanted* you could stretch the point. For example, the talk about Link battling evil and saving Hyrule... Clearly referring to Ganon, but if you wanted you could stretch the point to fit your own timeline and say he didn't fight Ganon.

Similarly, you could say that Ganon did not have the whole Triforce in ALttP, merely he had a part of it. Clearly the intention was that he had all of it, it goes against virtually all in-game evidence to suggest he didn't, but if you WANTED you could say he only had a part, and come up with a baseless explanation for how the whole Triforce somehow ended up in his Pyramid of Power.

This doesn't make you right. You could do this with *anything*. There's no proof that Zelda is not Link's sister in ALttP. In fact there's some VERY vague evidence that she might be (mainly because people have watched too much Star Wars). But that doesn't mean she is, not by a long shot.

[mohammedali]

How do you know it's the correct translation when the plural and singular are the same word?

Because we know that WW happens hundreds of years after OoT and not a hundred years from the game WW itself. Hence, when Anouma is talking about how many years after OoT WW is, and it's a choice between being either a hundred years after, or hundreds of years after, it has to be the later so that it can collaborate with the ingame statement (which they most likely know very well as the interview was given shortly before release - a time when they are doing a lot on the game).
I'm not sure, but I think I recall someone translating WW booklet or intro of the game and saying hundred instead of hundreds as well. Seems like most people assume hundred when converting from Japanese.

snip

Exactly. Just because people like Miyamoto are figureheads for the game - doesn't make their word gospel. It's like assuming Peter Jackson knows everything about Tolkien and Middle Earth because he directed LotR. Sure he must know quite a bit, but the people who have the real detailed knowledge are those that wrote the script, set the story, or even simply designed the sets.

Mohammed Ali

[Nevermind]

The thing is, Miyamoto is human. Having not touched a Zelda game for years, it's not impossible that he got a little muddled when making that statement. Had he said this around the time aLttP was released, along with some form of explination then maybe it would have been different. Actually, even then I would be sceptical as it goes against something that is set in stone. I think we need to annalyse quotes by the creators and keep them in context, and also note that what is written in the game cannot be contradicted.

On the hypothetical that there was a mistake in the game, and he turned around and admitted such, the line of canon becomes very blurred, see?

Also, seeing as he created the series, I would assume he has some hand in writing the scripts.

[Fyxe]

Why would you assume such a thing? Does a director of a film write the script? Sometimes, yes, but not often. That's why films have scriptwriters.

[Nevermind]

Yeah but Miyamoto was also the creator of the whole Zelda concept. I'm not gonna say he DOES, but I'd find it highly likely that he contributes to at least the plotlines and script finalisations. It his initially his story. In film, directors only direct yes, but writer/directors are involved in the scripting process to make sure the final script meets their specifications.

[Tri-Enforcer]

Firstly, there is no reason we should just assume the evil referred to was Ganon as it could simply be a reference to the 3 bosses Link faces to get the stones. Having said that, there is every chance that the legend the family passes down is that Link fought Ganon in another Timeline and is a hero for it. Fact is, the quote still doesn't disprove anything in either case.

That's ridiculous. The sad thing is...you know that explanation is ridiculous, but you went ahead and post it anyway. Link didn't have to wage a 'battle across time' to get the three stones from monsters. But he did have to wage a battle across time to defeat Ganon. It's obvious MM is referring to Link's battle with Ganon in OOT. Stop denying it.

If this theory is correct, it would only prove a timeline split rather than disprove one. If the people of Hyrule assume that Link went into the future the same age as Child Link, then they must not have actually seen Link when he did fight Ganon as an Adult. Hence, having never seen what really happened, it must have happened in another timeline. So this theory suggests there is a timeline split, but with WW in the Child Link universe. I personally don't agree with this interpretation of WW BS, but as it is rather ambiguous on certain points I think it's far pushed to use some of the little details on the picture as proof or disproof of a theory. The text however, seems to be much more reliable (partially because it's ambiguos), and hence I give it more weighting.

It wouldn't disprove a single either. Yes, Link defeated Ganon in the future, but that was an alternate future. I know saying...that setence is like confirming a split. The very idea that future even happened and Link experienced it makes it a split or another dimension or something. However, there have been no Zelda games that takes place on that timeline--including the TWW. Why? Because it's not important and probably hasdn't been thought of by Nintendo. We're supposed to believe that by Link going back into the past things will be different for the future-- as in the future of the past that Link returns to. Which will happened.

[mohammedali]

That's ridiculous.  The sad thing is...you know that explanation is ridiculous, but you went ahead and post it anyway.  Link didn't have to wage a  'battle across time' to get the three stones from monsters.  But he did have to wage a battle across time to defeat Ganon.  It's obvious MM is referring to Link's battle with Ganon in OOT.  Stop denying it.

Reread the post. After I said it doesn't have to refer to Ganon, I went on to say "Having said that, there is every chance that the legend the family passes down is that Link fought Ganon in another Timeline and is a hero for it." By this I mean that although Link didn't beat Ganon in the MM Timeline, the story could still be carried on by the royal family who know what he did (most likely through Zelda).

It wouldn't disprove a single either.  Yes, Link defeated Ganon in the future, but that was an alternate future.  I know saying...that setence is like confirming a split.  The very idea that future even happened and Link experienced it makes it a split or another dimension or something.  However, there have been no Zelda games that takes place on that timeline--including the TWW. Why?  Because it's not important and probably hasdn't been thought of by Nintendo.  We're supposed to believe that by Link going back into the past things will be different for the future-- as in the future of the past that Link returns to.  Which will happened.

lol. I never even claimed this 'evidence' would disprove a single timeline. You're the one that was insisting you disproved the split - I'm just pointing out you didn't.
Also, as I said before, I don't think WW comes in the Child Timeline. I have it coming in the Adult one. Hence there is something in both timelines. Although I'm not claiming to disprove a single timeline, the fact that WW cannot be reconsiled with aLttP is proof enough to me that there is a split, with other facts and quotes adding fuel to the fire.

Mohammed Ali

[Tri-Enforcer]

lol. I never even claimed this 'evidence' would disprove a single timeline. You're the one that was insisting you disproved the split - I'm just pointing out you didn't.
Also, as I said before, I don't think WW comes in the Child Timeline. I have it coming in the Adult one. Hence there is something in both timelines. Although I'm not claiming to disprove a single timeline, the fact that WW cannot be reconsiled with aLttP is proof enough to me that there is a split, with other facts and quotes adding fuel to the fire.

From a single timeline stand point, at least to me, all you'll need to do is place LTTP before OOT and have the IW as having nothing to with OOT. Or you can still place OOT before LTTP, but have a bunch of other games come in between TWW and LTTP with the IW coming after TWW. In other words, from a single timeline standpoint, [img]http://forums.legendsalliance.com/public/ALOT.png[/img] could be cleared by not connecting the IW to OOT.

[mohammedali]

On the hypothetical that there was a mistake in the game, and he turned around and admitted such, the line of canon becomes very blurred, see?

Also, seeing as he created the series, I would assume he has some hand in writing the scripts.

Personally, I take the in-game information as gospel. Also note that if aLttP was not supposed to be before LoZ then it should have been changed for the rerelease (which was way after the interview). As far as I am aware, there were no changes made in this respect.
I also noticed that wikipedia says the Miyamoto timeline was denied later by both NoA and Miyamoto, but they don't have a source.

Mohammed Ali