Split timeline is a myth?

What he said was that it was 'the earliest tale'. That in itself is quite ambiguous, and wasn't it stated before the game was released? If so, then in-game evidence trumps director's quotes. Directors change their minds sometimes during the making of a game.
Wasn't PH originally announced as a new FS game?

Originally Posted by langford

Eiji Aonuma, who was assistant director on OOT, said in 2004 that 4S predated everything so far.

At the end of WW, The master Sword is lost, and Hyrule is destroyed. The tradition of naming daughters Zelda has died out. History has been lost, traditions have been lost. Even if you don't want FS at the beginning, it doesn't fit after PH in even the smallest way. Such a huge elaborate set of stories would have to be invented to undo the end of WW for the sake of FS and LTTP, that such a story could be applied anywhere at all on any timeline. At best this could be resolved with a future game, but only time will tell.

As I thought... a waste of effort...

The tradition of naming royal daughters is the reason that all Zeldas after the sleeping Zelda are named Zelda althoug they are not incarnations of the original Zelda.
The reason that the princess are called Zelda is not tradition but incarnation, same goes for Link and Ganondorf.

The creation of a new hyrule is extremely likley, face it.

The master sword is absent for a long time in between WW and ALttP, and that makes perfect sense if you believe in a deflooding over time.(like I do)

Stop using that FS is the "oldest tale" quote, wanna hear what he saud the second before he made that statement?

EA:....To me storyline is important, and as producer, I am going to be going through, and trying to bring all of these stories together, and kind of make them a little bit more clear. Unfortunately, we just haven’t done that yet.

BB: That’s something that, you (Bill Trinen – Localization Team) and I have talked about with the release of the Zelda compilation disc, cleaning up some of the spellings like Ganon, and making sure everything is cohesive. Maybe that’s an American thing – us wanting to know how it all works together. I guess that leads me to my next questions. How do the Links in The Four Swords Adventure relate to the overall story line? Or is it just a subchapter or something like that?

EA: The GBA Four Swords Zelda is what we’re thinking as the oldest tale in the Zelda timeline. With this one on the GameCube being a sequel to that, and taking place sometime after that.

Also, going by your logic that director's quotes are always canon...your entire timeline is shot.
Shigeru Miyamoto said in 1998 that the order was:
OoT-LoZ-AoL-aLttP
and that he wasn't sure where LA fit.
So, going by a directors quote made even AFTER aLttP had been out for a long time, it's the last in the series.
The fact is, things change. When FS came out, they probably hadn't even decided on a split timeline yet. That really changes where things go.
In-game evidence is always better than directors quotes, especially pre-release quotes.

Originally Posted by Erimgard

Yes, WW is a DIRECT sequel to aLttP, but that doesn't mean that aLttP can't follow OoT [many years later]
As I've already stated, OoT is based off of the aLttP backstory and aLttP is directly linked to the FS saga. Thus, we have:
..../WW-PH [we agree to this point] FS-FSA-aLttP
OoT

I see no reason why the adult timeline can't be as such. It's even said in aLttP that the events mentioned in the backstory happened a long time ago and have been forgotten by most. Makes perfect sense that it comes many years after the adult timeline side of OoT. Nintendo hasn't screwed themselves over at all. The GBA version of aLttP pretty much cements it's position directly the four swords saga, and very likely in the adult timeline.
The only assumption I made at ALL was that Ganon managed to escape the sacred realm without destroying the seal prior to WW. Other than that, I have used only canon facts.

You are inventing a story that unfloods and restores Hyrule, recreates it's dependences on the sages, reestablishes a the monarchy under the pirate Tetra or her descendants, disregards the wishes of the former King as he destroyed Hyrule with the triforce, reestablishes the lost tradition of naming royal daughters Zelda, retrieves the Master Sword from a collapsed cave on the ocean floor and embedded in a huge rock, rediscovers Death Mountain, rebuilds the villages, re-drys and cleans the desert, and other things I can't think of at the moment. Thats not a timeline, thats fanfiction.

Originally Posted by langford

You are inventing a story that unfloods and restores Hyrule, recreates it's dependences on the sages, reestablishes a the monarchy under the pirate Tetra or her descendants, disregards the wishes of the former King as he destroyed Hyrule with the triforce, reestablishes the lost tradition of naming royal daughters Zelda, retrieves the Master Sword from a collapsed cave on the ocean floor and embedded in a huge rock, rediscovers Death Mountain, rebuilds the villages, re-drys and cleans the desert, and other things I can't think of at the moment.

In short: Yes! Some of those things even happen naturally or are strongly hinted at in the games.... and I would like to have an answer to my previous post.

...not really. That's already been explained by the Koroks efforts.
And there is no dependency on the sages. The people don't even remember them for the most part. Ganon is sealed in the Sacred Realm and uses his powers to kidnap those who are related to the sages but other than that, they have virtually no roll in the game. No dependency whatsoever.
My computer won't load that video so I can't see exactly what the King has said, but from what others have told me, he says nothing that contradicts a de-flooding of Hyrule and a new nation forming there.

and for all your arguing, you still have not ONCE explained how the backstory of aLttP can be explained in the child timeline despite the fact that I have asked you to answer it several times.
And as bitterlime has said, the FS quote is no where NEAR conclusive evidence of a pre-OoT Minish Cap placement.

Another thing that makes that unlikely is that in OoT, Triforce symbols are everywhere and it's a very common knowledge to the people. Why would a game that takes place BEFORE OoT have virtually no knowledge of the Triforce?
It makes much more sense that it happens post-WW and due to the passing of time the only thing the Triforce is remembered for is the royal family symbol.

Originally Posted by bitterlime

In short: Yes! Some of those things even happen naturally.... and I would like to have an answer to my previous post.

His quote is a valid endorsement of it's position. The context cements it even better.

Originally Posted by Erimgard

Also, going by your logic that director's quotes are always canon...your entire timeline is shot.
Shigeru Miyamoto said in 1998 that the order was:
OoT-LoZ-AoL-aLttP
and that he wasn't sure where LA fit.
So, going by a directors quote made even AFTER aLttP had been out for a long time, it's the last in the series.
The fact is, things change. When FS came out, they probably hadn't even decided on a split timeline yet. That really changes where things go.
In-game evidence is always better than directors quotes, especially pre-release quotes.

Not only is mine shot, but every timeline presented is shot. Just because statements shoot down theories, it doesn't mean you can disregard them. Things do change and they always will. The reason, is that there is no single continuity. To pretend otherwise is lying to ones self. They are stories pasted together with sloppy glue. There will always be conflict in fan timelines, because it was never made to fit, especially OOT and older.

I just think it's amusing that you can shoot down anything we say with ambiguous and pre-release quotes, yet you 'prove' your theory based on an extremely non-conclusive quote about FS when Eiji himself said in the previous sentence that he hadn't decided on a timeline.

Originally Posted by langford

His quote is a valid endorsement of it's position. The context cements it even better.



Not only is mine shot, but every timeline presented is shot. Just because statements shoot down theories, it doesn't mean you can disregard them. Things do change and they always will. The reason, is that there is no single continuity. To pretend otherwise is lying to ones self. They are stories pasted together with sloppy glue. There will always be conflict in fan timelines, because it was never made to fit, especially OOT and older.

Your reaction is just plain stupid, the interview shows that he had not jet decieded which timeline to use when he stated that FS is "what we believe to be the oldest tale" notice how carefull he expressed it?

If that's the way you think about it, then you should leave the theory section, no one forces you to be here.
Fact is that there are timeline theories that make sense, there are quite a few of them and I think no one would claim that his timeline theory is the absolute truth, most of use are aware that things can and will change with the next game that is released.

Originally Posted by Erimgard

...not really. That's already been explained by the Koroks efforts.
And there is no dependency on the sages. The people don't even remember them for the most part. Ganon is sealed in the Sacred Realm and uses his powers to kidnap those who are related to the sages but other than that, they have virtually no roll in the game. No dependency whatsoever.
My computer won't load that video so I can't see exactly what the King has said, but from what others have told me, he says nothing that contradicts a de-flooding of Hyrule and a new nation forming there.

and for all your arguing, you still have not ONCE explained how the backstory of aLttP can be explained in the child timeline despite the fact that I have asked you to answer it several times.
And as bitterlime has said, the FS quote is no where NEAR conclusive evidence of a pre-OoT Minish Cap placement.

Another thing that makes that unlikely is that in OoT, Triforce symbols are everywhere and it's a very common knowledge to the people. Why would a game that takes place BEFORE OoT have virtually no knowledge of the Triforce?
It makes much more sense that it happens post-WW and due to the passing of time the only thing the Triforce is remembered for is the royal family symbol.

LTTP doesn't fit child timeline. It doesn't fit adult timeline even worse. It fits nowhere. Thats why I separated it. They destroyed LTTP's connection when TP and WW were made. Putting it in either timeline requires fanfiction, but only slightly less after TP because at least Hyrule still exists.

Nobody said they didn't exist, only that Ganon wasn't going after them them. Time passes in both timelines just the same, there is nothing that gives WW's an advantage and much to deter from it.

Originally Posted by bitterlime

Your reaction is just plain stupid, the interview shows that he had not jet decieded which timeline to use when he stated that FS is "what we believe to be the oldest tale" notice how carefull he expressed it?

If that's the way you think about it, then you should leave the theory section, no one forces you to be here.
Fact is that there are timeline theories that make sense, there are quite a few of them and I think no one would claim that his timeline theory is the absolute truth, most of use are aware that things can and will change with the next game that is released.

If you don't like to debate theories, why are you here? Your reasoning is that I must agree with you. If no discussion is to exist, why would anyone come? You aren't royalty.

Originally Posted by langford

If you don't like to debate theories, why are you here? Your reasoning is that I must agree with you. If no discussion is to exist, why would anyone come? You aren't royalty.

Oh please!
I enjoy debating very much, if my debating partner isn't as ignorant as you. You said that there is no timeline, yet you created on yourself?

Originally Posted by langford

LTTP doesn't fit child timeline. It doesn't fit adult timeline even worse. It fits nowhere. Thats why I separated it. They destroyed LTTP's connection when TP and WW were made. Putting it in either timeline requires fanfiction, but only slightly less after TP because at least Hyrule still exists.

Nobody said they didn't exist, only that Ganon wasn't going after them them. Time passes in both timelines just the same, there is nothing that gives WW's an advantage and much to deter from it.

Seems like your beloved developer quotes beg to differ.

EA: I would like to say that part of the reason we do not reveal the entire timeline is because it would force us into creating certain games to cater to the storylines. Mr. Miyamoto has made it clear he never wants to be constrained by such a restriction. I feel we can always work around it. That being said, I think I can reveal this much; Ocarina of Time is the first of those games you mentioned. Twilight Princess and The Wind Waker take places many years after Ocarina of Time. A Link to the Past and the NES games take place long after The Wind Waker. I hope that helps!

TSA: Yes, that was extremely helpful! What about the Four Swords games? Many fans do not believe it is even part of the timeline. You said the original Four Swords was the "oldest" tale, but not many understood what that really meant.

EA: Obviously Four Swords Adventures takes place before A Link to the Past; we designed that game to be a prequel to that game. Four Swords has to come before that, and The Minish Cap before them all. So that should give you some clues as to where the games come.

Originally Posted by bitterlime

Seems like your beloved developer quotes beg to differ.

Well thank you, thats a good statement. If you were sitting on that quote why didn't you bring it out? I've been begging for evidence from you for almost this entire thread.

I still think they make it up as they go along, but I love having some proof of what they may be thinking at the moment. Thank you, this is exactly the kind of discussion I wanted from this place.

Here's how I see it langford.
Originally, LoZ was the start of the series. Plain and simple. The basic good guy beats the bad guy and rescues the princess. AoL is a clear sequel.
After that, I'd say the director's got to thinking "well hey...we pretty much just ended the series...now what? Let's make a prequel!" thus aLttP.
Link's Awakening fits pretty well as a sequel to aLttP
but then once again you're left with the "well now what?" attitude. thus, another prequel/sequel combo in OoT and Majora's mask.
See what I mean? They keep finding 'dead ends' if you will, and then explaining things that were left up to question in the previous game.

After OoT, there was the question of a possible timeline split...Wind Waker seemed to imply that there was one, but it could still pretty easily be a linear timeline.
I think it wasn't until after Wind Waker that they decided on a split for sure. That's why Twilight Princess was made. It pretty much confirms the split.

I'd say with each new game now, the timeline becomes clearer. Things are obviously much different then they thought at the start, but things are becoming clearer in my opinion. The split actually helped because it makes all the prequel/sequel nonsense more understandable. It's probably that aLttP/LA and LoZ/AoL aren't even on the same timeline now, so that makes up for the fact that both of those combos have a sort of 'end of the series' feel to them.

Originally Posted by langford

Well thank you, thats a good statement. If you were sitting on that quote why didn't you bring it out? I've been begging for evidence from you for almost this entire thread.

I still think they make it up as they go along, but I love having some proof of what they may be thinking at the moment. Thank you, this is exactly the kind of discussion I wanted from this place.

Oh, well I just dicovered that quote right now. I normally don't care much about the developer quotes. But I thought since they are so important to you I'll check if I can get something.
And that's what it takes to end this discussion?...well I had a good time debating. Thank you.

Originally Posted by Erimgard

Here's how I see it langford.
Originally, LoZ was the start of the series. Plain and simple. The basic good guy beats the bad guy and rescues the princess. AoL is a clear sequel.
After that, I'd say the director's got to thinking "well hey...we pretty much just ended the series...now what? Let's make a prequel!" thus aLttP.
Link's Awakening fits pretty well as a sequel to aLttP
but then once again you're left with the "well now what?" attitude. thus, another prequel/sequel combo in OoT and Majora's mask.
See what I mean? They keep finding 'dead ends' if you will, and then explaining things that were left up to question in the previous game.

After OoT, there was the question of a possible timeline split...Wind Waker seemed to imply that there was one, but it could still pretty easily be a linear timeline.
I think it wasn't until after Wind Waker that they decided on a split for sure. That's why Twilight Princess was made. It pretty much confirms the split.

I'd say with each new game now, the timeline becomes clearer. Things are obviously much different then they thought at the start, but things are becoming clearer in my opinion. The split actually helped because it makes all the prequel/sequel nonsense more understandable. It's probably that aLttP/LA and LoZ/AoL aren't even on the same timeline now, so that makes up for the fact that both of those combos have a sort of 'end of the series' feel to them.

I agree totally. Thats essentially what I wrote in the original post, but mine was longer and with diagrams.

I think where we disagree is that you have 3 separate timelines, whereas I think the directors are now trying to fit all the ambiguous games onto the two timelines created by OoT

I am sorry Langford, but there are to many flaws in my eyes for this timeline to work;most have been pointed out (so i wont repead what others have already said). It seems you have a good knowledge of the games but you are applying it wrongly against Developer quotes and such.
The evidence points to largely towards the current popular choice of Timline and although TMC is belived to be the first by some, its to little evidence and insignificant compared to the evidence and Developer quotes that point otherwise.
Good try though.

But seriosuly, doesnt the single untill Split timline make more sense in your eyes?
without being biast towards your attempt?

. ........... . . .------tWW
--------OoT
. ........... . . .------MM

???

Originally Posted by Erimgard

I think where we disagree is that you have 3 separate timelines, whereas I think the directors are now trying to fit all the ambiguous games onto the two timelines created by OoT

Yes, no, sort-of. What I'd like to convey is the generally feeling that it's all just a sloppy afterthought on their parts. I made the timeline, but I'm honestly not attached to it. It was more a way of organizing my thoughts at the time. I put LTTP on it's on, kinda because I think they squeezed it out of any reasonable console timeline. It's popular enough however that the newer portable games still imitate it. It really seems more reasonable to see it as two distinct continuities, but we are forced to connect them because they insist on a connection only because they think it helps sell games.

Originally Posted by Artorium

I am sorry Langford, but there are to many flaws in my eyes for this timeline to work;most have been pointed out (so i wont repead what others have already said). It seems you have a good knowledge of the games but you are applying it wrongly against Developer quotes and such.
The evidence points to largely towards the current popular choice of Timline and although TMC is belived to be the first by some, its to little evidence and insignificant compared to the evidence and Developer quotes that point otherwise.
Good try though.

But seriosuly, doesnt the single untill Split timline make more sense in your eyes?
without being biast towards your attempt?

. ........... . . .------tWW
--------OoT
. ........... . . .------MM

???

It was more of an attempt to interpret the chronology as it fell from Nintendo's shelves. I'm sure its full of flaws created by conflicting statements, but I also don't think any timeline is free of flaws. I would have hated to just drop a timeline and say "behold!", so I tried to make a narrative of it.

Well I have to accept two, because it's what Nintendo has left us with, but it really makes no sense after the end of WW. I really think they broke their own timelines and left no good place for LTTP.