As the three main chars are linked with an individual part of the triforce, they shouldn't be able to really die. If that was the case, the LttP timeline wouldn't happen as such, cuz Link was removed from it entirely.
Each of the Links and Zeldas are different. None of them are the same except for direct sequels. Not sure if they're reincarnated or whatever, but they definitely aren't the same persons.
I know they are not the same persons. When I say they can't be killed I refer to their... souls? spirit? holy existence? whatever, you get the point. They might not always be alive in the physical world at the same time, but they can't be nonexistant.
sykotek wrote:
@Zagardal: Something like this? [youtube:g0IL66pagbA]
yeah xD... as of the type of gameplay, I'm also very open minded, but Zelda III should be made eventually.
Is anyone else just salivating at all this new timeline info? I didn't realize how much I loved Zelda mythology until Skyward Sword, and with this (unofficial) timeline reveal, I'm kinda freaking out right now.
I don't like it. The two-way split timeline made some vague kind of sense, as much as any time travel story ever does, in that the time travel causes the world to go on as if he were still a child while a separate world continues with him as an adult. Why would it split a third time because he fails in one of those timelines? I don't see what time travel has to do with it. That timeline would continue to go on as if Link failed.
Not a fan of time travel stories to begin with because of nonsense like this, but the timeline doesn't really matter to me. The only thing it affects is that, knowing there isn't one timeline, I will now constantly be confused as to the context of each new game. The theory of each game being a distortion of the same legend was much simpler and more interesting, I thought.
Oh well, doesn't matter much to me either way, as not knowing the continuity has never been a significant hindrance to enjoying the story.
I don't like it. The two-way split timeline made some vague kind of sense, as much as any time travel story ever does, in that the time travel causes the world to go on as if he were still a child while a separate world continues with him as an adult. Why would it split a third time because he fails in one of those timelines? I don't see what time travel has to do with it. That timeline would continue to go on as if Link failed.
The Zelda timeline is reaching concepts but not really grasping them; the split timeline is something that concerns the idea of the fifth dimension, which allows as many posible futures as you would like from a single starting point in the universe. In a way, the zelda story has infinite timeline splits, many of them mostly identical besides minor changes that probably won't alter history in a meaningful way. All of those timelines become simultaneous as they are spawned, but Nintendo only cares about 3 to tell the story they want to tell.
I don't like it. The two-way split timeline made some vague kind of sense, as much as any time travel story ever does, in that the time travel causes the world to go on as if he were still a child while a separate world continues with him as an adult. Why would it split a third time because he fails in one of those timelines? I don't see what time travel has to do with it. That timeline would continue to go on as if Link failed.
Not a fan of time travel stories to begin with because of nonsense like this, but the timeline doesn't really matter to me. The only thing it affects is that, knowing there isn't one timeline, I will now constantly be confused as to the context of each new game. The theory of each game being a distortion of the same legend was much simpler and more interesting, I thought.
Oh well, doesn't matter much to me either way, as not knowing the continuity has never been a significant hindrance to enjoying the story.
Because Link to the Past exists and that's the original canon that Link was not present in the Imprisoning War. It has nothing to do with time travel.
The other 2 are the what-ifs. What if Link was around during the Imprisoning War? The Classic Timeline (which ends with Adventure of Link) is the main one.
Here is one thing I don't get... Four Swords Adventures is in the wrong spot. It should be placed directly after the original Four Swords (both of which are after Minish Cap).
Ganondorf was killed for good at the end of Twilight Princess, making that game the last of the "Child" timeline.
If you put Four Swords Adventures directly after Four Swords... well OOT was the first game where Ganondorf was born. How could a reincarnation of Ganondorf appear before he is even born. The game is in the right place. Ganondorf is going to keep reincarnating like the text said on Twilight Princess before they took it out.
wait how come links an adult in SS but a kid in OOT is it possible that link and zelda had a child before OOT and when the civil war broke out princess zelda escaped with her child, and link senior died in battle and that links unknown mother is zelda, then in the future link jr grew up and became known as just link but the zelda he knew was another zelda in the royal family who just happened to look like the zelda in ss.
i am hades true leader of the underworld. i must bid you ado
@shadow100: that is amazing and i can't stop laughing at it :3
BEST THREAD EVER future of NL >:3
[16:43] James: I should learn these site rules more clearly
[16:44] LztheBlehBird: James doesn't know the rules? For shame!!!
@Yasha: I'm sure Nintendo only did it just to spike all your personal theories, of course — it's the only reason I can think of for them having bothered codifying everything together in the first place after all that secrecy.
BEST THREAD EVER future of NL >:3
[16:43] James: I should learn these site rules more clearly
[16:44] LztheBlehBird: James doesn't know the rules? For shame!!!
the real kicker is it actually makes more sense than the bullcrap timeline from last month
No, the real kicker is you won't admit that Nintendo doesn't agree with you
jtt235 wrote:
wait how come links an adult in SS but a kid in OOT is it possible that link and zelda had a child before OOT and when the civil war broke out princess zelda escaped with her child, and link senior died in battle and that links unknown mother is zelda, then in the future link jr grew up and became known as just link but the zelda he knew was another zelda in the royal family who just happened to look like the zelda in ss.
wait how come links an adult in SS but a kid in OOT is it possible that link and zelda had a child before OOT and when the civil war broke out princess zelda escaped with her child, and link senior died in battle and that links unknown mother is zelda, then in the future link jr grew up and became known as just link but the zelda he knew was another zelda in the royal family who just happened to look like the zelda in ss.
Wut?
Agreed. He needs to use punctuation, sentence structure, proper grammar, paragraph separation, etc. It's just a jumbled mess.
I had everything right except for the placement of both Minish Cap, Force Swords (Since In-Game story really had no idea where to put them or if they were Canon or not) and the fact that there was a third split. Though I had them in the right order. Nice to see I was right and I basically told everyone each game was either a sequel or a prequel to a previous one.
Though because I only thought there were 2 splits (on my Timeline) Link to the Past was after Four Swords Adventures. Meaning I thought it was the same Ganon (its just a new Gerudo reincarnation). Though originally Four Swords was going to be a prequel to it which changed after Miyamoto said the story was too complicated.
Forums
Topic: Zelda Timeline
Posts 161 to 179 of 179
This topic has been archived, no further posts can be added.