K
kroni
Guest
The first and foremost reason that I believe there is only 1 Link is that ultimately it makes a better story. I'm not going to go into this further because it's subjective and people might disagree.
Second, if we do not believe there is one link, then we are forced to conclude that they are mere decendants. I could maybe accept one identical decendant, but to have as many as there are would be simply ridiculous. It just strikes me as lame to think that all these decendants are doing repeats of what their ancestors did over and over and over again.
I like to think of it as one very large overarching story, with the same core cast of Link, Zelda, and Ganondorf. There's still an element of repetitiveness, but at least here the core conflict is still identifiable between these characters. The games cover their lives as they travel through different eras of history.
Third, Link serves as a sort of anchor for the Zelda franchise. No matter what scenario or time the game is set in, Link is always Link. Because Zelda is a game where almost everything changes drastically from one game to another, it's important to have a constant character to keep the game grounded. (Think of Desmond from Lost trying to find Penny) This would be cheapened if the new Link was really just "Link's great great great great grandson who looks a lot like him".
As far as split timelines go, I'm a little more open to the idea of a second Link, but ultimately I still believe that there is only one. It would work one of two ways: Either the split timeline created a parallel Link, or Link just shifts from one timeline to another when he is reincarnated. I'm okay with either scenario here because there'd actually be an excuse for a second Link (Time Travel).
Finally, I have to address the Achille's Heel to my argument...FS and FSA.
Man am I the only person who wishes those games didn't exist theory-wise? It just blows everything else out of the water and forces a fantastic explanation. I could try to say that these 2 games exist in their own separate universe, but I believe a source from Nintendo has stated there is only one timeline. Quite frankly, I don't know enough about the plot of FS or FSA to explain the obvious discrepancy. Is there even a reason given why there's four Links? Probably not, but at the very least I can say that having four links also complicates the descendant theory. There's just no logical explanation for four of him to exist at one time, unless the current Link went to the past to get help or something. This is definitely the weakest aspect of a single Link theory, but I think because FS and FSA are so unique they cannot be used to confirm or deny the possibility of reincarnation.
Second, if we do not believe there is one link, then we are forced to conclude that they are mere decendants. I could maybe accept one identical decendant, but to have as many as there are would be simply ridiculous. It just strikes me as lame to think that all these decendants are doing repeats of what their ancestors did over and over and over again.
I like to think of it as one very large overarching story, with the same core cast of Link, Zelda, and Ganondorf. There's still an element of repetitiveness, but at least here the core conflict is still identifiable between these characters. The games cover their lives as they travel through different eras of history.
Third, Link serves as a sort of anchor for the Zelda franchise. No matter what scenario or time the game is set in, Link is always Link. Because Zelda is a game where almost everything changes drastically from one game to another, it's important to have a constant character to keep the game grounded. (Think of Desmond from Lost trying to find Penny) This would be cheapened if the new Link was really just "Link's great great great great grandson who looks a lot like him".
As far as split timelines go, I'm a little more open to the idea of a second Link, but ultimately I still believe that there is only one. It would work one of two ways: Either the split timeline created a parallel Link, or Link just shifts from one timeline to another when he is reincarnated. I'm okay with either scenario here because there'd actually be an excuse for a second Link (Time Travel).
Finally, I have to address the Achille's Heel to my argument...FS and FSA.
Man am I the only person who wishes those games didn't exist theory-wise? It just blows everything else out of the water and forces a fantastic explanation. I could try to say that these 2 games exist in their own separate universe, but I believe a source from Nintendo has stated there is only one timeline. Quite frankly, I don't know enough about the plot of FS or FSA to explain the obvious discrepancy. Is there even a reason given why there's four Links? Probably not, but at the very least I can say that having four links also complicates the descendant theory. There's just no logical explanation for four of him to exist at one time, unless the current Link went to the past to get help or something. This is definitely the weakest aspect of a single Link theory, but I think because FS and FSA are so unique they cannot be used to confirm or deny the possibility of reincarnation.
Last edited by a moderator: