• Welcome to ZD Forums! You must create an account and log in to see and participate in the Shoutbox chat on this main index page.

Zelda Timeline Doesn't Work

Burning Beast

Go to Hell 4 Heavens Sake
Joined
Dec 6, 2012
Location
Zelda Dungeon
So this may be old news to people, but I figured out that the decline timeline, doesn't work.

Originally thought to be split into two timelines Nintendo introduced a third with the release of Hyrule Historia. However, as I thought about it the day before yesterday I found out that it's pretty much impossible for it to work.

In order for the decline timeline to work, 1 of two things has to happen. Either A. Link has to defeat Ganondorf and go back and fight him again and lose, or, he has to lose, and then fight him again. Neither works.

If he were to defeat Ganondorf he'd just go on as he did in the split timeline and The Legend of Zelda would go on as before with it's split timeline.

If he were to be defeated by Ganondorf, there would only be one timeline, that one being the decline.

So either way, it doesn't work. This may not be news or anything, but I wanted to throw this out there to those who thinks the HH timeline is good or whatever.

What do you guys think? Did I miss something big? Please tell me I didn't :dry:
 
Joined
Aug 12, 2013
Location
Ashland, OR
The timeline where Link was defeated is an alternate universe. It's a cop-out, but it works.

Agreed. Just like there are two alternate futures with child and adult Link, the decline timeline is born from yet another alternate ending: Link getting killed. You can't think of it as one or the other. A lot of people really dislike the use of Link dying because it's "non-canon" but to my mind that's just petty bologna. There is always the chance that the Hero will die and evil will prevail. The decline timeline is what arises when evil wins for a while.
 

Big Octo

=^)
Joined
Jul 2, 2011
Location
The
It still doesn't work as this would mean a seperate decline timeline coming from every single game.
So? That just means that Nintendo could make another branch from eevry game, and there's nothing wrong with that. They just chose Ocarina of Time because it already had a split, making it the most convenient game to place a decline timeline.
 

Justac00lguy

BooBoo
Joined
Jul 1, 2012
Gender
Shewhale
So? That just means that Nintendo could make another branch from eevry game, and there's nothing wrong with that. They just chose Ocarina of Time because it already had a split, making it the most convenient game to place a decline timeline.
I agree with this.

Ocarina of Time was a significant game and it changed the landscape of Hyrule's future pretty drastically - having the third split happen at roughly the same point in time as the others is just a lot more convenient.

The "Defeated Timeline" is a hypothetical scenario, but I don't see Nintendo doing it again, it had to happen really, to explain the creation of the Dark World and how Ganon gained the Triforce.
 

Salem

SICK
Joined
May 18, 2013
I just wished the classic games timeline branched of somewhere else in the timeline besides the events in OoT.
 

Terminus

If I was a wizard this wouldn't be happening to me
Joined
May 20, 2012
Location
Sub-Orbital Trajectory
Gender
Anarcho-Communist
My argument has two parts. First, the Many-worlds theory. This states that universes split when quantum wave-forms collapse, such as in the Schrödinger's cat paradox. In the experiment, the cat is both alive and dead. When the box opens, the wave-form decays and the cat is either alive or dead. During the preceding moments, the cat has an equal probability of being alive or dead. This sets us up for the idea that different circumstances will give us a timeline split for every decision made, thus validating the timeline splits.

The second part of my argument rests on two quotes.
The Tenth Doctor said:
People assume that time is a strict progression of cause to effect, but actually — from a non-linear, non-subjective viewpoint — it's more like a big ball of wibbly-wobbly... timey-wimey... stuff.
The Eleventh Doctor said:
Time isn't a straight line. It's all... bumpy-wumpy. There's loads of boring stuff, like Sundays and Tuesdays and Thursday afternoons. But now and then there are Saturdays. Big temporal tipping points when anything's possible!
Now, Ocarina of Time features an enormous amount of time travel, back and forth constantly. Taking the Tenth Doctor's quote on time travel, this creates a snarl of timelines that would be impossible to unravel.
Time_Yarn3_3310.jpg
Now, taking the Eleventh Doctor's quote, we can discard most of these timelines since only the final battle with Ganondorf is a "temporal tipping point" as outlined by the Hyrule Historia. Now, we only see the three splits that result from the final battle due to the observer effect, which is what causes the cat to either be alive or dead in the Schrödinger's cat paradox. The other splits are just as valid, but as of this point have not been observed.
 

Fig

The Altruist
Joined
Jul 23, 2011
Location
Mishima Tower
I may not be huge when in comes to Zelda Theory but I can sure give it a try.

While it's true that all three timelines can't possibly be happening at the same time, it does create alternate realities or dimensions in the franchise. While it is true that in fact Nintendo can probably branch out the games through other games in the series, Ocarina of Time simply just had the convenient in-game split in the actual game itself. It would make much sense for Nintendo to place the Decline Timeline after Ocarina of Time. That said, it still doesn't allow for all games to necessarily happen throughout the Link. The only games that are guaranteed to happen are those found in the Pre-Split portion of the timeline which Skyward Sword, Minish Cap, Four Swords, and Ocarina of Time in that order. What ever happens in Ocarina of Time all depends on the player's actions. If Link somehow dies by any means (it doesn't necessarily have to be defeated by Ganondorf/Ganon) and Ganondorf/Ganon collects Link's piece of the Triforce, the Decline Timeline will happen. If the player is successful and kills Ganon at the end of Ocarina of Time, both the Adult Link and Child Link timelines will take place at the same time in different universes. However, all three timelines can not happen at the same time. By this logic, it doesn't explain a timeline, but illustrates the entire Multi-verse of the Zelda franchise. To an extent, Nintendo is correct about their placements of each of the individual games themselves, but at the same time are incorrect as there are still flaws to the official timeline. Here's a video of where I found this concept and credit is given to where credit is earned.

[video=youtube;i1TSpfPFNlE]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=i1TSpfPFNlE[/video]

Now I just happened to yet stumble upon another Zelda theory not too long ago. Now this theory was created by Jonathon Vega and call his theory the Aonuma-verse Theory. In his theory he states what if the Zelda games were placed because Aonuma's involvement in the games. If you look at the official timeline, all the games that Aonuma has been apart of, you will notice that games will fall on either the Pre-Split, Adult Link, or Child Link portions of the timeline but none has fallen into the Decline Timeline. Even with A Link Between Worlds coming up in just a matter of months, Vega speculates that it will still fall in the Decline Timeline even with Aonuma directing the game. The reason behind this is because ALBW is not Aonuma's idea, but rather Miyamoto's. During an interview, Miyamoto stated that he would like to see in the world of A Link to the Past in an upcoming game and thus sparked the initial development of the remake. However, Aonuma didn't want to create a remake but rather a brand-new game. The compromise of having the layout of ALttP that Miyamoto wanted with the combination of new game mechanics, storyline, and funcitons that Aonuma wanted brought the remake to a close and change the game into A Link Between Worlds. I won't go in full depth, but the link will be provided below:

http://www.zeldainformer.com/articles/the-aonumaverse
 
Joined
Aug 12, 2013
Location
Ashland, OR
It makes sense way beyond who's idea ALBW was for it to go in the decline time line purely based on it's own foundation. It is a direct sequel to AlttP and Nintendo has stated that it will take place centuries after Alttp, similarly to how TWW happened a really long time and multiple wars after OOT. Regardless of pre-ALBW placement reasons, ALBW is specifically structured to be in the decline time line because AlttP is in the decline time line. Not because team members compromised.
 

Locke

Hegemon
Site Staff
Joined
Nov 24, 2009
Location
Redmond, Washington
Agreed. Just like there are two alternate futures with child and adult Link, the decline timeline is born from yet another alternate ending: Link getting killed.
Yes and no. The CT split is a result of external tampering (a foreign element being introduced into the timeline). The DT "split" is either a different quantum possibility within the timeline shown during AT-OoT, or a parallel (completely separate) universe.

Except this isn't how time travel in the Zelda series is shown to work. It's very much a linear progression, as highlighted by the fact that deviating from the set flow of events either causes a split in the timeline (OoT-MM), or causes it to be abruptly rewritten even from the point of view of entities outside the travel (Skyward Sword with the Life Tree).

I don't think it's too wise to use quotes from a television series as evidence or hypotheses for a separate game universe either. Especially when it comes to time travel and alternate universes, subjects that are only limited by rules thought up by the creator. Real world theory isn't a great starting point on this subject either to be honest, but it's better than another form of entertainment at least.
You're using SS to argue for established time physics? Don't forget about Zelda's bracelet. Timeshift Stones. Zelda's crystal. Figure out SS's mechanics before making statements about "how time travel in the Zelda series is shown to work."

Now I just happened to yet stumble upon another Zelda theory not too long ago. Now this theory was created by Jonathon Vega and call his theory the Aonuma-verse Theory. In his theory he states what if the Zelda games were placed because Aonuma's involvement in the games. If you look at the official timeline, all the games that Aonuma has been apart of, you will notice that games will fall on either the Pre-Split, Adult Link, or Child Link portions of the timeline but none has fallen into the Decline Timeline. Even with A Link Between Worlds coming up in just a matter of months, Vega speculates that it will still fall in the Decline Timeline even with Aonuma directing the game. The reason behind this is because ALBW is not Aonuma's idea, but rather Miyamoto's. During an interview, Miyamoto stated that he would like to see in the world of A Link to the Past in an upcoming game and thus sparked the initial development of the remake. However, Aonuma didn't want to create a remake but rather a brand-new game. The compromise of having the layout of ALttP that Miyamoto wanted with the combination of new game mechanics, storyline, and funcitons that Aonuma wanted brought the remake to a close and change the game into A Link Between Worlds. I won't go in full depth, but the link will be provided below:
I can't think of a serious response to this. I hope that's another one of their troll theories like the "Link is a Tree" theory. Can't be bothered to read it.
 

TMLink76240

Travis Mask
Joined
Jul 13, 2013
Location
Gainesville, Tx
Think about this: there are three in the split; there are three pieces to the triforce.
Link's victorious: Link/triforce of courage
Link goes back into the past by Zelda's command, stopping Ganondorf's ascent: Zelda/triforce of wisdom
Link fails: Ganondorf/triforce of power
 

Users who are viewing this thread

Top Bottom