Hot topics

[Ryuu Kage Desu]

What are the most hotly debated theories out there, today? And, what makes them so volitile? It's okay to talk about a theory you don't agree with; in fact, here's another chance to say how stupid you think it is. Just remember, to try presenting the other side, and try not to get ugly if someone dissagrees.

 

[Mikey the Gengar]

Personally, chevys head canons about botw link being oot link and tetra/zelda being a case of multiple personality disorder irk me for obvious reasons

 

[Uwu_Oocoo2]

One of the most hotly debated ones I think is the "Link is dead" theory for MM. While improbable, the theory is remarkably sound. I like all of the evidence regarding the stages of grief, and it annoys me that people dismiss it so quickly. The point of a theory is to say that something is possible, even if it isn't likely. I don't personally believe it but wouldn't be surprised if it were true, because it has stuff to back it up

 

[Spiritual Mask Salesman]

One of the most hotly debated ones I think is the "Link is dead" theory for MM. While improbable, the theory is remarkably sound. I like all of the evidence regarding the stages of grief, and it annoys me that people dismiss it so quickly. The point of a theory is to say that something is possible, even if it isn't likely. I don't personally believe it but wouldn't be surprised if it were true, because it has stuff to back it up

Deku flowers asorb fall damage though, even when Link is in human form. Also the stages of grief theory was originally applied to the Navi died theory and was repurposed for Link is Dead. It makes more sense imo for the stages of grief to be about getting over the loss of a loved one instead of trying to cope with your own death. I obviously hate the Link died theory and it's not very sound in this context.

 

[Mikey the Gengar]

One of the most hotly debated ones I think is the "Link is dead" theory for MM. While improbable, the theory is remarkably sound. I like all of the evidence regarding the stages of grief, and it annoys me that people dismiss it so quickly. The point of a theory is to say that something is possible, even if it isn't likely. I don't personally believe it but wouldn't be surprised if it were true, because it has stuff to back it up

I disagree about how we go about theorizing completely
something that *could* be true is a headcanon, or speculation
whereas the scientific method defines theories as proposed explanations for sets of observations
when we have to say "what if...?" or "maybe...." then it isn't a theory in my mind
the idea that link is dead comes entirely out of nowhere, and just because nothing in majora's mask outright states otherwise doesn't mean it's plausible and therefore doesn't deserve to be called a theory imo

 

[Uwu_Oocoo2]

I disagree about how we go about theorizing completely
something that *could* be true is a headcanon, or speculation
whereas the scientific method defines theories as proposed explanations for sets of observations
when we have to say "what if...?" or "maybe...." then it isn't a theory in my mind
the idea that link is dead comes entirely out of nowhere, and just because nothing in majora's mask outright states otherwise doesn't mean it's plausible and therefore doesn't deserve to be called a theory imo

But what is a theory, other than speculation with evidence to back it up? Yeah, the game never says that Link is deceased. But if they did, we wouldn't have to speculate and it wouldn't be a theory! You make a good point with the scientific method- "What if Link is dead, this is my reasoning..." If there is any evidence to support it it's a theory, and just having evidence makes it plausible.

Deku flowers asorb fall damage though, even when Link is in human form. Also the stages of grief theory was originally applied to the Navi died theory and was repurposed for Link is Dead. It makes more sense imo for the stages of grief to be about getting over the loss of a loved one instead of trying to cope with your own death. I obviously hate the Link died theory and it's not very sound in this context.

Both these theories have the same evidences backing them. While the Navi one may be more popular, it is no more plausible than "Link is dead". The stages of grief are still there, and it can be argued either way from that point.

 

[Mikey the Gengar]

what is a theory, other than speculation with evidence to back it up

a proposed explanation for a set of observations

 

[Spiritual Mask Salesman]

Both these theories have the same evidences backing them. While the Navi one may be more popular, it is no more plausible than "Link is dead". The stages of grief are still there, and it can be argued either way from that point.

The Navi theory isn't more popular, but it's objectively the more sound of the two. The stages of grief in of itself is a shakey theory and was outright debunked numerous times by the developers. But at the end of the day, if MM was supposed to be a journey of Link coping with his own death than we know the message was pointless because he is still regretful of his death in Twilight Princess. The evidence of Link dying is non-existent, unless someone can prove a deku flower doesn't asorb fall damage Link is Dead is pretty... dead.

 

[Spiritual Mask Salesman]

I disagree about how we go about theorizing completely
something that *could* be true is a headcanon, or speculation
whereas the scientific method defines theories as proposed explanations for sets of observations
when we have to say "what if...?" or "maybe...." then it isn't a theory in my mind
the idea that link is dead comes entirely out of nowhere, and just because nothing in majora's mask outright states otherwise doesn't mean it's plausible and therefore doesn't deserve to be called a theory imo

You might start with something that might seem irrational, but going about the crafting of the theory with care, you'll either have something that works well or just doesn't work at all. The problem with some theories is that people go forward with the things that don't work at all without realizing they have dived into headcanon and sometimes even into fan-fiction. If a theorist is careful though they'll recognize the holes in their theory and if they can't fill those holes, they know it's a fruitless effort and will stop.

 

[Link&Midna]

Personally I think the navi theory is much more plausible as Link was obviously looking for her at the beginning of the game. The "Link is dead" one never really sat right with me.

 

[MapelSerup]

I always felt like the "Link is dead" theory was pretty much disproven by the Hero's Shade's appearance and the fact that he knows/has developed complex techniques (sword arts) that we don't see in MM.

Anyways, as for the original question, I've seen BOTW's timeline placement hotly debated on this sub. Many agree it fits best in the Downfall Timeline, but it's always a cause for a heated discussion.

 

[Ryuu Kage Desu]

Looks like the Link is dead theory is a lot more debated than I thought. I never really liked it myself. The Navi is dead theory makes more sense, but just feels off. One of the main pieces of evidence, that I've heard, is that faeries vanish when used. I've always imagined that they teleport. This would suggest that they could vanish any time they like, meaning that they stay in the bottle by choice, and explains how they so easily get out of the bottle as link starts to die. But, that's just off the top of my head.

Personally, chevys head canons about botw link being oot link and tetra/zelda being a case of multiple personality disorder irk me for obvious reasons

What? And, what!?
How does the first one even work?
Tetra/Zelda does not fit the requirements for having a multiple personality disorder.

Anyways, as for the original question, I've seen BOTW's timeline placement hotly debated on this sub. Many agree it fits best in the Adult Timeline, but it's always a cause for a heated discussion.

I found that out the hard way. I'm personally for the downfall timeline placement, though I've recently theorized that if the game takes place in all three, then all timelines tend towards the downfall state.

But what is a theory, other than speculation with evidence to back it up?

These are the questions I think we need to ask. The more we analyze how we theorize, the better we will become at theorizing, and the better we will be at understanding where our ideas come from.

For me, the difference between headcannon and theory comes down to two points; evidence, and crystallization. A (good) theory is based on evidence, and is flexible. Headcannon doesn't need evidence, and is usually inflexible.

 

[Mangrove]

I think it's when it comes to canon sources and "dev intent" for theories, like with if ALttP/OoX/LA makes more sense or if ALttP/LA - OoX makes more sense. I think this is mainly for timeline debates, as I've seen this similar trend for plenty of other timeline segments: OoT being a direct ALttP prequel, FSA being a direct ALttP prequel, FSA being a direct FS sequel, ALBW being an ALttP sequel...and last but not least, BotW's unconfirmed status of which timeline it falls in.

I'd say the fan timeline discussions get volatile when people try using dev intent or things like that since there's already an official timeline, or people bringing up HH in in-game-evidence-only conversations. It seemed like BotW's timeline placement was generally agreed upon to most likely be Downfall from what we know (for a single timeline placement, with convergence/inevitable-outcome theories having much hotter debates).

 

[Mikey the Gengar]

Many agree it fits best in the Adult Timeline

wait hold up
who agrees this

 

[MapelSerup]

wait hold up
who agrees this

That was a typo on my part, I meant Downfall Timeline. I edited my original post too.