The Alternate Timelines Timeline Theory
View Single Post
) [ ]
06-16-2007, 08:42 PM
♥♥♥♥ My Life
Join Date: Mar 2003
Location: Wisconsin, USA
Re: The Alternate Timelines Timeline Theory
All valid arguments. Sure. ganon may noth have been mentioned in
because it was irrelevant to the story. Sure, and there may not even be a timeline at all. Thats true as well.
It's a fact used to argue it;s place in the series. You would figure if
is in fact part of a timeline, in order for it to fit properly the "legends" would have to have SOMETHING to do with the timeline. The fact the legends never mention ganon, a hero wearing a hat, or Zelda herself would lay stakes to the claim that none of it existed, or went into action, prior to
, the manuel does in fact say he killed Ganon and fullfilled a prophecy. What was all that
buisness about. Last I checked, on the side of the split I placed the game, Link could be interpreted as "killing ganon". Technically he was just sealed back into the sacred realm, but if you honestly do the final battle and watch the end it can be interrpreted as Ganon being killed. Again, it's all about how you percieve it. that means, to me, it does NOT have to be a direct sequel to
In terms of
's manuel talking about the "unkown traveler" stuff. You should note that
was the very first Zelda game ever made. The one that started it all. It was not intended to ever become a franchise let alone have any sort of timeline. Naturally this would mean that manual in fact could indeed be false in today's world given the intention of the game upon release.
Ahh yes, the sleeping Zelda theories. Where as I do understand the need of the royal family to have possesion of the entire triforce, there is no reason to belive that prior to
they had never once, in all the years discussed by nintendo and those never mentioned, that they in fact never had it prior to
. One can assume at one point they did, even if it was for a short period in time, in some story we have yet to hear about.
As for the "box" of
being used in arguement of it's placement. ALTHough a valid argument (hard to believe I actually have the original
box still) you could again, assume like I did with
, that the games that followed were made the stuff said in the ones prior via manuals and box's to be somewhat untrue due to the not planning ahead theory. Again, not onjly was Zelda intended tobe the franchise it is today, it was never originally intended to have any sort of storyline at all. It was just... there,happening, with some brief and minor links to the ones before it.
"Aonuma confirmed the split timeline and explained that
are parellel, meaning that
is on the child timeline with
is on the adult timeline."
Can I please get a link to this? If this is true this will infact bring some great revelations I have had about the child timeline. From all I have seen he merely confirmed the timeline was split.
"The Oracles take place in the same timeline, since they have a linked ending, and that cannot happen if the two are on seperate timelines. Also, the Oracles must come after a game that can lead to the Royal Family being in possession of the entire Triforce.
are the only two games that the Oracles can logically take place afterwards."
Or, there is a game yet to be released that will explain it. In a never ending series like Zelda, I have to always keep my mind open. Like I said though if
is in fact in the child timeline then my entire theory will be reworked.
actually became a key part to why I put an oracle game in here.
I also felt with the oracle games, even though they are linked, was a perfect reason for why they were indeed at the end. To be the "end" of the timeline. It would "link" the two timelines back together to thus create the end. Much like there was one game to begin it all.
My point is, the reason you and I are here making up ideas for a timeline is because it was never planned out as they went along. Meaning, that since nintendo now claims there is one, many of the older information that is not included with the game itself may indeed be wrong. This includes, box's, manual's. etc. This is through the fault of nintendo. they never thought it through.
This is just one of my theories. It was strong based around
being in the adult side, and I suppose I used too much of hte video in deciding how to present it.
I am a very strong believers in the Zelda sleeping from
being the true "legend" of Zelda and thus the event of her being put to sleep is one of the VERY FIRST things to happen.
to me simply happened "many years after" this event. Maybe even hundreds. I think the event predates
and even with a better arguement for
being the first game, the story or event itself COULD predate even
. Thus, anything in my theory BEFORE
, before Link, Before ganon was even around, before all that jazz could in fact be a point where the royal family protected the triforce as a whole and it remained that way until the Prince got selfish. Ganon then enters the scene but much later after she is already in her endless sleep. The story potentionally could fit after
, but it's much harder to stick it in there because the family really never had the entire triforce inbetween
. So I assume the story happened in a time long before
, hell maybe for the supposed time of Bastian.
And Yes, Bastian is from a very popular fanfic that just decided to put a name to the man in the legend mentioned in
. It's actually a really good read but is irrelevant. It's just become a common case for people to call him bastion. Most people tend to understand what were referring to. I think the argument of no hat is more so the cause of claim then a name. Hero of this, hero of that, really means nothing. Obviously "hero of time" is reffering back to
and such, but it's just a name the "people" place upon a hero.
Sig created by Liah
View Public Profile
Visit Nathanial Rumphol-Janc's homepage!
Find all posts by Nathanial Rumphol-Janc