Jump to content

IPBoard Styles©Fisana

Photo

Time travel in OoT


  • Please log in to reply
158 replies to this topic

#1 BourgeoisJerry

BourgeoisJerry

    Apprentice

  • Members
  • 118 posts

Posted 05 April 2007 - 04:00 PM

Okay, so we kinda got off topic in another topic so I decided to just create a new topic for this discussion instead of responding to the others in that topic. Anyway...

If Link went back in time (which he does eventually), and if Link creates a timeline split when he does so (which he does), when did he leave the Master Sword in the Adult timeline? He hands off the Ocarina to Zelda; he does no such thing with the sword, so we can reasonably say that it doesn't happen in that scene, since he's still carrying it when he is carried away by the portal. Any answer to that question that makes logical sense will do.


The answer is that Link's spirit was sent to the past to inhabit his young body. Since he wasn't physically sent back, there's no reason that anything in his possession would be physically sent back either.

So...

1) What happened to his future body?
2) Why does TWW reference him entering the flows of time and leaving the land of Hyrule (as though literally) if this wasn't the case?


If we really want his future body to disappear like everybody seems to assume it does, then we can go ahead and assume it does since his future body has no real importance. It's also possible that the body went into a coma like it did the first time it was without its spirit. Having it disappear is cleaner, but as far as the story's concerned it doesn't matter what happens to the body. As for him "entering the flows of time," does that statement really require that Link's body was sent back in time and regressed 7 years (leaving the future with no Link, Master Sword, or Triforce of Courage while the child timeline gets two) or is it possible that Link's body simply didn't enter the flows of time and leave Hyrule? As far as I can tell, whether or not Link's body goes with the rest of him doesn't change whether or not the statement about him entering the flows of time is true.

Believe it or not, I don't know whether you're arguing with me or not. But you've got the same basic premise as me. I think.


Yeah, our views seem mostly shared, but not completely.

Zelda wants Link to put the Master Sword in place. She says it explicitly. Therefore, to send Link back in time without it would be beyond stupid. Thus, Link should have the Master Sword when he goes back in time. I do believe that that sounds like your most recent post.


Right, where we differ is that I believe the Master Sword was already in past Link's hands at the point in time Zelda sent him, meaning she doesn't need to send back the future Master Sword. Well, I'll get into that in just a second.

This, however, does not sound like the post before that. I am trying to dispute the statement that "there was already a Master Sword in the child timeline." If you stand by that statement, I want to know WHERE it was. Perhaps a graphic will explain this better than I can:

Posted Image


If I knew how to get hosting for graphics I'd create my own version of that, but it'd be very close so I guess it'll do to just say where it differs. Basically, the red line splits just after "Child Link pulls the Master Sword." The adult timeline Master Sword goes to "Seven years in the future" as shown and remains in the adult timeline past "Zelda sends Link back through time," while the child timeline Master Sword goes to "Link puts back the Master Sword." I'd explain it further right now, but you ask in just a second so I'll explain there.

There is that momentary lapse of red (where you see black) just after Link went to the future the first time... and when the actual split happened by Link getting sent back from the future. This amount of time (represented by the black) can be as long as needed, instantaneous if you even wish it so, but still... the sword was pulled, and the sword should be sent back.


During that momentary lapse of red the Master Sword was always with Link wherever he was, that momentary lapse of red is just where Link is in the Sacred Realm. Thing is, moving from the Sacred Realm to the Light World doesn't seem to be much of a challenge, considering Link does so every time he earns a Sage Medallion. To me the fact that Link's body is in the Temple of Time is proof that he and the Master Sword were taken back out of the Sacred Realm when his spirit returned from the future. The other options are that he was sent back to a point before he was in the Sacred Realm (which would have been before he pulled the Master Sword, making that a bad theory) or Link first awoke in the Sacred Realm and we just weren't shown that part (this one also doesn't make sense, especially considering how easy it should be to pull him out of the Sacred Realm the moment his spirit returns.)

Am I in line with you? If so, where is the sword for Wind Waker? If not, what did I draw that's wrong?


The Master Sword in Wind Waker is actually something I consider to be very strong evidence for this interpretation of time travel, since this interpretation leaves the Master Sword in the future when Zelda sends Link's spirit into the past.

#2 Fyxe

Fyxe

    hwhere is fyxckz adn her big boobs/>?

  • Members
  • 7,132 posts
  • Location:England

Posted 05 April 2007 - 04:26 PM

The answer is that Link's spirit was sent to the past to inhabit his young body. Since he wasn't physically sent back, there's no reason that anything in his possession would be physically sent back either.

Impossible. How does he take items from the past to the future? Lens of Truth, Silver Guantlets.

It wouldn't work.

#3 LionHarted

LionHarted

    Quirky.

  • Members
  • 2,029 posts

Posted 05 April 2007 - 05:15 PM

I actually forgot in the other thread that I abandoned the "Link puts back the Master Sword in the future" view when I adopted a split timeline. *_*

That being said, I leave it as an open-ended inexplicable scenario that Nintendo obviously didn't care to clarify (and as such is not important).

Impossible. How does he take items from the past to the future? Lens of Truth, Silver Guantlets.

Not that I agree necessarily with this, but in a TML-type scenario (not to represent this as TML's opinion), one could say that Link revises his own history each time he goes back into the past, obtaining items he didn't have before, then, when he returns to the future, he will now have those items.

As for him "entering the flows of time," does that statement really require that Link's body was sent back in time and regressed 7 years (leaving the future with no Link, Master Sword, or Triforce of Courage while the child timeline gets two) or is it possible that Link's body simply didn't enter the flows of time and leave Hyrule?

Personally, I don't think he takes items back with him, per se (in that they will not be in his possession upon arrival in the past).
I do think that he himself is "sent back" physically, insomuch that he is physically sealed in the Sacred Realm and sleeps between the point to which he travels back and his destination (plus or minus seven years). He appears to revert back to whatever state he was in in the past, which would extend to his inventory (meaning he would have the Ocarina of Time when he arrives in the past).
This allows for such conditions as the Song of Storms scenario in that Link's actions (through time travel seen in OoT) happen regardless of whether or not they have been fulfilled by the player.

#4 Fyxe

Fyxe

    hwhere is fyxckz adn her big boobs/>?

  • Members
  • 7,132 posts
  • Location:England

Posted 05 April 2007 - 05:35 PM

Not that I agree necessarily with this, but in a TML-type scenario (not to represent this as TML's opinion), one could say that Link revises his own history each time he goes back into the past, obtaining items he didn't have before, then, when he returns to the future, he will now have those items.

This would not work, however, as if it was the case, given that the Song of Storms events has already happened (as do all events that he goes back in time to make happen) when he first awakes from the Sacred Realm, he should also therefore awake with the Silver Guantlets on his hands and the Lens of Truth in his possession.

This is clearly not the case.

Also, if he revised his own history, every time the player goes back to the future, you'd be back to square one, with all the dungeons still yet to do. This is also clearly not the case.

Judging by the Song of Storms (and the fact that Nabooru acts under Ganondorf's will, according to the Gerudo), everything Link goes back in time to do (barring the final time he is sent back by Zelda, for the moment) has already happened once Link awakes from the Sacred Realm.

This means two things.

1 - Every time Link goes back, he goes back after the Master Sword has already been drawn once, so there is already a version of himself in the Sacred Realm. This version must remain unaffected by Link collecting items. Therefore, Link travelling back in time must be a physical thing, rather than a spiritual thing, because he cannot affect the version of himself that sits in the Sacred Realm.

2 - When Link travels forward in time, he must do it literally by travelling in time, not waiting in stasis. Else there would be endless copies of Link all waking up at once. This is the only way he can take items from the past to the future.

#5 BourgeoisJerry

BourgeoisJerry

    Apprentice

  • Members
  • 118 posts

Posted 05 April 2007 - 05:48 PM

Personally, I don't think he takes items back with him, per se (in that they will not be in his possession upon arrival in the past).
I do think that he himself is "sent back" physically, insomuch that he is physically sealed in the Sacred Realm and sleeps between the point to which he travels back and his destination (plus or minus seven years). He appears to revert back to whatever state he was in in the past, which would extend to his inventory (meaning he would have the Ocarina of Time when he arrives in the past).
This allows for such conditions as the Song of Storms scenario in that Link's actions (through time travel seen in OoT) happen regardless of whether or not they have been fulfilled by the player.


In other words, you think that when Link is sent back he is regressed to being in the exact condition he was in at the point he was sent back to, but there's also another Link in stasis that's basically a carbon copy of him that hasn't had as many experiences. It has a similar end to my interpretation, but it leaves multiple Master Swords, Links, and possibly Triforces of Courage in the past rather than just using the ones that are already in the past. Well, I don't really have any disproof for your theory and I'd rather not take the time to argue it (especially when I've got something in 15 minutes) so I'll just leave it at that.

And to Fyxe, who I won't quote:

I'm not going to go and check, but were you one of the people that was theorizing about Goron biology? It seems like you're making an awful lot out of things the creators probably didn't put a whole lot of thought into.

#6 Fyxe

Fyxe

    hwhere is fyxckz adn her big boobs/>?

  • Members
  • 7,132 posts
  • Location:England

Posted 05 April 2007 - 05:56 PM

No I wasn't, I made no posts on the subject of Goron biology, and I'm just using LOGIC.

Your the one who's overthinking it, for fuck's sake. Just because you don't understand the VERY SIMPLE concept I just put forward doesn't mean you have the right to claim I'm overanalysing it and you're not.

I'm fed up of being insulted or spoken down to. So shut the effing hell up and actually read what I said and realise that I'm not analysing it any more than you are.

Edited by Fyxe, 05 April 2007 - 05:59 PM.


#7 LionHarted

LionHarted

    Quirky.

  • Members
  • 2,029 posts

Posted 05 April 2007 - 06:09 PM

Briefly: Fyxe, the "spirit inhabiting" theory works if only applied to the ending time travel, because the state of Link's inventory at that time is irrelevant to the child timeline, which the ending time travel results in.

It has a similar end to my interpretation, but it leaves multiple Master Swords, Links, and possibly Triforces of Courage in the past rather than just using the ones that are already in the past.


Well, let's say the "first" time he draws the Master Sword is at point 1.
Let's say that his return trip to the past takes him to point 2, after point 1 (not necessarily by much).
He is sleeping in the Sacred Realm (with the Master Sword) between points 1 and whenever he wakes up, yet there is a Master Sword in the pedestal at point 2, which is in between those two.

Assuming Link instigated the SoS events, Link must always have been asleep in the Sacred Realm after point 1 (prior to the closing of the road between times, for whatever reason), even in those cases when he returns to the past (because the SoS events were initiated as a result of that sleep, while that sleep was happening).

As an aside, this was largely what kept me on the single side for the longest time. I saw no reason to depart from this model, even in the time travel as portrayed in the ending.

This would not work, however, as if it was the case, given that the Song of Storms events has already happened (as do all events that he goes back in time to make happen) when he first awakes from the Sacred Realm, he should also therefore awake with the Silver Guantlets on his hands and the Lens of Truth in his possession.

This is why I disagree, although some would argue that someone who is not Link was the one to instigate the SoS event.

Also, if he revised his own history, every time the player goes back to the future, you'd be back to square one, with all the dungeons still yet to do.

Not necessarily.
He's revising his history, not erasing it and starting from scratch.

the fact that Nabooru acts under Ganondorf's will, according to the Gerudo

To be fair, it's probable that this would have happened anyway, whether Link had intervened or not.

1 - Every time Link goes back, he goes back after the Master Sword has already been drawn once, so there is already a version of himself in the Sacred Realm. This version must remain unaffected by Link collecting items. Therefore, Link travelling back in time must be a physical thing, rather than a spiritual thing, because he cannot affect the version of himself that sits in the Sacred Realm.

2 - When Link travels forward in time, he must do it literally by travelling in time, not waiting in stasis. Else there would be endless copies of Link all waking up at once. This is the only way he can take items from the past to the future.


Under #1, can he affect the version of himself that exists in the past?
(i.e., can he take an item with him, cut off his arm and turn back into a child while retaining the missing limb (oxymoron!) or not)?

I agree with your model. :)

And, out of curiosity, what makes the Zelda trip different? The result seems largely the same on a surface level, ignoring the absent Goron Bracelet, since the shield he has equipped at the last point you used him as a child is retained. I understand that one could reasonably assert that different means would have differing effects, but the effect we see is fundamentally the same, which is why I posit that the closing of the Door of Time (the consequences of which we never learn, and which would prevent the Adult events from occurring outright) is a more likely cause of the split.

Edited by LionHarted, 05 April 2007 - 06:21 PM.


#8 Vertiboy

Vertiboy

    Crusader

  • Members
  • 405 posts

Posted 05 April 2007 - 06:29 PM

Nobody cares if there are inconsistencies except for fans that cannot accept the fact of the split timeline. I have said it before, and I will say it again: the Zelda universe is not real, so it can have inconsistencies and plotholes. Creator's intent is the most important as far as the timeline goes. Most of the time, the in-game information supports the creators' intent (such as adult OoT's events being mentioned in the Hero of Time legend, followed by the Hero disappearing into the flows of time). Every once and a while, whether it is intentional or accidental, some contradicting information will be placed into the games (such as the Legend of the Fairy). Sometimes people are human and accidentally place contradicting info, or sometimes they place the info in the game simply as a homage or an Easter egg. Aonuma first mentioned the split timeline back in 2002-2003 in multiple interviews about TWW, and then the December 2006 article about TP is consistent with what what said back then. Aonuma was the director of both games, so I would hope that he knows what he is talking about as far as TWW and TP's timeline placement. The day that the director of a game is misinformed about the story of a game is the day that we are all screwed.

To be fair, though, I understand why some fans think that every single piece of information is canon. There is the unspoken rule of thumb among many fans that everything should be considered canon in a game, since we are not the writers of Zelda and are not qualified to make such a judgement in 99% of the cases presented. Some people forget, though, that people make mistakes, and sometimes it is obvious that some information is simply not canon. (The Octorok trophy in TMC says that they have been present in every game to date, which one could interpret to mean that TMC is last in the timeline if that statement was canon. The pictures from N64-era Super Mario in Hyrule Castle on OoT could make one think that the Mario and Zelda universes are one and the same, and that OoT happens after Super Mario 64, if the pictures were canon.)

I really don't see the point in making a thread just to complain about the inconsistencies in the split timeline after it has already been proven to be a fact. It would be like me making a thread to complain about how I (hypothetically) don't like the idea of multiple Links. At a certain point in time, the single timeline would have worked better than the split. When games started to be made specifically with the split timeline in mind, though (TWW), the single timeline was dead. Up to a certain point, a single Link would have worked, until games started to be made around the idea of multiple Links (at least OoT, if not earlier), in which the single Link theory died. The single Ganondorf/Ganon theory worked for a while, until FSA proved that there were at least multiple Ganondorfs (I'm not getting into the whole evil spirit in the magic trident idea because I do not know what was intended).

I also don't see how single timeline supporters can complain about all of the inconsistencies in the split when the single has just about as many. For example, people can sit here and complain about how the MS and ToC exist in both the child and adult timeline, but then when it comes to the common single order of TWW->ALttP, they see no problem with an entire contry being revived or refounded, the Triforce being rediscovered, the MS being rediscovered, and Ganon being revived (again). It is this kind of hypocracy that irritates me. They both do not have the same problems, plotholes, and inconsistencies, but it isn't good to complain about the problems in one theory and ignore the problems in your own.

There is a certain time, however, when it is okay to say that a theory is better than another. That is when the theory has been confirmed to be a fact. Aonuma made statements about 4 years apart that were consistent, and they both supported the split timeline. Far be it from me to tell someone that their opinion is wrong. If you think that the single timeline is a better explaination than the split, despite the fact that TWW and TP were both made with the split in mind, then you have the right to believe that. If you believe that the single timeline is the official timeline, though, despite multiple remarks from the director of some Zelda games that confirm the opposite, then you are immune to facts. For those of you who watch The Colbert Report, you know what I am talking about. Stephen Colbert has a false persona in which he doesn't like facts. If meeting a certain person or going to a certain location will prove that his opinion is wrong, he will either ignore the facts or avoid said person/location completely. That is exactly what people who still think that the single timeline is official are doing, except the sad truth is that it is not an act, but reality. They seriously and consciously ignore or avoid any information or people that will prove that their opinion is wrong. I am tired of that.

The split timeline is a confirmed fact, and if you deny that, then you are a real-life Stephen Colbert.

#9 Hero of Slime

Hero of Slime

    Zol

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

Posted 05 April 2007 - 06:35 PM

He is what I think on the subject of OoT's ending: It is not that important. We know the end so we really don't need to know what happend in between. As a single timeliner, I did not pay attention to OoT's ending as I knew it lead in to TWW. Since I knew what happend in TWW was the result of OoT, the dtails did not matter. Now that we know there is a timeline split, the details still do not matter. We know that The adult end with Ganon being sealed leads into TWW, and we know that the child end leads to TP. The "How" is irrelevant to the timeline.

#10 Fyxe

Fyxe

    hwhere is fyxckz adn her big boobs/>?

  • Members
  • 7,132 posts
  • Location:England

Posted 05 April 2007 - 06:41 PM

And, out of curiosity, what makes the Zelda trip different? The result seems largely the same on a surface level, ignoring the absent Goron Bracelet, since the shield he has equipped at the last point you used him as a child is retained. I understand that one could reasonably assert that different means would have differing effects, but the effect we see is fundamentally the same, which is why I posit that the closing of the Door of Time (the consequences of which we never learn, and which would prevent the Adult events from occurring outright) is a more likely cause of the split.

We're told that the conversation with Zelda is the main instigation for the diverging timeline. But before this, Link was unable to cause a diverging timeline, because everything he did in the past had already happened, right? So talking to Zelda would do nothing, because it would have already happened.

Therefore, when Zelda sends him back, something different *must* happen. I still think the time travel occurs in basically the same way as before, but when Link ends up in the past, he is now able to create a diverging future. Maybe it is 'closing' of the connection between times that Zelda mentions that causes this, in which case, you're right, it's the closing of the Door of Time that does it.

But it also means that there should still a version of Link in the Sacred Realm. Maybe this final time Link goes back, he occupies this spirit and frees it from the realm, something which he didn't previously do (so it's more than just a simple physical time travel, it involves him taking the place of his 'past self' at the same time). Maybe this is the significant difference that makes him now able to change the future and create a new future.

Basically though, The Zol is right. The 'why' and 'how' isn't important, because I doubt the creators thought it through a great deal. It just happens, and it happens during the Young Link ending.

Edited by Fyxe, 05 April 2007 - 06:43 PM.


#11 LionHarted

LionHarted

    Quirky.

  • Members
  • 2,029 posts

Posted 05 April 2007 - 06:59 PM

We're told that the conversation with Zelda is the main instigation for the diverging timeline.

"In the last scene of Ocarina of Time, kids Link and Zelda have a little talk..."

It seemed to me that you were thinking of the adult conversation, but I wasn't quite sure.

But it also means that there should still a version of Link in the Sacred Realm.

If the road between times was closed, would that Link continue to exist? Would he be able to exit the Sacred Realm into the Child timeline Hyrule? Moreover, would that Link ever awaken at all? You could take this a step further and carry this over to the skeleton warrior who by his own admission could never pass on the skills of the hero, and say that this is that lost Link in the Sacred Realm.

You could also look at it this way...

--all the versions of Link placed in the Sacred Realm when Link draws the Master Sword proceed into the Adult timeline
--the version of Link placed in the Sacred Realm when Link travels back in time (who I would describe as sleeping there for negative seven years and awakening in the past) proceeds into the Adult timeline, then closes the door of time, crossing into the Child timeline

In the Child timeline, where the door is closed, the other selves never wake; the conditions of their existence and awakening, where the door stands open, are gone.
In the Adult timeline, the conditions remain the same. When Link closes the Door of Time, all the conditions he created upon his return to the past are carried over to the Child line, but not the Adult (despite the conditions of the adult existing on arrival, and until the closing of the door).

Basically, because Link removes the Adult timeline conditions when he returns to the past, the timeline splits, and everything that depends on the AT conditions evaporates.
Had he done nothing to do so, the timeline wouldn't have split, and everything would have proceeded as before.

Edited by LionHarted, 05 April 2007 - 06:59 PM.


#12 Evilsbane

Evilsbane

    Scout

  • Members
  • 190 posts
  • Location:Ireland

Posted 05 April 2007 - 08:05 PM

We're told that the conversation with Zelda is the main instigation for the diverging timeline. But before this, Link was unable to cause a diverging timeline, because everything he did in the past had already happened, right? So talking to Zelda would do nothing, because it would have already happened.

Therefore, when Zelda sends him back, something different *must* happen. I still think the time travel occurs in basically the same way as before, but when Link ends up in the past, he is now able to create a diverging future. Maybe it is 'closing' of the connection between times that Zelda mentions that causes this, in which case, you're right, it's the closing of the Door of Time that does it.

But it also means that there should still a version of Link in the Sacred Realm. Maybe this final time Link goes back, he occupies this spirit and frees it from the realm, something which he didn't previously do (so it's more than just a simple physical time travel, it involves him taking the place of his 'past self' at the same time). Maybe this is the significant difference that makes him now able to change the future and create a new future.

Basically though, The Zol is right. The 'why' and 'how' isn't important, because I doubt the creators thought it through a great deal. It just happens, and it happens during the Young Link ending.



#13 Evilsbane

Evilsbane

    Scout

  • Members
  • 190 posts
  • Location:Ireland

Posted 05 April 2007 - 08:17 PM

We're told that the conversation with Zelda is the main instigation for the diverging timeline. But before this, Link was unable to cause a diverging timeline, because everything he did in the past had already happened, right? So talking to Zelda would do nothing, because it would have already happened.

Therefore, when Zelda sends him back, something different *must* happen. I still think the time travel occurs in basically the same way as before, but when Link ends up in the past, he is now able to create a diverging future. Maybe it is 'closing' of the connection between times that Zelda mentions that causes this, in which case, you're right, it's the closing of the Door of Time that does it.


Well, when Link returns the Master Sword to its pedestal during the game, he can only go back to AFTER he first drew it. Meaning that Ganondorf has already taken the ToP and Link can't change history in any meaningful way. But if (and I say IF) Adult Zelda sent him back to BEFORE he first drew it, then it's possible for him NOT to draw it, never letting Ganondorf inside and then Link can go tell Zelda what the story is, whereupon Ganondorf can be clapped in irons and taken to the Arbiter's Grounds or whatever.

The very nature of time travel means that Link technically creates a new timeline every time he goes back in time, but in the case of OoT's time travel they can all only really differ in one major way: either Ganondorf does or does not break into the Sacred Realm. So Aonouma has created games based on these two different and interesting premises. Games based in any other timelines would be pointless (though possible).

#14 BourgeoisJerry

BourgeoisJerry

    Apprentice

  • Members
  • 118 posts

Posted 05 April 2007 - 09:09 PM

No I wasn't, I made no posts on the subject of Goron biology, and I'm just using LOGIC.

Your the one who's overthinking it, for fuck's sake. Just because you don't understand the VERY SIMPLE concept I just put forward doesn't mean you have the right to claim I'm overanalysing it and you're not.

I'm fed up of being insulted or spoken down to. So shut the effing hell up and actually read what I said and realise that I'm not analysing it any more than you are.


Note to self: never ask somebody a question like that again.

Anyway, I didn't mean to insult you, I just said you were looking at things very closely. "if he revised his own history, every time the player goes back to the future, you'd be back to square one, with all the dungeons still yet to do. This is also clearly not the case." That'd be an example of something you said that the creators likely didn't pay any attention to. And I never claimed that I don't over analyze things (though I probably should have mentioned that it's something we all do to make it seem less like I was insulting you, because really, we all look at things way more closely than the creators do a lot of the time.)

Anyway, my interpretation isn't a result of me looking at things through a microscope, it was an impression I got the first time through. I never believed Link was physically going back and forth in time because it always seemed simpler to just say he went back into his young uninhabited body. I only got analytical of my interpretation as a result of this debate, and most of that is in defense of my interpretation, unless you count me saying that Zelda physically sending the Master Sword back in time would cause there to be two Master Swords in the child timeline and none in the adult timeline as over analyzing.

Anyway, I wasn't trying to insult you, and if I was I would do so by accusing you of something we don't all do all the time.

Really long post


Dude, this topic isn't about the timeline being split or single, it's about whether or not Link physically travels through time. When I suggested that Link was only sent back in spirit it seemed like a fairly simple way of doing things without creating any duplicate people or things. I admit that it doesn't really matter how the Master Sword is still in the future, since we know it is, but since when do these debates matter anyway?

Edited by BourgeoisJerry, 05 April 2007 - 09:10 PM.


#15 LionHarted

LionHarted

    Quirky.

  • Members
  • 2,029 posts

Posted 05 April 2007 - 09:11 PM

"if he revised his own history, every time the player goes back to the future, you'd be back to square one, with all the dungeons still yet to do. This is also clearly not the case." That'd be an example of something you said that the creators likely didn't pay any attention to.

Fyxe was citing MM, in which this was the case.

#16 BourgeoisJerry

BourgeoisJerry

    Apprentice

  • Members
  • 118 posts

Posted 05 April 2007 - 09:21 PM

Fyxe was citing MM, in which this was the case.


Maybe, but in Majora's Mask Link always goes to a specific point in time, and that is a point in time when the things he's done haven't been done yet, while in Ocarina of Time he seems to always go back and forth seven years, which would lead him to a point in time when he had already done the things he'd done. Okay, I guess he could always be going back to the point he first pulled the Master Sword and forward to the point when he first woke up, but that's never been my interpretation. Also, Majora's Mask is something I consider to help my theory of Link going back in spirit rather than body, since as we know there is never more than one Link running around. I suppose we could also take this as your interpretation that he regresses to the age he was at the point he is going to with the addition that any other versions of him and anything in his inventory are erased as soon as he arrives with whatever he has in his inventory. Either way, Majora's Mask time travel does a pretty good job of avoiding paradoxes, and if time travel works the same way in Ocarina of Time we have no inconsistencies to worry about.

#17 LionHarted

LionHarted

    Quirky.

  • Members
  • 2,029 posts

Posted 05 April 2007 - 10:01 PM

Maybe, but in Majora's Mask Link always goes to a specific point in time, and that is a point in time when the things he's done haven't been done yet, while in Ocarina of Time he seems to always go back and forth seven years, which would lead him to a point in time when he had already done the things he'd done.

1) Let's assume the single-body theory, with the spirit moving back and forth, adding to the past each time you go back in time?
2) Link wakes up in the future. He hasn't completed the Bottom of the Well.
3) Link goes to the past and completes the Bottom of the Well.
4) The circumstances in which 2 happened have been changed by 3. The body present in 2 now has the Lens of Truth, whereas it didn't before. Based on the conditions causing a split, 2 should not have happened if 3 happens.

I realize I didn't explain that as gracefully as I could've, but Fyxe is correct; that is not a perfect explanation, because of the above.

#18 Vertiboy

Vertiboy

    Crusader

  • Members
  • 405 posts

Posted 05 April 2007 - 11:06 PM

Dude, this topic isn't about the timeline being split or single, it's about whether or not Link physically travels through time. When I suggested that Link was only sent back in spirit it seemed like a fairly simple way of doing things without creating any duplicate people or things. I admit that it doesn't really matter how the Master Sword is still in the future, since we know it is, but since when do these debates matter anyway?


Oh...

Oops...

[/awkwardness]

In that case, here are my thoughts. When Link draws the Master Sword the first time, we all know that he sleeps for 7 years. I am with the idea that his consciousness time travels, not his body. Anyway, let's say he plants the MS. The future of Hyrule had been written up to that point. When he draws it again, his consciousness can theoretically arrive the moment his consciousness left his body the first time. This is the cycle until the end of the game. At the end of the game, when Zelda sends Link back to his childhood, the Ocarina could behave in the same way it does in Majora's Mask. It separates the adult timeline from the child timeline, dropping Link off somewhere around the first time he drew the MS. Link can now change the outcome of events because no future has been written. Since the Ocarina's time travel behaves differently than that of the MS, perhaps it treats his body differently than the MS. Perhaps the only way for the Ocarina to send Link back in time was to eliminate his body from the adult timeline. After all, he could no longer return, so it is of no use to him anymore in the adult timeline. We don't have proof of how the body of the time traveler acts after the Ocarina sends them back in either OoT or MM. Apparently, the Hero of Time legend is the only case in which we have seen what happens to the body of the traveler after he can no longer return to it. It just disappears. I don't see where there is an inconsistency, unless we assume that the Ocarina operates the same as planting the MS.

We have no official evidence either way, so we can make of three assumptions:

1. The Ocarina of Time follows the same time travel logic as the Master Sword, creating a contradiction between what happened with Link's body in reality and in the Hero of Time legend.
2. The Ocarina of Time follows the same time travel logic as it does in Majora's Mask, thus the Hero of Time legend is the only information we have on what happens to a time traveler's body after traveling back using the Ocarina, creating no contradiction.
3. The Ocarina of Time follows it's own time travel logic separate from that of the Master Sword or the Ocarina in Majora's Mask, thus the Hero of Time legend is the only information we have on what happens to a time traveler's body after traveling back using the Ocarina, creating no contradiction.

I think that the latter two options solve this problem.

Edited by Vertiboy, 05 April 2007 - 11:07 PM.


#19 BourgeoisJerry

BourgeoisJerry

    Apprentice

  • Members
  • 118 posts

Posted 05 April 2007 - 11:28 PM

1) Let's assume the single-body theory, with the spirit moving back and forth, adding to the past each time you go back in time?
2) Link wakes up in the future. He hasn't completed the Bottom of the Well.
3) Link goes to the past and completes the Bottom of the Well.
4) The circumstances in which 2 happened have been changed by 3. The body present in 2 now has the Lens of Truth, whereas it didn't before. Based on the conditions causing a split, 2 should not have happened if 3 happens.

I realize I didn't explain that as gracefully as I could've, but Fyxe is correct; that is not a perfect explanation, because of the above.


I still think this is just a matter of the creators not really caring about things making absolutely perfect sense, but oh well. I've actually got an answer to that, but I suppose it's going to sound like I'm making up new rules since I didn't mention them before (I didn't think it was necessary.)

My theory, or whatever you want to call it, isn't that Link's spirit is going back and forth in time so much as it is that time travel in Ocarina of Time works the same way as it does in Majora's Mask (which I interpreted to be Link's spirit going back in time and inhabiting his former body.) So how about we just forget the whole spirit thing for the moment and look at the way things work in Majora's Mask.

Now, every time Link traveled through time in that game everything that he had ended up in his possession before he originally got it, and was gone from where it was before he got it. We can either say the originals were erased when Link physically goes back in time, or that Link went back in spirit and the items instantly teleported to where he was. Whichever explanation we go with can easily be used to explain how future Link got the Lens of Truth only after he traveled to the future with it in his possession, and still works to explain how there is only one Master Sword and Triforce of Courage in the child timeline. Of course, the theory that he physically goes back and erases the past Master Sword and Triforce of Courage leaves the future without those things, so I still go with the theory that Link's spirit went back in time leaving the Master Sword and Triforce of Courage in the future.

EDIT: And while I was typing out this post Vertiboy said pretty much what I was getting at. I guess that makes two of us that don't see the fact that the Master Sword and Triforce of Courage are in the future as an inconsistency.

Edited by BourgeoisJerry, 05 April 2007 - 11:36 PM.


#20 The Missing Link

The Missing Link

    Monk

  • Members
  • 396 posts

Posted 06 April 2007 - 12:05 AM

Well look at the firestorm I've created. Heh heh. I'm not going to reply to everything here because it would mean that I'd be quoting half a dozen (probably more) posts, and I just don't wanna. So I'm going to put a synopsis of my thought process here.

Now, let's get a few basic facts straight away here before we do anything.

1. In Ocarina of Time, Zelda probably intended to send the Master Sword back in time with Link. Whether or not it could go back in time (a la the escalator argument) is neither here nor there. Because she is sending Link back in time... and because she intends for him to place the Master Sword in the Pedestal, she must presume that he'll have it then. Quite arguably, this is also what the developers intended.

2. In Ocarina of Time, it is highly unlikely that Zelda would know that some action in the chain would spawn another timeline. At no point in the rest of the series do we see any evidence that the timelines had any influence over one another with the exception of maybe Tingle, and that is likely due to a cameo appearance or that Waker was initially intended to follow a single-timeline course. This bolsters claim #1 that Zelda probably didn't consider that the Master Sword would "already exist" when Link was returned to his time; in all likelihood, she probably thought that the Ocarina of Time would make Link travel in the same fashion as the Master Sword.

3. It is perhaps difficult to say that the timeline split after Link returned from the future (after Zelda sent him back). Even if the Master Sword problem is resolved a la the escalator argument, this assumes that Link--on his first iteration through the time travel sequence--should be in the Sacred Realm, waiting for his seven years to finish. He's still in possession of the Master Sword... and for Link to come back to CREATE the split by placing the Master Sword in the pedestal (if the adult timeline copy was left in the future) would mean that the Master Sword would suddenly NOT be in first-iteration Link's possession. This can be argued around, of course.

4. The split timeline may be a fact. It doesn't mean it's the best argument; it doesn't mean that it's flawlessly executed. Be that as it may, The Zol stands correct; the details aren't important. However, this then means that canon isn't as canon as many people try to make it out to be.

5. Song of Storms pwns everything.

The end.

Edited by The Missing Link, 06 April 2007 - 12:05 AM.


#21 BourgeoisJerry

BourgeoisJerry

    Apprentice

  • Members
  • 118 posts

Posted 06 April 2007 - 01:42 AM

1. In Ocarina of Time, Zelda probably intended to send the Master Sword back in time with Link. Whether or not it could go back in time (a la the escalator argument) is neither here nor there. Because she is sending Link back in time... and because she intends for him to place the Master Sword in the Pedestal, she must presume that he'll have it then. Quite arguably, this is also what the developers intended.


Well, whether or not she intended to send it back with him, she definitely intended for it to be in his hands when he arrived. Whether or not she intended to send it back depends on whether or not Zelda actually understands what she was doing.

2. In Ocarina of Time, it is highly unlikely that Zelda would know that some action in the chain would spawn another timeline. At no point in the rest of the series do we see any evidence that the timelines had any influence over one another with the exception of maybe Tingle, and that is likely due to a cameo appearance or that Waker was initially intended to follow a single-timeline course. This bolsters claim #1 that Zelda probably didn't consider that the Master Sword would "already exist" when Link was returned to his time; in all likelihood, she probably thought that the Ocarina of Time would make Link travel in the same fashion as the Master Sword.


I agree that she probably wasn't trying to split the timeline, and probably didn't even know that would be the result. I don't agree that Zelda didn't consider that the Master Sword "already existed," but I don't really care which one of us is right on this part. Zelda's intentions aren't the focus here, the focus here is the fact that the Master Sword remained in the future while Link replaced the Master Sword of the past in the Pedestal of Time.

3. It is perhaps difficult to say that the timeline split after Link returned from the future (after Zelda sent him back). Even if the Master Sword problem is resolved a la the escalator argument, this assumes that Link--on his first iteration through the time travel sequence--should be in the Sacred Realm, waiting for his seven years to finish. He's still in possession of the Master Sword... and for Link to come back to CREATE the split by placing the Master Sword in the pedestal (if the adult timeline copy was left in the future) would mean that the Master Sword would suddenly NOT be in first-iteration Link's possession. This can be argued around, of course.


I wasn't the escalator person, so that wasn't really directed at me. According to me Link and the Master Sword weren't physically sent back, but just did the Majora's Mask thing where Link goes back in time and keeps everything in his possession (namely the Master Sword) and never runs into any of his previous iterations.

4. The split timeline may be a fact. It doesn't mean it's the best argument; it doesn't mean that it's flawlessly executed. Be that as it may, The Zol stands correct; the details aren't important. However, this then means that canon isn't as canon as many people try to make it out to be.


I agree that the details aren't important. I'm mostly just debating this because it comes up so often.

5. Song of Storms pwns everything.


Agreed. I miss the good old days before they gave Ocarina of Time tons of sequels. It was very easy at the time to just say there was a time loop in which the Link that defeated Ganon lived his seven years, opened the Door of Time, pulled the Master Sword, then woke up a bit later after Zelda sent his past self to the past. Oh well, at least they're running out of room to make Ocarina of Time sequels. All we need now is a prequel and we're clear. Well, one can hope anyway.

#22 Vertiboy

Vertiboy

    Crusader

  • Members
  • 405 posts

Posted 06 April 2007 - 02:10 AM

I still think this is just a matter of the creators not really caring about things making absolutely perfect sense, but oh well. I've actually got an answer to that, but I suppose it's going to sound like I'm making up new rules since I didn't mention them before (I didn't think it was necessary.)


That is also what I believe, but I was giving an answer to the question within the Zelda universe.

Also, to respond in general, I really don't think that the split timeline actually came around until TWW. Even though the events of adult OoT are mentioned in the IW legend, we were not told if his seal was retroactive up to a certain point or not (maybe when Link arrived in his childhood), so ALttP could have still followed in the child timeline. It was when Aonuma made the comment about hundreds of years after adult OoT's ending that the idea of a split timeline really came about, which is why I think it started with TWW.

The split timeline may be a fact. It doesn't mean it's the best argument; it doesn't mean that it's flawlessly executed.


I agree with everything there, somewhat. I just want to comment the middle statement about the best arguement. In my opinion, the split is the best arguement simply because games have been made with this premise in mind (TWW, TP). After games started to openly acknowledge the fact that there were multiple Links (at least by OoT, if not ALttP), it automatically became the best arguement.

Let me put it this way: the Star Wars prequel trilogy is, obviously, a prequel to the original trilogy. That is how they were made. The order is Episode I, II, III, IV, V, and VI. That is a fact. What if there was someone out there that thought that the original movies should come before the prequel movies? What if he thought that I, II, III, IV, V, and VI was not the best arguement? While he is intitled to his own opinion, the fact of the matter is that the movies were structured around that order. The same applies to the split timeline. You are intitled to your own opinion, but TWW and TP (and maybe more?) have been specifically structured around the split timeline. Specific details have been put into both games that revolve around that idea ("disappear into the flows of time", Ganondorf was never entered the Sacred Realm in TP's timeline), and saying that another explaination is better than the idea that the games were developed around shows, well, in order to avoid sounding like a douche, a lack of good judgement. It is no different than someone thinking that the prequel movies work best after the originals, in the fact that people are entitled to their own opinions, but there is little reason to think that the wrong solution is better than the official one. I know that you are not denying that the split timeline is a fact. I am just saying that there aren't many good reasons to think that the single timeline would work better with all of the current games when some of them were taylored around the split timeline. If you think that, in general, the single would have been better and that games like TWW and TP shouldn't have even been made, then I feel bad for wasting your time.

I will agree that the execution of the split timeline could have been better, though. However, if Aonuma had chose to go with a single timeline, we'd still have Ganon dying millions of times and mysteriously coming back the next game without explaination and various other plotholes. It's not like he would have executed the single any better. This is Aonuma we are talking about. If fans like us who pay a little more attention to detail were in charge, then we wouldn't have blunders like the Legend of the Fairy or 50 Ganon deaths for every 1 Ganon revival.

#23 The Missing Link

The Missing Link

    Monk

  • Members
  • 396 posts

Posted 06 April 2007 - 02:11 AM

Agreed. I miss the good old days before they gave Ocarina of Time tons of sequels. It was very easy at the time to just say there was a time loop in which the Link that defeated Ganon lived his seven years, opened the Door of Time, pulled the Master Sword, then woke up a bit later after Zelda sent his past self to the past. Oh well, at least they're running out of room to make Ocarina of Time sequels. All we need now is a prequel and we're clear. Well, one can hope anyway.

Finally, a cure to Steadfast Ocarina Syndrome (SOS) shall be found!

I will agree that the execution of the split timeline could have been better, though. However, if Aonuma had chose to go with a single timeline, we'd still have Ganon dying millions of times and mysteriously coming back the next game without explaination and various other plotholes. It's not like he would have executed the single any better. This is Aonuma we are talking about. If fans like us who pay a little more attention to detail were in charge, then we wouldn't have blunders like the Legend of the Fairy or 50 Ganon deaths for every 1 Ganon revival.

Well, if Ganon kept on dying or near-dying in a single timeline, it'd really be more the continuation of same-old same-old. At the very least, it might be much less complicated then. ;)

Or Ganon just had lots of fairies in bottles. XD

Edited by The Missing Link, 06 April 2007 - 02:14 AM.


#24 Crazy Penguin

Crazy Penguin

    Knight

  • Members
  • 729 posts

Posted 06 April 2007 - 07:21 AM

The Master Sword isn't an inconsistency. Zelda sent Link and only Link back in time. The adult Link's Master Sword remained in the adult-timeline and there was already a Master Sword in the child-timeline because it hadn't been moved from the Temple of Time yet.

If anything this explains why the Master Sword is in the Temple of Time in Twilight Princess but in Hyrule Castle in The Wind Waker. In the child-timeline it had not been moved, in the adult timeline it had.

Did they have this all planned out when they released Ocarina of Time? Of course not. But The Wind Waker and Twilight Princess (along with Aonuma's comments about parrallel timelines) show is that the Master Sword remained in each timeline, so we should take it at face value.

Presumably it was Ocarina of Time's adult Zelda herself who had the hidden Master Sword shrine created in Hyrule Castle (she's the only person who could know what Ganon's pig form, as depicted in the stained glass windows, looked like).

#25 Fyxe

Fyxe

    hwhere is fyxckz adn her big boobs/>?

  • Members
  • 7,132 posts
  • Location:England

Posted 06 April 2007 - 08:44 AM

(she's the only person who could know what Ganon's pig form, as depicted in the stained glass windows, looked like)

Small point, but this isn't the case. Ganon escapes from the Dark World before the flood. Those windows could have been made after his escape and before the flood.

#26 Chaltab

Chaltab

    Bright Lord of the Sith

  • Members
  • 1,031 posts

Posted 06 April 2007 - 11:37 AM

I only got analytical of my interpretation as a result of this debate, and most of that is in defense of my interpretation, unless you count me saying that Zelda physically sending the Master Sword back in time would cause there to be two Master Swords in the child timeline and none in the adult timeline as over analyzing.


Isn't the implication that both the Master Sword and Link's body are brought to the Sacred Realm after he draws it the first time? Which means that if Link goes back after he first draws it, the Master Sword is already in the sacred realm and on it's way to the future, or if the timeline does split, the Adult Timeline.

1. In Ocarina of Time, Zelda probably intended to send the Master Sword back in time with Link. Whether or not it could go back in time (a la the escalator argument) is neither here nor there. Because she is sending Link back in time... and because she intends for him to place the Master Sword in the Pedestal, she must presume that he'll have it then. Quite arguably, this is also what the developers intended.


Good point.


2. In Ocarina of Time, it is highly unlikely that Zelda would know that some action in the chain would spawn another timeline. At no point in the rest of the series do we see any evidence that the timelines had any influence over one another with the exception of maybe Tingle, and that is likely due to a cameo appearance or that Waker was initially intended to follow a single-timeline course. This bolsters claim #1 that Zelda probably didn't consider that the Master Sword would "already exist" when Link was returned to his time; in all likelihood, she probably thought that the Ocarina of Time would make Link travel in the same fashion as the Master Sword.


Does the Master Sword itself make Link Travel? I thought it just activated the Pedastal of Time.

4. The split timeline may be a fact. It doesn't mean it's the best argument; it doesn't mean that it's flawlessly executed. Be that as it may, The Zol stands correct; the details aren't important. However, this then means that canon isn't as canon as many people try to make it out to be.

Or it means that the split timeline is one producer's way of making as many Ocarina sequels as possible without thinking about how to tie them together in a single timeline, even at the expense of established canon.

Let me put it this way: the Star Wars prequel trilogy is, obviously, a prequel to the original trilogy. That is how they were made. The order is Episode I, II, III, IV, V, and VI. That is a fact. What if there was someone out there that thought that the original movies should come before the prequel movies? What if he thought that I, II, III, IV, V, and VI was not the best arguement? While he is intitled to his own opinion, the fact of the matter is that the movies were structured around that order. The same applies to the split timeline.


This isn't a good analogy because there is no logic at all in re-ordering the Star Wars films. Each of them makes a clear and obvious progression into the next.

Zelda fans don't have that benefit, but as the Master Sword contradiction proves, the single timeline is more palatable when it comes to certain aspects fo the timeline.

The Master Sword isn't an inconsistency. Zelda sent Link and only Link back in time. The adult Link's Master Sword remained in the adult-timeline and there was already a Master Sword in the child-timeline because it hadn't been moved from the Temple of Time yet.

If anything this explains why the Master Sword is in the Temple of Time in Twilight Princess but in Hyrule Castle in The Wind Waker. In the child-timeline it had not been moved, in the adult timeline it had.


That's not what we see at the end of Ocarina of Time, though. Link and everything on him flies up bodily and vanishes in a flash of grey. The credits roll, and then we see Link back as a child holding the hilt of the Master Sword.

And when was the Master Sword in the Temple of Time in Twilight Princess? (other than when you took it inside, obviously)

Anyway, the ending of Ocarina of Time, especially Zelda's words, makes it clear she wants to send Link and the Master Sword back in time so that he can close the Door of Time. Why would she only send him back in spirit if this is the case?

Edited by Chaltab, 06 April 2007 - 11:41 AM.


#27 The Missing Link

The Missing Link

    Monk

  • Members
  • 396 posts

Posted 06 April 2007 - 11:44 AM

The Master Sword isn't an inconsistency. Zelda sent Link and only Link back in time. The adult Link's Master Sword remained in the adult-timeline and there was already a Master Sword in the child-timeline because it hadn't been moved from the Temple of Time yet.

So the Door of Time is open in the ending. There's pehaps a fifteen second time window in between Link opening the Door of Time and pulling the Master Sword, thus making it not be "moved" from the Temple of Time. I will also add that child Link is in the Temple of Time during this entire spiel, is rather conscious.

So if I understand you correctly, when the split happens, Link would HAVE to return during this brief time span and most likely reinhabit Link's body. However, this is not doing what Zelda intended, for Link to return the Master Sword and close the pathways of time forever. In fact, the path of time was never opened, and I don't believe that's what the ending of Ocarina of Time was trying to say. (This is beside the point that Ganondorf is closely watching Link just outside and is just yearning to grab the Triforce once Link does this... which Link isn't going to do.)

The question that I keep asking--and nobody has explained with enough verbage to make it crystal clear--is WHERE this sword that "already exists" in the child timeline comes from. So tell me if I'm reading between the lines properly or not because that's what it appears you're saying.

If anything this explains why the Master Sword is in the Temple of Time in Twilight Princess but in Hyrule Castle in The Wind Waker. In the child-timeline it had not been moved, in the adult timeline it had.

Never mind that the Temple of Time isn't in the same spot, ne? :

#28 Chaltab

Chaltab

    Bright Lord of the Sith

  • Members
  • 1,031 posts

Posted 06 April 2007 - 12:05 PM

Never mind that the Temple of Time isn't in the same spot, ne? :


Well, there's no proof that it's not. The portal Link goes through could just as easily have led him to the same place the Temple was in Ocarina. But the Master Sword is nowhere near the Temple of Time in Twlight Princess.

As for the point to when Link was sent back, something to consider:

Zelda took the Ocarina away from him and sent him back in time without it. Link was given the Ocarina of Time by Zelda, per Majora's Mask. This implies that Zelda sent him back BEFORE she and Impa fled Hyrule Castle, and hence before he even opened the Door of Time. Yes, the more we analyze this, the less sense it makes.

#29 LionHarted

LionHarted

    Quirky.

  • Members
  • 2,029 posts

Posted 06 April 2007 - 12:08 PM

Well, there's no proof that it's not.


Depends whether you believe that it not being in Castle Town means something. :)

The portal Link goes through could just as easily have led him to the same place the Temple was in Ocarina. But the Master Sword is nowhere near the Temple of Time in Twlight Princess.

Hint: open the map screen while you're there. ;)

#30 Chaltab

Chaltab

    Bright Lord of the Sith

  • Members
  • 1,031 posts

Posted 06 April 2007 - 12:11 PM

Depends whether you believe that it not being in Castle Town means something. :)
Hint: open the map screen while you're there. ;)


How does that prove anything? The Link of TP would have had no idea where the Temple of Time really was. I mean, sure you can argue that the Temple was somehow moved, but why? I suppose the Sacred Grove is a more secure location, but since Link took the Ocarina to Termina, there was no way past the Door of Time.

Edited by Chaltab, 06 April 2007 - 12:13 PM.





Copyright © 2021 Your Company Name