Does the Original Master Sword Exist in Wind Waker?

[Crash]

"it's also possible that Link did in fact put the Master Sword back and we just didn't see it. "

If he put it back in the Pedestal of Time, then in the Wind Waker it should be in the Temple of Time, not the new Hyrule Castle. And since only Link can wield it, no one would have been able to transport it from one location to another.

Unless you know... they cut out the chunk of rock where it's located and move it into the basement of the castle... Magic was still heavily prevalent in OoT and was still rather powerful, so it wouldn't be so much of a stretch for them to do it.

 

[TheBlueReptile]

...HUH?

Either you don't read our post, or just don't want to understand the arguments of other people. There is a word for that...its called being stubborn.

I'm already suprised that this debate is still going. I think i already gave my fair share of arguments that already disproves this theory. And i can say the same of a couple of other members who joined this debate. On the contrary, i havn't seen one strong argument from you that disproves my statements.

Like I said, I would like to be able to disbelieve this theory. I'm not being stubborn I'm just not willing to allow people to criticize me for using speculation and then use speculation themselves to try and discredit it.

 

[Onilink89]

Like I said, I would like to be able to disbelieve this theory. I'm not being stubborn I'm just not willing to allow people to criticize me for using speculation and then use speculation themselves to try and discredit it.

Putting aside the arguments of other members, lets focus on my arguments.

You said "However, nobody seems to be able to disprove it". So in other words, this also includes my arguments. So how can you say that while nobody (including you) disproved my arguments instead. My arguments is litterly being ignored, thats why i called you stubborn. So, review back page 1 and 2 and prove that all of my arguments are wrong. And not just pointing out flaws, no i expect good arguments back of course to counter mine. It seems only fair since i also gave my arguments when i disproved this theory, right? Or at least, thats how a proper debate works.

Yes people tend to make speculations to fill up a certain void. Just because we didn't saw something in the game, we fill that void with our own ideas. Its not a bad thing but the big question is, on what do you base that idea? I also do it, i assumed that there is some kind of connection between the MS and the Sages to maintain their power. And i also supported this with multiple arguments that is actually stated in the game. Thats what I based on it.

 

[Crash]

Is it really so hard to imagine that Zelda transported Link to the Temple of Time where he proceeded to put the sword back as an adult and then arrive in the past as a kid? She did say, in-game, that he needed to return the Master Sword to the pedestal, so to me that's like saying, put the sword back and go back to your original time. So when he put it back as an adult, it stayed there in the adult timeline as well as being in the child timeline from Link going back to the past. I seriously thought this would be an easy concept and debate... There's support for this in-game, and is completely plausible.

 

[The-Last-Hylian]

Is it really so hard to imagine that Zelda transported Link to the Temple of Time where he proceeded to put the sword back as an adult and then arrive in the past as a kid? She did say, in-game, that he needed to return the Master Sword to the pedestal, so to me that's like saying, put the sword back and go back to your original time. So when he put it back as an adult, it stayed there in the adult timeline as well as being in the child timeline from Link going back to the past. I seriously thought this would be an easy concept and debate... There's support for this in-game, and is completely plausible.

This to me makes sence.
Zelda asked Link to put the MS back in the PoT and then returned him to his original timestream.

As said before the MS is a vessel that's locked within it's own timeline, So it exists wherever it's withdrawn from the PoT, be that in the CT or the AT therefore being lead down time in the CT & AT respective timelines.

It's an interesting question
Also the comment on it being a magical sword and changing it's length to fit the size of whomever is deemed worthy of weilding it by the goddess is a nice touch.

 

[Red Baron]

Like I said, I would like to be able to disbelieve this theory. I'm not being stubborn I'm just not willing to allow people to criticize me for using speculation and then use speculation themselves to try and discredit it.

Most [if not all] Zelda theories are speculation. That is not to say that all speculation is equal. No one can disprove you entirely because there is never any direct dialogue that says "this is not a replica master sword". However, speculating that the sword was left behind because we see it in a later game is far more plausible. Is it the absolute truth? No one can say (except the devs). What you're doing is trying to prove one speculation with another and people don't just let that slide. Your welcome to think what you will, but don't expect other people to agree just because it's possible. A lot of things are possible.

 

[The-Last-Hylian]

Ganondorf says to Link in WW that he's the Hero of Time reborn of something to that extent, Demise states that his hatred will continue to cycle around the bloodlines of Link and Zelda and I believe in at the end of Four Swords Adventures in which Princess Zelda calls Ganon an "ancient demon reborn". In OoT it's said that the King of the Gerudo's is born every 100 years...

Well if Link and Ganon keep re-cycling... isn't it possible for the MS to jump to the timeline where Ganon is reborn? As it's a vessel of time itself? It relocates itself to where it's needed most? then again I believe that Miyamoto has said now that there's only one Ganon...

TP takes place atleast 100 years after SS, WW takes place 100's of years after it's predecessor in that timeline...

I dunno, maybe due to being a sword that was blessed by the goddess it has the power to relocate itself.

 

[TheBlueReptile]

Putting aside the arguments of other members, lets focus on my arguments.

You said "However, nobody seems to be able to disprove it". So in other words, this also includes my arguments. So how can you say that while nobody (including you) disproved my arguments instead. My arguments is litterly being ignored, thats why i called you stubborn. So, review back page 1 and 2 and prove that all of my arguments are wrong. And not just pointing out flaws, no i expect good arguments back of course to counter mine. It seems only fair since i also gave my arguments when i disproved this theory, right? Or at least, thats how a proper debate works.

Yes people tend to make speculations to fill up a certain void. Just because we didn't saw something in the game, we fill that void with our own ideas. Its not a bad thing but the big question is, on what do you base that idea? I also do it, i assumed that there is some kind of connection between the MS and the Sages to maintain their power. And i also supported this with multiple arguments that is actually stated in the game. Thats what I based on it.

I have already seen, and responded to the arguments you presented. I'm not going to do it again.

Is it really so hard to imagine that Zelda transported Link to the Temple of Time where he proceeded to put the sword back as an adult and then arrive in the past as a kid? She did say, in-game, that he needed to return the Master Sword to the pedestal, so to me that's like saying, put the sword back and go back to your original time. So when he put it back as an adult, it stayed there in the adult timeline as well as being in the child timeline from Link going back to the past. I seriously thought this would be an easy concept and debate... There's support for this in-game, and is completely plausible.

Yet this brings us back to the "Did Child Link put the Master Sword in the PoT" debate. It's not hard to imagine no. However I just don't think it fits with the tone of that last scene.
Plus, if she were merely transporting him to the temple of time, she would have played the prelude of light.

 

[Crash]

Yet this brings us back to the "Did Child Link put the Master Sword in the PoT" debate. It's not hard to imagine no. However I just don't think it fits with the tone of that last scene. Plus, if she were merely transporting him to the temple of time, she would have played the prelude of light.

Ah... that's the problem right there... YOU think. What you think, and what is said are two different things. I said Adult Link put the sword back. Zelda told him to put it back, why would she tell him that if he didn't have to put it back? She's the Sage of Wisdom... she doesn't have to play anything to teleport them... She played the Ocarina in order to seal the deal with all the time traveling and whatnot, since it is a divine object with power over time. While actually playing the game, the way you go back to the present is to put the sword back, I imagine in order for him to go back permanently, he needs to put the sword back one last time. In doing this, the sword is now left in the future, as well as resting in the past like it was never disturbed.

 

[Blue Window]

Let's see here...

Zelda tells Link to put the Master Sword back, this leaves us with three possible scenarios:
1) AT Link puts the Sword back
2) CT Link puts the Sword back
3) Link does not put the Sword back

I think we can take away option #3, because it seems fairly safe to assume that Link followed Zelda's orders.

Now, which scenario is the correct one? I'm going to argue for proposal #2.

All time-travelling in OoT before the last one goes between the time just before Link draws the Master Sword and seven years after that moment. We can deduce this because we know that Link's time is "magically reversing", it is not his physical body that jumps from one time to another. If Link's time is reversing (or if his spirit goes back in time, etc.), he can only appear at a place where the "past Link" is at that time (i.e. if Link is to end up in the Temple of Time, he must go back to a time where the Link of that time was at the Temple of Time). The only time Link stands before the Master Sword is just when he is about to draw the Master Sword.

Now, when Zelda sends Link back he appears before the Master Sword. Even though Zelda might have been able to manipulate time, I see it far more plausible that the normal rules of time work this time also; Link ends up in the moment precisely before he originally drew the Master Sword.

This reasoning allows us to draw two conclusion that support my theory: Link must have put the Master Sword back on the AT becuase it already was in its pedestal when he came to the CT and because when Link draws the Master Sword his body gets sealed away, which means that he can't wield the Sword while he is a child (the Song of Storms-scenario shows us that even if Link goes back in time the seven years of sleep are not interrupted).

/Blue Window

 

[Onilink89]

I have already seen, and responded to the arguments you presented. I'm not going to do it again.

Avoiding me huh?

You only pointed out two flaws, which is not actualy awnsers to my arguments.
1. Why the MS did not needed prayers in SS (I awnsered this one with a good argument)
2. How the MS in TP maintained its power. (my speculation, which you don't seem to agree which is fine) And now that i think about it, how is TP actually relevant to this? TP occurs in the child timeline while WW occurs in the adult timeline.

Yet you still have the nerve to say "However, nobody seems to be able to disprove it"
-----------------------------
But we are drifting away from the actual topic, so i'm going back to your first post:

Wind Waker gets more than it's fair share of crtisism based on the length of the Master Sword since Ocarina of Time. People can't seem to get their heads round the shortening process.

But recently I got thinking. If in OoT Link was sent to the child timeline, what happened to the Master Sword that went with him? As we know, the triforce seperated from him and thus was hidden in shards, however that is the triforce. Could the Master Sword have logically seperated from him without us seeing it fall to the ground or something during that ending cutscene? If so, then how could he haved placed the sword back in the pedestal in the child timeline?

My idea behind this is that the Master Sword we see in Wind Waker is a different sword entirely. Forged perhaps by human hands, which would explain why sages were needed in order to pray and constantly renew its power.

Thus, the reason for its huge change in length is explained if this theory is correct.

However, it's been a while since I played WW. So I can't remember if it is hinted that the hero of time held that very same blade or not. If so, could that not merely have been a part of the legend that has been confused or forgotten?

And I also already gave my arguments about this. (which you still did not responded to)

There are many flaws and illogical things with the split timeline. According to OOT, link's spirit is trapped for 7 years, so basicly adult link is his own timeline. He's only going back and forth in his own time and not leaping from one timeline to an other. Thats why i think that the whole split timeline is illocial. Still nintendo confirmed this split timeline and more questions popped up.

To give you a more simple example: lets compare a timeline to a videotape.
The videotape is only fastforwarding and rewinding. (7 years in this case) Its not a different videotape entirely. The alternate ending/the future of the adult timeline, thats becomes a different videotape.

And even if Link travels from one videotape to an other right from the start, it would mean that there is another "orignal" MS. So from which aspect i look at it, there must be an original MS in WW.

 

[TheBlueReptile]

Avoiding me huh?

You only pointed out two flaws, which is not actualy awnsers to my arguments.
1. Why the MS did not needed prayers in SS (I awnsered this one with a good argument)
2. How the MS in TP maintained its power. (my speculation, which you don't seem to agree which is fine) And now that i think about it, how is TP actually relevant to this? TP occurs in the child timeline while WW occurs in the adult timeline.

Yet you still have the nerve to say "However, nobody seems to be able to disprove it"
-----------------------------
But we are drifting away from the actual topic, so i'm going back to your first post:


And I also already gave my arguments about this. (which you still did not responded to)

To give you a more simple example: lets compare a timeline to a videotape.
The videotape is only fastforwarding and rewinding. (7 years in this case) Its not a different videotape entirely. The alternate ending/the future of the adult timeline, thats becomes a different videotape.

And even if Link travels from one videotape to an other right from the start, it would mean that there is another "orignal" MS. So from which aspect i look at it, there must be an original MS in WW.

Dude, calm down.
I don't find the timeline at all illogical. A little complicated, maybe, but not flawed. Like you said, Link is simply travelling back and forth in time by seven years. The timelines are not split at that point. But when Zelda sends Link back the split is created.
The only thing I find illogical is that you are shown to take items with you between the child and adult versions of Link, yet when the split happened Link has to re-collect a lot of his old items in MM. But I really don't see how this disproves the theory...

Ah... that's the problem right there... YOU think. What you think, and what is said are two different things. I said Adult Link put the sword back. Zelda told him to put it back, why would she tell him that if he didn't have to put it back? She's the Sage of Wisdom... she doesn't have to play anything to teleport them... She played the Ocarina in order to seal the deal with all the time traveling and whatnot, since it is a divine object with power over time. While actually playing the game, the way you go back to the present is to put the sword back, I imagine in order for him to go back permanently, he needs to put the sword back one last time. In doing this, the sword is now left in the future, as well as resting in the past like it was never disturbed.

You call me out for giving an opinion and then proceed to present a post half filled with speculation?
My point was Link may well have put the Master Sword back, in the Child timeline. He wasn't ignoring her orders.

 

[Crash]

Dude, calm down.
I don't find the timeline at all illogical. A little complicated, maybe, but not flawed. Like you said, Link is simply travelling back and forth in time by seven years. The timelines are not split at that point. But when Zelda sends Link back the split is created.
The only thing I find illogical is that you are shown to take items with you between the child and adult versions of Link, yet when the split happened Link has to re-collect a lot of his old items in MM. But I really don't see how this disproves the theory...


You call me out for giving an opinion and then proceed to present a post half filled with speculation?
My point was Link may well have put the Master Sword back, in the Child timeline. He wasn't ignoring her orders.

I'm using actual things said in game whereas your just saying you think. That's the reason I'm saying what I'm saying. Child Link NEVER put the sword in the pedestal at all in the game. Whenever you do it as an adult, put the sword back and go back to the present, when you arrive as a child, the swords already in the pedestal and Link jumps down. Why, praytell, would this time be different? Why would she send him back as a kid, so he could clumsily force a sword bigger then he is into a pedestal?

Child Link pulls the sword out, Adult Link puts the sword in... Never do they switch it up... So if we go by that alone, that would imply that Adult Link puts the sword back in the pedestal, and not Child Link. Besides, at the end when we see Kid Link in the Temple, the blue light that he's in is the same done when pulling the sword or returning the sword. Not the light that transports him like when Zelda puts him in when she plays her song.

 

[Onilink89]

Dude, calm down.
I don't find the timeline at all illogical. A little complicated, maybe, but not flawed. Like you said, Link is simply travelling back and forth in time by seven years. The timelines are not split at that point. But when Zelda sends Link back the split is created.
The only thing I find illogical is that you are shown to take items with you between the child and adult versions of Link, yet when the split happened Link has to re-collect a lot of his old items in MM. But I really don't see how this disproves the theory...

Why do you bring MM into this picture, its not relevent because its a sequel of the child timeline.? And yes of course he has to recollect alot of his old items in MM, or else it will spoil the game. You are pushing these thoughts too far. In other words, you are over-analayzing it.

And lets focus on the MS here, not the items. And i'm going to repeat myself, split or no split...either way there is still an orginal MS in the adult timeline. I already explained this in my last post. What is not to understand about this?

-------------------------------

I don't know if you really don't understand what i said, or simply just refuse to understand. I listed al of my arguments one, by one, which you pointed out two flaws. You never gave me any good arguments back (same goes for this post, at least explain why you don't see my point thats disproves your theory). Its like talking to a wall. And yes, then i got frustrated after you said "However, nobody seems to be able to disprove it". So...if this is not being stubborn then what is it?

Lets review back, the way i understand from your first post, is that you base your theory on two points.
- First i thought that you didn't understand the concept of time travel and that there is no MS in the adult timeline because its back in the pedestal in the child timeline. But in your last post you stated that you do understand that Link is only going back and forth, and suddenly you bring lost items of MM in the picture which is not relevant.
- And maintaining the power of the Master sword, which i already gave my aguments for.
1.First you state that in conflicts with SS, i gave a proper awnser that the the Goddess itself blessed the sword and gained its shine and wings pretty much like in WW. There is no need for prayers if the sword is directly blessed by a goddess. To who do you pray...gods of course. And this is solid because its explained in WW. This point is already disproved. If you don't agree, give me a good argument back.
2. But then you question how the power is maintained in OOT and TP, i gave my speculation of the sages which you don't agree (which is fine by me). Ýet, because this is flawed you think your own theory is correct. Putting aside TP (because thats the child timeline) that would mean that the MS in OOT is also forged by human hands?...I don't really think so.

Then explain me in details instead, why there is not a orginal MS in the adult timeline? I will stand firm and continue this debate until i hear an proper awnser with good arguments from you. I don't accept a vague awnser like:
- I'm not going to repeat myself (well i did because i thought i wasn't being clear, so i expect some effort back)
- But I really don't see how this disproves the theory (give me a proper reason, what or why you don't understand it)

 

[TheBlueReptile]

Why do you bring MM into this picture, its not relevent because its a sequel of the child timeline.? And yes of course he has to recollect alot of his old items in MM, or else it will spoil the game. You are pushing these thoughts too far. In other words, you are over-analayzing it.

And lets focus on the MS here, not the items. And i'm going to repeat myself, split or no split...either way there is still an orginal MS in the adult timeline. I already explained this in my last post. What is not to understand about this?

-------------------------------

I don't know if you really don't understand what i said, or simply just refuse to understand. I listed al of my arguments one, by one, which you pointed out two flaws. You never gave me any good arguments back (same goes for this post, at least explain why you don't see my point thats disproves your theory). Its like talking to a wall. And yes, then i got frustrated after you said "However, nobody seems to be able to disprove it". So...if this is not being stubborn then what is it?

Lets review back, the way i understand from your first post, is that you base your theory on two points.
- First i thought that you didn't understand the concept of time travel and that there is no MS in the adult timeline because its back in the pedestal in the child timeline. But in your last post you stated that you do understand that Link is only going back and forth, and suddenly you bring lost items of MM in the picture which is not relevant.
- And maintaining the power of the Master sword, which i already gave my aguments for.
1.First you state that in conflicts with SS, i gave a proper awnser that the the Goddess itself blessed the sword and gained its shine and wings pretty much like in WW. There is no need for prayers if the sword is directly blessed by a goddess. To who do you pray...gods of course. And this is solid because its explained in WW. This point is already disproved. If you don't agree, give me a good argument back.
2. But then you question how the power is maintained in OOT and TP, i gave my speculation of the sages which you don't agree (which is fine by me). Ýet, because this is flawed you think your own theory is correct. Putting aside TP (because thats the child timeline) that would mean that the MS in OOT is also forged by human hands?...I don't really think so.

Then explain me in details instead, why there is not a orginal MS in the adult timeline? I will stand firm and continue this debate until i hear an proper awnser with good arguments from you. I don't accept a vague awnser like:
- I'm not going to repeat myself (well i did because i thought i wasn't being clear, so i expect some effort back)
- But I really don't see how this disproves the theory (give me a proper reason, what or why you don't understand it)

I'm tired of this. Really.
I had an idea, I posted it here and asked for proof for or against. I have given my two cents for what works and doesn't work in my posts. When someone gives theirs, I try to play devil's advocate and flip it around on them. Just like if someone where to say "The Master sword cannot be the original because..." I would say "But couldn't that be due to...".
Stop acting as if I'm wrong for doing so.

I don't understand how it disproves the theory as that is the idea I have had of the split timeline and the way time travel works all along and you simply seem to be repeating it to me. before the split, Link uses the Master Sword as a way of travelling back and forth between the only timeline that was operational at that point. The Child Timeline was irrelevant before the end of the game as it was yet to even exist. When he wishes to travel back in time, he places the Master Sword back in the pedestal and is taken to a equal point in time 7 years ago (although it may or may not be exactly seven years). However, the concern I have had and the point that started this thread was that Link is sent back in time through other means at the end of the gam. The Master sword as far as we know plays no part in his being sent back in time and the sword is shown to be sent with him. We know that the Ocarina is powerful enough to send someone back in time without the Master Sword as it is used in MM for the same purpose.
I don't buy into the whole "Child Link never places the Master Sword back" idea as we quite clearly see him pulling the sword OUT of the pedestal when travelling to the future. It has to be placed back in at some point otherwise we are just expected to believe that it places itself back in there.