Link's Death Timeline, My Theory

[PAPezoneJr]

So a lot of people have had a problem with this third time-line and do not want to believe that if the gamer dies in OoT, that this could be canon. Well, I don't think that's the case, however, I am a believe of this third timeline. So let me explain my theory, which does make plenty of assumptions, but does at least have some supporting evidence. In OoT, Link pulls out the master sword, opens the sacred realm, the Triforce splits when Ganondorf takes this opportunity to get it, and Link basically time travels 7 years in the future. Lets assume there is a reason for this, a reason to have Ganondorf rule for seven years before an older Link fights and defeats him. Lets assume that Link pulls the master sword as a child, and all of the above happen except for Link time traveling. Ganondorf still gets the ToP, Link the ToC, and Zelda the ToW, only now, Link fights Ganondorf as a child, and loses. The sages, basically say, yeah, maybe it wasn't a good idea to have a child fight the king of evil, deside to go back in time themselves so that they can force Link to travel through time, 7 years ahead when he pulls out the master sword. This should be within the realm of their power, as Zelda, a sage, sends Link back at the end of OoT. So lets consider that timeline. Ganondorf would have the ToP, but now he killed Link, so he should have the ToC as well. With no Link to protect her, lets assume that eventually, Ganondorf obtains the ToW from her, thus obtaining the complete Triforce, which of course he has during A Link to the Past, so this would make sense. Lets also consentrate on the time travel aspect as evidence. Adult Zelda sends Link back to the past at the End of OoT and basically nips the problem in the bud, Ganondorf never gets to the sacred realm and is executed. After the credits, child Link is seen visiting child Zelda, thus we have duel Zelda's. Why then, do we not have duel Link's? When Link went to the future, wouldn't he have seen his future self? That is of course unless his future self was dead because he died in childhood! Also, if there was an adult Link hanging around 7 years later, the sages wouldn't have had to bring child Link ahead in time, they could have just used the existing adult Link, again, unless of course, he was dead. So basically, OoT sets up two timelines, the time after adult Link leaves the future, and the rest of child Link's story, playable through Majora's Mask and subsequent games, but, it implies a third time line. A time line that you cannot see or play the turning point, well, because it basically involves Link losing and Ganondorf obtaining the complete Triforce, which wouldn't be much of a game, well unless you were controlling Ganon... There's a cool idea for you Nintendo. Anyways, let me know your thoughts.

 

[Beauts]

I think your theory makes a lot of sense, well done. But, you get kind of confusing in the middle there. Basically, it wouldn't appear that Link dies fighting Ganondorf as a child because it is fact in the series that he has to be kept in the sacred realm for seven years. The timeline hangs on the fact that he dies fighting Ganondorf at the end as an adult, or dies during any point during the adult part of the game actually, because then there is nothing to stop Ganondorf getting the triforce etc... well you said the rest. I just thought that part of your theory could be pruned

 

[RedDekuScrub]

The way that the Third Timeline works is that Link is killed during the final battle with Ganondorf and Ganondorf is able to sieze the two remaining parts of the Triforce from Link and Zelda.

 

[Terminus]

This is close to my theory, people ignored it and I was too lazy to make a thread like this. Good thinking (not just because you agree with me )!

 

[A Link In Time]

It is confirmed by the events of Ocarina of Time that Link fights Ganondorf/Ganon as an adult therefore he must fail as an adult. You are twisting the facts to match your theory.

 

[mαrkαsscoρ]

i still say the 3rd split is just a different scenario of the outcome of ocarina of time

 

[Terminus]

It is confirmed by the events of Ocarina of Time that Link fights Ganondorf/Ganon as an adult therefore he must fail as an adult. You are twisting the facts to match your theory.

"Failure" is an open concept, If Link is sealed away and sent back to before he was sealed, there is a time that he effectively ceases to exist. By not existing, Link "Fails" to stop Ganondorf.

i still say the 3rd split is just a different scenario of the outcome of ocarina of time

When was that disputed?

 

[Locke]

"Failure" is an open concept, If Link is sealed away and sent back to before he was sealed, there is a time that he effectively ceases to exist. By not existing, Link "Fails" to stop Ganondorf.

Except the HH specifically says that he is defeated in battle with Ganondorf. And while it doesn't specify a timeframe for this event, ...Occam's Razor.

 

[PokaLink]

The current explanation of the timeline fits fine, i dont understand how hard it is to beileve that Link was killed by Ganondorf, Link is fighting Ganondorf, Link is killed, Ganondorf takes the triforces and starts ruling hyrule, and finally the sealing war takes place, how hard is this to understand??

 

[Earthtemple]

My only issue with the third timeline is that, following the same logic, there would be a split after every game. There's no reason the Hero of Time should fail and not the Hero of Wind or any other incarnation of Link. I prefer to think that some time paradox caused one iteration of the Hero of Time to fail. I like to think that when Link returns to the past, either to fetch the lens of truth or to complete the spirit temple, this leaves and adult link in the future destined to fail without the Spirit Medallion, mirror shield, lens of truth, etc.

 

[Terminus]

Even though it's not "official" it still makes more sense.

 

[PAPezoneJr]

So thanks for the comments and advice, especially Beauts. I do think the theory needs some work, I was just kind of brain storming a little. I was playing OoT on my 3DS while Back to the Future Part 2 was on television, LOL, so I started thinking about it. That being said, you're absolutely right, it's not exactly time travel when Link pulls the master sword out, he's actually being sealed for seven years in the sacred realm. The time travel happens when he places the sword back, as he goes back to the time prior to him pulling it out in the first place. The time line can still work though, if we assume the sages learned their lesson by witnessing Link's failure as a child trying to fight Ganondorf. To those quoting the HH saying that adult Link fights Ganondorf and loses. Where does it say that he's an adult? It just states he fights, and loses. I do not believe that a player failing in OoT is canon. Else, there would be an additional timeline for every single Zelda game in the franchise where you die, obviously, that's not the case. I do believe the third timeline originates from a portion of the game that is not playable, not that the player character dies.

 

[Locke]

I do not believe that a player failing in OoT is canon. Else, there would be an additional timeline for every single Zelda game in the franchise where you die, obviously, that's not the case. I do believe the third timeline originates from a portion of the game that is not playable, not that the player character dies.

You're bending the evidence to suit your theory that the player-character doesn't die. Still, if you think about it, what happens when the player-character does die, in-game? You get game over and you try again. Eventually you either defeat Ganondorf, leading to the AT, or you give up and stop following the story completely. Ganondorf defeating Link and obtaining the complete Triforce is "a portion of the game that is not playable."

 

[Wisdom Triforce]

Well by your logic of the multiple links not existing because one is dead is wrong. My reasoning being because if this was true majora's mask would have plenty of links running around. So basically the only reason multiple zeldas exist is because she didn't travel through time she waited so he was able to meet both the one from the time when she was a child and from when she was an adult cause she didn't travel meaning there would naturally be two zeldas.

 

[Turo602]

The way I've always seen it, was that the failure timeline and the child timeline are both hypothetical timelines. Because the ending of Ocarina of Time just leaves you with a child Link and Zelda staring at each other. Either he was successful in snitching or wasn't. Ocarina of Time's ending could of gone either way, seeing as it ended on a cliffhanger where we just assume Link was successful and Ganon was banished. But they never really showed us that, did they.

Wrong or right, the timeline is all BS...the fact that they threw in the earlier games into one made up timeline with lot's of plot holes and a lame excuse as to why it has plot holes, says so. It never existed to be begin with...