New detail has arisen: Aonuma did not split the timeline until TP's development

Ok, Pinecove, I'm gonna stop you right there. It is utterly absurd to assume that TWW's Tingle is the same person as MM's Tingle. Tingle is not an immortal - he's a wannabe in a fairy costume. He dies just like any other person on the planet. He cannot survive the sheer time gap between OOT and TWW.

Originally Posted by MDK

The fifth part could be used to explain the presence of Tingle in The Wind Waker - an ex-resident of Outset who, like Link, continues to where his ritual outfit (and more than likely he's just that guy that none of the other islanders like to talk about). This contrasts with the easter egg ideology, but frankly, Tingle is one detail of the Zelda series that I'd be more than happy to edit out.

I believe this is how you explain Tingle's presence, but has since been negated by the retcon of the story due to TP's development. Again, I don't care about Tingle - I don't regard him so much as a plot point than as a game mechanic. He is necessary to beat the game, but not vital to the story itself.

Originally Posted by Evilsbane

Eh? I didn't know that. When did this happen?

Sorry I mis pronounced my sentence. Even though TP's events never took place the geography did. Same deal with The legend of the fairy. MM Tingle as we all know is the same as TWW Tingle. How could tingle know about the hero of time?

1. He's crazy

2. He's a magical person.

Just because MM can't take place in the Adult timeline doesn't mean that the events didn't happen in the child timeline.

*Tingle finds hero of time in child timeline, Tingle goes into Adult universe and inscribes legend in tower of gods. end of story* So thus we can confirm legend of the fairy is not an Eegg nor does it screw up the Split.

I recall them saying something like "TP will relate to WW in more ways than you will think of". So basically they're just flipping the timeline around however they want it depending on their mood. If it was linear before TP and all the 2D games came after WW then I'm going to stick with the linear timeline that I believe in.

Originally Posted by MDK

Or simply that the '90s children of today haven't had the luxury of owning or playing the SNES version, as is often the case. Many people had OOT or TWW as their starting point. I personally didn't play ALTTP until its GBA release.

I was born in 1990, yet I was fully capable of playing ALttP. At that time, the timeline was intended to be linear. Since around OoT, however, they began toying with the idea of a split timeline. It wasn't until somewhere during the development of TP, if even that late, that they solidified the split timeline. As of just last week, however, most linearists have come to accept the split.

Edit: Are we actually discussing the importance of Tingle to the timeline? Wow, I never thought that'd actually be something of serious discussion.

MM Tingle is the same as TWW's Tingle as proven in TFPRCRL (Tingles freshly picked rose coloured ruppe land) He survives on ruppees. If he runs out of Ruppees than he dies.

Originally Posted by Pinecove

MM Tingle is the same as TWW's Tingle as proven in TFPRCRL (Tingles freshly picked rose coloured ruppe land) He survives on ruppees. If he runs out of Ruppees than he dies.

I am aware of this. In fact, that's the first thing I thought of when I read about that.

Originally Posted by Master of ALttP

I am aware of this. In fact, that's the first thing I thought of when I read about that.

That wasn't directed towards you.

Originally Posted by Master of ALttP

I was born in 1990, yet I was fully capable of playing ALttP. At that time, the timeline was intended to be linear. Since around OoT, however, they began toying with the idea of a split timeline. It wasn't until somewhere during the development of TP, if even that late, that they solidified the split timeline. As of just last week, however, most linearists have come to accept the split.

Edit: Are we actually discussing the importance of Tingle to the timeline? Wow, I never thought that'd actually be something of serious discussion.

There's always an exception or two, Master. The game was released about a year after your birth. The SNES was dying out around the time most '90s kids were old enough to comprehend the concept of Zelda, and OOT was the revolutionary one to play.

And Tingle, as far as I'm concerned, is nothing more than a game mechanic, not a plot point.

Originally Posted by Pinecove

Time to clear up this conversation.

The developers screwed up big on TP's development and said in order to fix the timeline they should make it split.

That wasn't mentioned in the interview: Miyamoto and Aonuma have always behaved as though they were on the fence, and started to support the split timeline since around WW.

Also, Master of ALttP, the timeline was not intended to be linear even back then, and saying it was isn't much of an arguement because Nintendo hadn't even really gotten a timeline running. The only thing that suggested that they even had the workings of a timeline were that AOL was a sequel and ALttP was mentioned to tell of the ancestors of the Link and Zelda from LOZ. It wasn't until OOT that a timeline really began. Sorry.

Finally, even though he apparently lives off of rupees, I seriously doubt that Tingle is the same one in WW. He just seems to be a designer-made character for laughs. Heck, messing around with Tingle's looks is how they made Purlo, and I don't see that guy becoming part of a timeline discussion.

Originally Posted by Average Gamer

That wasn't mentioned in the interview: Miyamoto and Aonuma have always behaved as though they were on the fence, and started to support the split timeline since around WW.

Where did you get this information from? Nintendo haven't made any inference regarding a split timeline until TP's release.

Originally Posted by Evilsbane

Yeah, they have! At the time of TWW's release, Aonouma mentioned that TWW happened after the 'adult ending'!! Splittists didn't pull the idea out of thin air, y'know.

You mean the talk about "two endings", which we pointed out many times did not refer to two timelines? That's not evidence, that's your choice of interpretation.

The GamePro interview mentioned "two endings", but never that they were "parallel" (i.e., not intersecting).

Originally Posted by Evilsbane

Why in HELL would he bother mentioning which ending it followed if there were only one timeline??

MM was "after OoT" but not "after Adult Link defeated Ganon."
TWW was, at the time, cited as "after OoT"; the GamePro interview clarified that it was "after Adult Link defeated Ganon", as opposed to after only the "Child ending."
At the time, the "Adult ending" could conceivably not have existed at all; Child Link's actions in the past could have overwritten the Adult future, a la Majora's Mask. This solidified that the Adult events did, indeed, happen, and would be carried over into future games.

This was at the time, and, taking only that interview into account, still is a valid interpretation, the "hundred years" clarification notwithstanding.

Originally Posted by Evilsbane

Uhhhhhh... THAT's a Split Timeline, right there. After ONE ending, MM happens. After ANOTHER, TWW happens. The same game can't have TWO canon endings without a Split Timeline. This is fundamental.

Child ending (past)
Adult ending (future)
MM after Child ending.
TWW after Adult ending.

Child ending --> MM -- Adult ending --> TWW

"Two endings in different time periods." (raw quote)
Not two "alternate endings" in "parallel timelines/worlds/realities." (splitist interpretation)
The splitist interpretation of just that interview requires more stretching, tbqh.

Originally Posted by Evilsbane

If it were only the endings, fine. But how can you have two sequels to two different endings? MM was indisputably a sequel after the Child Ending, and TWW was indisputably a sequel to the Adult Ending - even WITH the Legend of the Fairy. They couldn't BOTH be canon without two separate timelines for them to be in.

At the end of a game, two characters walk down a path which then splits. One character goes down one path and the other character goes down the other path. Both characters then star in unrelated sequels.

Thus, the timeline doesn't need to split for there to be two endings.

Sure they could.

MM comes after Link returns to the past; TWW happens long after Adult Link defeats Ganon. If there's not a split outright, where's the problem there?

He's saying that events occurred in one timeline. Zelda sent Link back in time, to after he had drawn the Master Sword. Later, he goes to Termina. His future self ends up saving Hyrule. It involves suggesting that Zelda disconnected the past from the future, thus saving the future of Hyrule and giving Link back his childhood. In theory, he could have killed himself for all he wanted, but the preserved future would still have him saving Hyrule.

Originally Posted by Raian

Where did you get this information from? Nintendo haven't made any inference regarding a split timeline until TP's release.

Oh come on. They've been hinting to it for years, and those were hints. Also, they never said "It's linear," at any point either, so the timeline was always on the fence until Nintendo decided on the split and confirmed it. Seriously dude, in the end the split timeline being confirmed during TP doesn't really change the fact that the split is the true timeline. I don't see what this thread is for. In the end, the timeline is still split and it doesn't mean that the UWM "win" or anything. Aonuma just confirmed the split during TP.

Until the Nindori article, we had no information on whether the two endings were "parallel" or not. Which means that, until the Nindori article, we could not have determined that Nintendo meant to denote a split (according to TSA, the intention didn't develop until TP did anyway).

Based on the GamePro article (more specifically, its Nintendo-official counterpart), the Child and Adult endings could have occurred in the same timeline, just in two "different time periods." In one time period--the future--Ganon is defeated. In the other time period--the past--Link goes back to being a child. Based only on that, there's no reason for the timeline to split.

Unless the two endings are parallel. (See first paragraph.)

Originally Posted by Average Gamer

Oh come on. They've been hinting to it for years, and those were hints. Also, they never said "It's linear," at any point either, so the timeline was always on the fence until Nintendo decided on the split and confirmed it. Seriously dude, in the end the split timeline being confirmed during TP doesn't really change the fact that the split is the true timeline. I don't see what this thread is for. In the end, the timeline is still split and it doesn't mean that the UWM "win" or anything. Aonuma just confirmed the split during TP.

They have never hinted about the concept of a split timeline. They never said "it's linear", because according to logic, time is linear. And they specifically referenced MM in TWW twice!

The point of this topic is that for the people who changed their understanding of events to accommodate the split timeline, they only need to do so in a fashion which accommodates the actual split, nothing else.