Zelda Twilight Princess Timeline Theory

Sorry if this was already posted, but I just had a thought.

So we all know that Wind Waker is based a hundred years after Ocarina of Time when ADULT Link defeated Ganondorf, right? Well, I've been thinking. Adult Link may have defeated Ganon in the future but he still exists in the past. If you change the past, you alter the future. But if you change the future, it hasn't altered the past because in the past, the event hasn't occured yet. Does anyone understand what I mean? Anways, perhaps Twilight Princess is based on the timeline of YOUNG Link after he goes back in time. Let's stick with young Link going to Termina and all, and does return. If he returns, it does NOT interfere with the Wind Waker Legend of "no hero appearing" because Wind Waker is based off of Adult Link's Timeline and not off of Young Link's. What do you guys think?

So, your proposing that there are actually two split timelines after OoT? Welcome to 1999.

Also, I belive it was already announced that TP takes place in the Adult timeline.

I do believe Aonuma and Miyamoto already stated that this game takes place after the Adult Link ending. It was in an interview, and I can't remember which one.

I personal think it was wrong for Myamoto and Anouma to make the timeline split. I guess it was for more flexibility for the series to unfold with various outcomings, but I believe the whole concept of this split timeline will come out in having Nintendo dig themselves into a bigger whole than they had when people started convincing Myamoto that the Split Timeline was easier to understand. But where I see it, it all just makes things even more complicated in the future for when other LoZ's come out, where will they go in the timeline? Adult or Child??? Then having these two factors officially pronounced, this makes Nintendo have to specify where each new LoZ falls in the now two timelines. I obviously have a big problem with this personally...

All of you split timeline theorist have damned the Zelda saga's time events, not simply having OoT existense to come up with uneeded misunderstandings. The events of OoT can be logically fixed into a linear timeline if Nintendo wished to use another future LoZ (TP) to correct confusions in the previus LoZ (OoT). But you all had to convince Nintendo that there had to be a split for the timeline(s) to work. Flexibility or not, this all has been misguided by simple minded people... I hope Nintendo regrets making the Split Timeline and I know they will in the long run.

There's one timeline people. Get used to it. Some things go beyond the limits of time and space. Such as this. In ALttP, there was a swamp (okay, marsh) south of Link's house in the Light World. In the Dark World, it was exactly the same. Now, in the Light World, there was a desert just to the west of it. In the Dark World, there was a swamp there. Ever wonder about that? Mostly why I say that there's one timeline is because Nintendo just has the simplest way of sorting the games out, and you all had to go and make it hard to do by making up a "dual timeline" theory. It's rubbish, I tell you. In fact, I will even dispel it once and for all during my summer break. Just PM me any existing (and well-known/well-respected) dual timeline theories until then and I will deal with them. Really, you're making it far too hard than it really is.

Back on topic. After Ocarina of Time and Majora's Mask, before Wind Waker. In the interview, they said something along the lines of, "This game takes place several decades after Link defeated Ganon in Ocarina of Time" or something like that. It doesn't imply a dual timeline, but it doesn't really deny it. But, would you really think that Zelda and Link would have just sealed Ganon away in the future and do nothing about it in the past? Really, that's absurd. In fact, I believe that they either had the Seven Wise Men (because NoA screws everything up) seal Ganondorf away, or they waited for seven years and then took care of Ganondorf then. Something like that, but I'm saying that there's no dual timeline.

Originally Posted by white_angel

So we all know that Wind Waker is based a hundred years after Ocarina of Time when ADULT Link defeated Ganondorf, right?

In Wind Waker it said "Centuries have passed."
Centuries implies at least 200 years (I just played through this part in the game(the king says it when you get the master sword), I know it says this)

So we all know that Wind Waker is based a hundred years after Ocarina of Time when ADULT Link defeated Ganondorf, right? Well, I've been thinking. Adult Link may have defeated Ganon in the future but he still exists in the past. If you change the past, you alter the future. But if you change the future, it hasn't altered the past because in the past, the event hasn't occured yet. Does anyone understand what I mean? Anways, perhaps Twilight Princess is based on the timeline of YOUNG Link after he goes back in time. Let's stick with young Link going to Termina and all, and does return. If he returns, it does NOT interfere with the Wind Waker Legend of "no hero appearing" because Wind Waker is based off of Adult Link's Timeline and not off of Young Link's. What do you guys think?

I would also like to give my opinion on this, It takes place in adult life after OoT. And possibly the storyline as you attempt so vigourously to state your opinion about changing the future and such is somewhat correct in my view. Since when you left Hyrule to go Terminia the land of Hyrule was invaded one more like showed in the Wind Waker prologue, possibly the new game TP is about what happened durring those years and Link must correct it? Does anyone believe this may be true?

Originally Posted by MLNick

In Wind Waker it said "Centuries have passed."
Centuries implies at least 200 years (I just played through this part in the game(the king says it when you get the master sword), I know it says this)

No, 200 to 300 years implies a couple of centuries. We are looking at many centuries between OoT and WW, which implies anywhere between 300 to 999 years... Actually Nintendo never really specified if WW took place centuries right after the Great Flood or just starting directly after OoT. If Nintendo specified that the Great Flood came in between the many centuries (much later than TP) then that would mean that the Great Flood does not have to necessarily happen at the end of TP - but maybe foreshadodowed later to come in the sceme of things...

"Centuries" is what I was referring to. It is plural and therefore more than one (hence "at least 200 years") understand? I was merely stating that in the game it said "centuries." "Centuries have passed" could mean that 2 centuries have passed. You can technically be grammatically correct saying "Centuries have passed" and mean only 2.

Its a video game people. Who says time works the same in Hyrule/termina etc. as it does in the real world? Who says that the future can not affect the past? No ones ever confirmed that. Ok, i hear you all shouting, " Shut the **** up, thats impossible". Well is a floating lepricorn (sp?) possible? No, exactly. Zelda takes aspects of our human world, but is not a replica. So why can't the future affect the past? Why can't Link defeat Ganondorf in the future, then return to the past, to find Ganondorf sealed in the sacred realm, with the future being sealed forever and Link himself returning to his former self as a child. It can (Unles im missing something strikingly obvious, which i have a habbit of doing).

As for a timeline preference, i do prefer the single timeline theory, though if Miyamoto confirmed a dual timeline (pressured or not) then i guess this is the true timeline. All in all, the only thing proved by Miyamoto saying this (as he has been wrong in the past) is that there was no timeline theory. And he, along with the Zelda team, have now set about producing a timeline based on their opinions and reasons.

Actually, the great flood could still happen. I honestly doubt all of the stuff upon the mountain tops in WW suddenly appeared out of no-where. It's obviously generations upon generations after the Great Flood happened.

Alttp, has a point.

who says after the defeat of Ganondorf they go back in time to their child hood so Link can have his 7 years back. But because the Sacred Realm was basicly created by the Gods, it can mean what goes in stays in unless released. So even if you go back in time the Sacred Realm has 'taken' the Ganondorf of the past into it.

wait does that make sense? you know, i find time travel and stuff like that a bit confusing at times lol

Originally Posted by Master of ALttP

Just PM me any existing (and well-known/well-respected) dual timeline theories until then and I will deal with them. Really, you're making it far too hard than it really is.

You have yet to deal with mine, which you have seen several times. Your plan to disprove the multi-timeline will fail, mwah hah hah hah. (evil laughter)

Anyway, the idea for the timeline to split after OOT has been around since shortly after the game was first beaten. Yor theory is old, and we've all known about it for a long time.

Originally Posted by silver arrow

You have yet to deal with mine, which you have seen several times. Your plan to disprove the multi-timeline will fail, mwah hah hah hah. (evil laughter)

And you have yet to deal with me. :mad:

But not here. I'm agitated that I have to repeat my arguement in three different posts over and over again. You already can get the idea once.

Originally Posted by silver arrow

Anyway, the idea for the timeline to split after OOT has been around since shortly after the game was first beaten.

The matter brought up by people like you that over thought the scenario and convince Myamoto for a time that it was plausible...it all was totaly unecessary.

There can't be a split timeline theory. If such a timeline existed, there'd have to be more than two splits, since Link travels back and forth at least three times through the progression of the game.

Once when he initially goes forward in time;
once when he goes back to traverse the Bottom of the Well;
once when he enters the Spirit Temple as a child.

All of these events would affect something pertaining to his quest as an adult, and, therefore, there would have to be three "adult timelines." It makes more sense for Link to transcend the entire concept of time, and just lump all the "split timelines" together into one.

And that is why Nintendo never intendo such complicated physics into their production of OoT in the first place. It was people that overthought and overexagerated the matter, is what even made the theory plausible at a time with Myamoto. Such things have been dismissed because of the complicated physics you just brought up.

If anyything WW merges the two timelines together into one by giving references of adult and child events partaking before the events of WW. Those matters I will digress not two mention unless you wan't me to explain why - but I think you know what I'm talking about.

Originally Posted by LOZ Historian

And you have yet to deal with me. :mad:

But not here. I'm agitated that I have to repeat my arguement in three different posts over and over again. You already can get the idea once.



The matter brought up by people like you that over thought the scenario and convince Myamoto for a time that it was plausible...it all was totaly unecessary.

Actually, I was a single timeline theorist until FSA came out, which had Ganon in it, and my single theory had no room for Ganon to just show up and be sealed again.

Miyamoto wasn't convinced by anyone to say there was a split timeline. He was asked about the ending of OOT and he answered that there were two endings. He then said that you could think of TWW being centuries after link beat Ganon as an adult.

Originally Posted by silver arrow

Miyamoto wasn't convinced by anyone to say there was a split timeline. He was asked about the ending of OOT and he answered that there were two endings. He then said that you could think of TWW being centuries after link beat Ganon as an adult.

Then why did he make a split timeline theory? He had to be inspired just a little bit by the persistant fans that announced the matter so that interviewers would bring it up also.

What? He made a whole split timeline theory? Last time I checked (Right before TWW was released), the only thing that could hint to a split timeline that he said was the quote I posted in my last post. If he has I need to read interviews more often (which I already do).

Originally Posted by silver arrow

What? He made a whole split timeline theory? Last time I checked (Right before TWW was released), the only thing that could hint to a split timeline that he said was the quote I posted in my last post. If he has I need to read interviews more often (which I already do).

No, no, no! I did not mean to imply that I recently read an interview having Miyamoto specifacly write out a timeline. I read one of his at www.zeldalegends.com It is probably very old, but the fact remained that he had made one. the theory itself I believe was dismissed, but you can still read it. It is very outdated have you know.