Alter
www.zeldainmypocket.com
- Joined
- Jan 23, 2009
- Location
- Point blank, On Your Six.
I'm curious as to what the members here have to say about the adult/child theory idea.
1. Why? We all know that Nintendo never though "Ooo... let's "really" have it so that the end of OoT never really happened". The developers didn't plan for such a thing at the games creation.
2. Why does everyone always say "the developers said/hinted that this is on the child or adult timeline."? No one up top has ever used the words "child/adult timeline" that I've seen. I've asked people to prove this, but they can never seem to source it. Hmm...
3. The phrase "split timeline" has only been stated twice, I believe. Neither of those times were "press conferences", but unrehearsed interviews. Do you really think that they'd just "say" the timeline that they've hidden for years in a misc. interview? Don't think so. They had to say something, and by using the term "split" anything can be justified.
4. So even though the actual confirmation of a split remains somewhat ambiguous, it does not mean that it has anything to do with adult/child timelines. It could be that a certain Link failed at some point. A certain Link was not born. MM Link returned to Hyrule.
I should also add that the ideas were not originally Nintendo's. They originated from fans, and were likely adapted.
Anyway, I don't want to seem like a newbie who's asking stupid questions. What I'm doing is encouraging people to take a second look at this sort of thing.
I've read through almost all the the articles from the head honchos at Nintendo regarding Zelda timelines, and nothing seems to shout out "CONFIRMED ADULT/CHILD TIMELINE SPLIT!".
I personally don't see a good reason to support adult/child timelines, and am unsure as to why they are being pushed as the only viable ones.
1. Why? We all know that Nintendo never though "Ooo... let's "really" have it so that the end of OoT never really happened". The developers didn't plan for such a thing at the games creation.
2. Why does everyone always say "the developers said/hinted that this is on the child or adult timeline."? No one up top has ever used the words "child/adult timeline" that I've seen. I've asked people to prove this, but they can never seem to source it. Hmm...
3. The phrase "split timeline" has only been stated twice, I believe. Neither of those times were "press conferences", but unrehearsed interviews. Do you really think that they'd just "say" the timeline that they've hidden for years in a misc. interview? Don't think so. They had to say something, and by using the term "split" anything can be justified.
4. So even though the actual confirmation of a split remains somewhat ambiguous, it does not mean that it has anything to do with adult/child timelines. It could be that a certain Link failed at some point. A certain Link was not born. MM Link returned to Hyrule.
I should also add that the ideas were not originally Nintendo's. They originated from fans, and were likely adapted.
Anyway, I don't want to seem like a newbie who's asking stupid questions. What I'm doing is encouraging people to take a second look at this sort of thing.
I've read through almost all the the articles from the head honchos at Nintendo regarding Zelda timelines, and nothing seems to shout out "CONFIRMED ADULT/CHILD TIMELINE SPLIT!".
I personally don't see a good reason to support adult/child timelines, and am unsure as to why they are being pushed as the only viable ones.