[FONT="]
It's mostly because everything else about the Zelda series is pretty well defined. The games are very internally consistent. Also, most other theorizing doesn't involve bits and pieces of concrete evidence that cause people to act as if their position is more factual. People like timeline theorizing because they're so sure there's a concrete answer that can be derived from the evidence, and are comfortable shooting down any subjective insights that seem too theoretical. Yet their own subjective insights are acceptable... sigh.
[/FONT]
[FONT="]Hmm. Well everything can’t be too concrete otherwise we wouldn’t have so many theories like you said.
The problem is that there's just enough information for two people to be equally convinced that their interpretation of the timeline is the absolute truth, yet come up with two different theories. This leads to a lot of nerd rage and virtual blood being spilled. The more controversial and overarching a topic is, the more people insist on talking about it, and shoving their own opinion down other people's throats. That's why I've never found a message board yet that didn't have at least one topic about the existence of God, or a thread that was derailed into that discussion. To me, the discussions suffer for largely the same reason... we really don't know if there's a timeline or not, or what it is if there is one. But a lot of people think they know that there is one, AND what it is.
[/FONT]
[FONT="]I think the attitude of “I/We have it all figured out” kinda hinders debate, don’t you think? Though I’m a bit of an optimistic when it comes to sorting out multiple conclusions, even though opponents will more than likely always feel their view superior. Which is fine by me so long as people (including myself) can allow for understanding different concepts – not necessarily agreeing.[/FONT]
[FONT="]On a side note…[/FONT]
[FONT="]Funny thing you brought theological debate into the picture. I use to get into such studies on certain church-related forums until I figured simple faith was just the right way to go. But don’t get me wrong! This doesn’t hinder my ability to be objective too!
I created a timeline theory out of boredom (for fun), but people grilled me and acted like there was only one right way to do it. That kind of took the fun out of it.
[/FONT]
[FONT="]People with patience issues? I’ll try to watch myself in the future.
[/FONT]
[FONT="]
One of the main reasons I theorize the timeline is because it helps me focus more on each individual game which greatly enhances my experience when playing the games. I literally look at each detail and seeing how the games connects just amazes me and makes me excited when I notice even the smallest connection. The idea that the games all fit together somehow makes me stick with the series especially since it's up to the fans to figure out exactly how it fits together. I can't think of any other series in the video game world that require that much effort from the fans/players. It's amazing.
[/FONT]
[FONT="]I guess I can understand the thrill and never ending battle to finding the truth, when there are so many possibilities out there. I suppose it is stimulating (hence my wry comment about E-Pen
is in these regards… only a joke!).[/FONT]
[FONT="]
I used to be one of those theorists that would just drill my ideas into everyone. I would post my timeline and believe that it was absolute and get mad when people thought otherwise. A while back when I redid my timeline I realized that my way wasn't at all absolute, that I had to keep an open mind. Now I don't argue my timeline so much as I try to help people see flaws with their timelines. I'm sort of a "spell checker" of timelines right now.
[/FONT]
[FONT="]I’m glad to hear this for your sake. I look forward to whatever debates we shall have in the future! [/FONT]
[FONT="]Not to sound coy and rude, but I noticed you had a Zelda Theorizing social clique. Though it seems only reserved for whom you deem as ‘elite’ in regards to timeline theorizing skills. Isn’t this a tad arrogant and uninviting to newbies? Aside from the other aspects of this board in comparison to ZU, ZI, and ZL, this is the only aspect which rubbed me the wrong way, and thus partially added to the reason for this thread. I know you have your rights, but could you create a general social group which involves theorists of all levels? I’m sorry if this sounds prudent, but you are the Theorizing Mod aren’t you?
In few respects there really is only one way to do a timeline. For instance, Aonuma has confirmed a split timeline. There is plenty of in game evidence to support a split timeline so when someone posts a linear timeline they will get "grilled" because right off the bat it goes against what the creators themselves have set up as a base to start. Another example is that we know that the split starts with OoT and MM-TP and WW continuing on in the opposite directions of the split based on interviews with Aonuma. Because of that we know that the timeline has to have...
[/FONT]
[FONT="]When you say there is ‘only one way to theorize’ are you saying there is a certain procedure of canonical elements which one should address before going into a debate? This sounds sort of idealistic because every theory thread is different… but if there is an outline or hierarchy of canon to be addressed pray tell. Developer intent and official script is a given… but what about other areas?[/FONT]
[FONT="]
The timeline is not only the biggest theorizing subject in the Zelda world, being that it encompasses every single game in the canon, it's also the most concrete of them. If you take other theories, like maybe those involving Majora's origin or the Dark Interlopers or things like that and you only have concrete details from one game to really work with. Sure you can connect details from different games and make connections about those smaller theory subjects, but then you're bordering on fanfiction, and fanfiction isn't all that interesting to debate. Plus those small theories are typically formed from half-baked connections between apparently unrelated aspects of different games.
[/FONT]
[FONT="]Ah, but isn’t it the smaller theories which get built up that end up becoming the base-work for timeline theories stability? If so, why dismiss the activity when it is constructive nonetheless? Maybe I’m misunderstanding your point.[/FONT]
[FONT="]
The timeline is often built from sturdier connections between common aspects of the many games, so there's more to work with, more supports to pull out, and more controversies to debate. Other theories can be dismissed with "oh that's just a coincidence", and there's rarely have enough evidence to prove a connection as something greater than coincidence. In contrast, the timeline can't simply be thrown out like that since every timeline is built off of multiple strong and supportable claims.
[/FONT]
[FONT="]This statement seems diminishing to freshening up on knowledge of different aspects of Hyrulian history... for sake of keeping popular opinion/rhetoric standardized within timeline debate.
[/FONT]
[FONT="]
Personally, I'm a story theorizer who likes to look at the mysteries within the games and not the connections among the games, but that's because I prefer to imagine rather than debate.
[/FONT]
[FONT="]This statement is almost a oxymoron. When you say you’re a storyline theorists I think of someone like me whom might tackle an issues, such as the Dark Tribe relating to other tribes in Hyrules history, and trying to tie them together. Those are small elements within various storylines which don’t necessarily have to point towards a timeline dilemma imo. [/FONT]