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

It has come to my attention that people seem to focus on different aspects of the zelda universe because their ultimate goals are different from the ultimate goals that others have. When we think about a Timeline continuity, what idea comes to your mind? I think there are different levels of timelines that should have similar yet different results due to what purpose they have. If this isn't making any sense, please just read on.

Levels

I have come up with 4 basic levels of timeline theorizing, however, these ideas fall on a unitless slider with an unlimited amount of possibilities. I hope just to give you a deeper understanding of some specific reasons why what makes sense to some starts arguments with others. This is not law, and cannot be true for all theorists, but, in my observations, often tells it how it is.

Level 1. Theory

The first and lowest level of timeline theorizing is derived from extremely basic material and often, doesn't involve as much thought processing as other levels. I am not trying to be condescending to any such theories, for those that fall under this category are often meant to fall under this category. If someone decides

to throw together a quick basic theory, then so be it, as long as people realize that it is a level 1 theory and doesn't hold any account against a higher leveled theory.

Some examples of these theories are when a theorist has only played a few of the games and only wishes to include those. Other examples are of theorists that may or may not have complete all the games, but choose to leave out some such as the Oracles or the FS Trilogy. These theories often disregard minor details of in-game facts because they are too specific with the workings of this type of theory.

Level 2. Theory

A Level 2. theory is a slightly step higher concerning little details and matters of the such in regards to building a timeline that works. Although some specifics are still left unnoticed by choice or lack of research, all of the games in the series are included. Please note that the CD-i games and any game that features a zelda character but isn't a zelda game is not included. This is a rule for all levels. With all games included, these theories still disregard geography of any kind and other specific details for order of games, only dealing with primary storylines.

Because theories around this level often encourage some research but it never reaches an extensive level, dated developer quotes are often involved and affect them. Although this next rule isn't 100% true and may call for people to disagree, Split-Timeline thoeries often start to develop around this level. Don't get me wrong, I myself am a splittest, but with the small amount of research, people often see the split-timeline idea and submit to it without second thought because of its interesting ideas.

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 developement. Several sources to take note are (in no particular order)...
a.Developer Quotes
b.Geography
c.In-Game Quotes
d.Reocurring Items/Races (Items or Races that referrences are made back to)
e.Game Manuel

In this level, gamers typically ignore any translation mistakes or changes that took a tole on the game durings its developement 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.

Level 4. Theory

It is about this time that the theorist becomes very intellectual with their theories and begins to back them up with proof from their sources. Having a firm foundation with their timeline, and having spent a large amount of time with it, they are very fond of their theories, and rarely part ways with them. A lot of arguments between level 4. theorists may never end because both sides of the debate are backed up with more offensive proof than defensive, allowing both theories to survive, unable to disregard either.

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.

Original Nintendo Timeline

This theory will strike up the most in debates, because it is often stated to not exist. However, whether or not Nintendo truely 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 truely 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 ecsentuate what others may declare usless 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.

Current Game Line-up Timeline

This theory is focussed 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 trys to develope a timeline that sensably ties in all the games together without leaving any wholes 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. Speaking of which, although I won't title it, the thought of making a good story in itself can be a type of timeline.

Open-ended Timeline

This theory is the exact opposite of the Current Game Line-up Timeline. It focusses 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.

Final Product Timeline

This theory focusses on the final product that you have in your homes and play on your own enertainment systems and nothing more. Imagine the Original Nintendo Timeline as a Jig-saw puzzle with many blank peices. When Nintendo thinks up a new game, they take out one of those blank peices 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 gameplay comes first, and then the storyline is focussed on. Think back to before Nintendo places their jig-saw puzzle peice of a game back into the final puzzle. When Nintendo begins to focus on the gameplay mechanics, they change, not the image of the peice, 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 gameplay 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.

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 differents, 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.

I like your pre OoT order, I only have two questions:

1. Why doesn't AoL BS go in there somewhere?

if you believe there was a royal family before the fierce war, then they must have had the whole triforce in the past, since they use the symbol in their artwork, and therefore the AoL BS makes the most sense right before TMC, but probably after TMC BS

2. And why does Ganon show up in FSA and get the trident and then not have it again until AlttP? And how does the King not know about his purposes in OoT if Hyrule knew about him before the Fierce war? I realize that it is possible that Ganon got the Trident and wasn't going for the triforce because he may not have known about it, but the first to pieces of evidence seem to contradict this.

3. I'm sorry, one more, and this is from my ignorance, what's the second creation? Far as I know the goddesses made everything and did it right the first time.


Also, I'm thinking the hierarchy should be

a. In-Game Quotes
b. Game Manual
c. The Game Arcs (AlttP/LoZ/AoL)
d. Geography: physical exsistence of certain landmarks at certain times (ie, Hyrule Castle, Lake Hylia, Gerudo Desert, Spectacle Rock, Death Mountain, The Colossium)
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

Although I think UWM puts developer quotes on the very bottom, if they even use them at all, and this I don't agree with.

Allright, I finished reading, it was very good, except the last type of theory is a little confusing, it may need to be broken into two theory types for clarity sake.

Maybe those that think that changing the sotyline for gameplays sake does indeed happen, and those that believe that the shape of the game is set, and nothing that developers do is meant to change it. I think that is the biggest reason the UWM and I will never agree, they think that the developers have an idea of where the game should go and then make the game and decide it should go somewhere else, and I believe the developers are smarter, and a little more organized thant that.

So, an Original Intent Timeline section

And a Final Product Timeline

This is different from the Original Nintendo timeline because, although they say there is, I do not believe there is "a master document somewhere" that includes the placement of every game that will ever be made. Remember the people who created this series are used to eastern philosophy, and when they say master document somwhere, they could mean the one in my head that hasn't been written down yet. And perhaps when they go into the beginning stages of a game they have an idea of where it should go and perhaps that does change from time to time (PH, TP and tWW all seemed to suggest this) but I believe before the first line of dialogue is written for the game, they have set in stone where the game should go in the timeline, and nothing in developement changes that. The backstory of the game, what is written in the manual, and the history that characters explain in game does not effect playability, so I won't accept people who say the final product is the only thing to go by.

Tell me what you think of my additions

Originally Posted by quick_silver20

I like your pre OoT order, I only have two questions:

1. Why doesn't AoL BS go in there somewhere?

if you believe there was a royal family before the fierce war, then they must have had the whole triforce in the past, since they use the symbol in their artwork, and therefore the AoL BS makes the most sense right before TMC, but probably after TMC BS

2. And why does Ganon show up in FSA and get the trident and then not have it again until AlttP? And how does the King not know about his purposes in OoT if Hyrule knew about him before the Fierce war? I realize that it is possible that Ganon got the Trident and wasn't going for the triforce because he may not have known about it, but the first to pieces of evidence seem to contradict this.

3. I'm sorry, one more, and this is from my ignorance, what's the second creation? Far as I know the goddesses made everything and did it right the first time.

What does any of this have to do with this thread? Please repost this in my other thread and I will be happy to elaborate.

Edit: The other thread is in my sig.

I'm sorry, you're right, I was putting down thoughts as I thought of them, I was planning on writing more about the topic once I had read through the whole thing, and that was supposed to be a post script, but it turned into my main thought, I'll repost it there in a moment, once I'm finished editing this one.

Originally Posted by quick_silver20

I'm sorry, you're right, I was putting down thoughts as I thought of them, I was planning on writing more about the topic once I had read through the whole thing, and that was supposed to be a post script, but it turned into my main thought, I'll repost it there in a moment, once I'm finished editing this one.

No problem, you just posted it in several edits and it through me off. I would very much like to answer those questions, so please feel free to post them in my timeline theory thread.

Originally Posted by quick_silver20

Also, I'm thinking the hierarchy should be

a. In-Game Quotes
b. Game Manual
c. The Game Arcs (AlttP/LoZ/AoL)
d. Geography: physical exsistence of certain landmarks at certain times (ie, Hyrule Castle, Lake Hylia, Gerudo Desert, Spectacle Rock, Death Mountain, The Colossium)
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

Although I think UWM puts developer quotes on the very bottom, if they even use them at all, and this I don't agree with.

Great, this is what I wanted to see. I myself put a lot of those as equal sources because they never seem to contradict each other, but I'm glad you went a little more in detail.

Originally Posted by quick_silver20

Allright, I finished reading, it was very good, except the last type of theory is a little confusing, it may need to be broken into two theory types for clarity sake.

Maybe those that think that changing the sotyline for gameplays sake does indeed happen, and those that believe that the shape of the game is set, and nothing that developers do is meant to change it. I think that is the biggest reason the UWM and I will never agree, they think that the developers have an idea of where the game should go and then make the game and decide it should go somewhere else, and I believe the developers are smarter, and a little more organized thant that.

So, an Original Intent Timeline section

And a Final Product Timeline

This is different from the Original Nintendo timeline because, although they say there is, I do not believe there is "a master document somewhere" that includes the placement of every game that will ever be made. Remember the people who created this series are used to eastern philosophy, and when they say master document somwhere, they could mean the one in my head that hasn't been written down yet. And perhaps when they go into the beginning stages of a game they have an idea of where it should go and perhaps that does change from time to time (PH, TP and tWW all seemed to suggest this) but I believe before the first line of dialogue is written for the game, they have set in stone where the game should go in the timeline, and nothing in developement changes that. The backstory of the game, what is written in the manual, and the history that characters explain in game does not effect playability, so I won't accept people who say the final product is the only thing to go by.

Tell me what you think of my additions

I see where you were going with this, and yes, it is a mindset that people tend to go for, so it should indeed be stated as a type of timeline. However, this isn't quite what I was going for when I first posted it. I'll elaborate on what I meant, and please excuse me if I seem to ramble without making much sense.

I myself tend to go for the "Final Product" timeline, although I mix it a little. This is not because I don't believe there is a hypothetical idea of the timeline, but because, simply, I'm not trying to find the hypothetical original Timeline. Even if Nintendo acknowledged one day that they do put a lot of focus on the timeline, my timeline theory will try to peice together the games as I have them. If Nintendo came out that they meant for the Oocca to actually be called the Ooccora, and widely broadcasted that mistake in typing, my timeline would still have the race called the Oocca because that's what they were called in the game (weird example, but it works). This example is of course for a die-hard "Final Product" theorist, and my theories are blended a bit with the others, so I myself would consider the name change, but you get the idea. Any slight detail, no matter what the developers have to say about it, are taken seriously as they are in-game, not because of how I think the timeline should be, but because that's how I want MY timeline to be. I'm trying to find a storyline that depicts where the games fell, not where they fell from. Understand?

Yeah, it's just like liberals and conservatives in politics. There are liberal theorists who think that the timeline changes in mid developement, and every second and with every new develper quote and that only understanding the very newest information will give you the correct view of the timeline, and then there are die hard conservatives that believe that every game had a placement before one game was ever made, and most everybody falls somewhere in the middle there. That's why I say, you should put both types of theorists in this thread.

(odd then that in my own opinion most conservative theorists are splittists, because they think that was the original intent that Aonuma stated in interview, since that seems like a very radical idea)

Yeah, but you have to realize the difference in someone believing how the Timeline should be developed, and the way they want their personal timeline to be developed. I guess the ideal way to go at things is to make your own personal timeline for each type, and in debates, you can argue your timeline you have for the type of timeline that is being debated, rather than mixing types.

Ah, I see your point, but inevitably people will have their baby, the one that they believe in to exclude all others, and they may have different reasons and so never agree with others.

It is hard for people to give a theory they don't believe in, it makes them feel like they are lying to themselves

Ultimatly I think your ideal, while utopian, pulls away from the reason people log onto this site, to find the truth.

Yes, very understandable. A Utopia, no matter how "perfect", still has its holes. A Utopia is simply a way to do things with the fewest possible amount of holes. It's nice to be able to post your thoughts on a subject and not have to follow piles of regulations and rules that stand in order to make an orderly theorizing community. Some people will say that, ignoring any rules and regulations, allowing for a simple, get-your-theory-out-there, layout of posting is, in itself, a Utopia, because you can get your theory heard. The problem with that type of format, is that the voice of the theorist get drowned out with the lack of guidance. I think a rule to force tags on a timeline theory is not the way to go, but a step in the right direction is for people to respectfully take their time to tag their timelines at will. This would be nice as long as zero pressure is put on someone to tag their timeline. If 100 people show up to theorize their timelines and 99 of them take time to tag them, the 1 must in no way be pressured to tag his timeline. A means for this might be to have a message board with a list of tags and a simple message talking about what we are talking about, having that be the only talk of the subject. The word of tagging would make itself known without much feel of urgency, but if everyone has theirs tagged, people will see that, and want to tag there own. Does this make any sense, I know I'm rambling. Heh, sorry about that.

hhmm, but then under your situation there would be 15 copies of the constitution. See where I'm going with this? Ultimatly the tagging wouldn't do any good, and would pull the arguement out to "why do you believe it that way?" and people would go through threads looking for people who didn't believe them. It might work, or it might foster more animosity than ever before, it's really impossible to say. This thread goes leaps and bounds toward understanding for noobs logging onto the site that the tagging would never do, I say we stick with what we've got.

Originally Posted by quick_silver20

hhmm, but then under your situation there would be 15 copies of the constitution. See where I'm going with this? Ultimatly the tagging wouldn't do any good, and would pull the arguement out to "why do you believe it that way?" and people would go through threads looking for people who didn't believe them. It might work, or it might foster more animosity than ever before, it's really impossible to say. This thread goes leaps and bounds toward understanding for noobs logging onto the site that the tagging would never do, I say we stick with what we've got.

I agree, for there is a big difference between the ideal, and what we are forced to create in a law because of our pride.

An ideal government for a nation would be to say that anyone who sins must be put to death. Then, because we all sin, we will all be put to death, making the ideal government the worst possible solution for a government. Because everyone sins, we are forced to create a government that punishes only the more corrupt sins, or at least, the more monitorable sins. In this sense, people will argue that our free will is trampled on, and the joys of life are taken away from the strictness of the government. In response, we will end up creating an even more leanient government, until we find a medium of keeping us satisfied with life and keeping chaos from breaking loose. In this sense, government is allowing, expecting, and even ordaining sin in a way. A perfect form of government that doesn't "Sap the fun away" while at the same time never ordains sin, will never be found, as our sin nature often defines fun as something contrary to what the perfect government has to offer. If you are uncomfortable with the term sin, which means any act that is punishable by God's law, then just replace it with anything that is evil in the eyes of the community as a whole, calling for the purest of morals to decide what is evil.

This is, of course, in regards to a national government, where the purpose is to live, not necessarily to have fun. A "government" for a site that deals with the theories of a peice of the entertainment franchise we know as video games would be set for something based on having fun. Because of this difference, the base of government should be different.

This message isn't meant to carry on the conversation, for, realistically, it has been finished for several posts now. This message was simply for my sake, to get what was on my mind out, redescribing what was already said.

I think our conclusions have been to keep things as they are for the most part. But, as I said before, it would be nice for us just to acknowledge the conversation in this thread and hopefully remember it when we are in our next debate, letting it help you understand different sides of things. I hope this all makes sense.

I'm not going to say much in this thread to my fellow "political rival" because I am tired of having to defend myself for all the recent blastfamous remarks. I could actually take some constructive critism here, and better yet, reevaluate the UWM constitution's base message to where it was not so pounding, but however, it has not evolved in practice enough with other Linearist that don't want to cope with Splitist when trying to come up with the most plausible timeline orders. but such common attacks from those that want to use each theory "type" to overwirte the other is just plain stupid, and will nothing will be gained from it. So far, iThe UWM Constitution has not reached the fate that the "articles of Confederation" did. SO I have no regrets to some of the sour remarks said here because I don't care what Splitist have to say. They already have about over 60% of popularity in the overall Web Wide Zelda communities of theorist put together. Now how is that just???

Anyway, I am going to defend two points that someone falsly accused the UWM of.

1. We do NOT put game developers quotes at the botton of our list in theorising. We try to look at them and determine what direction they lead the series order in in contrast with the canon we "generalise" to find good conclusions.

2. It is not so much as trying to find the ideal timeline, but to stay on top of what could be the most current ideal Linear timeline at hand with the current existing LoZ's. That is why The UWM are setting ALterantive Timeline orders to switch off to in case a new LoZ or newly discovered canon info rendered it so.

I also would like to sate that the UWM are conservative to the fact that we do not want to see the series split off into two diffent directions, for it will become more complicated to know where each LoZ goes in the time, even if the Split Timeline fixes everything during the current time it would be released. Would they stay on top of things for two timelines? it does not seem that way right now does it? But I suppose that is how you value game developer quotes. They are "iffy" at some points.

Now I do beliee that someone said that game developer quotes are realiable and not countradictive. That depends on how you corespond canon with it in your theories and what you look for in the games. The UWM take careful consideration to this as well and we don't go into wild making up events that are not their with out reasonable explanations first stated somewhere from the games. It's much more libral to that degree and dangerous to the sability of a working timeline for the Zelda series. We, the UWM Council, would like to feel secure in knowing that with one line, we see a epic continuity in the series develope and not soemthing that could confuse and devert where games go between two lines, if teh game developers do not state clearly about the chronology first hands off.

So this is what I have to say in your "better the UWM system" thread. This is as diplomatic as I am going to get and thats that. take it how you will, for this was not meant to be an attack on you at all, even though I loath the Split Timeline theory.

I'm glad to hear what you have to say on this subject. I'm sorry you feel this thread was designed specifically against the UWM as it wasn't at all. I started this thread aimed at the Zelda Theorist Community as a whole. It would be absurd to not note the existance of the UWM as the UWM is very popular among theorists. Finding an ideal "government" for theorizing the "perfect" timeline is a tough task to accomplish, and I respect any amount of control that you can grasp on the subject as it is very difficult. Please, I hope you reconsider thinking of this as an anti-UWM thread. It in no such way was meant to be.

Originally Posted by Froboy

I'm glad to hear what you have to say on this subject. I'm sorry you feel this thread was designed specifically against the UWM as it wasn't at all. I started this thread aimed at the Zelda Theorist Community as a whole. It would be absurd to not note the existance of the UWM as the UWM is very popular among theorists. Finding an ideal "government" for theorizing the "perfect" timeline is a tough task to accomplish, and I respect any amount of control that you can grasp on the subject as it is very difficult. Please, I hope you reconsider thinking of this as an anti-UWM thread. It in no such way was meant to be.

If their were mods that fully understood the "world of thoerising and debate" then things could be ran properly by those expereinced in such things they have practiced hands on. Even though I hate the Split Timeline, I would have inspired a Splitist group, IF I knew it would not be hostile to the Linearist that hope to work together with their comon beliefs and what alternative timelines we would have on the board set aside under the UWM current timeline.

I have been a throeist for many years and to many times I have seen a solo Splitist and a Solo Linearist try to overun each other. But in truth it is pointless and just stupid. I don't care to to fall back on that for it is over zealous, but I will say what I feel about the Split drastically affecting the future stability of a timeline for the series. Truthfuly, I would not like to see a "cold war" (war of words) break out like this between Splitist and Linearist, for their SHOULD be balence and humility. Right now, I see about two or three Splitist groups forming. I don't see balence and humility with the Splitist. If anything, you all should be trying to unite together and try to find your bearings like we have and promiss not to interfere with our beliefs, if we ourselves have made it a code of honor not to overwrite your theory and beliefs. Atleast people will know that the stuborn history wil not repeat itself in Splitist vs. Linearist at ZU. And that will be saying something to the rest of the theroist communities, that we can make a constructive therosing system for both sides of beliefs.

I am not trying to sound paranoid because I am not. I am only expressing what I have seen in the past and where my faults laid in such matters I delt with Splitst before you newbies came to ZU. Better to start off on a good foot though than anything. But, their are always second chances. Were all human.

Wow, there's a whole little government and advanced groups against each other thing in here. It reminds me of Mac users, though they could be described as a cult. <_< I'll get back to my normal posting sections now, before I get sacrificed by the "link has access to a TARDIS" timeline theorists. (aka the communist timeline party)

Originally Posted by Divine Dragoon

Wow, there's a whole little government and advanced groups against each other thing in here. It reminds me of Mac users, though they could be described as a cult. <_< I'll get back to my normal posting sections now, before I get sacrificed by the "link has access to a TARDIS" timeline theorists. (aka the communist timeline party)

I'm not trying to start a group or any kind of rebellion. Does it really seem that way? I only wished to point out some things that everyone, clan or no, can use to help understand each other.

Yep, me too. I've no intention of joining any group. But when people think i'm attacking the linear timeline i'm just pointing out logic holes in the discussion. I do the same with the split timeline if someone else wrote something that i didn't agree with too.

Oh and LoZ Historian, thanks for posting in this thread, seriously, you give us reason to unite and solidify our views, and you even give us your blessing to do so (hope beyond hope)

I just want to say, the most radical conservative view is that Miyamoto made a timeline that would include every game before he made the first game. And the most Liberal view is that only the newest information from games, quotes etc will give you the correct timeline because the developers are constantly changing their minds, even about already made games. while we obviously fall somewhere in between there, your views take recent information as higher canon than even solid developer quotes that haven't been disproven, while I have the opinion that while not completely set in stone before they're made, once a game is in the beginning developement stages it is already known by the developers of that game where the game will go and no game and no quote and no fact will ever change that placement.

Therefore, by very difinition, you take a liberal view, and my view is more conservative.

Visavi, most splittists are more conservative because they go off what Aonuma originally said about OoT, not by what has been most recently said about other games that could contradict this.

Originally Posted by quick_silver20

Visavi, most splittists are more conservative because they go off what Aonuma originally said about OoT, not by what has been most recently said about other games that could contradict this.

I am a splittest and go by what is most recently hinted in in-game facts. I say most recently because I believe that Nintendo's original intent behind something they put in an old game may have been erased or changed by their new intent as shown in the newer games. I have looked at developer quotes, and I don't believe they have contradicted the idea of a split-timeline. If anything, they seem to go along with that idea. People can argue that they don't, yes, but they can't turn the tables and say they are for a Linear Timeline by what they say.

Originally Posted by quick_silver20

Oh and LoZ Historian, thanks for posting in this thread, seriously, you give us reason to unite and solidify our views, and you even give us your blessing to do so (hope beyond hope)

I suppose your welcome... You people are no ordinary Splitist are you??? You guys have to be from Game FAQ's.

Originally Posted by quick_silver20

I just want to say, the most radical conservative view is that Miyamoto made a timeline that would include every game before he made the first game. And the most Liberal view is that only the newest information from games, quotes etc will give you the correct timeline because the developers are constantly changing their minds, even about already made games. while we obviously fall somewhere in between there, your views take recent information as higher canon than even solid developer quotes that haven't been disproven, while I have the opinion that while not completely set in stone before they're made, once a game is in the beginning developement stages it is already known by the developers of that game where the game will go and no game and no quote and no fact will ever change that placement.

I personally take a balence in how I interpret interviews, textual references, and other visual aids from with in the games. Why? Because Aonuma sid that the games would come to us more "visable" as each aem came out. I know that canon is NOT always the highest in comaprison to other things. That is why it has to be taken with a grain of salt sometimes and not over complicated.

Now with that said, I do not feel that canon overwrites interviews because I believe in a timeline ark system as Nintendo visualy makes common sense for us to see without rpving them through canon:

TMC-FS-FSA

OoT-(MM)-TP-WW-PH

ALttP-LA-LoZ-AoL

OoS/OoA

These orders are visable through interviews and just by common sense. Now I am libral about only one of these timeline arks and that is the FS series. Aonuma countradicted the OoT first rule with saying that FS was the oldest LoZ. But I have demonstted how the series could work out through alternative Liinear Timeline Theories if this was infact an overwrite. but we cannot be so sure. PH is still a promissing game to be FS related. So who knows what can be drawed from here.

I won't nore you with the alternative timelines or how I see my Split Timeline version work with your views because I am sure you have seen them in another thread. (Unless you want to debate a Split Timeline here and now, I will do that out of respect for you.)

Originally Posted by quick_silver20

Visavi, most splittists are more conservative because they go off what Aonuma originally said about OoT, not by what has been most recently said about other games that could contradict this.

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.

The problem with what you said, is that Aonuma never said OoT was first in the series. That was Miyamoto. Having two different people work with the series is difficult to stay consistent with because two of the people may have a total differnt perception of a timeline in mind when working with the series. Miyamoto has abused the timeline in my opinion, where Aonuma may be trying to fix it from its unclear pathway it has had in the past. These forces in nintendo conflict with all other responsibilites they have in making a Zelda game and things get forgotten - as Miyamoto stated himself in regards to stroyline in TP. Their is simply no master timeline plan if human error falls upon such thengs that Nintedno openly admits to leaving (storyline) in least concerns of a game. So I do not see where I may be wrong in how I view the "BIG Picture" regarding Nintendp's concerns with the timeline and how it is not always clear to us when looking back at other inteview statements.

Originally Posted by Froboy

I am a splittest and go by what is most recently hinted in in-game facts. I say most recently because I believe that Nintendo's original intent behind something they put in an old game may have been erased or changed by their new intent as shown in the newer games. I have looked at developer quotes, and I don't believe they have contradicted the idea of a split-timeline. If anything, they seem to go along with that idea. People can argue that they don't, yes, but they can't turn the tables and say they are for a Linear Timeline by what they say.

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.