Jump to content

IPBoard Styles©Fisana

Photo

The Perfect Timeline


  • Please log in to reply
399 replies to this topic

#61 Rogue Cucco

Rogue Cucco

    Healer

  • Members
  • 76 posts

Posted 04 June 2006 - 12:40 PM

Link could never return to this version of Hyrule and adult Zelda knew this when she said there will only be 'peace in this world for a time'. She knew Ganon would escape from the Evil Realm and the Hero of Time won't be there to stop him. This means that the future version of Hyrule is doomed and we know it's destruction came with a flood (TWW).

BUT in the past version of Hyrule time was now rewriting itself and an alternate timeline without Ganondorf/Ganon was created.


But, then what about all the mentions of MM in TWW? The Legend of the Fairy, Link going to another journey without the ToC... you see, I think that it is like what you say, but instead the Young timeline gets doomed- I think TP will show that. The Adult timeline goes perfectly well, until FS and FSA, and then we get ALTTP. I think this is what Zelda meant- "for a time" referred to ALTTP- the ending set up for the backstory of ALTTP.

How does Ganon not exist in the new timeline?

Well actually Ganon wouldn't exist but Ganondorf would still exist in his human form wouldn't he?


Well, it was Ganondorf (or maybe he kept his new name) in the Evil Realm at the end of OOT in the Adult ending. We can assume that Ganondorf was either out chasing Zelda and plotting or trapped/plotting in the SR at the end of OOT in the Young ending.

Oh, right, let me elaborate on that. Ocarina of Time basically has
two endings of sorts; one has Link as a child and the other has him as an adult.


I'm not making this stuff up, guys!!! :angry:

#62 spunky-monkey

spunky-monkey

    False hope of boobs

  • Banned
  • 1,922 posts

Posted 04 June 2006 - 01:01 PM

How does Ganon not exist in the new timeline?

Well actually Ganon wouldn't exist but Ganondorf would still exist in his human form wouldn't he?

As soon as Link put the MS back the Sacred Realm was closed off from normal time-space and from the rest of Hyrule so time began to rewrite itself in that new timeline for every second after that moment on, whereas every second that happened just before Link closed the 'road' resulted in that future version of Hyrule. Now Ganondorf was already within the SR in that timeline and could not possibly emerge from the ER with the Triforce of Power after Link had locked it *a time-paradox occured* thus he seized to exist from this version of Hyrule. In the ending of OoT we see Link with Zelda in a peaceful Hyrule Castle because Ganondorf (and all memories of the recent attack led by him) was erased from time. However time did not correct itself in the future for the original timeline (it's exactly 7-years ahead of the newly created timeline) so Ganon/Ganondorf and adult Zelda continued to exist in that version of Hyrule, but Link the 'Hero of Time' does not.

Also worth mentioning is that Termina, in the original timeline's future, was destroyed by the moon because Link was trapped in the SR and could not save it. Thankfully in the new timeline he was free from the SR and saved it from Majora's wrath.

EDIT - sorry missed your post:

But, then what about all the mentions of MM in TWW?

Zelda send Link back to his own time. MM does not take place in TWW.

Edited by Ricky, 04 June 2006 - 01:05 PM.


#63 Fyxe

Fyxe

    hwhere is fyxckz adn her big boobs/>?

  • Members
  • 7,132 posts
  • Location:England

Posted 04 June 2006 - 01:09 PM

Link just grows up normally after Zelda sends him back. Once he reaches the time when his child mentality first arrives from the past, he goes to the Temple of Time, Y. Link's consciousness inhabits his body and his consciousness jumps forwards to inhabit his slightly older body from just after Zelda's sent his child mind back. Simple.


Simple? That doesn't make any sense. There doesn't seem to be any logic to that, just seems to be that their minds 'jump' about just to make things convenient. We know from TWW, whether it occurs after the adult timeline or the Young Link timeline (or both, if they never seperate), that Link leaves Hyrule anyway. There's nothing to suggest that Young Link ever returns from his quest to find Navi, and there's nothing to suggest that adult Link continues to exist after Zelda sends him back.

TWW tells us that the hero departed after his adventures across time were completed. There is no need for any random mind-swapping incidents.

Any item Link can get as an adult and take back to when he's a child starts the game in the SR.

Um, how?

Once Link's consciousness has experienced obtaining it from wherever as an adult, the SR releases it to his body whenever he wakes up in the past.


...Convenient. Would make more sense that it give him the item straight away, since it's just sitting in the SR, apparently.

After Zelda sends him back the item is moved from the SR to its adult resting place.

*Brain explodes* Unrealistic and convoluted is right. O.o'' No sense making it does make.

When Link first wakes as an adult, every item he can get as a child is in the SR.
The SR only releases these items to his body after his consciousness has experienced obtaining them.
When Zelda sends him back, the items are moved from their child resting places to the SR.


Repeat all my responses to the previous bit.

See? Unnecessarily complicated explanation that nevertheless works.

It doesn't work because there's not really any reasoning behind it, other than just to make things 'all nice and tidy'. It seems to involve items hopping in and out of different existences simply when it's convenient.

Or else we just blame those crazy gameplay mechanics.


True, gameplay mechanics to come into it somewhat (just like how Link retains some items when travelling back in time in MM but not others, which is a gameplay mechanic but is also shown happening as part of the magic of the time travel in that game), but when it starts to affect the experiences of NPCs like Garu Garu the windmill man, we are meant to assume that time travel in OoT works in a very particular manner. Namely, that everything that Link does in the past has already happened by the time he becomes an adult, and therefore, as a result, the time travel is a physical thing rather than 'minds' swapping bodies.

You COULD argue that the way Zelda sends Link back at the end of the game works differently, but there needs to be a reason behind that, as well...

Showsni has explained the items thing fairly well. Link can recover the lost time in Hyrule, he just has to make sure he returns to the future before Link awakes in the future for the first time to avoid paradoxes.


What paradoxes? Why must he return to the future? Firstly, it seems Young Link, when he goes back in time, leaves Hyrule anyway.

I know the passage between times (or something like that) was closed, but can't it be opened again? Actually, it must be in a single timeline theory because otherwise Link wouldn't be able to travel to the past.


It would be closed for seven years UNTIL adult Link in the Sacred Realm wakes up, at which point the Master Sword will be drawn once more and it will open for awhile (which is technically the same instance of it being open, just this time from the other side of the passageway), then be closed again as soon as adult Link is sent back by Zelda.

Also worth mentioning is that Termina, in the original timeline's future, was destroyed by the moon because Link was trapped in the SR and could not save it. Thankfully in the new timeline he was free from the SR and saved it from Majora's wrath.


UNLESS it really is a single timeline, in which case everything Link does when Zelda sends him back has already happened, so Termina is saved. Therefore, the Legend of the Fairy can live on, and TWW's references to the *adult* timeline make sense.

Nobody seems to be exploring the possibility of TWW and ALttP existing in the same timeline...

#64 spunky-monkey

spunky-monkey

    False hope of boobs

  • Banned
  • 1,922 posts

Posted 04 June 2006 - 01:30 PM

UNLESS it really is a single timeline, in which case everything Link does when Zelda sends him back has already happened, so Termina is saved. Therefore, the Legend of the Fairy can live on, and TWW's references to the *adult* timeline make sense.

Unlikely. If it was a 'single timeline' then there's no need for adult Link to travel back 7-years to play the Song of Storms or get the Lens of Truth as a child, he would already have them. I think WW's references were a stupid mistake on Nintendo's part .


Nobody seems to be exploring the possibility of TWW and ALttP existing in the same timeline...

Haven't looked into that >.< Oh I'm getting a headache now.

#65 Fyxe

Fyxe

    hwhere is fyxckz adn her big boobs/>?

  • Members
  • 7,132 posts
  • Location:England

Posted 04 June 2006 - 06:07 PM

Unlikely. If it was a 'single timeline' then there's no need for adult Link to travel back 7-years to play the Song of Storms or get the Lens of Truth as a child, he would already have them.


No he wouldn't. That wouldn't make sense in simple time-travel logic standards.

Say you see *yourself* travelling from the future from the past and you see yourself pick up... A banana, then you see yourself, now with the banana, return to the future. Now, you can't just wait around for a banana to appear in your hand - that banana doesn't exist in your world at the moment. If you want that banana, and you will, bananas are yummy, you'll have to someday travel back in time to pick up the banana. And you definitely will because you've already seen it happen.

He wouldn't already have the Lens of Truth just because he's in the future. He still has to go back in time and collect it and take it FROM the past to the future. The fact that Link doesn't awaken from the Sacred Realm with all the items from the past is an arguement *against* multiple timelines.

Edited by Fyxe, 04 June 2006 - 06:10 PM.


#66 spunky-monkey

spunky-monkey

    False hope of boobs

  • Banned
  • 1,922 posts

Posted 04 June 2006 - 07:59 PM

No he wouldn't. That wouldn't make sense in simple time-travel logic standards.

Say you see *yourself* travelling from the future from the past and you see yourself pick up... A banana, then you see yourself, now with the banana, return to the future. Now, you can't just wait around for a banana to appear in your hand - that banana doesn't exist in your world at the moment. If you want that banana, and you will, bananas are yummy, you'll have to someday travel back in time to pick up the banana. And you definitely will because you've already seen it happen.

Exactly. If there's only one timeline then it's consistent and can never be changed so time travel would be impossible, BUT in Hyrule time travel is possible so the Zelda Universe must be flexible and any event that appears to have changed a timeline has instead created a new one. So if you do decide to take the banana into the future you have unwittingly created a new timeline and can never return to your 'original' time with the banana.

In 1.3, any event that appears to have caused a paradox has instead created a new time line. The old time line remains unchanged, with the time traveler or information sent simply having vanished, never to return.
http://en.wikipedia....iki/Time_travel


You're forgetting that time travel requires 'immutable timelines' i.e. more than one timeline to begin with. Also in a type 1 universe paradoxes are not allowed but merely appear to be paradoxical. By simply taking a banana out of space-time would cause a horrible paradox if someone was meant to pick it up later that day, not to mention you would screw up the conservation of mass-energy for the origin timeline and the destination timeline because you have taken matter out of one universe and added it to another.


He wouldn't already have the Lens of Truth just because he's in the future. He still has to go back in time and collect it and take it FROM the past to the future. The fact that Link doesn't awaken from the Sacred Realm with all the items from the past is an arguement *against* multiple timelines.

I thought you were talking about a predestination paradox when you said 'everything Link does when Zelda sends him back has already happened' - easy mistake to make I suppose. ;)

#67 Showsni

Showsni

    The Fallen

  • Members
  • 13,386 posts
  • Location:Gloucester
  • Gender:Male
  • England

Posted 04 June 2006 - 10:26 PM

See, time travel is stupid. (Quantum theory is stupid!) But to address people's points...

Time travel does not affect Link that way. Link battles through time and as a result he is always growing mentally through experience BUT he is limited physically to his 2 main forms - child & adult.

I don't understand you. Link is always growing mentally, of course. Once the game's finished there's nothing to stop him growing up naturally, not jumping between child and adult, though.

Link cannot use the big heavy items he got from the future simply because his original body is just not strong enough to weld them properly. Child Link can't very well use that Giant's knife/Biggoron's Sword can he? SR has nothing to do with items or Link's consciousness.

I'm not discussing Link's ability to use weapons. I'm talking about how his items can "travel through time," as it were. The purest mind swap theory doesn't actually involve any time travel, so the movement of items is a bit of a stumbling block.

He has to return to avoid paradoxes? WTF?

Look, once Link put the MS back and regained his lost years the 'road' between times was closed forever. Have you ever watched the movie 'Back to the Future II'? Link could never return to this version of Hyrule and adult Zelda knew this when she said there will only be 'peace in this world for a time'. She knew Ganon would escape from the Evil Realm and the Hero of Time won't be there to stop him. This means that the future version of Hyrule is doomed and we know it's destruction came with a flood (TWW).

BUT in the past version of Hyrule time was now rewriting itself and an alternate timeline without Ganondorf/Ganon was created.

Not in this theory. In this theory, there is only ever one timeline, which is soldilly set in stone. The future cannot be rewritten in this theory, thus Link's adult body must return to the Temple of Time in time for his child consciousness to inhabit it.

Oh, right, let me elaborate on that. Ocarina of Time basically has
two endings of sorts; one has Link as a child and the other has him as an adult.



I'm not making this stuff up, guys!!!

It is open to interpretation though. Ocarina does have two endings; but one "ending" occurs in the middle of the game - and it is after this ending that Majora's Mask happens. The other occurs after all the events of the game have finished, and The Wind Waker occurs after it. Both endings can still be in the same timeline.

Simple? That doesn't make any sense. There doesn't seem to be any logic to that, just seems to be that their minds 'jump' about just to make things convenient. We know from TWW, whether it occurs after the adult timeline or the Young Link timeline (or both, if they never seperate), that Link leaves Hyrule anyway. There's nothing to suggest that Young Link ever returns from his quest to find Navi, and there's nothing to suggest that adult Link continues to exist after Zelda sends him back.

TWW tells us that the hero departed after his adventures across time were completed. There is no need for any random mind-swapping incidents.

The simple was meant to be a tad sarcastic. Only a tad, though.
If Link travels in spirit alone (as is suggested by his aging) then the mind jumps are caused by the time travel. It's not to make things convenient. They only happen when he draws/drops the Master Sword, and one last time when his mind is displaced by his child self. His child spirit does enter his adult body; we see this. So his adult consciousness must have been displaced to somewhere. And the theory itself implies that Link returns from looking for Navi - since he's only travelling in spirit, his spirit must have the adult body in the future waiting for it. And since time travel only affects spirits in this theory, Zelda sending him back will only send his consciousnes back, leaving his body behind. So it makes sense this is where the displaced spirit ends up - it's the closest point in time Link's body doesn't have a spirit.

It doesn't work because there's not really any reasoning behind it, other than just to make things 'all nice and tidy'. It seems to involve items hopping in and out of different existences simply when it's convenient.

I know. Items are nigh impossible for this theory to explain. That being its major weakness. Everything else works nicely, though.

Namely, that everything that Link does in the past has already happened by the time he becomes an adult, and therefore, as a result, the time travel is a physical thing rather than 'minds' swapping bodies.

I agree that everything Link can do in the past is already done when he becomes an adult for the first time. How does that make time travel a physical thing?

Nobody seems to be exploring the possibility of TWW and ALttP existing in the same timeline...

I've got them in the same timeline - but I say OoT isn;t the IW, so it;s a moot point. :P

No he wouldn't. That wouldn't make sense in simple time-travel logic standards.

Say you see *yourself* travelling from the future from the past and you see yourself pick up... A banana, then you see yourself, now with the banana, return to the future. Now, you can't just wait around for a banana to appear in your hand - that banana doesn't exist in your world at the moment. If you want that banana, and you will, bananas are yummy, you'll have to someday travel back in time to pick up the banana. And you definitely will because you've already seen it happen.

He wouldn't already have the Lens of Truth just because he's in the future. He still has to go back in time and collect it and take it FROM the past to the future. The fact that Link doesn't awaken from the Sacred Realm with all the items from the past is an arguement *against* multiple timelines.

Looking at the way the well works, Link ought to wake up for the first time as an adult with the Lens of Truth, but still have to go back and get it as a child at some point in the game. If the items did work this way then most of the problems with the mind swap theory above are ironed out. And the well implies that it does work this way, so I assume the reason it doesn't actually happen this way is down to gameplay. If you start as an adult with the Lens of Truth you're going to be asking yourself "Where on earth did this come from?" and you can choose not to go back and actually get it, resulting in a major paradox. Like the Mists of Time bit in Monkey Island 4 - yopu get given the rubber chicken; if you don't give the rubber chicken to your past self, the paradox effect kicks in and you have to start again.

You're forgetting that time travel requires 'immutable timelines' i.e. more than one timeline to begin with. Also in a type 1 universe paradoxes are not allowed but merely appear to be paradoxical. By simply taking a banana out of space-time would cause a horrible paradox if someone was meant to pick it up later that day, not to mention you would screw up the conservation of mass-energy for the origin timeline and the destination timeline because you have taken matter out of one universe and added it to another.

Good thing time travel is impossible, eh? Time travel requires 'immutable timelines'? That's not Zelda canon or real world physics.

#68 Fyxe

Fyxe

    hwhere is fyxckz adn her big boobs/>?

  • Members
  • 7,132 posts
  • Location:England

Posted 04 June 2006 - 10:32 PM

[quote name='Ricky' post='230167' date='Jun 5 2006, 01:59 AM']Exactly. If there's only one timeline then it's consistent and can never be changed so time travel would be impossible,[/quote]

No, it wouldn't be impossible. I explained how it would be possible. It just wouldn't CHANGE anything. You could go back in time tomorrow but you would merely make the past fit the future that already exists.

For instance - you go back in time to stop the Kennedy assination by trying to talk the gunman out of it. But, in doing so you actually *inadvertantly* say something that instead spurs him on, maybe he feels spite for your viewpoint, but whatever it is, he decides that he will *definitely* do it, rather than maybe do it. So in going back in time, all you discover is that history is the way it is because you inadvertantly made it the way it is. It's a paradox but it doesn't mean it can't happen, a paradox is just something that happens because time appears linear.

[quote]BUT in Hyrule time travel is possible so the Zelda Universe must be flexible[/quote]Just explained that it doesn't have to be - in going back in time, all Link is doing is fulfilling destiny and completing events that have already happened in the past.

[quote]and any event that appears to have changed a timeline has instead created a new one.[/quote]

A rather messy theory on time travel and one that begs the question - lets say adult Link travels back in time, and in doing so changes the past, so he can never return to the timeline he just left. What happens to that timeline? Presumably Ganon remains undefeated. And how many times does Link travel back? What happens to all these redundant timelines, and what's the point of saving one if all you're doing at the same time is dooming tens more to defeat?

[quote]So if you do decide to take the banana into the future you have unwittingly created a new timeline and can never return to your 'original' time with the banana.[/quote]But the banana has already been taken into the future. The banana doesn't exist, you NEED to go back in time and collect it for it to exist again. You are returning to the original time... Just this time with a banana in your hand.

[quote]You're forgetting that time travel requires 'immutable timelines' i.e. more than one timeline to begin with.[/quote]

That's only an unprovable theory. You can't say it *requires* more than one timeline when nobody can actually travel in time.

[quote]Also in a type 1 universe paradoxes are not allowed but merely appear to be paradoxical. By simply taking a banana out of space-time would cause a horrible paradox if someone was meant to pick it up later that day,[/quote]

You're really not following me. It would NOT cause a horrible paradox, because, in the future, the past event of someone taking the banana out of space time has *already happened*. Nobody else was meant to pick it up other than the person who traveled back in time to pick it up. Basically, the assumption is that EVERY instance of people travelling back into the past has *already happened*, that the timeline is fixed and nobody can ever change the past, and all attempts to change the past will merely serve to make the future what it already is.

This would mean, as a result, it would be impossible to go back in time with the express purpose of killing your past self, for instance, or anything of a similar nature. Check this out...

http://en.wikipedia....tency_principle

Now, add this extra bit to the billard ball concept - the billard ball was never, ever fired into the wormhole. Instead, it was hit by itself and knocked into the wormhole, thereby travelling back in time and hitting its past self, knocking it into the wormhole, thereby travelling back in time and hitting its past self, knocking... You get the idea.

You ask the question - why did it go into the wormhole in the first place, and the answer merely is - it got knocked into the wormhole by it's future self. Simple as that. Asking 'why' again is like asking 'why does the colour red look like red'?

[quote]not to mention you would screw up the conservation of mass-energy for the origin timeline and the destination timeline because you have taken matter out of one universe and added it to another.[/qupte]Pah, talk to me about this once science works out what the hell dark matter is, then we can talk about conservation of matter. As it is, nobody has any idea if the conservation of energy or matter is at all important when it comes to time travel, or if the universe has ways of redressing the balance when time travel occurs. You could argue that the simple act of travelling in time would wreck the conservation of matter anyway, as it would mean you suddenly cease to exist in that time period. Surely multiple timelines causes more loss of matter than a single timeline, because in a single timeline it always evens itself out in the end. You could argue that matter is never lost in a single timeline, merely displaced.

[quote]I thought you were talking about a predestination paradox when you said 'everything Link does when Zelda sends him back has already happened' - easy mistake to make I suppose. ;)[/quote]

Yes, I suppose that's exactly what I'm talking about. Basically it's a 'clean' way of explaining time travel without all the multiple reality stuff that I swear some nutcase made up for a laugh. The whole windmill thing is a predestination paradox, so we can assume that everything Link does when sent into the past has already happened.

EDIT: Gah, Showsni said some things, I'll get back to that later. Also, my quotes aren't working. Sucky.

Edited by Fyxe, 04 June 2006 - 10:41 PM.


#69 Hero of Slime

Hero of Slime

    Zol

  • Members
  • 1,778 posts
  • Location:Seattle
  • Gender:Male

Posted 04 June 2006 - 11:24 PM

I like Fyxe's theory, but one thing about it puzzles me: Link takes the master sword out of the pedestal as a child and takes it into the sacred realm with him. He emerges from the Sacred realm in the Temple of Time with the master sword. Link places the sword back and takes it out many times. Finaly Zelda,uses the ocarina to send Link back in time. Link then places the master sword back in the temple of time. My question then is: If Link placed the master sword down after he drew it for the first time, why is it not in the temple when he emerges from the sacred realm? This then makes me wonder where the master sword is after zelda sends Link back using the ocarina, it is not in the temple, and Link takes it with him to the past. That would mean that there is no master sword in the future after OoT, but we see the Master Sword in TWW.

Now, is it possible for OoT to use both contradicting time travel theories? After all we know OoA does.

#70 spunky-monkey

spunky-monkey

    False hope of boobs

  • Banned
  • 1,922 posts

Posted 05 June 2006 - 05:28 AM

I don't understand you. Link is always growing mentally, of course. Once the game's finished there's nothing to stop him growing up naturally, not jumping between child and adult, though.

You were talking about how Link's consciousness inhabits his body and that it jumps forwards to inhabit his slightly older body after Zelda sent his child mind back. I was merely quoting your own post.


I'm not discussing Link's ability to use weapons. I'm talking about how his items can "travel through time," as it were. The purest mind swap theory doesn't actually involve any time travel, so the movement of items is a bit of a stumbling block.

Technically you were, you said the SR releases these items Link after he got some experience - the SR cannot magically store items for you.


Good thing time travel is impossible, eh? Time travel requires 'immutable timelines'? That's not Zelda canon or real world physics.

Yes, I know time travel is impossible in real-world physics but in OoT/MM we see Link travel through time and that's why we are debating it right now. In order for time travel to be possible you need an origin and a destination timeline otherwise i) nothing will happen. Or ii) you'll get paradoxes. Aonuma has already said there are two endings for two timelines anyway (child and adult).

Also time travel is physical not spiritual. :rolleyes:


No, it wouldn't be impossible. I explained how it would be possible. It just wouldn't CHANGE anything. You could go back in time tomorrow but you would merely make the past fit the future that already exists.

A predestination paradox (which conveniently answers all other quotes too). :)


A rather messy theory on time travel and one that begs the question - lets say adult Link travels back in time, and in doing so changes the past, so he can never return to the timeline he just left. What happens to that timeline? Presumably Ganon remains undefeated. And how many times does Link travel back? What happens to all these redundant timelines, and what's the point of saving one if all you're doing at the same time is dooming tens more to defeat?

Adult Zelda for that reason was filled with regret for 'tampering' with the Sacred Realm (OoT ending). Likewise just how many versions of Termina were destroyed before Link finally managed to defeat Majora? Kinda puts whole 'Good Vs Evil' thing into perspective for us, doesn't it?


That's only an unprovable theory. You can't say it *requires* more than one timeline when nobody can actually travel in time.

Showsni made that mistake too. We're talking about Zelda, not real-world physics.


This would mean, as a result, it would be impossible to go back in time with the express purpose of killing your past self, for instance, or anything of a similar nature. Check this out...
http://en.wikipedia....tency_principle

That's the predestination paradox again and has nothing to do with the multiple timeline theory. You've underestimated the significance of simply taking any object, like a banana, out of one universe if someone was meant to eat it or slip on it later that day - you have just caused a paradox. If you killed yourself you would still continue to exist within that timeline because you have just created a new timeline, one in which you do not exist in it's future. But you're now trapped in this alternate world and can never return to your original timeline. Trying to undo this (stop you from killing yourself) would just create another new timeline again so you're stuck.

And no Fyxe, the conservation of mass-energy is CONCRETE. Time-travel therefore is impossible and exists only in science-fiction (and Zelda).

Edited by Ricky, 05 June 2006 - 05:32 AM.


#71 Fyxe

Fyxe

    hwhere is fyxckz adn her big boobs/>?

  • Members
  • 7,132 posts
  • Location:England

Posted 05 June 2006 - 09:17 AM

I like Fyxe's theory, but one thing about it puzzles me: Link takes the master sword out of the pedestal as a child and takes it into the sacred realm with him. He emerges from the Sacred realm in the Temple of Time with the master sword. Link places the sword back and takes it out many times. Finaly Zelda,uses the ocarina to send Link back in time. Link then places the master sword back in the temple of time. My question then is: If Link placed the master sword down after he drew it for the first time, why is it not in the temple when he emerges from the sacred realm? This then makes me wonder where the master sword is after zelda sends Link back using the ocarina, it is not in the temple, and Link takes it with him to the past. That would mean that there is no master sword in the future after OoT, but we see the Master Sword in TWW.


Yes, this is a bit of a puzzle, one that I cannot answer completely because I cannot remember the cutscenes perfectly - when Link awakes and first meets Rauru, does he have the Master Sword? Or does he have it when he returns to the Temple of Time? I vaguely remember it being only in his hand after he returns back to the Temple of Time, but I may be wrong.

There are two ways of looking at it...

1 - The Master Sword, being the very object that is creating the time travel, is beyond time. When Link travels from the future to the past, he does not take the sword with him - the sword remains in the future, probably always returning to the pedestal. Now, when Link travels back to the past for the last time and then leaves the Master Sword behind the Door of Time, we could simply argue that it remains there for seven years, then when Link finally reaches the right age and is released from the Sacred Realm, it finds it's way, due to destiny, to being in his hand. L'il bit of magic there, maybe Rauru places it in his hand now he's old enough.

2 - If Link does indeed take the Master Sword back into the past when Zelda sends him back, we may want to make the assumption that there are two Master Swords for the time being. Namely, one that travelled to the Sacred Realm with Link, and remains there with Rauru watching over both Link and the Master Sword, and the other that Link has just taken back and uses to close the path between times. But, that doesn't make much sense - how can he use the Master Sword from the future to close the pathway from the past? That's like locking a door from the outside. Also, what does this new Master Sword do for seven years? Presumably it must be removed, probably by Ganon, otherwise it would be there when Link wakes up, but then what happens to it? Where does it go? Is it stuck in a pedestal in the Lost Woods somewhere? Gah, who knows.

Stick with idea 1 for now. Less complicated.

See, time travel is stupid. (Quantum theory is stupid!) But to address people's points...


Don't get me started on quantum theory. Scientists shouldn't be philosophical.

The simple was meant to be a tad sarcastic. Only a tad, though.
If Link travels in spirit alone (as is suggested by his aging) then the mind jumps are caused by the time travel. It's not to make things convenient. They only happen when he draws/drops the Master Sword, and one last time when his mind is displaced by his child self. His child spirit does enter his adult body; we see this.

This is confusing somewhat and I have a problem with this - when does his child spirit inhabit his adult body? Link is sealed for seven years, unconscious, and when he wakes up, his body is seven years older but his mind has not experienced those seven years (although presumably it has a natural maturity he did not have as a child, which would give a reason for Link being sealed in the first place). There's no adult body to inhabit - it is the same body, it has just been sitting around, probably not in physical form, no, but it has been sitting around in the Sacred Realm for seven years. The whole reason for this is because his body was not old enough. Just because he's there in spirit doesn't mean the body no longer exists - it's probably not in physical form to save it from coming to harm. But it's still there, aging as Link naturally would, waiting for seven years. Rauru makes no indication that Link has taken over the mind of an older version of himself - indeed, if he has done, there's a big, big, big problem with this, which is...

Why the hell would the Sacred Realm put a child's mind into an adult body that already has a fully mature adult mind that could do the job anyway? It seems extremely convoluted and renders the whole thing unnecessary.

And since time travel only affects spirits in this theory, Zelda sending him back will only send his consciousnes back, leaving his body behind. So it makes sense this is where the displaced spirit ends up - it's the closest point in time Link's body doesn't have a spirit.


What about every time Link places the Master Sword back and returns briefly? Does the adult body just lie there without a mind? Where the heck is the adult mind during all this anyway? Isn't it pissed off that he isn't the one kicking Ganon's butt? And for that matter, what the hell has it been doing for seven years while Ganon takes over? I always thought the implication behind Majora's Mask is that Link never returns to Hyrule, maybe he's still searching for Navi, maybe he dies, who knows.

Looking at the way the well works, Link ought to wake up for the first time as an adult with the Lens of Truth, but still have to go back and get it as a child at some point in the game. If the items did work this way then most of the problems with the mind swap theory above are ironed out. And the well implies that it does work this way, so I assume the reason it doesn't actually happen this way is down to gameplay.


True enough, but you could argue that about *anything*, really. Why is he sealed for seven years? Gameplay. Why can't you learn the Song of Storms as a child? Gameplay. The whole time travel nonsense in the first place is all about gameplay, but that doesn't mean it doesn't make sense. The thing is, they *could* have done it in Monkey Island fashion if they wanted to, but for gameplay issues, time travel works in a particular way in OoT - namely that items can be taken from the past to the future and visa versa. This heavily implies a physical form of time travel, and while you can come up with ways for it to work otherwise, it's somewhat convoluted and generally seems to defy the laws of the game world.

Yes, I know time travel is impossible in real-world physics but in OoT/MM we see Link travel through time and that's why we are debating it right now. In order for time travel to be possible you need an origin and a destination timeline otherwise i) nothing will happen. Or ii) you'll get paradoxes.


OH NO PARADOXES. We already know OoT has paradoxes, the whole windmill thing is a circular paradox, but who cares, that's what happens when you have time travel. Just because you get a paradox doesn't mean the universe will explode. Doesn't mean you need more than one timeline.

Adult Zelda for that reason was filled with regret for 'tampering' with the Sacred Realm (OoT ending). Likewise just how many versions of Termina were destroyed before Link finally managed to defeat Majora? Kinda puts whole 'Good Vs Evil' thing into perspective for us, doesn't it?

Except that bit of plot is something you've added as fanfic. At no point in either game do any characters worry about the possibility of many other timelines being doomed to failure - so we can assume this isn't an issue. In Majora's Mask, there is only one Termina, nothing happens to the Termina Link leaves - Link is not the only thing going back in time. He and Tatl are the only ones experiencing it, but essentially EVERYTHING is going back in time. Haven't you ever seen 'Groundhog Day'?

The problem with multiple timelines can be explained thus...

Your friend invents a time machine. You watch them travel back in time. In doing so, they create an alternate timeline. But, in effect, he has not therefore travelled back in time. He has merely travelled to an alternate reality. In this form of time travel, it would be impossible to ever meet yourself time travelling. You wait for your friend to return from the past, but he never does, yet in another reality, he does return from the past. There is no reason why he *couldn't* of returned from the past in the original timeline, yet he doesn't. The original timeline therefore makes no sense, and for the original timeline, the existence of a time machine and a person have suddenly ceased for no reason.

Just because science fiction has lept on the idea of multiple timelines doesn't mean it has to be so. This form of time travel is not actual time travel, it's travelling between realities. There's nothing to suggest this is necessarily the type of time travel used in either OoT or MM.

Showsni made that mistake too. We're talking about Zelda, not real-world physics.


You're the one who brought up the whole conservation of matter thing in the FIRST place, for heck's sake. .

That's the predestination paradox again and has nothing to do with the multiple timeline theory. You've underestimated the significance of simply taking any object, like a banana, out of one universe if someone was meant to eat it or slip on it later that day - you have just caused a paradox. If you killed yourself you would still continue to exist within that timeline because you have just created a new timeline, one in which you do not exist in it's future. But you're now trapped in this alternate world and can never return to your original timeline. Trying to undo this (stop you from killing yourself) would just create another new timeline again so you're stuck.


Again, why are you arguing about the basis of time travel in science fiction when I'm not even arguing about multiple timelines in the first place? Multiple timelines DON'T HAVE TO EXIST. They're messy and rely on the assumption that the universe can just create multiple realities at will, and is effectively 'reality travel' rather than 'time travel'. ACTUAL time travel would not involve multiple timelines, but you wouldn't be able to change the past. It could very much lead to predestination paradoxes, but that's just what happens when you live in a world where time travel is possible.

And no Fyxe, the conservation of mass-energy is CONCRETE. Time-travel therefore is impossible and exists only in science-fiction (and Zelda).


Sorry, I didn't realise you were Mr. Hawking. And last I checked, yes, time travel is impossible, but I'm arguing about a world in which time travel exists, and who are you to say that the mass-energy thing would actually be thrown out of whack by time travel? Time travel might not affect mass-energy in the slightest, it would probably have ways of redressing the balance naturally, if it existed.

#72 spunky-monkey

spunky-monkey

    False hope of boobs

  • Banned
  • 1,922 posts

Posted 05 June 2006 - 11:59 AM

OH NO PARADOXES. We already know OoT has paradoxes, the whole windmill thing is a circular paradox, but who cares, that's what happens when you have time travel. Just because you get a paradox doesn't mean the universe will explode. Doesn't mean you need more than one timeline.

A time paradox in a multiple timeline universe is not a bad thing, we even know that there are Ontological paradoxes in Zelda but a paradox with no suitable resolution is a very bad thing. Without a 'Parallel universes resolution' we'd get the Grandfather paradox where time cannot heal the damage done by Link's actions which would ultimately result in the destruction of everything Link has ever affected in any way.


Except that bit of plot is something you've added as fanfic. At no point in either game do any characters worry about the possibility of many other timelines being doomed to failure - so we can assume this isn't an issue.

No, Zelda was filled with regret:

All the tragedy that has befallen Hyrule was my doing...
I was so young...I could not comprehend the consequences of trying to control
the Sacred Realm.




In Majora's Mask, there is only one Termina, nothing happens to the Termina Link leaves - Link is not the only thing going back in time. He and Tatl are the only ones experiencing it, but essentially EVERYTHING is going back in time.

If there was only one Termina every time you traveled back 3-days you would bump into Deku Link. The quantum mechanics and gameplay of MM do not work that way since Termina is a parallel version of Hyrule anyway so the 'multiple timeline theory' is still valid - though this does mean that if you measure the world as an entity in time then many versions Termina were destroyed before Link stopped Majora.


Haven't you ever seen 'Groundhog Day'?

'Time' is a vector but does that mean it can reset itself?


Your friend invents a time machine.

Actually a time machine is made of matter which violates the conservation of mass-energy therefore cannot travel 'time' to start with. If it's possible for a machine to send you back you'd only go as far back to the machine's exact point of origin and no further. The Master Sword may have the power of the gods but you couldn't use it to travel to the moment before its creation.


There's nothing to suggest this is necessarily the type of time travel used in either OoT or MM.

And there's nothing to dispute this is the type of time travel used in either OoT or MM (well apart from your own choice of time-travel-classification).


You're the one who brought up the whole conservation of matter thing in the FIRST place, for heck's sake.

I know. Isn't it just great? :D


Again, why are you arguing about the basis of time travel in science fiction when I'm not even arguing about multiple timelines in the first place? Multiple timelines DON'T HAVE TO EXIST.

1. I'm not arguing with you.
2. I'm not forcing you to accept the timeline theory or my beliefs.
3. We're not getting anywhere with this.


And last I checked, yes, time travel is impossible, but I'm arguing about a world in which time travel exists, and who are you to say that the mass-energy thing would actually be thrown out of whack by time travel?


If you traveled to the past and took any object (matter) out of its original space-time then it no longer exists in its natural state and that violates the very principle of the conservation of mass-energy.

#73 Fyxe

Fyxe

    hwhere is fyxckz adn her big boobs/>?

  • Members
  • 7,132 posts
  • Location:England

Posted 05 June 2006 - 12:18 PM

[quote name='Ricky' post='230268' date='Jun 5 2006, 05:59 PM']A time paradox in a multiple timeline universe is not a bad thing, we even know that there are Ontological paradoxes in Zelda but a paradox with no suitable resolution is a very bad thing. Without a 'Parallel universes resolution' we'd get the Grandfather paradox where time cannot heal the damage done by Link's actions which would ultimately result in the destruction of everything Link has ever affected in any way.[/quote]

Um, how? You're just making this up.

[quote]No, Zelda was filled with regret:[/quote]

Yes, regret for opening the Sacred Realm and letting Ganondorf get the Triforce. THAT regret.

[quote]If there was only one Termina every time you traveled back 3-days you would bump into Deku Link.[quote]No, you wouldn't. You would BE that Deku Link. You're reversing *everything*, but Link and Tatl are the only ones experiencing it.

[quote]'Time' is a vector but does that mean it can reset itself?[/quote]

Who are you to say it can't in Majora's Mask? Tatl pleads with the Goddess of Time to be granted more time. So she does, and the first time you travel back in time, you see everything resetting itself to the moment where Link opens the door and steps into Clock Town. Dooming one universe and creating another is not being granted more time, it's being granted a new reality. Therefore, she must reset it, otherwise, yes, we get endless doomed realities, which kind of ruins the whole damn point of going back in time in the first place.

[quote]Actually a time machine is made of matter which violates the conservation of mass-energy therefore cannot travel 'time' to start with.[/quote]...Really. Care to show me this time machine that can't travel time?

[quote]If it's possible for a machine to send you back you'd only go as far back to the machine's exact point of origin and no further.[/quote]

You're still talking about unproven hypothesis that make no difference to the way a video game world filled with magic deals with time.

[quote]The Master Sword may have the power of the gods but you couldn't use it to travel to the moment before its creation.[/quote]This is true, but this is ONLY true because the Master Sword's time travel abilities are limited in the first place and are directly linked to Link being sealed in the Sacred Realm. It will only ever take you seven years backward or seven years forward.

[quote]And there's nothing to dispute this is the type of time travel used in either OoT or MM (well apart from your own choice of time-travel-classification).[/quote]

Except the fact that everything Link goes back to do in the past has already happened as soon as Link wakes up. I'd say that's something to dispute it.

[quote]I know. Isn't it just great? :D[/quote]Yes, your twisted logic stuns me every time. .

[quote]1. I'm not arguing with you.
2. I'm not forcing you to accept the timeline theory or my beliefs.
3. We're not getting anywhere with this.[/quote]

I'm just trying to look at all the possibilities, and so far I see some *problems* with the multiple timeline theory that need an explaination. The best advocate for a multiple timeline theory is that the only moment that the timelines split is when Zelda sends Link back for the final time, but at the moment I cannot come up with a decent explaination why other than the fact Aonuma seems to have vaguely suggested it.

[quote]If you traveled to the past and took any object (matter) out of its original space-time then it no longer exists in its natural state and that violates the very principle of the conservation of mass-energy.[/quote]

But at the same time, you would be replacing it with matter from your own space-time that you took with you. This may be just basic oxygen matter, but you're still replacing it. Also, time travel as a concept violates virtually every law of science anyway, so who the fuck cares. It doesn't exactly follow normal science, does it? Science is constantly changing it's theories to incorperate things that don't 'work', such as the whole dark matter schmarky.

Anyway, this is fiction, so pleh.

I should write up a whole article on the Ocarina of Time thing exploring *every* possibility of time travel. But I might not because I'm lazy.

EDIT: Goddamn quote tags. WORK.

Edited by Fyxe, 05 June 2006 - 12:23 PM.


#74 spunky-monkey

spunky-monkey

    False hope of boobs

  • Banned
  • 1,922 posts

Posted 05 June 2006 - 12:44 PM

^ You're gonna have to be more open-minded about time travel in relation to Zelda cause criticising every post I put up with one-line retorts isn't really a mature debate.

Um, how? You're just making this up.

LMAO. Come on Fyxe I can't possibly be making something up in Science fiction that I just cited from the Internet twice.


Anyway, this is fiction, so pleh.

Exactly what I was thinking. It's all rubbish really but still interesting when you think how tangible something like time-travel is. :) What is up with these quote tags anyway?

#75 Fyxe

Fyxe

    hwhere is fyxckz adn her big boobs/>?

  • Members
  • 7,132 posts
  • Location:England

Posted 05 June 2006 - 12:55 PM

Don't ask me. They're screwed.

And I am open minded, I just need reasons for things such as... I dunno, the universe exploding. And I don't remember you citing anything...

Oh well, anyway.

#76 Showsni

Showsni

    The Fallen

  • Members
  • 13,386 posts
  • Location:Gloucester
  • Gender:Male
  • England

Posted 05 June 2006 - 05:02 PM

Yes, I know time travel is impossible in real-world physics but in OoT/MM we see Link travel through time and that's why we are debating it right now. In order for time travel to be possible you need an origin and a destination timeline otherwise i) nothing will happen. Or ii) you'll get paradoxes. Aonuma has already said there are two endings for two timelines anyway (child and adult).

And where in Zelda does it state that? I wasn't saying that time travel was impossible in Zelda (clearly it is possible); just that you can't apply pseudo real world physics to Zelda.

If you want to apply pseudo real world physics to Zelda, then the only possible form of time travel I can see which would technically work in our universe is a kind of localised time travel - i.e. chooses a set volume, then move every single particle in that volume to its exact position at an earlier point in time, with the energy, acceleration, etc. it had then, using energy from outside the volume to accomplish this. Then you have in effect sent that volume back in time. Do this to a whole world except yourself, and voila! you're in, to all intents and purposes, the past! the amount of energy required is astronomically stupid, though. So if Zelda works this way then the whole of Hyrule, at least, is within the volume, including Link's body but not including his mind (since his body changes, but his mind doesn't). So in effect, you've just got Link travelling mentally. Note that paradoxes are impossible in this situation, and it is possible to change the future. Note also that forward time travel involves holding one body (Link's mind in this case) stationary whilst the rest plays out normally, and the Windmill/Well thing is impossible.

Any time travel involving travelling at the speed of light or jumping between realities is completely made up.

#77 Hero of Slime

Hero of Slime

    Zol

  • Members
  • 1,778 posts
  • Location:Seattle
  • Gender:Male

Posted 05 June 2006 - 05:20 PM

The Master Sword presents an even bigger issue for split Timelines. If Link takes the master sword with him when Zelda sends him back in time, then there would be no Master Sword in the Adult Timeline at any time after Link is sent back. Can someone with a split Timeline explain how a game with the master sword can take place on the adult timeline after OoT?

#78 MikePetersSucks

MikePetersSucks

    Actual Japanese Person

  • ZL Staff
  • 4,174 posts
  • Gender:Male

Posted 05 June 2006 - 05:52 PM

Also time travel is physical not spiritual.


Not according to all the fiction that uses time travel as a spiritual act, like the Named Trilogy where the protagonists travel through time in their dreams, for one thing. And all the New Age thinkers who can allegedly travel through time by Astral Projecting.

There are no absolutes with Time Travel because it's all theory. You can't say "You can't...you must...It has to, etc." with Time Travel because nothing about it is proven and as long as it remains in the realm of fiction, authors and storytellers can say whatever the hell they want about the way Time Travel works.

#79 Fyxe

Fyxe

    hwhere is fyxckz adn her big boobs/>?

  • Members
  • 7,132 posts
  • Location:England

Posted 05 June 2006 - 05:54 PM

I assume they'd argue simply that the Master Sword does not actually go back with Link, and that it either drops to the floor, unaffected by Zelda sending Link back, or it returns magically to the pedestal.

The reasoning being that as the object that initiates the time travel, it is actually unaffected by time travel and is beyond it's influence. Basically, for the time travel to work, there needs to be one Master Sword in the future and one in the past at all times.

#80 Hero of Slime

Hero of Slime

    Zol

  • Members
  • 1,778 posts
  • Location:Seattle
  • Gender:Male

Posted 05 June 2006 - 06:04 PM

I don't think it is the master sword that does the time travel. It its the pedestal in the temple that allows the Hero to do his traveling. Since only the hero of time can pull the master sword from the pedestal, the temple's magic is probably designed to time travel only when the sword is placed back into the pedestal.

However, Zelda used the ocarina to send Link back, the master sword had nothing to do with it.

#81 Fyxe

Fyxe

    hwhere is fyxckz adn her big boobs/>?

  • Members
  • 7,132 posts
  • Location:England

Posted 05 June 2006 - 07:05 PM

You can't say the Master Sword had *nothing* to do with it, because if it wasn't for the Master Sword there would be no connection between the times in the first place.

Past, present, future...
The Master Sword is a ship with
which you can sail upstream and
downstream through time's river...
The port for that ship is in the
Temple of Time...


Essentially, Sheik says it is the Master Sword that does the time travel, and the Temple of Time, or rather the Pedestal of Time to be exact, is the 'port'.

I think it's a bit of both, really. That line is very revealing, as it suggests a single timeline - that there's one stream and all Link is doing is travelling upstream and downstream. While it is just a metaphor, that is what it implies. It's also implying very much a physical movement.

Edited by Fyxe, 05 June 2006 - 07:06 PM.


#82 Rogue Cucco

Rogue Cucco

    Healer

  • Members
  • 76 posts

Posted 06 June 2006 - 01:12 PM

That line is very revealing, as it suggests a single timeline - that there's one stream and all Link is doing is travelling upstream and downstream. While it is just a metaphor, that is what it implies. It's also implying very much a physical movement.


But don't forget that Zelda says that going back will close the doors between times, or something to that extent (you know, when they're up in the clouds and Link gives her the Ocarina), meaning that, while it was supposed to be a single timeline, at the end they 'cut off' the Young ending from the single timeline... right?

And, don't forget what Aonuma said! :)

#83 Fyxe

Fyxe

    hwhere is fyxckz adn her big boobs/>?

  • Members
  • 7,132 posts
  • Location:England

Posted 06 June 2006 - 07:37 PM

*Looks up into the air and raises fists*

DAMN YOU AONUMA!!!!

Ahem.

No, because closing the connection between the times is as simple as merely stopping you from going upstream and downstream. And since Link does not need to travel to the future anymore because he's already saved it, then it does not necessarily mean the timeline is 'cut off' just because the pathway is closed.

If I took away your boat, it doesn't mean the stream splits in two.

#84 Doopliss

Doopliss

    Famicom

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

Posted 07 June 2006 - 09:25 PM

Simple? That doesn't make any sense. There doesn't seem to be any logic to that, just seems to be that their minds 'jump' about just to make things convenient. We know from TWW, whether it occurs after the adult timeline or the Young Link timeline (or both, if they never seperate), that Link leaves Hyrule anyway. There's nothing to suggest that Young Link ever returns from his quest to find Navi, and there's nothing to suggest that adult Link continues to exist after Zelda sends him back.

I made my time travel hypothesis that way to explain why Link's body remains the same way when he travels through time, which suggets that he only travels consciously. One could say that his mind goes back without the swap, however Link would be in two places at the same time, which doesn't sound very nice. If you use the mind swapping hypothesis you don't have two Links existing at the same time or two bodies at the same time. It is not to make it sound nice, it would be pointless to use a complicated hypothesis if a more simple one can explain how time travel works.

It would be closed for seven years UNTIL adult Link in the Sacred Realm wakes up, at which point the Master Sword will be drawn once more and it will open for awhile (which is technically the same instance of it being open, just this time from the other side of the passageway), then be closed again as soon as adult Link is sent back by Zelda.

But then, that means that the passage between time (it goes like that) that Link closed can be opened again, which is what I have been trying to prove.

Say you see *yourself* travelling from the future from the past and you see yourself pick up... A banana, then you see yourself, now with the banana, return to the future. Now, you can't just wait around for a banana to appear in your hand - that banana doesn't exist in your world at the moment. If you want that banana, and you will, bananas are yummy, you'll have to someday travel back in time to pick up the banana. And you definitely will because you've already seen it happen.

He wouldn't already have the Lens of Truth just because he's in the future. He still has to go back in time and collect it and take it FROM the past to the future. The fact that Link doesn't awaken from the Sacred Realm with all the items from the past is an arguement *against* multiple timelines.

Agreed. I just want to point out that there can be paradoxes because adult Link doesn't know that he has already taken the Lens of Truth from the past, so he can't chose to do it or not, he'll simply go for them. And, the Lens of Truth not disappear as the banana, it simply stays in the Sacred Realm, that's why my timeline hypothesis works that way with items. It messes as less as possible with logic.

Edited by Subtle Breeze, 07 June 2006 - 09:28 PM.


#85 Rogue Cucco

Rogue Cucco

    Healer

  • Members
  • 76 posts

Posted 07 June 2006 - 10:04 PM

Oh, and I forgot- why would Aonuma say which ending OOT had if it is only the difference between 7 years, when he is already giving a uncertain number of years [such as "hundreds"]?

I'll get the whole conversation here this time. Pay attention to my underlining:

AonumaYou can think of this game as taking place over a hundred years after
Ocarina of Time. You can tell this from the opening story, and there are references
to things from Ocarina located throughout the game as well.
Miyamoto: Well, wait, which point does the hundred years start from?
Aonuma: From the end.
Miyamoto: No, I mean, as a child or as a...
Aonuma: Oh, right, let me elaborate on that. Ocarina of Time basically has
two endings of sorts; one has Link as a child and the other has him as an adult.
This
game, The Wind Waker, takes place a hundred [he meant hundreds of] years after the adult Link defeats Ganon
at the end of Ocarina
. [When was this interview made? Maybe, if it was in mid-production, they changed the background to fit the Young ending... the game was developed pretty fast, if I recall correctly.]
Miyamoto: This is pretty confusing for us, too. (laughs) So be careful.


Now, notice that he says it has two endings:

1. Why would this matter if TWW takes place hundreds of years after OOT? Does 800 A.F. and 807 A.F. really affect the plot?
2. Why would it be confusing if they just had a length of 7 years in between the two endings? It seems pretty simple for me, however split timelines do confuse me as well. And, don't tell me Aonuma and Miyamoto are just stupid... He even tells us to be careful. Heh... <_<

Edited by Rogue Cucco, 07 June 2006 - 10:05 PM.


#86 MikePetersSucks

MikePetersSucks

    Actual Japanese Person

  • ZL Staff
  • 4,174 posts
  • Gender:Male

Posted 08 June 2006 - 01:34 PM

Rogue Cucco, can you stop quoting that damn interview? We've ALL seen it. Criminy. It can be interpretted multiple ways anyway, and your insistence that it has to be YOUR interpretation is extremely arrogant.

#87 Rogue Cucco

Rogue Cucco

    Healer

  • Members
  • 76 posts

Posted 08 June 2006 - 04:13 PM

Rogue Cucco, can you stop quoting that damn interview? We've ALL seen it. Criminy. It can be interpretted multiple ways anyway, and your insistence that it has to be YOUR interpretation is extremely arrogant.


Sorry, I'm just confused as to what those other interpretations are besides the 7 years difference and multiple timelines are. I guess I just like quoting it because I like to have it their right in front of me, to make more sense. I don't really understand what you mean by me insisting something, but I know I did something wrong and I'll stop posting that now. Sorry everyone!

Edited by Rogue Cucco, 08 June 2006 - 04:14 PM.


#88 Fyxe

Fyxe

    hwhere is fyxckz adn her big boobs/>?

  • Members
  • 7,132 posts
  • Location:England

Posted 09 June 2006 - 07:15 PM

As much as I hate it because it screws up my personal timeline, the interview is hard to take in any other way. Rogue Cucco has a point, and since I try to work with what the creators say as much as possible, I'm personally trying to look at ways to get the split timeline to work in a sensible fashion.

#89 Showsni

Showsni

    The Fallen

  • Members
  • 13,386 posts
  • Location:Gloucester
  • Gender:Male
  • England

Posted 09 June 2006 - 07:39 PM

He could just be clarifying that OoT has two endings - one with TWW after, one with MM. MM comes after the child ending, but still technicall during OoT and before the second ending of the game - i.e. he's making clear to people that this game doesn't also happen during the middle of OoT. (Although the hundred years thing should already account for that...)

#90 Rogue Cucco

Rogue Cucco

    Healer

  • Members
  • 76 posts

Posted 09 June 2006 - 08:02 PM

He could just be clarifying that OoT has two endings - one with TWW after, one with MM. MM comes after the child ending, but still technicall during OoT and before the second ending of the game - i.e. he's making clear to people that this game doesn't also happen during the middle of OoT. (Although the hundred years thing should already account for that...)


Hmm... that makes sense, though not as much as the split timeline. But I see where that could work. Thanks!

As much as I hate it because it screws up my personal timeline, the interview is hard to take in any other way. Rogue Cucco has a point, and since I try to work with what the creators say as much as possible, I'm personally trying to look at ways to get the split timeline to work in a sensible fashion.


I'm hazarding a guess and saying the biggest problem that doesn't let the split timeline "work in a sensible fashion" is that TWW refers to both MM and the OOT Adult ending? And, that would be the key to making an 'Almost Perfect Timeline,' since making splits work would simultaneously fix the problem of TWW and ALTTP existing in the same existence- for example, how is Hyrule destroyed when the Hyrule that has the same distinct landmarks (i.e. Spectacle Rock and Lake Hylia) as OOT Hyrule takes place after TWW, and if TWW takes place last... well, that doesn't make much sense, with Ganon's implications and the closeness to OOT, as well as some stuff TP implies as far as we can see.

My solution to making the splits sensible is that the scrolls in TWW refer to Link's story about the future to Zelda- Zelda, as well as the people, take this importantly because they've already seen Ganon kill trees, starve cities, sicken fish, brainwash Gerudos, and kill a Castle guard. And, Link had the ToC.

But one day a man of great evil found the
golden power and took it for himself...


Ganondorf did take the ToP, if Link had the ToC at the Young ending.

With its strength at his command, he
spread darkness across the kingdom.

But then, when all hope had died, and the
hour of doom seemed at hand...

...a young boy clothed in green appeared
as if from nowhere.

Wielding the blade of evil's bane, he sealed
the dark one away and gave the land light.

This boy, who traveled through time to save
the land, was known as the Hero of Time.

Is this tale really altered if it didn't happen? If the Royal Family can take a legend from a parallel universe as truth, then they could take a legend from an alternate future as truth.

The boy's tale was passed down through
generations until it became legend...


It's even the boy's-possesive!-legend. Okay, I'm taking that too far, but it says it is only the boy's legend- in ALTTP, it is the legend of an entire Army, the Knights of Hyrule, multiple people and multiple accounts. In TWW, it is the legend of one boy.

Does this hold any ground?

And, as for the Sages in the glass windows in Hyrule Castle in TWW, the Sages would have grown up anyways, and if the legend was told, then they would've found out they were Sages even after the Young ending. But, that's a minor thing.

:unsure: I have a feeling no one will like this idea...




Copyright © 2021 Your Company Name