Jump to content

IPBoard Styles©Fisana

single or multiple timeline?


  • Please log in to reply
36 replies to this topic

Poll: single or multiple timeline? (3 member(s) have cast votes)

  1. single timeline (12 votes [54.55%])

    Percentage of vote: 54.55%

  2. multiple timeline (10 votes [45.45%])

    Percentage of vote: 45.45%

Vote Guests cannot vote

#31 davogones

davogones

    Expert

  • Admin
  • 525 posts
  • Location:Pasadena, CA
  • Gender:Male
  • United States

Posted 02 October 2004 - 03:17 PM

We just upgraded to vbulletin, so that link won't work anymore, windwaker.

I don't like a lot multiple timeline theories because they have never been suggested by any canon fact, plus, they make are a complete joke, using them you can practically place the games in any order you desire.

Your first point is not true. I have pointed out several canon facts that suggest multiple timelines. Mainly, the OoT-TWW connection, and FSA. And Aonuma's quote counts too, if not in the same sense as the games.

You can place the games in any order you desire with single timelines too. There's no difference moving from single to multiple timelines. With either ones, you can make whatever order you desire by introducing your own assumptions. Both single and multiple timeline theories are equally susceptible to the introduction of assumptions.

The only way the split timeline theory differs from the single timeline theory is by the introduction of a single assumption: a timeline split during OoT, in which both timelines survive. This makes many connections between the games easier to explain, and each of the two timelines follow the same rules as a single timeline would follow. It's not like having split timelines leads to chaos and anarchy. There are still rules. There is only ONE split we know of, and each timeline has to conform to the same standards as a single timeline would conform to. So what exactly is the problem? You can't argue that split timelines can be abused, because single timelines can be abused in exactly the same way: by introducing too many unnecessary assumptions. The assumption of a single split in OoT is not unnecessary, since it explains a lot of things and is implied by canon facts and by creator quotes.

#32 Doopliss

Doopliss

    Famicom

  • Members
  • 1,531 posts
  • Location:UK
  • Gender:Male
  • Mexico

Posted 03 October 2004 - 03:32 PM

You can place the games in any order you desire with single timelines too. There's no difference moving from single to multiple timelines. With either ones, you can make whatever order you desire by introducing your own assumptions. Both single and multiple timeline theories are equally susceptible to the introduction of assumptions.

Well, of course, but multiple timelines require less fan-faction, that's why I don't like them, because it's more easy to place them in any order.

#33 SOAP

SOAP

    So Oo Ap Puh

  • Members
  • 7,750 posts
  • Location:Savannah, GA Hell Yeah!
  • Gender:Male
  • World

Posted 04 October 2004 - 10:30 AM

We just upgraded to vbulletin, so that link won't work anymore, windwaker.


Your first point is not true. I have pointed out several canon facts that suggest multiple timelines. Mainly, the OoT-TWW connection, and FSA. And Aonuma's quote counts too, if not in the same sense as the games.

You can place the games in any order you desire with single timelines too. There's no difference moving from single to multiple timelines. With either ones, you can make whatever order you desire by introducing your own assumptions. Both single and multiple timeline theories are equally susceptible to the introduction of assumptions.

The only way the split timeline theory differs from the single timeline theory is by the introduction of a single assumption: a timeline split during OoT, in which both timelines survive. This makes many connections between the games easier to explain, and each of the two timelines follow the same rules as a single timeline would follow. It's not like having split timelines leads to chaos and anarchy. There are still rules. There is only ONE split we know of, and each timeline has to conform to the same standards as a single timeline would conform to. So what exactly is the problem? You can't argue that split timelines can be abused, because single timelines can be abused in exactly the same way: by introducing too many unnecessary assumptions. The assumption of a single split in OoT is not unnecessary, since it explains a lot of things and is implied by canon facts and by creator quotes.


But how exactly does TWW connect with the rest of the series if it's set aside in a whole different timeline? That's my main beef with the MTT right there. If you want put the series together, then why not put it one single timeline, if not for the sake of simplicity then for the sake of TWW being able to connect to the rest of the games in the series besides OoT? :tri:

#34 Guest_BlackHawkA100_*

Guest_BlackHawkA100_*
  • Guests

Posted 04 October 2004 - 02:06 PM

From What I see, TWW doesn't connect to any other games in the series, and really doesn't have to. It branches off of OoT and ends there, from my point of view the game that would come afterwards simply hasn't been made yet. That is, if it will ever be made.

#35 Stew

Stew

    Legendary

  • Members
  • 2,861 posts
  • Location:Awesometown
  • Gender:Male

Posted 04 October 2004 - 02:30 PM

I believe that there is only one time-line becasue i just think that the hero of time just traveles back and forth through the same one fixing what went wrong.

EXAMPLE: In OoT the crazy windmill guy already met you and told YOU what you did to piss him off, so that you could go do that...and now im not sure what that would help out... oh well

#36 SOAP

SOAP

    So Oo Ap Puh

  • Members
  • 7,750 posts
  • Location:Savannah, GA Hell Yeah!
  • Gender:Male
  • World

Posted 04 October 2004 - 06:13 PM

From What I see, TWW doesn't connect to any other games in the series, and really doesn't have to. It branches off of OoT and ends there, from my point of view the game that would come afterwards simply hasn't been made yet. That is, if it will ever be made.


By that logic LttP and LoZ each have their own separate branches as well.<_<

#37 Guest_Moonman_*

Guest_Moonman_*
  • Guests

Posted 04 October 2004 - 07:48 PM

I say the parallel timeline theory because it just makes more sense and has fewer contradictions, and due to the ambiguous nature of timetravel theories, it is plausible.

However, I think that everybody should always consider both. I have two theories I follow, one single, one multiple. I merely prefer the multiple one.




Copyright © 2020 Your Company Name