Name a more iconic ending

name a more iconic ending

Other urls found in this thread:

youtube.com/watch?v=X4NpBtAu79g
youtu.be/lieJIxJZs1M
youtube.com/watch?v=tlel0bc4M7c
twitter.com/AnonBabble

Dead Space 1

...

...

>iconic ending

Now that I think about it, the only endings that achieve the status of iconic are all meme endings

by being iconic they become memes

...

...

...

...

...

...

youtube.com/watch?v=X4NpBtAu79g

It amazes me that to this day, there are still split timeline deniers. Even with the aid of Hyrule Historia, they still can't grasp the ending.

People get really autistic over the idea of Zelda games being connected.

It amazes me that to this day, there are still downfall timeline deniers for BotW's timeline placement.

botw as a self contained thing is a downfall timeline

Depends on what games you play and what you consider "iconic." To me it means an ending that sticks, resolves whatever plot was in place, and leaves you feeling something. Also, do you mean ending sequence + cutscene, or just a flat out final cutscene? A lot of games do great shit at the end, and then have a novelty cutscene to square it off.

...

CURSE YOU.... frank

Lifestream stopping meteor in FF7.

I can't. Why did nobody give me any form of professional advice?

youtu.be/lieJIxJZs1M

>red tunic
it's not the canon ending.

>fans beg you to make a timeline
>come up with a complete asspull that just vaguely puts similar looking links together
i-it was planned that way all along!

...

anal

>not calling yourself link

Watch the ending again on youtube. And then explain to me exactly how there's a single timeline.

the whole Patriot AI nonsense ruined that game

If there were two timelines then you can do whatever the fuck you want as a child and it will never affect the future from the moment you pull out the master sword, even though this is clearly false from the gameplay.

but that's not the point. even if the OoT ending was supposed to be interpreted that way, that's just one game. zelda timeline don't real, it's just a bunch of vaguely connected legends and historia just an asspull because fans wanted it

>wearing any tunic other than green
The fuck kind of faggotry is this I'm seeing?

...

I can't. It's the best example of how to do a simple but impactful ending.

...

What I took from the ending is that the split is made AT the ending. The future is impacted by the events that transpired in the game, yet the past goes back to before Zelda ran off.
Can't argue with the timeline just being an after-the-fact thing though, but going with what we have in OOT, a split timeline makes sense.

Watch. Then. Ending. Again.
Zelda uses magic from the Ocarina to send Link back to an alternate timeline. The timeline is singular, until the very end, when Zelda splits it.

Yes, Hyrule Historia tacks on games that it shouldn't. But the core concept of the timelines is legit. Calling out 4swords for being an asspull doesn't demolish the whole timeline.

I played through this game so many times as a child, the entire last part is burned into my memory

> Calling out 4swords for being an asspull doesn't demolish the whole timeline.
Yes it does.

At most, OoT and MM are connected. WW and Phantom Hourglass / Spirit Tracks are connected. Games reference each other and sometimes they use the same Link. But there's no overarching connection between them. Not even if you exclude a couple of non-mainline games you don't like.

You see this obviously with BotW where they just reference every fucking possible game and use every game's landmarks and names because they need them for the massive map.

They are disconnected legends, there's no timeline.

>Yes it does.
How? All it means is that Nintendo tacked on a few extra games they shouldn't. But the core of the idea is sound.

>At most, OoT and MM are connected.
Retard, Twilight Princess directly references OoT and MM. AND, despite coming out after WW, it avoids referencing WW.

And WW directly references OoT. In fact, the very premise of WW, is that it's a sequel to OoT. Watch the intro again, when it clearly references the hero of time.

Then, of course you have Skyward Sword making it perfectly clear that it's a prequel to everything. Establishing the lore of the world and birth of Hyrule.

So OoT, MM, TP, WW, and SS are all connected. Wow, would you look at that, 5 mainline games are directly related. It's almost like one big timeline or something, huh?

...

Each game picks a couple of games to reference and then your autism extrapolates wildly from there, and explains away any contradictions that get in the way of your want. Just like Historia did.

Why does BotW reference absolute every game? Because despite what theory videos made for children would have you believe, it fits nowhere. Because there is no timeline.

Almost every Final Fantasy.

Let's start small. Give me an example of a contradiction that gets in the way of WW referencing THE HERO OF TIME.

And explain how BotW magically dissolves the timeline that came before it? So what if a sequel starts a new timeline? It's happened before. When OoT came out, it started a new timeline separate from the previous 3 games. That's no big deal. So BotW doesn't fit. No big deal. It's its own thing.

>That's no big deal. So BotW doesn't fit. No big deal. It's its own thing.
Glad we could come to an agreement. So there is no overarching timeline, not even one that can fit all mainline games, or even one that can fit all mainline 3D games.

BotW personally seems to think it comes after SS, after OoT, after TP and after WW and nearly every single game by referencing all of them, but of course it doesn't because that's impossible. So you say it's its "own thing". What you fail to understand is this applies to every game. WW thinks it comes after OoT. MM thinks it comes after OoT. TP thinks it comes after OoT. SS thinks it comes before everything, and so on. The developers certainly wanted those games to fit in somewhere vaguely relative to other games. Generally a mainline game picks a couple of games it comes before or after, and they make references to those games. But that's all. They aren't consistent.

The more games that are introduced, the more contradictions there will be. If there is a timeline for a subset of games, it is only because so far you can draw a vague thread between them without someone pointing out to you an obvious contradiction. Meaning, it's only out of the pure coincidence that the developers didn't put something in that broke their supposed placement. Because they don't think from the standpoint of wanting to create a coherent timeline. They only think from the standpoint of a couple of games that it might place relative to, and then separate them by a few hundred or thousand years so most of the inconsistencies can be explained away by time.

did all the cupcakes taste the same?

>Glad we could come to an agreement. So there is no overarching timeline
Revelling in the opportunity to be as facetious as you can be, you forgot that my position always was that there are *multiple* timelines.

The distinction here, is that I'm saying the split timeline is real, and encompasses OoT, MM, WW, TP, and SS. Proving that BotW doesn't fit OoT's split timeline, does not magically dissolve it. I don't know where you're getting the idea that pointing to an unrelated game, works as evidence against the timeline. The fact still remains that the timeline itself is cohesive.

You've failed to give an example of the contradictions you're talking about. You want to talk in vague terms, and allude to "contradictions", but you don't want to define any. Why is that? Could it be that none of your contradictions can explain away the connections the games have?

>WW thinks it comes after OoT. MM thinks it comes after OoT. TP thinks it comes after OoT. SS thinks it comes before everything
Because that's exactly how it is.

>Could it be that none of your contradictions can explain away the connections the games have?
I never said that you could. You can make a timeline (for now) out of OOT, MM, WW, TP and SS. But that's an extremely small timeline, extremely small compared to the one that's presented in Historia, it misses more than a few games. It misses almost all of them. And the more games that are created that reference these games, the more likely you're going to run into a complete contradiction where they can't play nicely anymore.

BotW actually is this, because it thinks it comes after all of these games but clearly can't because the only thing keeping them together before was that they were supposed to take place upon a branching timeline. So you create another timeline where conveniently all these events have all occurred but there's no split. Which ignores the underlining reality: any "timeline" is only temporary. The developers wanted BotW to fit together with the rest, but it doesn't. They didn't consciously sit down and say BotW is its own thing in its own timeline with its own version of all the 3D Zelda events up to that point. They just didn't care. So they broke it.

>you forgot that my position always was that there are *multiple* timelines.
No I didn't. Use the term timeline, or use the term continuity if you want. WW and TP are both supposed to be able to fit into the same continuity, even though they don't occur on the same timeline.

Historia doesn't even have a timeline that splits in two in Ocarina. It has a timeline that splits in three. Because that's the only thing they could think of to fit their asspull. You think that TP must have been planned to come after an adult timeline, and WW must have been planned to come after a child one. But that isn't actually what the developers planned. All they knew is that both come after OoT. The method of how can both come after OoT is an asspull that they didn't care enough about to not contradict.

>Two characters stand on a cloud and talk to eachother
It's not that iconic. Nothing really happens either

i can't

The only reason timeline deniers exist is because Nintendo didn't have the balls to have the player lose at the end of OoT.

The disconnect between what actually happens in game and what supposedly goes down during the "Imprisoning War" as described in the aLttP backstory was basically the only wrench in the entire Zelda timeline.
If not for that one spot, which gets explained away by a timeline split where you actually DO lose (that just isn't shown in game) all the Zelda titles prior to BotW fit together exactly as their content and accompanying materials would imply.

>The method of how can both come after OoT is an asspull that they didn't care enough about to not contradict.

It's fucking explained in the opening cinematic of WW

No it isn't.

>muh ganon came back but the hero was nowhere, must have been because he went back in time right? so the goddesses flooded everything
Only not, because this would mean Ganondorf came back almost immediately after being sealed, because otherwise Link would be too old to be the hero of legend. And the hero's spirit or courage or whatever the fuck SS decided to call it comes back as Wind Waker link anyway, so there was no reason this couldn't happen when it got flooded. Just like there was no reason Link had to fail the first time in BotW other than that just being how the story was set up.

>Hyrule Encyclopedia still not translated
>BotW timeline placement still not officially stated
>Sealing War still not animated in ANY way shape or form
Fuck Jewtendo.

Didnt know it was iconinc, traded it as soon i 100%'d it for Rogue Squadron, best trade of my life.

>You can make a timeline (for now) out of OOT, MM, WW, TP and SS.
There is no "for now". Nothing in the future can magically make the timeline go away.

>But that's an extremely small timeline
No the fuck it isn't. It's FIVE mainline games. Over the course of 13 years.

>it misses more than a few games. It misses almost all of them.
All the other games branch off from this core timeline. OoT is like the trunk, and the mainline sequels are its strongest branches. The WW handheld sequels are the next strongest branches. And then all the other games in between are like the twigs. You're crying about the twigs not fitting into the timeline. It's insignificant.

>They didn't consciously sit down and say BotW is its own thing in its own timeline with its own version of all the 3D Zelda events up to that point. They just didn't care. So they broke it.
This is all pure conjecture, backed up by nothing but your own assumption. Like I stated before, TP doesn't reference WW. Which, according to you, if they didn't care about the timeline, then TP should be littered with WW references.

>You think that TP must have been planned to come after an adult timeline, and WW must have been planned to come after a child one.
Well when they were writing OoT, I don't think they were projecting as far as WW or TP. But OoT DOES split the timeline, even if the sequels never came out. OoT itself supports the notion that two timelines exist.
I do believe that WW was intentionally written post Adult timeline, and TP was intentionally written post Child timeline. It's clear as day. As WW mentions Adult link vanishing, and has stained glass windows of the sages.
Then TP OMITS the iconic sages, because they never came into prominence in the Child timeline. And it implies direct heritage to the previous hero.

>Nothing in the future can magically make the timeline go away.
New game that supposedly takes place after TP, but before WW. References them both. Broken.

(BotW already did this except it comes after both and references both, but you placed it into its own neat little special snowflake timeline because it doesn't work. You'll do the same thing for this hypothetical game too)

...

>so there was no reason this couldn't happen when it got flooded. Just like there was no reason Link had to fail the first time in BotW other than that just being how the story was set up.

Seems like we found this source of the problem.
You're trying to argue against the literary equivalent of word of god.
If the writers say they connect (and it's not even some retcon that happened later. They give the info in the games and accompanying materials right when they came out) then they fucking connect.

Zelda 1 introduces concepts like the Triforce, the princess, and the dark lord Ganon

Zelda 2?
direct sequel to Zelda 1, shows that Ganon can return even from death

aLttP?
prequel to both those games, talks about a prince of thieves, Ganondorf Dragmire becoming Ganon, but doesn't show him outright. Introduces the Master Sword, and also removes it, showing that games with no mention of it probably come later

Link's Awakening?
doesn't even deal with any overarching plot points

OoT?
prequel by many years to aLttP, shows Ganondorf before he becomes Ganon, and the Master Sword is shown to already exist in this time

MM?
Direct sequel showing what happens to the Link from OoT after OoT

WW?
Sequel by many years to OoT showing what happens to the Hyrule that Zelda sends Link back in time FROM in his absence

TP?
Sequel by many years to OoT, shows what happens to the Hyrule that Zelda sends link back in time TO since the timeline shifts due to his knowledge of the future.

Minish Cap?
Prequel showing the origin of the Hero's garb (not like anyone cared)

SS?
Prequel showing the origin of the Master Sword

...

BotW is sequel to hyrule legends

>You're trying to argue against the literary equivalent of word of god.
So we have a god that makes a timeline that doesn't make any sense when you actually think about it. Which is all I'm saying. You cannot construct a logical timeline and any timeline you can currently construct with a subset of games is subject to future change (like BotW just did, which is why timeline autists want to ignore it).

> (and it's not even some retcon that happened later. They give the info in the games and accompanying materials right when they came out)
It is a retcon that happened later, especially the third muh hero lost timeline.

>this would mean Ganondorf came back almost immediately after being sealed
Well what are the rules for Ganon escaping? Did you write the rules? No. So whoever made the rules, did they say Ganon *couldn't* escape immediately? No.

>because otherwise Link would be too old to be the hero of legend.
Uh... What? Link was sent back in time *immediately* after defeating Ganon. This is why I told you to look at OoT's ending again. As soon as the battle is over, Link and Zelda are floating among some clouds. And then she's like "Sorry you missed out on your childhood. Imma send you back now, k?" And then she plays the Ocarina, and Link warps back to being a child.

So after Link gets sent back in time, there's an undetermined amount of time before Ganon breaks the seal and marches his army on Hyrule. The reason WW link doesn't inherit the spirit of the hero, is for the fact that Lin's spirit was transported to an alternate timeline.

>New game that supposedly takes place after TP, but before WW. References them both. Broken.
That wouldn't break the timeline. It would just make the timeline really suck with a giant glaring inconsistency.

BotW gets placed as it's own thing, precisely because it convolutes legends beyond reason. Or rather, I should say, it borrows legends from itself, to make a new legend. Kind of like how a new story will borrow heavily from dungeons and dragons. It's not in the D&D universe, but it borrows all these D&D tropes and archetypes to create something new.
Similarly, BotW borrows from Zelda's extensive histories and legends, to create something new.

Nothing can top this

>Well what are the rules for Ganon escaping? Did you write the rules? No. So whoever made the rules, did they say Ganon *couldn't* escape immediately? No.
Excuse me, *reddit*, if I think that the developers wouldn't want to completely invalidate your work in OoT by having Ganondorf immediately come back to a Hyrule where Link is missing and thus doom the whole place and everyone he saved to being flooded.

It just doesn't make sense because it destroys the entire game. You would think the goddesses would have more foresight than that. Never did any game say that Link fucked up by going back in time and that's why Hyrule was flooded, and it never will be said because it would ruin the game. All that was said is that people prayed for the hero and he didn't appear, but the hero also didn't properly appear in BotW and thus the entire kingdom was destroyed. It was only 100 years later that the hero really appeared. Clearly, there is real no requirement for the hero to be around and ready to stop Ganon when he appears.

>The reason WW link doesn't inherit the spirit of the hero, is for the fact that Lin's spirit was transported to an alternate timeline.
Now your timeline faggotry gets even more retarded. He does inherit the spirit of the hero. That's why he's the hero. He's not just some random guy.

>That wouldn't break the timeline. It would just make the timeline really suck with a giant glaring inconsistency.

*Asterisks for emphasis* isn't reddit, muhclub. And you're not excused. Because what you think isn't reality. And your projections are the reason we're having this retarded debate right now.

>It just doesn't make sense because it destroys the entire game.
No it doesn't. In fact, you didn't even notice that his immediate escape could be a reality. That's how much that fact didn't matter.

>You would think the goddesses would have more foresight than that.
You would think the goddesses would have enough foresight not to give ganon the triforce of power in the first place. But they allow it anyway.

>Never did any game say that Link fucked up by going back in time and that's why Hyrule was flooded, and it never will be said because it would ruin the game. All that was said is that people prayed for the hero and he didn't appear
We know they're talking about the Hero of Time, because it's stated explicitly in the intro of the game. So the hero of time never showed. Why is that? Well we see why at the end of OoT: Zelda sent him back to an alternate past.

>Now your timeline faggotry gets even more retarded. He does inherit the spirit of the hero. That's why he's the hero. He's not just some random guy.
The King of Red Lions talks to the fish deity, and remarks that Link has no ties to the original hero. That's why Link is forced to complete the tower of gods. The tower is meant to test to see if Link is worthy of being a hero.

The literal best ending in all of video games

Well it's true. You can't retcon intent. You can't say that an inconsistency in the present retroactively alters author's intent in the past.
>"No, no, no. You didn't mean all those things you said before, because the thing you said just now nullifies your previous meaning"

...

How is this "zelda timeline" argument even a thing? It's pretty obvious that they didn't plan for it all to be an overarching plot/timeline between every game and just made up some shit later to appease fans

>*Asterisks for emphasis* isn't reddit, muhclub.
You're right, it's just faggotry. Reddit is only one kind of faggotry.

>No it doesn't. In fact, you didn't even notice that his immediate escape could be a reality. That's how much that fact didn't matter.
No, I realized that it could be a possibly if you're a timeline autist who needs to ruin the stories of games to have them fit into a neat little line. I also realized it isn't a possibility if that's not who you are.

>We know they're talking about the Hero of Time, because it's stated explicitly in the intro of the game.
Because they only know about the Hero of Time.
>The King of Red Lions talks to the fish deity, and remarks that Link has no ties to the original hero. That's why Link is forced to complete the tower of gods. The tower is meant to test to see if Link is worthy of being a hero.
Link always has to face trials to prove himself worthy of things.

Jabun thinks specifically that he has been brought the Hero of Time, which wouldn't make sense because he should be long dead regardless of which timeline he's in. Enough time has passed for Zoras to evolve into a completely different race. This means that expecting the Hero of Time does not mean you have to be in an era where he would perceivably still be alive by normal lifespans. The King of Red Lines merely says he has no connection to the Hero of Time, which is true from his perspective. Him being the king of Hyrule doesn't mean he knows the hero's spirit gets embodied in different people again and again. Nor does it even mean he would be able to recognize someone who has inherited that upon seeing them.

Wind Waker link inherited the spirit of the hero, deal with it.

Here's how it went...
>Zelda 1 was a hit! Let's make a sequel!
>Zelda 2 was a hit! Let's make a prequel!
>Zelda 3 was a hit! Let's make a prequel to the prequel!
>Wait, fuck, hang on. Actually let's just make this story stand on it's own.
>Zelda 4 was a hit! Let's make a sequel!
>Zelda 5 was... decent! Let's make a sequel to Zelda 4 again!
>Zelda 6 was pretty good! But not many people were happy about the graphics. Let's make a sequel to Zelda 5, and it's dark and moody!
>Zelda 7 was a hit! Let's Make an origin story!

So yeah, basically they made stuff up as the went. But they made it all connect in a weird way.

"There is a timeline but it makes no sense because there are inconsistencies all over it and the developers don't care enough about it to keep it consistent and they don't even think about it when they make half their games", to me, is the same as "there is no timeline"

There are some continuities where there are just slight inconsistencies or even big ones but an otherwise smooth progression, in that case I might grant that there's still a timeline. In Zelda I don't because there are only vague connections between games and the fill in the gaps done by fans and Historia is entirely ad-hoc.

BotW already created a huge inconsistency, and so long as games continue to reference past ones there will be more.

>But they made it all connect in a weird way.
But that weird way isn't a highly specific timeline concocted after the fact for autismals

>Because BOTW said "Fuck it" to the timeline there literally hasn't been a single game developed with the timeline in mind
Timeline fags foreverrial BTFO

youtube.com/watch?v=tlel0bc4M7c

/thread. Nothing is going to top this

Why bother making this argument when the mere fact that at the end of OoT only Zelda is left in the royal family means WW can't take place right after OoT?

She had to get married, have a son (King of the Red Lions), he had to grow up to be an old king, he had to have a daughter who had living attendants (pirates, show in the painting in the sunken castle). That's if it was only one generation separating them, it was probably a lot more.

Casey was such a legend

Oh yeeeeah.

All of them were vanilla if I recall.

Should have been shit flavored if it wanted to be more accurate

>You're right, it's just faggotry. Reddit is only one kind of faggotry.
Well moot was a fag, and he used asterisks, so I guess you have a point.

>No, I realized that it could be a possibly if you're a timeline autist who needs to ruin the stories of games to have them fit into a neat little line.
Eh, even assuming you thought about this possibility before, saying it ruins the story, is only an opinion. And doesn't reflect reality. Here's the reality: The intro states that the boy who sealed ganon was known as the hero of time. His legend was told for generations.(suggesting a long time) Ganon eventually came back, and then the people prayed for the hero of time to return, but he did not come.

Now, if you're a crazy person, you could take this to mean that Link lived and died before ganon returned, and that's why no hero showed. Or, you could be someone sensible, and note that the hero of time was literally removed from one branch of the timeline, and placed into an alternate branch.

>Link always has to face trials to prove himself worthy of things.
Link usually collects three objects, proving him worthy of the master sword. Well in WW, he collects the three objects, but that isn't enough. The Tower of Gods is an additional trial to test, to really deem him worthy of being a *new* hero.

>Jabun thinks specifically that he has been brought the Hero of Time
Only because KoRL presents him with a figure that resembles the old hero in appearance. Afterall, who else would KoRL present him with?

> Him being the king of Hyrule doesn't mean he knows the hero's spirit gets embodied in different people again and again.
True, however, he is some kind of spirit that can somehow project himself across the ocean as a talking boat, and yet somehow still be able to touch the triforce. It's not inconceivable that he has this otherworldly knowledge of spirits.

You haven't proven that WW has the hero's spirit, sorry.

>forgetting SS was the first explanation of the (sometimes) red bird on the hylian shield

>to me, is the same as "there is no timeline"
But that's false. You're retarded for thinking that way. 5 mainline games over 13 years, + the handheld WW sequels, makes 7 cohesive games. If that's "no timeline" to you, then you're just being adverse for no good reason.

>MFW BotW blew the whole timeline up.

You really don't get this at all.

Wind Waker link beat Ganon. He was the hero. That is the definition of being the hero. You having to deny that he has the hero's spirit just for your timeline theory is beyond pathetic, I hope you realize that.

It doesn't even matter if you don't acknowledge it, because he was someone capable of fulfilling the legend and beating Ganon. Why couldn't that person appear before Hyrule is flooded? He appeared later, why couldn't he appear before? There's no reason. The hero going to a different timeline is just something you're shoehorning in to have it fit your timeline theory, it isn't necessary for this to happen for the hero to not appear. Thus the opening of WW is not evidence for any kind of timeline split. It's just evidence that it is supposed to take place some time after OoT, which I never denied.

The hero was also long dead regardless of where he was.

For how much time has passed, see

>discuss iconic endings in video games

>timeline shitters ruin the thread

nintendbro just had to try to link a bunch of games which only similar character names plot structures didn't they.............

...

Link to the Past

>mfw that chirping at the door

Why not post something relevant then instead of whining like a lil bitch?

>Wind Waker link beat Ganon. He was the hero.
WW Link beat Ganon, because he had the sword that repels evil. And he got the sword, after beating a special trial to determine if he was worthy of even stepping inside Hyrule.

>It doesn't even matter if you don't acknowledge it, because he was someone capable of fulfilling the legend and beating Ganon.
With a LOT of help.

>Why couldn't that person appear before Hyrule is flooded? He appeared later, why couldn't he appear before? There's no reason.
I could ask the same question about the hero's spirit. Why didn't it reincarnate before Ganon did anything terrible? I can think of a number of reasons why mortal men couldn't access and use the master sword to defeat ganon.
1, Passing the tower of the gods(or an equivalent test applicable to the time) is required to prove yourself worthy of wielding the master sword. If no men could pass it, then they couldn't prove themselves.
2, Collecting 3 gems were required to prove yourself worthy, which no men could find.
3, Being approved by the king/princess allowed you access to the chamber where the master sword resided. And no men were found worthy.
4, The men were weak, after years of peace. Kind of like the cowardly knights in TP.
But I can't think of a reason why an eternal spirit, with fuck all to do would not return in time to prevent Ganon from taking over. Except 1 reason. The hero's spirit isn't in the WW timeline.

Death never stopped the hero before. After all, in TP, you're visited by the old hero. Long dead, right? But you're playing as the new hero, who just happens to be the perfect age and fit for Ganon slaying. What a coincidence. But before the flood, the spirit is nowhere to be found? STRANGE.

It was literally the entire point. It's not perfect but what it was is still a lot more interesting than 90% of video games before or since, even if the outcome isn't nearly as subtle or polished as it should be. It's astounding that one of the few times anyone actually tried to do this it was an already well-known director of a huge critically acclaimed and widely beloved game and he completely tossed aside the automatic praise he'd have gotten for a more conventional sequel purely to give us MGS2. I don't even think Kojima is that good a director, I think everything after 3 shouldn't exist and 4 in particular is a fucking atrocity but fuck if the guy didn't have integrity back then

>I could ask the same question about the hero's spirit. Why didn't it reincarnate before Ganon did anything terrible?
Why did it reincarnate into a bitch boy in BotW who couldn't save anything until 100 years later when everything had already been ruined? That's just the way things go. Sometimes evil wins for a while, and no timeline fuckery is required to explain it.

> But you're playing as the new hero, who just happens to be the perfect age and fit for Ganon slaying. What a coincidence.
That's called a Zelda game. You play as Link and you have an enemy to defeat. When the hero doesn't appear, there is no game. Are you really asking me why Link happens to exist in the game?

I can come up with the one actual reason why the hero didn't appear:
1. He just didn't.

That's all. He just didn't turn up that time, and things got fucked as a result. It wasn't the first time that happened in Zelda and wasn't the last. In the backstory to BotW, the hero doesn't properly appear and Ganon destroys the entire kingdom. Why? Could it be because the hero's spirit went to a different timeline and so now we're always left with a bitch boy link who can't do anything without fucking up first? Or maybe if you aren't a faggot who needs to shoehorn his autistic ad-hoc theory into everything, there is no reason. He was the hero, but he wasn't ready.

Continue believing that every Link that isn't part of the Majora's Mask timeline is a fake Link who doesn't have the hero's spirit if you want. I'll think I'll just laugh at your delusion, you can't be convinced.

Not to mention that OoT link was also "unworthy" of being the hero because he was too young, such that he got locked up for 7 years and allowed Ganon to destroy everything.

Why? I guess the real Link was in another timeline.

He wasn't unworthy you retard, he just wasn't ready. He needed to be older.

>Why did it reincarnate into a bitch boy in BotW who couldn't save anything until 100 years later when everything had already been ruined?
Again, BotW is its own thing. You can't use the rules of BotW to measure the rules of the OoT timeline.

>Are you really asking me why Link happens to exist in the game?
What? are you trying to shirk my point? I'm saying that Link always resurrected during Ganon's take-over attempts. WW is the exception to this rule. Which just so happens to coincide with the fact that he was sent back into the past in OoT.

>I can come up with the one actual reason why the hero didn't appear:
>1. He just didn't.
That really doesn't work, because like I said before KoRL doesn't recognize Link. Jabu, doesn't recognize Link. Link has to beat a special test to get recognized as a hero. These things prove that the hero's spirit left.

>Continue believing that every Link that isn't part of the Majora's Mask timeline is a fake Link who doesn't have the hero's spirit if you want. I'll think I'll just laugh at your delusion, you can't be convinced.
You continue using this petty WW argument to deflect from the fact that you got proven wrong about there being "no timeline". Every inconsistency you threw at me, I resolved with sound logic.

How can these devs sleep at night.

Then he was unworthy. Because of his age.

>Again, BotW is its own thing.
....because it contradicts your theory. Even though it mentions the events of all the other games. If it didn't raise contradictions, you would be telling me it's part of your timeline and your theory. Have you even played it? I'm starting to think you haven't.

BotW is not its own thing by definition. It isn't supposed to be its own thing, because it references the events of previous games, including OoT strongly. It's "it's own thing" because it's contradictory, because it can't fit in. In other words, the moment something doesn't fit your theory, it just gets excluded. Any future game that contradicts your timeline, even though it takes place after OoT or before WW or between SS and OoT will be disregarded as "its own thing" if it raises any contradictions. All I'm saying is that those contradictions are not by design, they appear because the developers don't actually care about maintaining a real continuity.


>What? are you trying to shirk my point? I'm saying that Link always resurrected during Ganon's take-over attempts.
I'm saying that he isn't because things have fucked up multiple times.
>OoT link being too young, allowing Ganon to take over all kill everyone
>BotW link being too incompetent, allowing Ganon to kill everyone, only being held back by Zelda until 100 years later
>Flood link just not appearing at all
So your theory is basically that Link must always reincarnate to stop Ganon, but actually stopping Ganon isn't part of the deal. He's allowed to fail and let everything go to shit but just fix stuff later. In that case, he should be able to fail by not being reincarnated in time, because the result is exactly the same.