|
|
Post by Yokusa on Apr 4, 2008 10:07:52 GMT -5
Can't spell Linear >_> Guess what Cinaclov, another Zelda Timeline thread  . but this one is more based on what timeline you believe in. so allow me to translate the title for you. Splitist: a Splitist is a Zelda fan that believes the timeline splits after OoT (or another game who knows?) Linearist: a Linearist is a person who believe the timeline is a single straight timeline so, which on are you? (I'm a splitist) edit: before I forget here's a basic set-up of the Split-timeline theory www.youtube.com/watch?v=RXN1BF65WjI |
|
|
|
Post by Cinaclov on Apr 4, 2008 10:58:16 GMT -5
Yay! Well, i can't be botherd to write up paragraphs and paragraphs about it just now, but if you look at the evidence teh split timeline theory looks to be the most likely. Although not quite how GT put it in thier video though, there are elemenst in that one that make no sense what so ever.  |
|
|
|
Post by Yokusa on Apr 4, 2008 11:56:38 GMT -5
Yay! Well, i can't be botherd to write up paragraphs and paragraphs about it just now, but if you look at the evidence teh split timeline theory looks to be the most likely. Although not quite how GT put it in thier video though, there are elemenst in that one that make no sense what so ever. I have to thank AVGN for ponting out one of these contradictions. They're moblins in MC. but The moblins were created in the image of Ganon but since MC is supposed to be the first game in the timeline and the fact that Ganon takes no mention in Minish cap... There is a bold contradiction there!!  |
|
|
|
Post by Cinaclov on Apr 4, 2008 12:34:17 GMT -5
Yay! Well, i can't be botherd to write up paragraphs and paragraphs about it just now, but if you look at the evidence teh split timeline theory looks to be the most likely. Although not quite how GT put it in thier video though, there are elemenst in that one that make no sense what so ever. I have to thank AVGN for ponting out one of these contradictions. They're moblins in MC. but The moblins were created in the image of Ganon but since MC is supposed to be the first game in the timeline and the fact that Ganon takes no mention in Minish cap... There is a bold contradiction there!! Yeah, Ganon isn't born at that time (altough its highly likely that Twinrova was alive at that point), but i think that thats more of a point from the game artists point of view, rather than an in game fact (well thats what it seems like to me  ) In terms of why tehy look the same in game, its like... well, the moblins are a race, right? And, as such, they have little choice as to how they look. Its like, i dunno, im feeling too lazy at the moment to explain it properly, but it seems more than possible to me that the spieces of moblin could easily exist before Gannondorf. I mean, he's just thier leader throughout the majority of games, but that doesn't mean that they don't exist yet because he didn't exist yet. Did that make sense? I'm feeling quite tired and full of food at the moment so thinking logically seems challenging... |
|
|
|
Post by Yokusa on Apr 4, 2008 12:43:43 GMT -5
I have to thank AVGN for ponting out one of these contradictions. They're moblins in MC. but The moblins were created in the image of Ganon but since MC is supposed to be the first game in the timeline and the fact that Ganon takes no mention in Minish cap... There is a bold contradiction there!! Yeah, Ganon isn't born at that time (altough its highly likely that Twinrova was alive at that point), but i think that thats more of a point from the game artists point of view, rather than an in game fact (well thats what it seems like to me ) In terms of why tehy look the same in game, its like... well, the moblins are a race, right? And, as such, they have little choice as to how they look. Its like, i dunno, im feeling too lazy at the moment to explain it properly, but it seems more than possible to me that the spieces of moblin could easily exist before Gannondorf. I mean, he's just thier leader throughout the majority of games, but that doesn't mean that they don't exist yet because he didn't exist yet. Did that make sense? I'm feeling quite tired and full of food at the moment so thinking logically seems challenging... .......  oh well time to find more contradictions!  *turns on GBA* |
|
|
|
Post by Doomdragon on Apr 5, 2008 3:24:17 GMT -5
I am a definate splitist.
The timeline video on our main site is the most believable and sensicle of all the ones I've seen!
|
|
|
|
Post by OrangeRakoon on Apr 7, 2008 7:08:21 GMT -5
No one can be a true Linearist (Which I miss read as Line artist  ) as MM is set in a parallel universe. The real question is whether the games are set over 3 parallel universes or 2. Incidently, I think that there are 4 parallel universes that have been explored in the Zelda game so far 1) Termina, which split off very early in the universes history. 2) Hyrule where Ganondorf is stopped by Link in OoT. 3) Hyrule where Ganondorf isn't stopped. NB Not that there is any reason for Ganondorf not being stopped other than Link gets killed at some point or something to the same effect. The idea that Link couldn't save Hyrule because he went to Termina is flawed in the extreme, as he went to Termina aftersaving Hyrule. 4) The universe where the majority of PH is set. Of course, there is always a chance that Hyrule doesn't split in the games in OoT. WW could just happen after TP. |
|
|
|
Post by Doomdragon on Apr 7, 2008 8:02:05 GMT -5
Yeah it is hinted rather obviously that PH is in some kind of paralell universe, and Termina aswell.
And when you say theres a different universe depending on whether or not Ganondorf was killed I don't fully agree with.
I reckon it's some kind of time paradox or something...
|
|
|
|
Post by Cinaclov on Apr 7, 2008 13:28:07 GMT -5
Yeah it is hinted rather obviously that PH is in some kind of paralell universe, and Termina aswell. And when you say theres a different universe depending on whether or not Ganondorf was killed I don't fully agree with. I reckon it's some kind of time paradox or something... Yeah, just blame it all on the paradox's. |
|
|
|
Post by Doomdragon on Apr 7, 2008 13:30:07 GMT -5
You've got to admit though it is always the paradox's fault.
|
|
. but this one is more based on what timeline you believe in. so allow me to translate the title for you.
) 
) as MM is set in a parallel universe. The real question is whether the games are set over 3 parallel universes or 2.
