I don't believe in the split timeline - here's why.

I've done a whole youtube video dedicated to this whole timeline-thing, and the response was stunningly great. While it's not my most viewed video, it certainly is my most commented one.

So, first of all: I am aware of what Aonuma and Miyamoto said about OoT, TWW, TP and the split timeline. You do not need to point me to their comments - I don't care about them. I've chosen not to believe in them, because in my opinion, they don't make much sense and, even worse, contradict events in the games. The reason I am saying this is that the most common response I get on my youtube video is that my ideas have been "proven wrong" because the developers stated something different. Screw that.


Okay, so there are a few problems I'm having with the split timeline. Where should I start? I'll start with the Ocarina.



The Ocarina problem or: Was Link forever trapped behind the Door of Time?

I'll try to cover this very quickly: in the beginning of OoT, Zelda has the Ocarina of Time. Obvious enough. Then Link comes, they have a nice chat about saving the world and stuff, and when he returns after receiving the third Spiritual Stone, Zelda flees from the castle and throws the Ocarina of Time over to Link. So Link has the Ocarina now. He then uses it in the Temple of Time to open the Door of Time, which was closed before until one destined to get the Master Sword would come.
Link draws out said sword, travels to the future and beats Ganondorf. Then, Zelda appears, telling him that is her duty to send him back in time. She uses the Ocarina for this, so Link gives it to her and cannot take it back to the past with him.
So, there are either two options now. Link either arrives at a point in time where he already met Zelda and received the Ocarina - as is heavily implied because you can clearly see that the Door of Time is still opened when Link returns in the Temple of Time - or, what the split timeline claims, he arrives at a time when Zelda hasn't fled and he hasn't received the OoT yet. But wouldn't he be trapped in the Temple of Time, then, because he didn't have the chance to open the Door of Time yet?


The "What's the point then?" problem

The split timeline implies that Link must be sent back to the past so he and Zelda can stop Ganondorf's evil plans before he attacks the king. But there's a major problem with that: what would be the point of sending him back to this time? Ganondorf already managed to attack and overthrow the King of Hyrule once before he gained the Triforce. So, okay, it would certainly be nice for Link to come back as a child and tell Zelda what he's gonna do and that Link just defeated him in the future. But what would it change for the past? Link is certainly no match for Ganondorf at that time (note that he's sealed for seven years because he wasn't ready to face Ganondorf), Zelda was suspecting Ganondorf to be evil anyway and the King couldn't do anything against him. So how should he be defeated in the past?
Also note that the idea that Ganondorf is still at large in the past (which is the very ending of the game) kinda renders the whole endboss battle.. well, pointless. It's like "So you've spent so much time in the future, struggling with dungeons, bosses and foes... but too bad for you, your nemesis is still alive, haha". That thought ruins the epic ending of OoT.


The problem with the Song of Storms and timesplits in general

When talking about time travel, there's always the grandfather's paradox to be kept in mind. You know about it: if you go to the past and kill your own grandfather before your father was born, how could you yourself ever be born to travel back to the past and so on.
There are only two solutions to avoid that paradox: there's either a consistent timeline that cannot be altered (meaning that when you go to the past, you'll never be able to kill your grampa, no matter what you try; this is applied in a Futurama-episode where Fry turns out to be his own grandfather) or that event would create a split in the timeline where you can do whatever you want, but must expect to arrive back in an altered future (meaning that if you prevent your own birth, you'd come back in a world where noone knows you, because you don't exist in that world; this solution is applied in the Back to the Future 2 movie where old Biff alters the events of 1955 so that everything is screwed up when Marty and Doc come back to 1985).
The split timeline of course supports solution 2 where changes in time will cause a timeline to split. But the game, Ocarina of Time, itself supports a consistent flow of time where past events already take effect in the future. This is proven by the way you learn the Song of Storms: you come to the future, not knowing the song. Then you learn it from a guy who has learned it from you in the past. Then you can go to the past and teach the guy this song. So, in a way, this is a self-fullfilling prophecy. If the past events didn't already take effect in the future, the man in the windmill wouldn't know the song and be able to teach it to you in the first place.
Also, if changes in time would cause the timeline to split, there'd be an endless amount of timelines created by all the time traveling done in OoT. Everytime Link goes back to the past (to get the Lens of Truth or enter the Spirit Temple, for example), he would already change that past with his sheer appearance, meaning that he would just have left a future behind that he cannot revisit and save anymore.

This is a problem that often shows up with time travels and just like the Back to the Future-movies, the Zelda series mixes that up pretty often. Sometimes the timeline is consistent and self-fullfilling (Song of Storms), sometimes it isn't (Majora's Mask). So... there's probably no solution to this.



Please note that my wish is not to claim that there's a perfect single timeline. I am indeed a linearist, just because I prefer the thought that all Zelda games took place and I don't wanna choose which one happened and which one didn't. I am just trying to offer new points of views and make clear that the split timeline brings up a freaking load of problems, inconsistencies and stuff like that... and doesn't make much more sense than a linear timeline (as is often claimed by splittists I argued with in the past). Coming up with a linear timeline is pretty much impossible, but coming up with that split timeline-stuff isn't much better at all.

And I don't have a timeline made up yet since I haven't played through every Zelda-game yet. But since I found this theorizing board, I'm sure I'll learn a lot and offer you my theory some day.

Okay, so it's 2 am at my place now, so I'll leave with wishing you a good night and hoping for some constructive input about my thoughts.


P.S.: Funny, I forgot to add my own theory about what's going on in OoT. So what could get rid of all the problems I've ran into with the split timeline? My idea is that when Zelda sends Link back to the past, she merges the future, peaceful world into the past so that Link arrives in a time where young Zelda has the Ocarina (because she just received it from him in the future) and Ganondorf is sealed away. Remember the very first time you've finished Ocarina of Time and seen the ending screen with Link and Zelda standing in the garden. Did you really think that Ganondorf was sitting ot the other side of that wall, still fresh and free? I sure didn't. It looked like an all happy ending to me with the good guys being well and together and the bad guys being beaten and locked away.

It was already confirmed that there was a split.

Okay, I probably deserved that one.

Originally Posted by PeterGerri

So, there are either two options now. Link either arrives at a point in time where he already met Zelda and received the Ocarina - as is heavily implied because you can clearly see that the Door of Time is still opened when Link returns in the Temple of Time

How do you propose that Zelda came back to the castle and had never seen Link (hence the reaction.) She was chased away by Ganondorf himself. The only way that's possible if it is before Zelda was cashed away.

-or, what the split timeline claims, he arrives at a time when Zelda hasn't fled and he hasn't received the OoT yet. But wouldn't he be trapped in the Temple of Time, then, because he didn't have the chance to open the Door of Time yet?

.This is what's called a small plot hole. You plan to disbeleave countless well writen theories made by people who've been doing this for years on that.

The "What's the point then?" problem

The split time line implies that Link must be sent back to the past so he and Zelda can stop Ganondorf's evil plans before he attacks the king. But there's a major problem with that: what would be the point of sending him back to this time? Ganondorf already managed to attack and overthrow the King of Hyrule once before he gained the Triforce. So, okay, it would certainly be nice for Link to come back as a child and tell Zelda what he's gonna do and that Link just defeated him in the future. But what would it change for the past? Link is certainly no match for Ganondorf at that time (note that he's sealed for seven years because he wasn't ready to face Ganondorf), Zelda was suspecting Ganondorf to be evil anyway and the King couldn't do anything against him. So how should he be defeated in the past?

The Triforce is in the Wind Waker and Twilight Princess, and the TP Lin (I'm pretty sure) is supposed to be a decedent of the Original OoT Link so that's why he has the ToC. If child link had the sacred power of the gods I think you'd listen to him.

Also note that the idea that Ganondorf is still at large in the past (which is the very ending of the game) kinda renders the whole endboss battle.. well, pointless. It's like "So you've spent so much time in the future, struggling with dungeons, bosses and foes... but too bad for you, your nemesis is still alive, haha". That thought ruins the epic ending of OoT.

Epicness vs fact. <fact

Also, if changes in time would cause the timeline to split, there'd be an endless amount of timelines created by all the time traveling done in OoT. Everytime Link goes back to the past (to get the Lens of Truth or enter the Spirit Temple, for example), he would already change that past with his sheer appearance, meaning that he would just have left a future behind that he cannot revisit and save anymore.

There is an endless amount of alternate reality and parallel universes The LoZ series just focuses on 2 .

This is a problem that often shows up with time travels and just like the Back to the Future-movies, the Zelda series mixes that up pretty often. Sometimes the timeline is consistent and self-fullfilling (Song of Storms), sometimes it isn't (Majora's Mask).

What about MM?

One of the best anti-split time lines I've ever seen. I applaud you.

Here we go again...

Link either arrives at a point in time where he already met Zelda and received the Ocarina - as is heavily implied because you can clearly see that the Door of Time is still opened when Link returns in the Temple of Time - or, what the split timeline claims, he arrives at a time when Zelda hasn't fled and he hasn't received the OoT yet. But wouldn't he be trapped in the Temple of Time, then, because he didn't have the chance to open the Door of Time yet?

Both posibilities can exist with the split. The split happens when Link changes the future. It does not matter when he was actually sent as long as it is before Ganondorf got the ToP.

But personally, I'm pretty sure of when he was sent back. Link does not have the Goron Bracelet when he arrives in the Temple of Time in the ending. This indicates that he is returned to a time before he got the bracelet. This could be dismissed by saying Link's appearance is just generic (unlike the TP ending where Link wears whatever he was wearing during the battle) however his possession of the ToC would indicate otherwise. It is thus likely that he was sent back to his first visit to Hyrule Market.

As for the Door, Zelda is the sage of the Temple of Time and as such it is easier to explain the open state of the Door than the disappearance of the bracelet. As the temples sage she could perhaps open the door from the future. Or the Door could merely have recognized Link as the Hero of Time.

His adventures were not in vain. His being sent back in time changed nothing for that timeline as is proved by the Adult Timeline's very existance. However, it allowed the existance of a Hyrule free of Ganondorf. I don't think you understand what happens after. Ganondorf does not enter the Sacred Realm or obtain the ToP (yet) in the Child Timeline. Link knew from his experiences that the whole reason Ganondorf got into the Sacred realm was because he had gathered all the sacred stones. If Link and Zelda do nothing (as the developpers have stated they did) Ganondorf's eventual betrayal would be thwarted. The gorons already have proof the Ganondorf was up to no good as he had sealed Dondongo's Cavern and the gorons are already friends of Hyrule. Ganondorf would be defeated and this would go into TP's backstory.

As for his acquiring the ToP, that is as odd as Link's possession of the ToC in the end of OoT. Theories abound but I think as to why they each got their pieces but the important thing is that they did. That is the "Divine Prank". Ganondorf can be assumed, by logic and after seeing the execution cutscene, not to have known of his possession of the ToP until his impalement. His knowing of it would make his capture completly illogical in the first place.

As for the song of storms we have to assume timetravel via the Master Sword is different from timetravel via the ocarina in the hands of the sage of time. It could be assumed that the immutability of time is it,s natural state. However, changing the past was the point of sending him back and as sage of time, Zelda may have had the power to go against time's natural flow.

the split timeline brings up a freaking load of problems, inconsistencies and stuff like that... and doesn't make much more sense than a linear timeline

I disagree. A linear timeline has many many more problems than a split one.

Coming up with a linear timeline is pretty much impossible, but coming up with that split timeline-stuff isn't much better at all.

You prefer to believe in something impossible? A split timeline works very well. The main problems with the split are the split itself but all the other games fit better in the context of the split.


Not to be rude but unless you actually have a timeline, your arguing for or against the split is rather unfounded. Especially since you basically said you disbelieve it because you would persomally prefer it if it was linear.


At the end of the day, the developpers have said that the split is fact, which makes it so. It's their F*****g series so they can and will do whatever they want to it and we have no right to argue.

Also ganondorf dies in TP, which takes place 100 years after OOT.
And TWW takes place hundreds of years after OOT ganon is alive in that one.

And the reason I think that your wrong, is because in TWW ganon escapes his seal placed on him by the seven sages. If you are linearist you would put TP before TWW. But Ganon died in TP. Since you believe in a Linear timeline you will think that in TP ganon is not dead and, he is still alive. Also how would you explain the back story to TWW. It talks about how ganon came out of the sacred realm and killed off the two sages of the master sword, and that there was no hero try stop him. Wouldn't you think TP link would have descendants to try to stop ganon. That's why I feel the linear timeline is wrong. Also in TWW it saids that ganon broke the seal placed on him by the seven sages, in TP there's no seal placed on ganon except for the seal placed on him by the ethereal sages. But that's to the twilight realm and not the sacred realm. You got my point.


It's okay to be a linearist, beacuse most of us here are splitist if you don't believe in the split timeline it's okay.

The split timeline doesn't make much logical sense and would be riddled with plot holes. For example, why is Zelda in the castle at the end of the game even though up until that point she was hiding somewhere, away from Ganondorf? How is the Triforce of Courage in Twilight Princess world yet broken into pieces in Wind Waker world? Why is there only one Link but two Zeldas' and Ganondorfs'? The list goes on and on. However, the deus ex machina is that the magic of the Ocarina of Time was at work and somehow straightened reality out to account for these problems. Not to hard to disbelieve, because it was already established in Majora's Mask that the Ocarina of Time has mysterious powers which can distort the flow of the space-time continuum. I mean really, considering all the crazy stuff the Ocarina can do in MM, whose to say it can't bend reality?

The split timeline is a big advantage for the creativity of the developers, because it allows them to do things in one world they can't do in the other -- for example, experiment with the concept of "Atlantis" in Wind Waker world while retaining Hyrule in its natural form in Twilight Princess world. That's probably the main reason they insisted upon it.

The split has a few quirks and sometimes, talking about how this detail or that detail would work out makes it seem like it's not working out. However, when asked to make a timeline, this instantly becomes more credible as you'll have a hard time making a working linear timeline.

The Ocarina problem or: Was Link forever trapped behind the Door of Time?

This issue exists regardless. In a linear timeline, you'd have to explain this as well. It is not a relevant issue.

The "What's the point then?" problem

Did you think the ending was ruined when you played OoT? I don't think anyone did. Also, most people probably don't even think about what happened when Link got sent back other than the fact that he was sent back to be a kid again.

And again, you'd have this problem even in a linear timeline so the whole point is completely irrelevant. In fact, the only relevant point you bring up IMO is the Song of Storms and general timetravel which I agree isn't going hand in hand with the split timeline.

Originally Posted by Rajin95

How do you propose that Zelda came back to the castle and had never seen Link (hence the reaction.) She was chased away by Ganondorf himself. The only way that's possible if it is before Zelda was cashed away.

I wouldn't even interpret her reaction as such. It's more like a silent welcoming to me.

.This is what's called a small plot hole. You plan to disbeleave countless well writen theories made by people who've been doing this for years on that.

I plan to disbelieve them anyway, not only because of this point. My point here is to point out reasons why I do so. The Door of Time is one of them - though only a minor plot hole, yes.

The Triforce is in the Wind Waker and Twilight Princess, and the TP Lin (I'm pretty sure) is supposed to be a decedent of the Original OoT Link so that's why he has the ToC. If child link had the sacred power of the gods I think you'd listen to him.

You misunderstood my point there. Ganondorf attacked and chased Zelda away before he got the Triforce of Power. Therefore, he didn't need it to defeat the king. So what would Link's mere knowledge of the future change?

Epicness vs fact. <fact

Not from a developer's point of view, actually. Epicness came first, and the "fact" is pretty much what I'd consider retcon. I am involved in a Star Wars-fan community, so I have encountered endless problems like this. One shouldn't rely too much on the retcon, I suppose. Because it does not often make sense.

What about MM?

In Majora's Mask, the timeline is definitely not self-fullfilling. In the beginning, the stalkid has the Ocarina, but when Link gets it and goes back to the past, it never has it anymore from this point on.

Originally Posted by Caulaincourt

But personally, I'm pretty sure of when he was sent back. Link does not have the Goron Bracelet when he arrives in the Temple of Time in the ending. This indicates that he is returned to a time before he got the bracelet. This could be dismissed by saying Link's appearance is just generic (unlike the TP ending where Link wears whatever he was wearing during the battle) however his possession of the ToC would indicate otherwise. It is thus likely that he was sent back to his first visit to Hyrule Market.

The thing with the Goron Bracelet is actually an excellent point against what I am saying. The best one I've seen yet. On the other hand, this could indeed be a technical issue with that scene, because Young Link also does not have the Triforce on the back of his hand when he arrives, he only has it in the courtyard scene. So you can probably dismiss this whole Door of Time-idea with that.. unless one wants to believe that Link obtained the ToC while wandering from the Temple of Time to the castle courtyard.

His adventures were not in vain. His being sent back in time changed nothing for that timeline as is proved by the Adult Timeline's very existance. However, it allowed the existance of a Hyrule free of Ganondorf. I don't think you understand what happens after. Ganondorf does not enter the Sacred Realm or obtain the ToP (yet) in the Child Timeline. Link knew from his experiences that the whole reason Ganondorf got into the Sacred realm was because he had gathered all the sacred stones. If Link and Zelda do nothing (as the developpers have stated they did) Ganondorf's eventual betrayal would be thwarted. The gorons already have proof the Ganondorf was up to no good as he had sealed Dondongo's Cavern and the gorons are already friends of Hyrule. Ganondorf would be defeated and this would go into TP's backstory.

How would Ganondorf be defeated? Remember that he already defeated the King without the Triforce of Power (he chases Zelda away after defeating the king, and that's before Link draws out the Master Sword, obviously).
So, how should Ganondorf be defeated in the past? The only possibility is that he eventually would take the throne and the other nations would fight in a war against him and maybe defeat him. But having the land suffer in yet another war... do you really think that's the intention of young Link and Zelda?

You prefer to believe in something impossible? A split timeline works very well. The main problems with the split are the split itself but all the other games fit better in the context of the split.

I prefer to believe that I don't have to decide if game A actually ever happened when I'm playing game B. And the only problem I'm having so far is The Wind Waker, which cannot exist in the context of Twilight Princess. So I'm looking at it the way it seems to be as for now: The Wind Waker - not just its story, the whole game itself - was Nintendo's try at making something new with the series. And while I am not saying that they didn't succeed, it pretty much seems that they made Twilight Princess to make up for Wind Waker, because that game obviously split the fandom to a certain point and caused much controversy. So in my opinion, Twilight Princess is an alternate, OoT-like version of Wind Waker. They can indeed only co-exist in a split timeline. So as a linearist, I'd have to say that Wind Waker and Phantom Hourglass did not actually happen. Which is not exactly a comfortable thought since Wind Waker is one of my favorite Zelda-games.

Not to be rude but unless you actually have a timeline, your arguing for or against the split is rather unfounded. Especially since you basically said you disbelieve it because you would persomally prefer it if it was linear.

I don't see how not having a complete timeline is rendering an argument against the split timeline, only based on Ocarina of Time and Majora's Mask, unfounded. I am judging based on the events in those games, so I actually don't have to take TLoZ into account, for example.
And why should I make a point for something that I don't believe in? It doesn't make sense.

At the end of the day, the developpers have said that the split is fact, which makes it so. It's their F*****g series so they can and will do whatever they want to it and we have no right to argue.

But we have a right to think. And I've been in touch with other fictional universes for too long to have blind faith in what the officials say. That's why I am basing my thoughts and theories only on what's the nearest thing to 'set in stone' - the games themselves.
So if Miyamoto visited me at my place tomorrow and explained to me that Link in Ocarina of Time actually had pink hair like in ALttP, I'd still start up the game, show him Link's blond hair and say: "You're wrong. I don't believe you."
Even if he offered me to beta-play the next Zelda game...

Originally Posted by brandon211111

And the reason I think that your wrong, is because in TWW ganon escapes his seal placed on him by the seven sages. If you are linearist you would put TP before TWW. But Ganon died in TP.

I don't put TP before TWW. Well, ok, kind of. Remember the introduction story of Wind Waker: evil returned, but the hero did not? Well, in my opinion, Twilight Princess is the story of what would have happened it the hero did return as well to stop evil. That's Twilight Princess. Or in other words: if Link hadn't shown up in Twilight Princess, there would have been a great flood...
So you could say that I actually do believe in a split - but not in one in Ocarina of Time, but in the one at the beginning of Wind Waker.
But I am pretty sure they'll continue telling the story from a TP-point of view, which would render that storyline true and Wind Waker the mere "What if... ?"-sidestory.

Originally Posted by Hombre de Mundo

This issue exists regardless. In a linear timeline, you'd have to explain this as well. It is not a relevant issue.

In a linear timeline, you could assume that Ganondorf is sealed away and that Link is returning to a peaceful past with no threats anymore. Therefore he would already have met Zelda, but she would still have the Ocarina which she received in the future.

Did you think the ending was ruined when you played OoT? I don't think anyone did. Also, most people probably don't even think about what happened when Link got sent back other than the fact that he was sent back to be a kid again.

Of course I did not think the ending was ruined when I played the game. Because from my point of view, it makes perfect sense and is a perfect ending. Only the split timeline causes problems with that.

And again, you'd have this problem even in a linear timeline so the whole point is completely irrelevant. In fact, the only relevant point you bring up IMO is the Song of Storms and general timetravel which I agree isn't going hand in hand with the split timeline.

How would this problem arise in a linear timeline, when Ganondorf is already sealed away at this point? There's no threat to face anymore. Only from a splittist's POV Ganondorf is still at large in the end.



Wow, that was an awful lot of quoting...

Originally Posted by PeterGerri

She uses the Ocarina for this, so Link gives it to her and cannot take it back to the past with him.

Stop. Where is your evidence for this? We never, for the purposes of the story, ever see Link fail to have any item when he returns to the past. Moreover, is it not logical that if someone goes back to a point in time at which they carry something in the fashion that Link does, that when they arrive at that point they will be carrying it? We see that his age changes through traveling back in time; we can only assume that everything else changes with his age.

Which leads me to my next point...

or, what the split timeline claims, he arrives at a time when Zelda hasn't fled and he hasn't received the OoT yet.

This is not necessarily true. The developers have never made a claim of this nature; a vast majority of people who believe in the split timeline do because they are wrapped up in the idea that if Ganondorf got the Triforce of Power like he did in OoT, by touching it in the Sacred Realm, it would be impossible to prevent the seven-year rule from happening again, and it would seem from Aonuma's comments that the seven year rule did not happen in the "peaceful child time."

However, this itself is baseless, as the scenario of OoT, we know, happened entirely and exclusively because Link was sealed away and that the sages could not awaken because Ganondorf's darkness had already corrupted their temples. If Link is able to intervene in the new past, then this would not be the case; the sages would be forewarned and more able to act.

But wouldn't he be trapped in the Temple of Time, then, because he didn't have the chance to open the Door of Time yet?

Not necessarily. The Door of Time is clearly open when he returns.

The split timeline implies that Link must be sent back to the past so he and Zelda can stop Ganondorf's evil plans before he attacks the king. But there's a major problem with that: what would be the point of sending him back to this time? [...] But what would it change for the past?

The game itself says it: "he was exposed, subdued, and brought to justice." In the Adult timeline he was not exposed until it was too late; he was not subdued until Link appeared to stop him; and he was not brought to justice until he had ruled Hyrule for seven years. In the Child timeline, it is suggested that Link warned Zelda of Ganondorf's plans (either warning him that Ganondorf was in the Sacred Realm or explaining what Ganon had done in the Adult timeline), thus "exposing" them. Then the sages (or some other authority) "subdued" him, and in an effort to control/be rid of his evil threat they executed him, attempting to "[bring him] to justice."

This is the entire point; they are able to confront Ganondorf seven years earlier, before he creates his age of darkness in Hyrule.

That thought ruins the epic ending of OoT.

Not really. You saved the already-doomed future your actions brought about, and now you are given a new chance to create a future in which you were not sealed away through your adolescent years and in which the doomed future does not play out.

But the game, Ocarina of Time, itself supports a consistent flow of time where past events already take effect in the future.

I agree; it's one of the reasons I supported the split timelne for so long.

But allow me to demonstrate why the developers have indicated a split timeline in the context of OoT and future games.

1) "Lay the Master Sword to sleep and close the Door of Time. However, if you do this, the road to travel in time will be closed." - OoT, Zelda, Literal Japanese translation

Zelda literally wants Link to seal off the road to travel in time. If he does this, wouldn't it prevent his future self from emerging in the future? I believe it is this action, closing the Door of Time, that causes the split timeline to come about. We see evidence of this when we see that opening the Door of Time in TP's Temple of Time leads us to another time, sealed away inside the Door. This is, what I believe, happened to the Adult future of OoT; it was sealed in time behind the Door of Time.

2) "...the Hero of Time traveled through time, and left Hyrule."
- TWW, King of Red Lions, Literal Japanese translation

TWW implies that the Hero of Time left Hyrule by traveling in time. We know that Hyrule was flooded by the gods because a hero did not rise to the occasion when evil struck. Putting two and two together, the hero traveling in time took him away from the OoT future, and therefore he was not able to appear to save Hyrule before the flood. A single timeline cannot make sense of this line from TWW; Link traveling back in time doesn't take him away from Hyrule in any form, it just dumps him in the past.

The thing with the Goron Bracelet is actually an excellent point against what I am saying. The best one I've seen yet. On the other hand, this could indeed be a technical issue with that scene, because Young Link also does not have the Triforce on the back of his hand when he arrives, he only has it in the courtyard scene. So you can probably dismiss this whole Door of Time-idea with that.. unless one wants to believe that Link obtained the ToC while wandering from the Temple of Time to the castle courtyard.

You do not actually see his hand in the chamber so you can't prove whether he does or doesn't have the ToC when he arrives.

How would Ganondorf be defeated? Remember that he already defeated the King

The game itself says it: "he was exposed, subdued, and brought to justice." In the Adult timeline he was not exposed until it was too late; he was not subdued until Link appeared to stop him; and he was not brought to justice until he had ruled Hyrule for seven years. In the Child timeline, it is suggested that Link warned Zelda of Ganondorf's plans (either warning him that Ganondorf was in the Sacred Realm or explaining what Ganon had done in the Adult timeline), thus "exposing" them. Then the sages (or some other authority) "subdued" him, and in an effort to control/be rid of his evil threat they executed him, attempting to "[bring him] to justice."

^This. And besides, you have no proof Ganondorf killed the king during that specific attack. All I see are a few injured guards and burning buildings.

Originally Posted by PeterGerri

I wouldn't even interpret her reaction as such. It's more like a silent welcoming to me.

Well this is comepletly up to your opion, but must people just interpret it in a wy to help their timeline.

You misunderstood my point there. Ganondorf attacked and chased Zelda away before he got the Triforce of Power. Therefore, he didn't need it to defeat the king. So what would Link's mere knowledge of the future change?

I was talking about if he showed up about before Zelda ran away.

Not from a developer's point of view, actually. Epicness came first, and the "fact" is pretty much what I'd consider retcon. I am involved in a Star Wars-fan community, so I have encountered endless problems like this. One shouldn't rely too much on the retcon, I suppose. Because it does not often make sense.

See Hombre's post.

In Majora's Mask, the timeline is definitely not self-fullfilling. In the beginning, the stalkid has the Ocarina, but when Link gets it and goes back to the past, it never has it anymore from this point on.

Well you really can't get too hung up on MM too many head aches.

Wow, that was an awful lot of quoting...

Get use to it

Originally Posted by Mr. Lexxi Aileron

Stop. Where is your evidence for this? We never, for the purposes of the story, ever see Link fail to have any item when he returns to the past. Moreover, is it not logical that if someone goes back to a point in time at which they carry something in the fashion that Link does, that when they arrive at that point they will be carrying it? We see that his age changes through traveling back in time; we can only assume that everything else changes with his age.

Which leads me to my next point...

So you're saying that if you catch some bugs in the past, go to the future and release them, you'll still have them when you return to the past? I doubt it.
And if it was like you said, you wouldn't have the equipment you gather in the future in the past. No future rupies, no future fairies, etc. ...
You can try this out if you want to. Start up your game, go to the past, buy a hylia shield, go to the future, let it be eaten by a like like and return to the past. And then go up to Death Mountain to the dangerous road and see if you'll be able to use the hylia shield to protect yourself from the falling rocks.

This is not necessarily true. The developers have never made a claim of this nature; a vast majority of people who believe in the split timeline do because they are wrapped up in the idea that if Ganondorf got the Triforce of Power like he did in OoT,
[...]
If Link is able to intervene in the new past, then this would not be the case; the sages would be forewarned and more able to act.

From what I've experienced, many splittists seem to believe that Link arrives back in a past where he hasn't met Zelda yet. And from a splittist's POV, this is the only thing that really makes sense, indeed.

Not necessarily. The Door of Time is clearly open when he returns.

Yep. That was my whole point. I'm glad we agree on this.

The game itself says it: "he was exposed, subdued, and brought to justice."
[...]

Which game? Ocarina of Time? No, I think you are talking about Twilight Princess now. Well, TP was certainly made with a split timeline in mind, because that's the only way to put it in Wind Waker's place without rendering TWW non-canon.
But that quote doesn't prove much, in my opinion. It would make no more and no less sense if Ocarina of Time did not exist. I don't see a definite reference to Ocarina of Time - on the contrary.
When playing Twilight Princess, I never thought that the Ganondorf in the execution flashback was the one from Ocarina of Time. Which leads me to another question: Twilight Princess is meant to take place in the YL-timeline, isn't it? If so, why does Ganondorf have the Triforce of Power at all in TP? According to the split timeline, that's the time where Ganondorf did not obtain the ToP in OoT.

Now, the rest of what you said, with the sages being able to react seven years earlier and stuff... there's not much I can hold against that because it's speculation. I could only counter with speculation on my own and I don't want that. You sure make some interesting points with your thoughts, though. It makes at least sense within the context of Ocarina of Time, which sure is a good thing.
There's only one thing I'd like to comment on:

TWW implies that the Hero of Time left Hyrule by traveling in time. We know that Hyrule was flooded by the gods because a hero did not rise to the occasion when evil struck. Putting two and two together, the hero traveling in time took him away from the OoT future, and therefore he was not able to appear to save Hyrule before the flood. A single timeline cannot make sense of this line from TWW; Link traveling back in time doesn't take him away from Hyrule in any form, it just dumps him in the past.

A single timeline can make sense of that quote as well, since it could be Link's quest to look for Navi (and his adventures in Termina) that stopped him from returning back to Hyrule. We have no evidence that Link ever returned to Hyrule after his encounter with the Mask of Majora.
So, putting two and two together as you put it when playing Wind Waker back then, my first idea was that the King of Red Lions was referring to Link's quest to Termina/find Navi.

Originally Posted by Caulaincourt

You do not actuallysee his hand in the chamber so you can't prove whether he does or doesn't have the ToC whn he arrives.

I can't?



If you're happy and see a Triforce, clap your hands.
If you don't believe this image because of its quality, feel free to put in your game and check for yourself. I'm pretty sure you won't find a Triforce symbol before the courtyard scene.

^This. And besides, you have no proof Ganondorf killed the king during that specific attack. All I see are a few injured guards and burning buildings.

I didn't say anything about killing the King. I said that Ganondorf defeated the King after a short battle - which is what you are told by one of the very guards you just mentioned.

If you believe in a linear timeline then explain MM. The MM manual says that you saved Hyrule. When did you save Hyrule as a kid?

Originally Posted by Sign of Madness

If you believe in a linear timeline then explain MM. The MM manual says that you saved Hyrule. When did you save Hyrule as a kid?

Since in my idea of a linear timeline the peaceful future with a sealed Ganondorf is merged into the past, Link is already the Hero of Time when leaving Hyrule.

Oh, and thanks for pointing me to the MM manual. Its introduction text supports my point even more, with talking about how a boy [Link] battled evil and saved Hyrule and once waging the battles across time. That sounds pretty much like what I am talking about!

Originally Posted by PeterGerri

Since in my idea of a linear timeline the peaceful future with a sealed Ganondorf is merged into the past, Link is already the Hero of Time when leaving Hyrule.

Oh, and thanks for pointing me to the MM manual. Its introduction text supports my point even more, with talking about how a boy [Link] battled evil and saved Hyrule and once waging the battles across time. That sounds pretty much like what I am talking about!

Why are you pushing this twaddle? The split has been comfirmed!

Originally Posted by PeterGerri

So you're saying that if you catch some bugs in the past, go to the future and release them, you'll still have them when you return to the past?

Originally Posted by Me

We never, for the purposes of the story, ever see Link fail to have any item when he returns to the past.

Changing quantities of Rupees and ammunition and bottle items I don't really see as an issue; in Majora's Mask we saw that while Link maintained all his major quest items when he returns to the past, he loses his Rupees, ammunition, and bottle items. Clearly there is a differentiation between these types of items and major quest items when it comes to time travel. The Hylian Shield is another matter; sure, it's a more major item than a Rupee, ammo count, or bottle item, but Like-likes eating your shield still isn't a major part of the story.

In terms of the story and not the gameplay, we never see Link take an item from the future into the past. The only possible exception to this is Nayru's Love, but as that's a magical spell it may not technically be an item anyway.

Which game? Ocarina of Time? No, I think you are talking about Twilight Princess now. Well, TP was certainly made with a split timeline in mind, because that's the only way to put it in Wind Waker's place without rendering TWW non-canon.
But that quote doesn't prove much, in my opinion. It would make no more and no less sense if Ocarina of Time did not exist. I don't see a definite reference to Ocarina of Time - on the contrary.

I am talking about Twilight Princess; in TP it says they "exposed, subdued, and brought [Ganondorf] to justice." In OoT all of these things technically happened, but to "bring him to justice" connotes an execution, which happens in TP but not in OoT.

Which leads me to another question: Twilight Princess is meant to take place in the YL-timeline, isn't it? If so, why does Ganondorf have the Triforce of Power at all in TP? According to the split timeline, that's the time where Ganondorf did not obtain the ToP in OoT.

The split timeline requires no such thing. In any case, most people think he got it despite Link's time travel, either because he was already in the Sacred Realm when Link returned to the past or because the Triforce split anyway because Link returned to the past as the rightful bearer of the Triforce of Courage.

Now, the rest of what you said, with the sages being able to react seven years earlier and stuff... there's not much I can hold against that because it's speculation.

Aonuma said that Link's talk with Zelda completely changed their relationship with Ganondorf. Since we know what happened to Ganondorf prior to TP, that he was in the custody of the sages and executed, I can only assume this means the sages were able to act, since the sages are the ones who claim responsibility for the events this intervention caused.

A single timeline can make sense of that quote as well, since it could be Link's quest to look for Navi (and his adventures in Termina) that stopped him from returning back to Hyrule. We have no evidence that Link ever returned to Hyrule after his encounter with the Mask of Majora.

We see him in the same forest he begins the game in at the end of the game, and the developers have stated that this forest is the Lost Woods.

So, putting two and two together as you put it when playing Wind Waker back then, my first idea was that the King of Red Lions was referring to Link's quest to Termina/find Navi.

I agree; it was my first impression, too. But the English version completely leaves out the part that says he traveled in time when he left Hyrule, so my first impression was from an incorrect source. In the intro we see in the Hylian script (which can be translated, as it is just a cipher of Japanese), that the hero did not appear because he had "journeyed into the flows of time," not because he had left Hyrule on a physical journey. Leaving Hyrule is not even mentioned in the intro, only traveling in time is cited as his reason for not appearing.

somehow that doesn't work...
Ganon OoT:sealed away
Ganon MM: no mention
Ganon in TP: stabbed and dead
Ganon WW: he appears again and dies again uhhhhmmm....no?

Um, about the whole "You don't see a Triforce symbol till the coutryard scene" thing...
Triforce crests only glow in two situations:
1: When someone is harnessing it's power [usually for transformation or protection]
2: When more than one Triforce piece is in the same area.

In the ToT, Link was not harnessing it's power, and he was not near Zelda. In the coutryard scene, either one of those could work. He could be specifically using it to valdiate his story, or it could be reacting to Zelda's piece. We don't see Zelda's piece resonate, but in the fight scene with Ganondorf we see that the pieces activate/resonate one by one, not all at the same time.

Originally Posted by Erimgard

Triforce crests only appear in three situations:
1: When someone is harnessing its power [usually for transformation or protection]
2: When more than one Triforce piece is in the same area.
3: Crests are always visible as a birthmark of sorts on the back of the bare hand of the wielder.

Fix'd.

We never really saw anyone with a bare hand and a Triforce crest other than Link in OoT, but in every other game besides OoT that features a Triforce mark there is no indication, at least not in any cutscene, that the mark is only there some of the time.