OoT has one reality. Not two realities. One reality. If you think about it, Link never traveled through time until after he completed the Forest Temple. He merely slept for the 7 years. I don't know why, but most people claim that he traveled forward. T'wasn't until Sheik moved out of the way of the pedestal until Link has the option of going back in time, then moving forward again.
When the game ends, and Link goes back in time sent by Zelda, that's what's going to happen. He had already saved hyrule in the future. After 7 years (when he's gone in MM), Link is gone, sleeping. After the 7 years are up, Link appears and saves Hyrule, like it says in the beginning of TWW. One reality.
Yeah... just had to say that.
I dunno if anyone else here thinks this
Started by
Guest_windwaker_*
, Sep 25 2004 09:29 PM
32 replies to this topic
#2
Husse
-
- Members
-
- 2,255 posts
Sucks to be you, don't it Ganny?
Posted 25 September 2004 - 09:31 PM
But of course. Eventually, one time line will nullify. I don't see what your issue is...
#3
Doopliss
-
- Members
-
- 1,532 posts
Famicom
- Location:UK
- Gender:Male
-
Posted 25 September 2004 - 09:35 PM
Ah, well, welcome to the forums. You'll aquire even more experience through time 
.
.
#4
Guest_windwaker_*
Guest_windwaker_*
-
- Guests
Posted 25 September 2004 - 09:36 PM
My issue is that most people don't realize this.
But then again, I doubt the average Zelda fans go here
.
Edit: and thanks
But then again, I doubt the average Zelda fans go here
.Edit: and thanks
#5
Hero of Winds
-
- ZL Staff
-
- 2,428 posts
Quiet Riot
Posted 25 September 2004 - 09:39 PM
Yeah, that's more or less, the same way I feel on the subject. Partly because that's how I think the creators feel on the subject.
#6
Guest_windwaker_*
Guest_windwaker_*
-
- Guests
Posted 25 September 2004 - 09:41 PM
Heh, yeah. Because when it boils down to it, it's really just what those who created it think. I mean, you can't argue with Miyamoto 
.
.
#7
Husse
-
- Members
-
- 2,255 posts
Sucks to be you, don't it Ganny?
Posted 25 September 2004 - 09:48 PM
Actually, I love the game, but my respect for Miyamoto's common sense on story line is dulled. The whole of OoT only makes sense if you think hard and throw in some "ifs." Most gamemakers have games that make sense beginning to end.
#8
Guest_windwaker_*
Guest_windwaker_*
-
- Guests
Posted 25 September 2004 - 09:50 PM
Which brings us to the question: did they really mean for the storyline to be so complicated?
#9
Husse
-
- Members
-
- 2,255 posts
Sucks to be you, don't it Ganny?
Posted 25 September 2004 - 09:58 PM
Yes. Complication is not the problem. Teh issue is...WHY DO THEY HAVE TO CONFUSE THE WHOLE TIME-TRAVEL THING AND LEAVE US TO SORT THROUGH IT, WASTING TIME LIKE SO MANY UNCLEAN SALMON?!
#10
Guest_windwaker_*
Guest_windwaker_*
-
- Guests
Posted 25 September 2004 - 10:10 PM
Well... really, do you think Miyamoto meant for all the games to intertwine?
#11
inuyashafanR
-
- Members
-
- 826 posts
THE Cheshire Cat
- Location:In Wonderland
Posted 25 September 2004 - 10:12 PM
temper, temper husse. don't turn into me okOriginally posted by Husse@Sep 25 2004, 09:58 PM
Yes. Complication is not the problem. Teh issue is...WHY DO THEY HAVE TO CONFUSE THE WHOLE TIME-TRAVEL THING AND LEAVE US TO SORT THROUGH IT, WASTING TIME LIKE SO MANY UNCLEAN SALMON?!
#12
Husse
-
- Members
-
- 2,255 posts
Sucks to be you, don't it Ganny?
Posted 25 September 2004 - 10:12 PM
I can guarantee you the half-genius was thinking one game at a time...
#13
Guest_windwaker_*
Guest_windwaker_*
-
- Guests
Posted 25 September 2004 - 10:15 PM
And yet we try and mold it into one storyline... >_>
#14
inuyashafanR
-
- Members
-
- 826 posts
THE Cheshire Cat
- Location:In Wonderland
Posted 25 September 2004 - 10:24 PM
Is it just me or are you people takeing this to seriously? Plus after he went back in time in OoT zelda told him everything would be like it never happend so that means that in 7 yrs after he went back to childhood that the stuff would not have even happend except in legend...and the fact that ganon is in the sacred realm...or at least thats how I saw it anyway...
#15
Guest_windwaker_*
Guest_windwaker_*
-
- Guests
Posted 25 September 2004 - 10:30 PM
But that's how the legend was created, that Link would appear after 7 years and destroy Ganon .
.
#16
Guest_Maharet_*
Guest_Maharet_*
-
- Guests
Posted 26 September 2004 - 01:09 AM
Which brings us to the question: did they really mean for the storyline to be so complicated?
i dont think so to be honest...i think its the fans that are reading so much into it...i always thought it was one reality since it pretty much plays on as such...
#17
Neon Z
-
- Members
-
- 113 posts
Apprentice
Posted 26 September 2004 - 07:29 AM
Originally posted by Hero of Winds@Sep 25 2004, 11:39 PM
Yeah, that's more or less, the same way I feel on the subject. Partly because that's how I think the creators feel on the subject.
Multi timeline is implied by Anouma's quote(though you can bend it to stay with single). Is there any quote newer than Wind Waker which implies a single timeline?
The only one I can think about is the one about Four Sword's placement, but it was said that it happened before everything else, therefore, before the time split(so, the whole single VS dual don't matter to Four Swords).
Also, I really don't know what's so complicated about the split timeline theory... it only becomes complicated when you try to fill in the holes(Legend of the Fairy), but, then, again, Single timelines also become very complicated when you try to explain everything, so, I don't see what's the big problem here.
#18
Guest_The Veggist_*
Guest_The Veggist_*
-
- Guests
Posted 26 September 2004 - 08:19 AM
I just want the Legend of Zelda series to be more organized or to have more of a history.
I have also made reference to this...awhile back though.
I have also made reference to this...awhile back though.
#19
Hero of Winds
-
- ZL Staff
-
- 2,428 posts
Quiet Riot
Posted 26 September 2004 - 09:11 AM
Replying to a past question...
Yes, the Zelda storyline was meant to be confusing, but that was so the writers had more breathing room with the material. If everything was so tightly knit together, it'd be near impossible to get new, incredible plots like those of OoT and TWW.
Yes, the Zelda storyline was meant to be confusing, but that was so the writers had more breathing room with the material. If everything was so tightly knit together, it'd be near impossible to get new, incredible plots like those of OoT and TWW.
#20
Husse
-
- Members
-
- 2,255 posts
Sucks to be you, don't it Ganny?
Posted 26 September 2004 - 10:18 AM
You make a plausible point, but, in my case, seeing as Aunoma paid more attention to storyline in TWW than anyone ever had before (possible exception: ALttP) I think maybe he's trying to make it all connect, and maybe Miyamoto doesn't care one way or the other.
#21
Kairu Hakubi
-
- ZL Staff
-
- 850 posts
Master
Posted 26 September 2004 - 01:57 PM
i'm sick of people that dont know that too. time travel at a speed of one day per day forward isn't 'time travel'OoT has one reality. Not two realities. One reality. If you think about it, Link never traveled through time until after he completed the Forest Temple. He merely slept for the 7 years. I don't know why, but most people claim that he traveled forward. T'wasn't until Sheik moved out of the way of the pedestal until Link has the option of going back in time, then moving forward again.
When the game ends, and Link goes back in time sent by Zelda, that's what's going to happen. He had already saved hyrule in the future. After 7 years (when he's gone in MM), Link is gone, sleeping. After the 7 years are up, Link appears and saves Hyrule, like it says in the beginning of TWW. One reality.
Yeah... just had to say that.
#22
Guest_Link Æwondåslåmon_*
Guest_Link Æwondåslåmon_*
-
- Guests
Posted 27 September 2004 - 11:26 AM
That's so true!
But, OoT's plot isn't very new. It looks more like a rip-off of ALttP. Maybe because it was originally supposed to be a remake.
If everything was so tightly knit together, it'd be near impossible to get new, incredible plots like those of OoT and TWW.
But, OoT's plot isn't very new. It looks more like a rip-off of ALttP. Maybe because it was originally supposed to be a remake.
#24
Guest_facade_*
Guest_facade_*
-
- Guests
Posted 27 September 2004 - 03:45 PM
how do I post my picture?
#25
Kairu Hakubi
-
- ZL Staff
-
- 850 posts
Master
Posted 27 September 2004 - 07:02 PM
actually i think for a short time it was going to be a retelling of LoZ, but it's unknown whether that was a serious idea or just what they were doing during beta testing of the engine. either way it's not a bad idea to go back and do.. perhaps on the ds? the 8bit zeldas in nice simplistic 64bit goodness? i'd enjoy that.
#26
Guest_Moonman_*
Guest_Moonman_*
-
- Guests
Posted 29 September 2004 - 02:21 AM
OoT has one reality. Not two realities. One reality. If you think about it, Link never traveled through time until after he completed the Forest Temple. He merely slept for the 7 years. I don't know why, but most people claim that he traveled forward. T'wasn't until Sheik moved out of the way of the pedestal until Link has the option of going back in time, then moving forward again.
When the game ends, and Link goes back in time sent by Zelda, that's what's going to happen. He had already saved hyrule in the future. After 7 years (when he's gone in MM), Link is gone, sleeping. After the 7 years are up, Link appears and saves Hyrule, like it says in the beginning of TWW. One reality.
Yeah... just had to say that.
Back to this...sure, that's one way you can go about it. Certainly no real time travel occurs until Link travels back the first time. However, you then have to assume that once Link is sent into the past he stays away for at least seven years plus however long it took to destroy Ganon. Alternatively you can say that Zelda severs the old timeline from the newly saved timeline when she sends Link back to the past, thus creating two parallel timelines that develop differently. You can't just say that that can't happen, because time travel doesn't exist, and we therefore can only speculate what it could be like. :soldier:
#27
Ditto McCloaker
-
- Members
-
- 113 posts
Apprentice
- Gender:Male
Posted 05 October 2004 - 08:20 AM
The reason why Miyamoto's storylines don't always fit together coherently and other, less-successful game-designers do is because Miyamoto remembers he's making a GAME, not writing a NOVEL.
This is an important thing, for me. Games should be designed with what the player does first and foremost. The storyline should be written afterward, to try to cover what you do. This results in the most fun games. One should NEVER try to make a game with the intention of telling a story first. Inevitably, said poor game designer will begin twisting game to suit story, instead of story to suit game. What you end up with is a game of minor fetch quests and meaningless battles stitching together endless cut-scenes. Bad example: Star Fox Adventures.
Miyamoto never goes into a project with the intent of telling a story. His games usually start as concepts for what the player does, and than later, he adds a story.
Now. Ever notice how much debate time these Mario and Zelda games get? Do you think they'd get that if they were perfectly coherent? Would we be having as much fun theorizing? It's fun for us, and it's free advertisement to them.
With this in mind, I have a weird theory about games. I say, the LESS realistic they are, the more inherently fascinating and fun they are. Consider our fondness for oldskool games. You think Miyamoto set out to create a world with floating blocks and giant green pipes? Nope. He wanted to make a game where you run and jump a lot and hunt for secret doors. Everything in his games evolves from functionality, and as a result, you get the most fascinating worlds. Zelda's Hyrule was just a big, open land with forests and caves to explore, cuz he knew exploring was fun. It's evolved into HYRULE.
If you really think about it, you can trace most of the most successful games' origins to this sort of thing.
This is an important thing, for me. Games should be designed with what the player does first and foremost. The storyline should be written afterward, to try to cover what you do. This results in the most fun games. One should NEVER try to make a game with the intention of telling a story first. Inevitably, said poor game designer will begin twisting game to suit story, instead of story to suit game. What you end up with is a game of minor fetch quests and meaningless battles stitching together endless cut-scenes. Bad example: Star Fox Adventures.
Miyamoto never goes into a project with the intent of telling a story. His games usually start as concepts for what the player does, and than later, he adds a story.
Now. Ever notice how much debate time these Mario and Zelda games get? Do you think they'd get that if they were perfectly coherent? Would we be having as much fun theorizing? It's fun for us, and it's free advertisement to them.
With this in mind, I have a weird theory about games. I say, the LESS realistic they are, the more inherently fascinating and fun they are. Consider our fondness for oldskool games. You think Miyamoto set out to create a world with floating blocks and giant green pipes? Nope. He wanted to make a game where you run and jump a lot and hunt for secret doors. Everything in his games evolves from functionality, and as a result, you get the most fascinating worlds. Zelda's Hyrule was just a big, open land with forests and caves to explore, cuz he knew exploring was fun. It's evolved into HYRULE.
If you really think about it, you can trace most of the most successful games' origins to this sort of thing.
#28
Guest_Terranix_*
Guest_Terranix_*
-
- Guests
Posted 25 November 2004 - 03:46 PM
This dosen't work. Young Link goes to the castle and hangs out with Young Zelda before heading off to look for Navi when he's sent back.
If he was still in the same reality Zelda would be on the run. Me, I suspect that the Song of Time worked only on Link at the end of the game to make him younger (as it acts on isolated objects at every other point in the game). Zelda has had a crappy time of it too, and was crying and stuff, so the Sages give her back her "lost years" as well (this is implied a bit in non-canon publications).
The timeline marches on, no people/events are erased from history, everyone's happy.
If he was still in the same reality Zelda would be on the run. Me, I suspect that the Song of Time worked only on Link at the end of the game to make him younger (as it acts on isolated objects at every other point in the game). Zelda has had a crappy time of it too, and was crying and stuff, so the Sages give her back her "lost years" as well (this is implied a bit in non-canon publications).
The timeline marches on, no people/events are erased from history, everyone's happy.
#29
MikePetersSucks
-
- ZL Staff
-
- 4,174 posts
Actual Japanese Person
- Gender:Male
Posted 25 November 2004 - 09:46 PM
Well, if you really want a seamless explaination, you can always see Davo's old theory about the evil future being sealed away with Ganon >.>; that always worked for me.
#30
Kairu Hakubi
-
- ZL Staff
-
- 850 posts
Master
Posted 26 November 2004 - 02:09 PM
Me too, but it doesnt work for Davo anymore.
