Quote:
Originally Posted by Uncle Meat
I was just pointing out that most of us, including myself, failed to see that the timeline was already split in 2003. Looking back at the interviews of that time, the developers clearly knew this and made constant references to "two endings", which the the community (again, including me) decided to label as inconclusive and ambiguous, only because we were so fond of our own ideas.
So, my point was this: TWW made the split. It was set in a different timeline from MM. The developers even said so. It was only because of the community's inability to accept this new theory, that made the argument last for three extra years. TP just picked up from there. |
Understood.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Uncle Meat
Timetavel in Zelda has and always will be a game play device. And as we all know, Miyamoto and Aonuma aim to entertain instead of delivering a fully consistent storyline.
|
The same could be said about the timeline itself (or a at least parts of it). The same could be said about pretty much everything, geography, enemy design (or enemy evolution, as some use to support thier theories). The basic idea was to explain why the timeline split in the first place, instead of just continuing in a single line. Creating and alternate universe to avoid the grandfather paradox is an exellent explanation as to why the timeline was split. And that's all I wanted to explain.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Uncle Meat
It's because of the same reason as above: If your post gets stickied in a forum of over 40,000 users, you can expect it to attract some traffic. This is why you must choose your words carefully and always indicate that your opinions are not facts. All readers are not as questioning and accept any theory they find interesting. After all you could be spreading false information here.
|
I do use the word "seems", which does indicate that I'm not 100% sure about it. Also, a theory doesn't always need rock-solid evidence to support it, it could also be two theories going hand in hand, one theory supporting another.
I'm not afraid that people will take my every word for thruth. I'm thinking that people who want to get into theorizing that are reading this are at a level where they can critizise the source of info. Otherwise they'll not be good theorists, no matter if they read this or not. Then they'd all be supporters of that "Zelda retrospective part 6 timeline".