Quote:
Originally Posted by LOZ Historian
I suppose your welcome... You people are no ordinary Splitist are you??? You guys have to be from Game FAQ's.
|
Oooh, TAKE IT BACK!! hehe j/k.
Quote:
Originally Posted by LOZ Historian
See, that does not make sense to me. Why would you go by an outdated piece of info as opposed to new info??? thats like using an encyclopeia with a copyright of 1995 when you have other way way way more updated versins to cover new history and info that was addd to the latter or rediscovered as meaing soemthing else from what it was once thought as.
|
I agree with you on that statement, however, you have to understand we are trying to post ideas that cover all the areas of reasoning behind the common Zelda Theorist. We aren't saying which ones we think are right necessarily, we are just stating them all, or at least trying to.
Edit:
Quote:
Originally Posted by LOZ Historian
Okaaay.... but I have yet to see in game quotes, non - personal interpretations of interview quotes, and/or visual aids from within the games to explain a base to the child timeline, telling what REALLY happens IF their are altered historical events to come after Link returns from the future. MM seems to be the only thing that clings on to giving the Split Timeline Theory some plausibility in my eyes.
|
MM undoubtably is the strongest hint of a split-timeline. That, and the climatic ending of
OoT as Child Link. It is obvious that MM comes after
OoT in the child Timeline. It is also obvious from developer quotes that
TWW comes after the ending of
OoT in the perspective of the Adult Timeline. It is true that that quote can be interpreted as different points in time rather than different timelines, but even so, the idea of the events in the Future
OoT story remained was accentuated in the interview and I believe Nintendo designed
TWW to carry on through Ganon being sealed within the Sacred Realm.
As for the other games, if MM strongly hints at the games coming in different timelines, than the book has been opened as a possibility for other games. I understand,
LoZ Historian, where you are coming from when you say that you are tired of people using the Split-Timeline theory as a cheap escape plan or "easy-way-out" for timeline theorizing, but that is not how I see it. If a game makes more sense to me going in a split-timeline, than I will put it in a split-timeline, even if I can put "a little more work" into it and conceive up a timeline that agrees that everything is Linear. After all, I acknowledge the UWM timeline as a working theory that cannot be disproven. If that is your goal, then congratulations, you succeeded. However, this goal can be met several different ways, and I believe the Split-Theory is a means of getting there just as much as the Linear-Timeline is.