Well, even if you interpret it as time travel, Link still can only return to that particular point in time and he is unable to change the future aside from that magic bean thing. All of the major things he has to do in the past are already reflected in the future even before he does them in the past. And, assuming he's traveling to a point in the past after Ganondorf already entered the Sacred Realm, that's not an issue if Link has the Triforce of Courage (which he should) when he time travels because both that past and the future are part of the Adult Timeline. That past leads to the future Link goes to when he pulls the Master Sword. The alternate timeline is not created until Link changes the past by being sent back to before he met Zelda and changing how they delt with him, which creates an alternate future.
Sure, but you know that they changed how they dealt with him because of posthumous information detailing what they changed.
Based only on Ocarina of Time, someone might have concluded that the time travel in the ending wouldn't have allowed Link to change the past just like the time travel throughout the rest of the game didn't, and that he's just going to warn Zelda of what's coming.
It's the interpretation with the least unnecessary inferences. The ending scene is an exact redo of the scene earlier in the game with Zelda looking through the window, turning around, and reacting in surprise to seeing Link. The simplest answer is that it is what it looks like, with the Triforce of Courage being a hint that what happens after it will be different. The intent behind showing the ToC in that scene was to prevent you from interpreting it as a flashback to the original scene since it'd otherwise be identical.
You've made at least two unnecessary inferences:
- That time travel works differently in the ending (allows you to change history)
- That the mirroring of that original meeting scene means it's an alternate version of that meeting playing out in a different timeline
This is exactly the same number of inferences as the other theory:
- That time travel works the same in the ending (your actions through time travel are already accounted for in the future)
- That Zelda returned to the castle before Castle Town was invaded
It doesn't make any sense for Zelda to come back. She went into hiding to protect the Triforce of Wisdom. Trying to explain it that way makes things too complicated. And like you said, we know from hindsight since the other games and Hyrule Historia came out that this isn't the case. If this scene was after Ganon went to the Sacred Realm the flashback with him in TP wouldn't make sense.
When did she go into hiding to protect the Triforce of Wisdom? Before or after Ganondorf invaded with the Triforce of Power? You don't know because the game never told us.
When she fled the castle as a child, it was to protect the Ocarina of Time, which she passed to Link with instructions to defeat Ganondorf. She had no reason to assume her plan would fail until Ganondorf invaded:
As long as you had the Ocarina
in your possession, I thought
Ganondorf could never enter the
Sacred Realm, but...
something I could never expect
happened...
Regardless of how it's interpeted, that ending scene is showing a change of events from the past that led to the future Link travelled to based only on info from OoT. Link is meeting Zelda in the past with the Triforce.
I just laid out a way to interpret that scene that doesn't involve this.
There is no info in OoT that tells us that their meeting in the past led to a different outcome. That was, when the game first came out,
another interpretation of that scene.
Material that came out later clarified how the ending was meant to be interpreted further with additional details, but OoT conveys the general idea fine on its own. When that scene was made the intent was to show a new timeline being created.
It does convey that idea fine on its own. It's even likely that it was meant to be interpreted that way. I don't disagree that that's the meaning for that ending that shaped future games in the series.
But it's not impossible to interpret OoT in a way that doesn't reach that conclusion, even after The Wind Waker came out.
My point here is that Ganondorf clearly does not know how he got the triforce of power and thinks that the gods just gave it to him, which means he did not enter the Sacred Realm in that timeline. Otherwise he'd know that he got it through his own means.
I'll say it again.
We actually don't know by which means Ganondorf "got the Triforce of Power."
We only know that it was considered an unfortunate twist of fate ("divine prank") by the sages that he was "blessed with the chosen power of the gods."
You could take this literally, as in they thought it was weird that he had the Triforce of Power. Or you could take it figuratively, as in they thought it was weird that the power of the gods saved him from death.
In either case, we don't know
how he got the Triforce of Power - only that the sages
thought it was awful that he did.
Certainly nothing from Ganondorf's speech tells us what happened
Your people had some skill, to be
sure...but they lacked true power.
The kind of absolute power that
those chosen by the gods wield.
just that he believes himself to be chosen (which would be true even if that's just because he thinks the Triforce saving him means he's chosen).
I think it's worth noting that he emulates the (JP version) speech A Link to the Past says the Triforce made to him before he touched it when offering power to Zant, which for me strongly suggests that he did encounter it in the same way he did in ALttP/OoT.
LttP: "If thou hast a desire, then I shall desire it as well."
TP: If there is anything you desire,
then I shall desire it, too.
And we know from OoT's ending that the triforce split when Link was sent back in time because Link has his own piece. So logically Ganondorf got his ToP in TP the same way Link and Zelda got their pieces in OoT. It's just like how Link didn't even know he had the ToC until it activated for the final battle in OoT. Ganondorf's in TP activated during his execution. If he had entered the Sacred Realm both he and the sages would have known about it and he would have used the ToP to conquer Hyrule like he did in OoT. Instead he remained just a theif from the desert and the sages set up a trap that Ganondorf could have easily escaped from if he'd known about his powers.
1) We know Link has the Triforce of Courage in the ending of Ocarina of Time. We don't know
why he has it. (Did Ganondorf still touch the Triforce? Did him being sent in time cause some disturbance?)
2) Surely you can't be looking at the fact that the Triforce of Power activated in Ganondorf's execution as proof he didn't know he had it?
3) Surely Link sealing the gateway to the Sacred Realm upon returning to the past (remember Zelda's words to lay the Master Sword to rest and close the Door of Time?) could have prevented Ganondorf from conquering Hyrule like he did in Ocarina of Time? (pre-HH, obviously)
4) Surely you aren't looking at Ganondorf being called a thief as proof of what happened?
I know, but that wasn't my point. We both clearly agree on what my point was and I think two different premises are getting mixed up.
Point 1: OoT's ending was meant to be interpreted as an alternate timeline. Whether or not Nintendo intended at the time to develop both timelines is up for debate, but if they didn't they only had ~3 years between when they finished OoT and when they started Wind Waker and had to commit to the idea.
Point 2: Outcry over "timeline theory" on the basis of thinking that the split timeline itself was nonsense was silly because the split was never theoretical in itself. The concept came straight from Miyamoto and Aonuma themselves. Most of the disagreement on timeline theory prior to Hyrule Historia was on how FS, FSA, ALttP, LA, OoX, Zelda 1, and Zelda 2 fit in with the other games in the clear-cut timeline. The correct order of most of the games was known.
My response to Point 1: Fans could interpret Ocarina of Time however they wanted until Nintendo made known what their intent was for the ending. There wasn't only one possible or valid interpretation.
My response to Point 2: I don't think Hyrule Historia answers all the ambiguities in the story, just ambiguities in the order of the games. As a result, there's still plenty of room for interpretation about things like what happened between Ocarina of Time and Twilight Princess to grant Ganondorf the Triforce of Power, or whether Skyward Sword creates another split timeline.
Sometimes they'll come out and clarify things that were only speculated before, like they did with the split timeline and with A Link to the Past's separation from the other timelines. Sometimes they won't, and people can disagree about them.
As much as people use Hyrule Historia as an infallible guide to the timeline, it also kicked off its timeline section with a disclaimer that the "history" changes with the teller, and is continually rewritten with new legends. I hope that's a spirit they take to heart in Breath of the Wild, and that they don't take the timeline too seriously.
