Did I say '03?
I meant '05.
But that's beside the point.
The split timeline was not confirmed in '03. In fact, the only thing that was confirmed in '03 was that Adult Link did indeed defeat Ganon, and that that was not erased by the child ending of OoT. That the two endings were "parallel" was not confirmed until December of '06.
I see a lot of typing, but I don't see any quotes proving what you say.
Anyway, though the quotes from then clearly prove the split timeline back then, as well, in specific detail, this debate is about why someone would interpret the '02-'03 quotes to be inconsistent with the '06 quote when that clearly contradicts how the human mind unconsciously works. As I have proved with my kickball example, if the mind will subconsciously interpret two quotes to compliment one another if they can. The complements from '02, '03, and '06 can compliment each other, so I see no reason to adopt the interpretations that contradict one another, unless you are simply trying to be a thorn in the sides of those who are simply reiterating the official timeline to others who do not know.
I have no problem with people such as yourself who believe that the single timeline would have worked better than the split timeline back before games were made around the concept of the split, but I do have a problem when people try to pass it off as if it still has a chance at being official, especially after TWW and TP came out. People who still believe that the single is correct have a similar mindset to those who believe that the Holocaust never happened. Obviously, the Zelda timeline doesn't impact the world as much as the Holocaust did, which is why I said that it is a similar mindset, not the same. In both cases, there is all kind of evidence against a certain side (single timeline, Holocaust was an elaborate hoax), yet people still choose ignorance and old beliefs over hard, direct facts. I usually word some phrases wrong and accidentally insult people, but this is not one of those times. If you believe that the single timeline is the official timeline, then you are ignorant.
Even if you don't, and you merely think that the single timeline would have been a less complex explaination at one time, don't bring it here without clearly saying that is what you wish to discuss. This board is about the Zelda storyline and what is possible, not the Zelda storyline and what was possible. Yes, I agree that if the creators decided to stick with a single timeline, things may have been less complex. To be honest, though, the time in which Aonuma can say, "I lied when I said there was a split timeline. It's single," is long gone. Stop debating about the single timeline as if it were a fact. Yes, the split timeline is not perfect, but the single is a lot worse, especially if you figure TWW and TP into that equation. Ganon has been killed 5 times. He has only been revived in-game once, and he was killed shortly afterwards (that is included in the total of 5 deaths). No mention of a Ganon revival in a backstory has been made. How exactly would you address that? "He just keeps coming back, but nobody knows how. We can write fan fiction about it, but we can't actually prove it as a fact." What about the giant leap of faith that it takes to make the TWW -> ALttP connection? "Yes, Hyrule, the Triforce, the Master Sword, and Ganon himself were lost at the end of TWW, but then everything comes back and goes back to normal, just as if the flood never happened. That's our explaination." People who believe that a single timeline involving all games post-TWW would be less complicated than a split timeline clearly don't think everything through.
If I were to guess, off of the top of my head, the split timeline has just as many plotholes as the single timeline. If you want to sit down and count every single one of them out, be my guest, but it is irritating when people say that the single timeline has way less plotholes than the split.
That is why I am done replying to this particular thread. It seems pointless to me to talk about what could have been when we know what is official. I regret dignifying this thread with a response in the first place, and I also regret starting the thread "Why split, Aonma?" (which, BTW, I haven't visited in a while, except to post one sarcastic remark).
Edited by Vertiboy, 09 April 2007 - 05:06 PM.
