Zelda Wii U

[YX33A]

actually they can, since they own the franchise they could say the timeline is a big circle and that would be the correct time line. The time line doesn't even have to be a correct pretrial of a time line to be one since this is a fantasy game and not every thing has to make sense.

No, a timeline doesn't change meaning because they said it does. Seriously, you may as well say "I ain't gotta explain shit, because Magic". And people hate plot device magic. It's lazy and uncreative.
It's a series of events and outcomes. It's the official version of the events, and what occurs when what happens. A timeline doesn't fork. It's a straight line. It forked? No longer a timeline, as it's a system involving "what if's". It even ignores the fact that the Adult section of OoT doesn't happen when link wins. He won, gannon didn't, QED the Adult section of the game didn't happen either. He is a kid again. And stops the whole plan before it happens with his knowledge of what happened and how.

 

[SkeletonPunk]

No, a timeline doesn't change meaning because they said it does. Seriously, you may as well say "I ain't gotta explain shit, because Magic". And people hate plot device magic. It's lazy and uncreative.
It's a series of events and outcomes. It's the official version of the events, and what occurs when what happens. A timeline doesn't fork. It's a straight line. It forked? No longer a timeline, as it's a system involving "what if's". It even ignores the fact that the Adult section of OoT doesn't happen when link wins. He won, gannon didn't, QED the Adult section of the game didn't happen either. He is a kid again. And stops the whole plan before it happens with his knowledge of what happened and how.

yes but a timeline doesn't involve multiple realities like zelda does. They're not what ifs they are alternate realities cause by the hero time traveling. something that's impossible by todays standards, so YES, this makes sense in the way that the hero time travels causing multiple realites.

 

[YX33A]

yes but a timeline doesn't involve multiple realities like zelda does. They're not what ifs they are alternate realities cause by the hero time traveling. something that's impossible by todays standards, so YES, this makes sense in the way that the hero time travels causing multiple realites.

You had it right when you said a timeline doesn't involve multiple reailties like zelda does. Thus, it's not a timeline. It's cause and effect. It is a series of branching timelines based around what did and didn't happen. Cause and effect making divergent timelines. A understanding of timelines can change with certain events is needed to know what's going to happen and when, if what happens and when. This is what some stories have called Parachronic science. Knowing how to shift a timeline by doing things at certain points.

 

[SkeletonPunk]

You had it right when you said a timeline doesn't involve multiple reailties like zelda does. Thus, it's not a timeline. It's cause and effect. It is a series of branching timelines based around what did and didn't happen. Cause and effect making divergent timelines. A understanding of timelines can change with certain events is needed to know what's going to happen and when, if what happens and when. This is what some stories have called Parachronic science. Knowing how to shift a timeline by doing things at certain points.

Even if it isn't a timeline at all, its a time line. and nintendo is known for saying "because magic" in some games, EVEN in OOT, the hero was able to travel through time by using the sword and becoming seven years older. And their explanation is quite frankly "because magic" so,if anything, its OOT's fault for not making sense.

 

[YX33A]

Even if it isn't a timeline at all, its a time line. and nintendo is known for saying "because magic" in some games, EVEN in OOT, the hero was able to travel through time by using the sword and becoming seven years older. And their explanation is quite frankly "because magic" so,if anything, its OOT's fault for not making sense.

It is not worth defending such a stance. Magic as the plot demands isn't even used in OoT. You have a explanation as to why he because 7 years older too; the hero of time he because had to be 7 years older, QED he had to wait 7 years, long enough for Gannon to win. The golden goddess spells work one way and one way only, they do change as the plot demands(possible exception to the wind spell in Gannon's Castle, drama often trumps teleporting out), magical arrows work one way and one way only. The masks do one thing only. It's very consistent.
The game makes sense in the game. Maybe it doesn't outside of it because magic isn't real. But if it's internally consistent with how the magic works, then it isn't "magic that does what the writers says it does because it's magic, I ain't gotta explain shit".

 

[SkeletonPunk]

It is not worth defending such a stance. Magic as the plot demands isn't even used in OoT. You have a explanation as to why he because 7 years older too; the hero of time he because had to be 7 years older, QED he had to wait 7 years, long enough for Gannon to win. The golden goddess spells work one way and one way only, they do change as the plot demands(possible exception to the wind spell in Gannon's Castle, drama often trumps teleporting out), magical arrows work one way and one way only. The masks do one thing only. It's very consistent.
The game makes sense in the game. Maybe it doesn't outside of it because magic isn't real. But if it's internally consistent with how the magic works, then it isn't "magic that does what the writers says it does because it's magic, I ain't gotta explain shit".

except whe he was able to travel back to his younger self multiple times...

 

[YX33A]

except whe he was able to travel back to his younger self multiple times...

Again, he put the sword back. It aged him when he took it, as the hero had to be 7 years older. He put it back, becoming the young kid again, not the hero of time.
If he put it back and became young again constantly but then he did and didn't... then there is a issue. Explain why it happened and the issue vanishes. A internally consistent system is one that does things a certain way and doesn't stop doing so unless the conditions change. Read the TV Tropes article "Magic A is Magic A" if this is hard to understand.

Spoiler: Cliffnotes version

Magic A is Magic A and only Magic A is Magic A, and Magic A can not become Magic B unless a serious plot reason exists and is explained as to why Magic A became Magic B.

Spoiler: Idiots Guide

Magic A is one form of magic. It has rules that apply to Magic A that Magic B may not follow, even if Magic B has rules that are the same as Magic B. Lets say Magic A is Arcane, and Magic B is Divine, like Dungeons and Dragons. Arcane Magic has limits. One can't wear armor, Arcane Magic involves special movements usually, it involves spoken incantations, usually, and often involves things like eye of newt or bat guano. Divine Magic has limits. While one can wear armor, it still usually involves special movements. But they are not as exact, for reasons explained later. It often involves spoken incantations. It rarely involves things like eye of newt or bat guano, and when it does, they are often things like powdered precious gems, powdered precious metals, and similar expensive things unlike the usual easy to locate and use eye of newt or bat guano of Arcane Magic. But all Divine Magic requires a divine focus, a holy symbol. The symbol of the god invoking the magic for you. This is why the movements are not hindered by armor, as one only has to hold the symbol aloft and invoke the divine power. Both Arcane and Divine magic require speaking aloud. For Arcane magic, it's usually similar to speaking Latin when no one knows how to pronounce anything in it unless they are a Mage. Divine Magic is plain speaking. Say what you want your god to do, and invoke his symbol and his will is done. But Arcane and Divine Magic are not the same thing. They may do the same things, and may be just as strong, but they are not the same, because the rituals involved are different.

In short, the system for how things work in OoT are consistent and are not "It's magic, I ain't gotta explain shit". They follow Magic A is Magic A to the letter. They are not "Magic as the plot demands", they do not allow for Deus Ex Machina or Diablos Ex Machina, and thus any implication that they don't make sense is based purely upon the fact that they are magical systems, and magic doesn't exist and thus people say it doesn't make sense. Ignorance of storytelling is why people write magic that doesn't follow rules, and ignorance of storytelling is why people think magic can't follow rules.

 

[SkeletonPunk]

BACK ON TOPIC OF THIS THREAD TIME!!
A youtuber by the name of Macintyre Productions has made some pretty good zelda videos about speculation of the new zelda and has a good amount of supporters trying to get more info on the new zelda

 

[SkeletonPunk]

No, a timeline doesn't change meaning because they said it does. Seriously, you may as well say "I ain't gotta explain shit, because Magic". And people hate plot device magic. It's lazy and uncreative.
It's a series of events and outcomes. It's the official version of the events, and what occurs when what happens. A timeline doesn't fork. It's a straight line. It forked? No longer a timeline, as it's a system involving "what if's". It even ignores the fact that the Adult section of OoT doesn't happen when link wins. He won, gannon didn't, QED the Adult section of the game didn't happen either. He is a kid again. And stops the whole plan before it happens with his knowledge of what happened and how.

I didnt say its meaning changed, i simply said they can modify what a timeline is in THAT universe since its a different universe than ours

The zelda timeline that is stated by nintendo to be true is the timeline that is true to THEM, even if its complete and uder nonsense. The reason being that's the one they will base the games on when they develop them, so no matter how much reasoning you have:

That is technically the time line unless they replace it in the future

 

[YX33A]

I didnt say its meaning changed, i simply said they can modify what a timeline is in THAT universe since its a different universe than ours.~

No, they can't say it's a timeline if it ISN'T A TIMELINE. The meaning is constant. That isn't a timeline. Even if they say it is to them. I don't go around saying I have tons of Theories and expect people who know anything about scientific rigor and process to take me seriously. The meaning is the same, no matter who uses it correctly or incorrectly. It means what it means, and unless they write a new definition in the dictionary and get it accepted, they can't say it's a timeline, because a timeline doesn't branch. Maybe a timetree could, but a line is a line, and lines may not be straight, but they don't branch.

 

[SkeletonPunk]

No, they can't say it's a timeline if it ISN'T A TIMELINE. The meaning is constant. That isn't a timeline. Even if they say it is to them. I don't go around saying I have tons of Theories and expect people who know anything about scientific rigor and process to take me seriously. The meaning is the same, no matter who uses it correctly or incorrectly. It means what it means, and unless they write a new definition in the dictionary and get it accepted, they can't say it's a timeline, because a timeline doesn't branch. Maybe a timetree could, but a line is a line, and lines may not be straight, but they don't branch.

How is that my problem, it is what it is, even if what it is is a crappy concept of a timeline, if you don't like it, tell Nintendo, this isn't the place for it. this is a discussion thread on what people want to see in the next zelda.

 

[YX33A]

How is that my problem, it is what it is, even if what it is is a crappy concept of a timeline, if you don't like it, tell Nintendo, this isn't the place for it. this is a discussion thread on what people want to see in the next zelda.

It's your problem as you keep calling it a timeline. Keep messing that up, I'll keep calling you on it. They can make that mistake and I am upset, but that's not really an issue to me, they are a company and IDGAF what kind of stupid mistakes Nintendo makes, because Nintendo is a company that may not be perfect, but much like a puppy that can't chase his own tail without going ass over tea kettle in moments, it's endearing. You make that mistake? I care and it bother me.

 

[SkeletonPunk]

It's your problem as you keep calling it a timeline. Keep messing that up, I'll keep calling you on it. They can make that mistake and I am upset, but that's not really an issue to me, they are a company and IDGAF what kind of stupid mistakes Nintendo makes, because Nintendo is a company that may not be perfect, but much like a puppy that can't chase his own tail without going ass over tea kettle in moments, it's endearing. You make that mistake? I care and it bother me.

I am calling it what they are calling it, why is that something important? its not like im hurting you by saying its a timeline so why worry about it?

 

[YX33A]

I am calling it what they are calling it, why is that something important? its not like im hurting you by saying its a timeline so why worry about it?

No no, they are stupid to say it, but it's endearing when they screw up. You aren't nintendo, and know better then to call that a timeline. You do know better then to call something like that a timeline, discarding the bit that Nintendo called it one?

 

[SkeletonPunk]

No no, they are stupid to say it, but it's endearing when they screw up. You aren't nintendo, and know better then to call that a timeline. You do know better then to call something like that a timeline, discarding the bit that Nintendo called it one?

I just call it what they call it because its easier than saying "chronological order of events that nintendo verrified as the official sequence of events that also lead to multiple realities"

 

[YX33A]

I just call it what they call it because its easier than saying "chronological order of events that nintendo verrified as the official sequence of events that also lead to multiple realities"

How about "Time Tree"? May not run off the tongue quite as easily as timeline, but it's accurate. Or "Branching Timeline"? Really, that's damn accurate too.

 

[SkeletonPunk]

How about "Time Tree"? May not run off the tongue quite as easily as timeline, but it's accurate. Or "Branching Timeline"? Really, that's damn accurate too.

the split represents alternate universes not realities i think...

 

[Eruantien]

Um...
WORDS OW MY BRAIN
My little bundle of blah for the evening:
Just because the shoe fits doesn't mean that it belongs to you.
Nintendo made the story, and fans invented the backstory. Who 'ya gonna trust - the automobile factory workers or the exaggerated "hype" ads?
Splits could also represent where time went haywire during the points where different incarnations of Link crossed paths, resulting in a ginormous ball of wibbly-wobbly timey-wimey... stuff.
It doesn't have to make sense, it's only a video game. I mean, we already believe the "doctrines" of infinite pocket capacity, invulnerability to heat, the universal currency, alteration of the past to change a present future without the fabric of the universe folding in on itself or anything, physical changes that defy belief, the spirit of the three main protagonists continuing in their spiritual descendants...
And, this is the same company that gave us Yamask, Dunsparce, invincibility, space with atmospheres, double cherries...
If you want a game that makes sense, try this new one; it just came out, I think it's called "Minecraft".
(At least, before you put in OreSpawn, GregTech, DartCraft, or Trail Mix.)

Anyhoo: in the next Zelda title, I want to see a target practice minigame, where you get to aim a ship's cannon at images of short, fat men in green tights for rupees.
The closer to his face, the more exponentially increased your rewards are.

 

[YX33A]

Um...
WORDS OW MY BRAIN
My little bundle of blah for the evening:
Just because the shoe fits doesn't mean that it belongs to you.
Nintendo made the story, and fans invented the backstory. Who 'ya gonna trust - the automobile factory workers or the exaggerated "hype" ads?
Splits could also represent where time went haywire during the points where different incarnations of Link crossed paths, resulting in a ginormous ball of wibbly-wobbly timey-wimey... stuff.
It doesn't have to make sense, it's only a video game. I mean, we already believe the "doctrines" of infinite pocket capacity, invulnerability to heat, the universal currency, alteration of the past to change a present future without the fabric of the universe folding in on itself or anything, physical changes that defy belief, the spirit of the three main protagonists continuing in their spiritual descendants...
And, this is the same company that gave us Yamask, Dunsparce, invincibility, space with atmospheres, double cherries...
If you want a game that makes sense, try this new one; it just came out, I think it's called "Minecraft".
(At least, before you put in OreSpawn, GregTech, DartCraft, or Trail Mix.)

Anyhoo: in the next Zelda title, I want to see a target practice minigame, where you get to aim a ship's cannon at images of short, fat men in green tights for rupees.
The closer to his face, the more exponentially increased your rewards are.

Very true, except this:

And, this is the same company that gave us Yamask, Dunsparce, invincibility, space with atmospheres, double cherries...

First off, Pokemon is by Game Freak. Invincibility is older then dirt, as far as storytelling goes(TV Tropes, HO!). Space actually does have atmosphere, as it's not a full vacuum as that's able to destroy everything(seriously, crazy shit that). And I'm not even sure what you mean when you say "double cherries"...

And again, yet another person who says it doesn't make sense! Internal Consistency is very possible, even for magic!(and when magic is involved) And The Legend of Zelda pulls through in every game with this. No glaring theme changes, no "that doesn't work here because I it's magic, I ain't gotta explain shit!", and countless other things. Magic is not a handwave. When it is, the story is shit anyway, even if the magic is a handwave. It can, and indeed, MUST follow rules, even if loosely defined, and occasionally broken in special ways, and good story telling involves the fact that Magic A is Magic A, and somewhere in the story, a person who we thought used Magic A did something Magic A can't, or we assumed Magic A can't. The story then involves why the fact that something didn't go as it was supposed to, and thus it leads either to said person actually not being a practitioner of Magic A, or that the rule they broke is breakable when one does something special.

 

[Eruantien]

Very true, except this:
First off, Pokemon is by Game Freak. Invincibility is older then dirt, as far as storytelling goes(TV Tropes, HO!). Space actually does have atmosphere, as it's not a full vacuum as that's able to destroy everything(seriously, crazy shit that). And I'm not even sure what you mean when you say "double cherries"...

And again, yet another person who says it doesn't make sense! Internal Consistency is very possible, even for magic!(and when magic is involved) And The Legend of Zelda pulls through in every game with this. No glaring theme changes, no "that doesn't work here because I it's magic, I ain't gotta explain shit!", and countless other things. Magic is not a handwave. When it is, the story is shit anyway, even if the magic is a handwave. It can, and indeed, MUST follow rules, even if loosely defined, and occasionally broken in special ways, and good story telling involves the fact that Magic A is Magic A, and somewhere in the story, a person who we thought used Magic A did something Magic A can't, or we assumed Magic A can't. The story then involves why the fact that something didn't go as it was supposed to, and thus it leads either to said person actually not being a practitioner of Magic A, or that the rule they broke is breakable when one does something special.

So, you're saying that, in the context of the game, everything makes sense, which is true; whereas, I was saying that in real life, hardly anything makes sense from the game.
I was just wondering what point you're trying to make... :/

Double cherries are from that new WiiU game, Super Mario 3D World; eat one and you're duplicated.
Space is a vacuum, because it is quite literally empty space, except where it is taken up by objects; hence, Super Mario Galaxy kind of doesn't even make sense in its own context?
Invincibility is OP. =D
Game Freak releases Pokemon under Nintendo, doesn't it?