A Helpful Guide to Understanding Others' Timelines, and Revealing Yours.

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.

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 Why would you go by an outdated piece of info as opposed to new info???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:

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.

Originally Posted by Froboy

Oooh, TAKE IT BACK!! hehe j/k.

Hmmm. This was not meant as an offense. I just know you gys are newbies and I know Game FAQ's is like "Splitist Haven" over their.

Originally Posted by Froboy

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.

Understood. I am just critical of all the mathmatics used to back up the Split. I would hope that my Split Timeline version could be used to not have to resort to such complicated melarky.

I am creating an article series tha can benefit BOTH Linearist and Splitist (Imagine that... ). But don't think I am growing soft to you Splitist! For some reason I see more of a potential from ou guys and not that common num ways other Splitist have used in the past with their theorising.

Originally Posted by LOZ Historian

Understood. I am just critical of all the mathmatics used to back up the Split. I would hope that my Split Timeline version could be used to not have to resort to such complicated melarky.

I am creating an article series tha can benefit BOTH Linearist and Splitist (Imagine that... ). But don't think I am growing soft to you Splitist! For some reason I see more of a potential from ou guys and not that common num ways other Splitist have used in the past with their theorising.

I thank you for your kind words. I will not say that you are growing soft to me, but I do appreciate your taking the time to include Splittests as a plausable theory rather than a complete mockery to the world of theorizing.

Originally Posted by Froboy

I thank you for your kind words. I will not say that you are growing soft to me, but I do appreciate your taking the time to include Splittests as a plausable theory rather than a complete mockery to the world of theorizing.

The Split Timeline would be more believable if the originators of the theroy did not muck it up with stupid time relavency theorums, like they were some kind of rocket scientist. I can build a supportive and stable Split Timeline and not be bothered with it because it will be backed up with a balence between generalised canon and interviews quotes. I Think its a bad move when Spliitst make up events of the altered time frame - which is usually the base work of the child timeline. You have to have facts to outweigh assumptions. Therfore, the FS series actually helps the split in these areas of giving LOGICAL base work to the beginning of the Child Timeline.

Yet, I feel the Split is dangerous to the consistency of further games that would be released in the Zelda Saga. The Timeline would be sorted out in a orderly fashion for a time being with a Split, but I do not believe they would stay consistent with being clear on WHICH timeline a new game would go after this point of orgaization in a Split Timeline Theory. Thus we could end up in a bigger mess of confusion than what we had with Nintendo trying to fix the series into one line. At least in one timeline, you will know where the continutiy flows from point A to point B. And then arguements become less frequent and other mysteries of Zelda become more visable than what they were when their was no offical timeline. If Nintendo wishes to make a Split as their ofical format, so be it. But I will be the first one to point out when it fails to uphold steady consitency in the progression of it future released titles.

Originally Posted by LOZ Historian

The Split Timeline would be more believable if the originators of the theroy did not muck it up with stupid time relavency theorums, like they were some kind of rocket scientist. I can build a supportive and stable Split Timeline and not be bothered with it because it will be backed up with a balence between generalised canon and interviews quotes. I Think its a bad move when Spliitst make up events of the altered time frame - which is usually the base work of the child timeline. You have to have facts to outweigh assumptions. Therfore, the FS series actually helps the split in these areas of giving LOGICAL base work to the beginning of the Child Timeline.

Yet, I feel the Split is dangerous to the consistency of further games that would be released in the Zelda Saga. The Timeline would be sorted out in a orderly fashion for a time being with a Split, but I do not believe they would stay consistent with being clear on WHICH timeline a new game would go after this point of orgaization in a Split Timeline Theory. Thus we could end up in a bigger mess of confusion than what we had with Nintendo trying to fix the series into one line. At least in one timeline, you will know where the continutiy flows from point A to point B. And then arguements become less frequent and other mysteries of Zelda become more visable than what they were when their was no offical timeline. If Nintendo wishes to make a Split as their ofical format, so be it. But I will be the first one to point out when it fails to uphold steady consitency in the progression of it future released titles.

I guess this is where my topic of the thread comes in. We are most likely looking for a different genre of timeline idea. According to this statement, you seem to be looking for a timeline that is set to easily adapt to future games. It may focus on what Nintendo intended and is intending to do rather than what they resulted in, the game we have today. Don't take this the wrong way, this is a popular type and the fact of the matter is, it just isn't what I go for in a timeline. I try to aim for where the games fall, including smaller details that other types of timelines often pass as easter eggs, or unintended accidents. Now, I'm not gonna hold to this for all matters, including the bizaar ideas that Link can actually glitch his way to victory within the storyline. Obviously, I have to use a little discernment as what is actually in the game and what was accidentally in the game, but nonetheless, you get the idea. One of your reasonings behind not supporting split-theories in your own, is that it doesn't go over very well with you concerning a lasting theory as much as your linear one is. I'm just trying to include the games that are out now with what little information we know of PH and nothing more. Understand where I am getting at? Your reasons for not having a split-timeline doesn't affect me because I have different views at what a timeline should be, whereas my reasonings won't affect you because you have different views over what the timeline should be. Neither view is incorrect, they are simply different views.

Originally Posted by Froboy

I guess this is where my topic of the thread comes in. We are most likely looking for a different genre of timeline idea. According to this statement, you seem to be looking for a timeline that is set to easily adapt to future games. It may focus on what Nintendo intended and is intending to do rather than what they resulted in, the game we have today. Don't take this the wrong way, this is a popular type and the fact of the matter is, it just isn't what I go for in a timeline. I try to aim for where the games fall, including smaller details that other types of timelines often pass as easter eggs, or unintended accidents.

And this is what sets about.The Split Timeline shall destroy what I seek as hope, which is opposite of what fullfills your hope. And THIS is what makes Splitist and Linearist mortal enemies.

Originally Posted by Froboy

One of your reasonings behind not supporting split-theories in your own, is that it doesn't go over very well with you concerning a lasting theory as much as your linear one is. I'm just trying to include the games that are out now with what little information we know of PH and nothing more. Understand where I am getting at? Your reasons for not having a split-timeline doesn't affect me because I have different views at what a timeline should be, whereas my reasonings won't affect you because you have different views over what the timeline should be. Neither view is incorrect, they are simply different views.

I know what you seek in what the timeline should be. That the Split is the solution to easinginconsitanices with the info that is not directly handed to us. A Linear timeline only needs to be fixed between the timeline series to form, abiding by its own laws of legend and lore until some game connects the series together to make sense of a timeline.

If Nintendo wishes to be lazy, so be it. They have not done any good as far as making the timeline more clear to us. They'll just jumble it up in the end with two.

Originally Posted by LOZ Historian

And this is what sets about.The Split Timeline shall destroy what I seek as hope, which is opposite of what fullfills your hope. And THIS is what makes Splitist and Linearist mortal enemies.



I know what you seek in what the timeline should be. That the Split is the solution to easinginconsitanices with the info that is not directly handed to us. A Linear timeline only needs to be fixed between the timeline series to form, abiding by its own laws of legend and lore until some game connects the series together to make sense of a timeline.

If Nintendo wishes to be lazy, so be it. They have not done any good as far as making the timeline more clear to us. They'll just jumble it up in the end with two.

I in no way think of Linearists to be my mortal enemies. Also, I do not believe in the Split for easiness or laziness' sake. I believe the Split because, to me, it's the most logical explination of what OoT set up. I have yet to attack a Linear point of view, as I can tell that it is already widely accepted as a stable theory. My goal here, is to get you to acknowledge that a Split-Timeline can be just as stable for whatever reasons, and that it is not flat out wrong, as opposed to you coming up with reasons as to why it should be wrong.

You yourself said that we can never disprove each other. So why do you deny a Splittists viewpoint on the situation as valid? Can't both be equally correct? And I'm not saying equally lined up with what NIntendo wants, or equally lined up with allowing for future games, or equally lined up with the current games only, or equally lined up with the most logical explinations of the supernatural that we ourselves can't personally know. I'm just saying equally lined up in general. All I'm asking is that you acknowledge that Splittists way of the timeline is just as much a theory as Linearists.

Originally Posted by Froboy

I in no way think of Linearists to be my mortal enemies. Also, I do not believe in the Split for easiness or laziness' sake. I believe the Split because, to me, it's the most logical explination of what OoT set up. I have yet to attack a Linear point of view, as I can tell that it is already widely accepted as a stable theory. My goal here, is to get you to acknowledge that a Split-Timeline can be just as stable for whatever reasons, and that it is not flat out wrong, as opposed to you coming up with reasons as to why it should be wrong.

You yourself said that we can never disprove each other. So why do you deny a Splittists viewpoint on the situation as valid? Can't both be equally correct? And I'm not saying equally lined up with what NIntendo wants, or equally lined up with allowing for future games, or equally lined up with the current games only, or equally lined up with the most logical explinations of the supernatural that we ourselves can't personally know. I'm just saying equally lined up in general. All I'm asking is that you acknowledge that Splittists way of the timeline is just as much a theory as Linearists.

I will ONLY acknowledge the Split Timeline Theory if someone can revolutionise how it is theorised upon without time travel alteration theorums. I have a Split Timeline as you know, so I do acknowledge what I hate to some degree. Their are just things I preceive in the future that just don't look good to me, and that is my fear for the Zelda Saga's timeline. Fans should not have to question the placement of the next game after the other if Nintendo has established a timeline to be the forever flowing basis for the series to go off of until the end. I don't know about you, but I don't want to hear arguements in the future about which timeline a game goes on when nintendo is not clear through teir interviews. I want consistency and so do you, but it can be easily kept track of with one line than two because Nintendo does not care about storyline as it is.

Either theory s correct as of now. But rest assured when PH comes out, or maybe TP's sequal, then we shall see what the timeline's true fate is.

And LoZH, I want you to realize I'm just barely a Splittist. MM is the only game I theorize that is split off from the rest of the games, and it is the only game I place on the child timeline. So I totally agree with you that all other games are solid on a single timeline, and if you read into my theory you will find that the game's backstories and histories are indeed dependant on one another to make a full picture. I don't see any other game ever being made to go on the child timeline after MM (unless they state so specifically), because it begins and ends in termina, and whatever happened in Hyrule happened on one timeline. So your arguement that the splittist movement is splintering the theorist movement really just slides off my shoulders. I totally agree with you, all games (except MM) go on the same timeline.

Originally Posted by quick_silver20

And LoZH, I want you to realize I'm just barely a Splittist. MM is the only game I theorize that is split off from the rest of the games, and it is the only game I place on the child timeline. So I totally agree with you that all other games are solid on a single timeline, and if you read into my theory you will find that the game's backstories and histories are indeed dependant on one another to make a full picture. I don't see any other game ever being made to go on the child timeline after MM (unless they state so specifically), because it begins and ends in termina, and whatever happened in Hyrule happened on one timeline. So your arguement that the splittist movement is splintering the theorist movement really just slides off my shoulders. I totally agree with you, all games (except MM) go on the same timeline.

................................

[bangs head on computer table over and over again and then laughs]

The only other game that would give base to the child timeline is FS mind you because of what Aonuma said.

Huh? what did he say? He olny said FS was the first game in the series. There is no way it can come after MM. (maybe I'm misunderstanding you)

Originally Posted by quick_silver20

Huh? what did he say? He olny said FS was the first game in the series. There is no way it can come after MM. (maybe I'm misunderstanding you)

No. I was just saying it helps the child timeline have base, with FS being the first LoZ in Hyrule to start off that timeline. The ending of the OoT child event is only a portion of a skewed legend that no longer has lore to it and MM only a fraction of this in the new timeline. For all we know, these events are passed off as myth and do not cater any fancy ending in the child timeline but just that, MM. So their is no Hero of Time reference in the child timeline because that is his aquired title in a future that is now obselete. Hyrule is at peace, and nothing more at the end of the OoT (child). Period.

FS sets the pace to start a new ine of LoZ coming off the child IF you are the kind of Splitist that believes that no LoZ's can come after WW and PH in another land called Hyrule.

Originally Posted by LOZ Historian

FS sets the pace to start a new ine of LoZ coming off the child IF you are the kind of Splitist that believes that no LoZ's can come after WW and PH in another land called Hyrule.

Hehe... did you add that IF in there because I threw you off that one time agreeing with a post flood Hyrule?

Originally Posted by Froboy

Hehe... did you add that IF in there because I threw you off that one time agreeing with a post flood Hyrule?

I don't care what I said. If it was because what you said (which I can't remember) then no. I am only going back on what I have seen other splitist do in their theories because they refuse to put any LoZ's after WW and PH in the adult timeline.

Originally Posted by LOZ Historian

I don't care what I said. If it was because what you said (which I can't remember) then no. I am only going back on what I have seen other splitist do in their theories because they refuse to put any LoZ's after WW and PH in the adult timeline.

I actually misread what you said the first time, heh. I agree with a post Flood Hyrule. Sorry for the misunderstanding. Anyway.... I've kinda forgotten what we are talking about.

Since this thread is about the different observations of what a timeline should be to the theorist, I was hoping, if we are finished with whatever we are talking about, go through the different types. This is a job that both Splittists and Linearists can work together on, because it is not about what types of theories are superior, but rather, what types of theories exist. I would much appreciate it if LoZ Historian stayed on the subject. You have a lasting impression on several members here and your input would be beneficial. However, I don't want to obligate you to anything. Aside from that, anyone who is reading this can jump in.

The types I stated in my launch post were:

Original Nintendo Timeline (Original Intent Timeline)
Current Game Line-up Timeline
Open Ended Timeline
Final Product Timeline

(You can read about them on the first post)

And I add...

Nonexistant Timeline - the theories that live with the statement that the games are not meant to go together in the same timeline and that they don't go together in the same timeline.

QuickSilver, I was looking back at one of your first posts about splitting "Final Product Timeline" into two separate types. I was confused back when you said it but I think I know what you meant now. The Original Intent Timeline is what I meant for the Original Nintendo Timeline to be. So... I kinda already have it split in a way. I actually like the name Original Intent rather than Original Nintendo as I had it. Which brings me to one more point. These were just random titles. I will be happy to change their names if they make more sense, starting with Original Intent Timeline.

Originally Posted by Froboy

Since this thread is about the different observations of what a timeline should be to the theorist, I was hoping, if we are finished with whatever we are talking about, go through the different types. This is a job that both Splittists and Linearists can work together on, because it is not about what types of theories are superior, but rather, what types of theories exist. I would much appreciate it if LoZ Historian stayed on the subject. You have a lasting impression on several members here and your input would be beneficial. However, I don't want to obligate you to anything. Aside from that, anyone who is reading this can jump in.

I have to decline. I don't think Splitist and Linearist should work together unless they can get over which timeline they think is superior. I believe they should just ignore each other, and develope their own ideal timelines for their own field that is alien to the other field of study. Splitist and Linearist need to keep a distance peacfully or tensions will arise if they don't.

The purpous of theorising is to find the best plausble answes. Splitist should have their own, and Linearist should have their own, keeping separate from each other in debate with Splitist vs. Linearist debates.

I am much obliged by your comments, but I am working on an article series that can benefit my point. These articles will benefit botyh Linearist and Splitist, but they are meant to keep the two parties of theorist separate and define the solid fact that the timeline can wither be Split or Linear. (50/50 chance). And I have been intending on makng these articls so that Splitist don';t get carried away and attack the Linearist views here at ZU.

Originally Posted by Froboy

The types I stated in my launch post were:

Original Nintendo Timeline (Original Intent Timeline)
Current Game Line-up Timeline
Open Ended Timeline
Final Product Timeline

This is funny. I have a plan like this but they don't combine Splitist and Lineaist views in each article. I have different plans than this, but I have to commend what you have planned. I may be able to help you here and their but I am much to busy with my own Council.

Originally Posted by LOZ Historian

I have to decline. I don't think Splitist and Linearist should work together unless they can get over which timeline they think is superior. I believe they should just ignore each other, and develope their own ideal timelines for their own field that is alien to the other field of study. Splitist and Linearist need to keep a distance peacfully or tensions will arise if they don't.

The purpous of theorising is to find the best plausble answes. Splitist should have their own, and Linearist should have their own, keeping separate from each other in debate with Splitist vs. Linearist debates.

I am much obliged by your comments, but I am working on an article series that can benefit my point. These articles will benefit botyh Linearist and Splitist, but they are meant to keep the two parties of theorist separate and define the solid fact that the timeline can wither be Split or Linear. (50/50 chance). And I have been intending on makng these articls so that Splitist don';t get carried away and attack the Linearist views here at ZU.



This is funny. I have a plan like this but they don't combine Splitist and Lineaist views in each article. I have different plans than this, but I have to commend what you have planned. I may be able to help you here and their but I am much to busy with my own Council.

I understand if you are too busy, and I of course respect your decision if you don't want to help out here, but the conversation is based on what theories exist rather than which are more important. Again, no pressure. Good luck on your article series.

Anyone else up for adding some genres of timelines?

...Level 3. Theory

Around this level of theories, people begin to create in their minds a hierarchy of sources, deciding what, in their minds, is most important to the timeline development. Several sources to take note are
a. In-Game Quotes
b. Game Manual
c. The Game Arcs (AlttP/LoZ/AoL)
d. Geography: physical existence of certain landmarks at certain times (i.e., Hyrule Castle, Lake Hylia, Gerudo Desert, Spectacle Rock, Death Mountain, The Coliseum)
e. The Tracking of the Royal Family (whether there is a king, who protects them, do they have the triforce, whether they are Hylian or Human, or mixed blood)
f. Races
g. Language
h. Geography: The physical geography of the land itself, the placement of the landmarks in the map (also the way that the timeline works around the flood)
i. Developer Quotes
j. The State of the Triforce
k. The State of Ganon
l. The State of The Master Sword and the Four Sword
m Cameos (characters that physically appear in multiple games (Tingle, the Windfish, the Twinrova)
n. Recurring Items
o. Game Guide/walkthroughs

......


In this level, gamers typically ignore any translation mistakes or changes that took a toll on the game during its development life. Theorists see the difference between what sounds cool in a timeline and what makes sense in a timeline. Although the difference is made, they tend to stick with what sounds cool at first, trying to make sense of it later.


Types of Theories

Aside from the different levels of theorizing, different people strive to find their timelines for different reasons. I will post in a similar way these different types that I have come to know.

Miyamoto's Original Timeline

This is the theory that Miyamoto sat up one day and decided to make a new universe called Hyrule. Among other things he created before he even decided it should be a console game was create a timeline for all the games, complete with legends, interesting characters, wars and thriving kingdoms. He may not have hashed out every detail about everything, such as the title for each of these future games, and he may not have created every character at once, but what he did do was something equivalent to JR Tolkien's Lord of the Rings: crate a universe complete with nations and languages and regions and a deep history, and every game will fill in the blanks as they are made.

Nintendo's Original Timeline

This is the theory that after about the third game, AlttP was made, a master document was made in which all the ancient legends would be explained in games that were yet to made and all future events would coincide with the games that came before. This theory will strike up the most in debates, because it is often stated to not exist. However, whether or not Nintendo truly has a timeline in their heads, the attempt to develop a timeline that would resemble their hypothetical one is very common. Assuming for a second that Nintendo does truly think about the timeline and how all of the games will eventually refer back to each other, this type of timeline people try to create is at best trying to be exactly as Nintendo states it. These theories often disregard small details because they believe that Nintendo didn't mean it that way. Similarly, they may accentuate what others may declare useless details because they believe that Nintendo meant something specific with it. Developer quotes are very important to creating a timeline like this. I may be wrong, but I'm pretty sure that, with the most up-to-date developer quotes, the timeline goes like this:
TMC>FS>FSA>OoT>MM>TP>TWW>PH>ALttP>LA>LoZ>AoL
The Oracle games do not have a developer quote placement if I am not mistaken.

Original Intent Timeline

This timeline probably gives the most credit to the developers of the individual games. Most people in this genre of thinking believe that Miyamoto has only an inkling of what he's doing and gives the license of timeline placement over to the director of the individual games. This makes the games a dynamic, chaotic, ever changing thing until the first line of dialogue is made in the original Japanese, and by that time it is firmly set where the game will go in the series timeline and no future game or information will ever change that placement.

Open-ended Timeline

This theory is the exact opposite of the Current Game Line-up Timeline. It focuses on allowing for future games to easliy fit in their timeline. Theorists with this strategy attempt to make a timeline that will last through the games. A lot of these types of timelines use the Split-Timeline theory because it allows more freedom with new games. Although this can be looked at as an easy way out, if this type of timeline is your goal at creating a timeline, the Split-Timeline is a very wise decision to follow.

Current Game Line-up Timeline

This theory is focused on all the games that are currently out and nothing more. Imagine if Nintendo were to some reason all of a sudden pull the plug on all things Zelda. Although a horrific image for all of us, try to think about what would happen. This type of theory assumes this hypothetical situation and tries to develop a timeline that sensibly ties in all the games together without leaving any holes for future games. This type of theory usually calls for more speculation than usual and also leans towards the fan-fic side of things, attempting to make a good story.

The Fanfic Timeline
This type of timeline usually concentrates on a favored section of the timeline, though many complete fanfic timelines exist. This uses hard evidence from the game that is lower on the hierarchy of evidence, quotes from game guides (not the manuals), the use of symbols, the similarities between themes and geography, and these people attempt to explain aspects of the histories that are left open ended by Nintendo. They make connections where no higher empirical evidence exists in order to paint for themselves a more complete picture of the Zelda Universe as a whole. While most creative and usually very enjoyable to read, many hardcore theorists; ones that use only the higher empirical evidence and even ignore some facts from lower empirical sources, shun these types of timelines, and at times these types of theorists receive the most heat for their timeline of anyone.

Time Travel Theorem Timeline

This theory fosters the opinion that developers really don't know what they're doing, and that the timeline's very definition changes with each passing game. Purporters of this timeline theory look to OoT for reference to a game completely changing the image of the timeline, and believe it will happen again in a future release. This represents the more liberal side of Splittist theorists and seeks to shed light on a timeline that consists of time travel and alternate dimension theorems to make sense of a series of games that they say is relying on the mechanics of relativity and the space and time continuum to make a solid foundation for a series of entertaining games.

Final Product Timeline

This theory focuses on the final product that you have in your homes and play on your own entertainment systems and nothing more. Imagine the Original Nintendo Timeline as a Jig-saw puzzle with many blank pieces. When Nintendo thinks up a new game, they take out one of those blank pieces and paints the game on there, placing it back down into the Original Nintendo Timeline. This theory is different, however, because the original thoughts of Nintendo is not what is portrayed on our TVs. Miyamoto himself said that game play comes first, and then the storyline is focused on. Think back to before Nintendo places their jig-saw puzzle piece of a game back into the final puzzle. When Nintendo begins to focus on the game play mechanics, they change, not the image of the piece, but the very shape of it, ultimately changing the storyline. This theory tries to develop a timeline that connects the games' final stages rather than what Nintendo had in mind. Although what Nintendo thinks about the storyline is important, whatever changes they make to put game play first, changes the storyline. If there were no drastic changes, than this timeline isn't much different from others, however, the argument over whether or not Nintendo designed it to be a certain way doesn't apply to these theorists.

Latest Info Timeline

This type of theory states that the timeline is only known as a whole by the newest information. Based on the fact that the developers are constantly changing their minds, the placement of the games, therefore are in a constant state of flux, and the entire order may be shifted by an element told in a single game.

The Consumer's timeline

This theory uses the game as a final product to determine where it should fit into the timeline. It differs from the previous because it is firmly believed by this type of theorist that the game had no placement before it was finished. These theorists generally believe that the timeline as an entity does not exist in the minds of the developers and that they generally state that there is a timeline to satiate the masses. These theorists believe that a submitted timeline or some combination thereof from consumer theorists will be finalized as the official Nintendo timeline.

Timeline Agnostics/Atheists

Obviously, this section is for people who don't know or don't care, or don't think there is a timeline at all. Included in these ranks are those who think that each game is a retelling of the same story, and once in a while a new character is added that wasn't mentioned before, and that understanding every game will give you 'the True Legend of Zelda.'

Resolution

Again, as I stated at the beginning, this is not law. I'm just trying to get people to see why I think a lot of our arguments never see an end. Too often people with different concepts of what a timeline should represent are arguing over something, and different proofs mean different things to different people. I guess, one thing we could do is come up with our own personal timeline for each type of timeline. If we can realize these specific differences, then maybe we can help each other understand where we are going with our timelines. Please, tell me what you think and feel free to add or change statements I made in replies. Also, I would like to hear what people tend to base their timelines on

So here you are Froboy, here's what I think, and I pulled stuff around a little bit to make it go on a continuum from conservative to liberal thinking. I'm pretty sure you won't like some of the things I've said, but be extra careful that you aren't just pulling against some of the stranger ideas that some people have put on this site. I think I've included just about everyone, even some that in my consideration shouldn't be theorists at all, but everyone has a place now.

Yes, very nice job. To be honest I didn't expect this much progress so fast from my last post.

As you said, I have a couple of things that I would like to point out, but they aren't necessarily about the individual theories but the post as a whole. Be sure to include a statement clearifying that Timelines often don't fall under one tag alone, but many, and that concepts of one can be mixed with concepts of another to make one's own philosophy, but the possiblities for the different genres are unending, making it impossible for us to describe the in-between philosphies. Also, you might want to rescroll through your post and get rid of any statements that might sound the slightest bit biased. If a particular type of theorist tends to believe a certain thing, be sure you use terms like, "They tend to believe that" or, "They usually agree with..." rather than saying things like, "They believe" or "They agree that...", understand? You did a very good job, and I couldn't see anything specifically that posed a big problem. Some of them seemed to be really close, and the things that made them different didn't necessarily agree with it's genre title. In my conclusion, this is a very nice addition to the conversation, but we still lack a finished document. Thank you though, this is beneficial.

Originally Posted by quick_silver20

Current Game Line-up Timeline

This theory is focused on all the games that are currently out and nothing more. Imagine if Nintendo were to some reason all of a sudden pull the plug on all things Zelda. Although a horrific image for all of us, try to think about what would happen. This type of theory assumes this hypothetical situation and tries to develop a timeline that sensibly ties in all the games together without leaving any holes for future games. This type of theory usually calls for more speculation than usual and also leans towards the fan-fic side of things, attempting to make a good story.

The Fanfic Timeline
This type of timeline usually concentrates on a favored section of the timeline, though many complete fanfic timelines exist. This uses hard evidence from the game that is lower on the hierarchy of evidence, quotes from game guides (not the manuals), the use of symbols, the similarities between themes and geography, and these people attempt to explain aspects of the histories that are left open ended by Nintendo. They make connections where no higher empirical evidence exists in order to paint for themselves a more complete picture of the Zelda Universe as a whole. While most creative and usually very enjoyable to read, many hardcore theorists; ones that use only the higher empirical evidence and even ignore some facts from lower empirical sources, shun these types of timelines, and at times these types of theorists receive the most heat for their timeline of anyone.

Final Product Timeline

This theory focuses on the final product that you have in your homes and play on your own entertainment systems and nothing more. Imagine the Original Nintendo Timeline as a Jig-saw puzzle with many blank pieces. When Nintendo thinks up a new game, they take out one of those blank pieces and paints the game on there, placing it back down into the Original Nintendo Timeline. This theory is different, however, because the original thoughts of Nintendo is not what is portrayed on our TVs. Miyamoto himself said that game play comes first, and then the storyline is focused on. Think back to before Nintendo places their jig-saw puzzle piece of a game back into the final puzzle. When Nintendo begins to focus on the game play mechanics, they change, not the image of the piece, but the very shape of it, ultimately changing the storyline. This theory tries to develop a timeline that connects the games' final stages rather than what Nintendo had in mind. Although what Nintendo thinks about the storyline is important, whatever changes they make to put game play first, changes the storyline. If there were no drastic changes, than this timeline isn't much different from others, however, the argument over whether or not Nintendo designed it to be a certain way doesn't apply to these theorists.

Latest Info Timeline

This type of theory states that the timeline is only known as a whole by the newest information. Based on the fact that the developers are constantly changing their minds, the placement of the games, therefore are in a constant state of flux, and the entire order may be shifted by an element told in a single game.

The Consumer's timeline

This theory uses the game as a final product to determine where it should fit into the timeline. It differs from the previous because it is firmly believed by this type of theorist that the game had no placement before it was finished. These theorists generally believe that the timeline as an entity does not exist in the minds of the developers and that they generally state that there is a timeline to satiate the masses. These theorists believe that a submitted timeline or some combination thereof from consumer theorists will be finalized as the official Nintendo timeline.

1.What is the difference between The Consumer's Timeline and Final Product Timeline? The paragraph differentiated them by saying The Consumer's Timeline tends to agree that the game had no placement before it was released, whereas, the Final Product Timeline agrees the same thing in my opinion. I was trying to write the Final Product Timeline to match what I agree with, and the way I see it, whether or not Nintendo had it placed before release, the type of timeline ignores that, and uses in-game stuff instead.

2. The Latest Info Timeline and the Current game Line-up Timeline are extremely simlar IMO. The way I like to look at it, the Current Game Line-up uses the latest info to build their timeline. Perhaps you see bigger difference than I do. I would like to keep an open mind and be a specific as possible, so all of what you posted will stay. I'm just bringing out some points that I see.

I would have to say that my timeline type is a mixture of all the ones that I quoted.