• 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.

Two Timelines?

Zemen

[Insert Funny Statement]
Joined
Nov 11, 2008
Location
Illinois
but there is a reference in TP, why else would link have a green suit! while hes gettin it, the spirit says its the clothes worn by the old hero.

kid Link was still a hero in OoT. he still destroyed the monsters in the first three dungeons and still helped the royal family stop Ganondorf by telling his story and then he goes on to save Termina. he still becomes a hero, just not the hero of time.
 
Joined
Jan 1, 2009
Location
Hyrule and Azeroth
1. you already mentioned moblins and people believe that moblins were made by Ganon or something like that (i dont like this reason).

2. the fact that when you look at the map and its the zoomed out map it shows two islands which is a sign of an ocean which COULD mean that it is right after the flood before WW or it takes place not too long after WW.

3. the mentioning of the triumph forks in the library in MC. in WW, the fish would talk about triumph forks which was a messed up way of saying triforce. in MC, there is a book in the library and im not sure what the book actually says but i know that "triumph forks" is in the book. this implies that the game comes after WW which is the only other game to mention triumph forks. (many speculate that the mentioning of the triumph forks is just an easter egg and nothing more).

4. when you get the figuring that talks about din, nayru and farore (the girls in MC that resemble the goddesses), their descriptions say that they are descendants of a line of oracles from Labrynna/Holodrum which is evidence that MC is actually supposed to take place after OoX (which CANT be before OoT). a counter argument to that is that the oracles in OoT could be descendants of the girls in MC which would then mean that MC could still be before OoT.
1) Yeah I don't think that means much. There's no proof that the moblins were created when Ganondorf entered the SR.

2) An ocean means nothing, imo. Before TWW came out there was AoL and OoX which both featured oceans. And the beanstalk and Mount Crenel picture show that Hyrule is surrounded by rivers, forests, and mountains; much like in OoT.

3) Graphical easter egg is an easter egg.

4) Yeah all it really means is that OoX should be in the same timeline as TMC.
1. no menioning of Ganon/dorf WHATSOEVER. its the only Hyrule based game to not have ganon/dorf in the game. this implies that no one knows about Ganon/dorf, he hasnt been born yet, etc...

2. the BS of this game does not seem to resemble any other Zelda game and also talks about a hero that seems to NOT be Link. this implies that this is the first Link to have an adventure.

3. this game seems to show the origins of the hat.

4. the hero of men captured monsters and locked them in the chest with the four sword. when Vaati opens that chest, he releases the monsters. this might explain why there are monsters in Hyrule throughout the series. kind of like a pandora's box idea. ill explain.

evil was sealed away in a box. pandora was told not to open that box. she did and she released evil onto the world, but she also released some hope, as well.

monsters were sealed away in the chest. Vaati was told not to open that chest. he did and he released monsters onto the world, but by opening the chest, he left the broken sword which was the only weapon powerful enough to stop him. so in essence, the four sword was the hope that was released with the monsters.

basically, it could explain why there are monsters in the world of Zelda.
1) There's no mentioning of Vaati, either in any other games. That evidence really doesn't mean anything.

2. It could be evidence...

3. Normally I'd say that the hat means nothing. But in an interview with Bill Trinen he said that TMC goes deep into Hylian lore and that you could think of it as the origin of Link's hat. With that it makes it very strong evidence, imo.

4. Ehh the monsters were sealed by the Hero of Men, if I remember right. So that doesn't really matter.

5. The end of the Japanese version says that it's the end of the first adventure of Link. That can be interpreted in different ways but I think the obvious interpretation is that it's referring to Link as a whole. Not just one individual Link.
 
Joined
Feb 2, 2009
Location
Brasil
I can't believe i missed this entire thread completely :P

It looks kinda like this:
2dhs5sw.jpg


It's a rough outline. Don't judge me.

.........TMC-FS/FSA\
...../-TWW/PH---\...\
OoT.....................LttP
.....\MM-TP------/

It's a good theory. I'm completely against merges though.

Good read about merging like that:
http://www.zeldauniverse.net/forums...tting-and-merging-without-reason-my-rant.html

Anyway, I agree that
1. Both OoT and TMC have indications that they can come first in the timeline
2. LttP has elements from both the AT and the YT, as well as elements from the FSS

Now, what I can't agree is with:
1. Multiple starts: i see no reason for that
2. Mergers: they just make no sense whatsoever
3. More than one split: no indications for that.

Now, if you just ignore points 1 and 2 here, your timeline is pretty good. Of curse, you are ignoring all referrences to TWW in the FSS. That is not good.

The theory works though, as all timeline theories have flaws...
 

DvSag

The Void in the Triforce
Joined
Mar 4, 2009
Location
New Jersey
Yea, I don't believe in this timeline anymore. This was one of my earliest, and just a theoretical. I've learned a bit since then, and I do believe the timeline is linear, with just the universally accepted OoT split.

I also don't believe in any merging of two timelines at the moment. I don't believe it isn't possible, but I do believe that so far we have no reason to suspect the timelines remerge at any point because of any game currently in circulation.
 

Zemen

[Insert Funny Statement]
Joined
Nov 11, 2008
Location
Illinois
Yea, I don't believe in this timeline anymore. This was one of my earliest, and just a theoretical. I've learned a bit since then, and I do believe the timeline is linear, with just the universally accepted OoT split.


I'm a little confused here. Are you saying you believe in a linear timeline or a split timeline? You said you believe in a linear timeline with a split after OoT. That means that you believe in a split timeline because if you accept the split after OoT then it is no longer a linear timeline.
 
Joined
Feb 2, 2009
Location
Brasil
I think he meant in a linear beginning to the timeline, unlike the other theory he posted, that had 2 timelines: one beginning in OoT and the other, in TMC with a merger before LttP.
 

Users who are viewing this thread

Top Bottom