Spoiler Single Timeline Theory

[ItsJustTheChad]

I made a revised version of the timeline theory. Check it out.

 

[benjibibbles]

To be frank, there is so much wrong with that. It goes against about a billion developer statements (not to mention generally accepted fact). I'm not going to point out everything that was wrong with that, but it's wrong.

 

[ItsJustTheChad]

To be frank, there is so much wrong with that. It goes against about a billion developer statements (not to mention generally accepted fact). I'm not going to point out everything that was wrong with that, but it's wrong.

What I meant was don't think about developer statements. Just think about the timeline. We're looking at the story presented here. It's my first post. If it offends you sorry. Just a theory ya know...

 

[athenian200]

That is a very interesting perspective on the Timeline. I never would have thought to place the games in that order. Although I can sort of see the first three, because the Zelda in Zelda 2 might have been the first Zelda, and SS is supposedly earlier than OoT, though no one has said it was the first game.

I will be very interested in seeing your YouTube video and explanation for the timeline, because it's fairly original... which is good, because it increases the likelihood that you're seeing a pattern the rest of us have overlooked.

Of course, don't be surprised if you take a lot of flack on here. A lot of people take these theories very seriously, and grill you mercilessly if you depart too much from accepted convention, don't rely enough on evidence or developer quotes, flatly being told you're "wrong" when we have no certainty regarding what's "right." They can be such sticklers for detail, not really able to appreciate imagination. Kind of sad, really.

 

[ItsJustTheChad]

That is a very interesting perspective on the Timeline. I never would have thought to place the games in that order. Although I can sort of see the first three, because the Zelda in Zelda 2 might have been the first Zelda, and SS is supposedly earlier than OoT, though no one has said it was the first game.

I will be very interested in seeing your YouTube video and explanation for the timeline, because it's fairly original... which is good, because it increases the likelihood that you're seeing a pattern the rest of us have overlooked.

Of course, don't be surprised if you take a lot of flack on here. A lot of people take these theories very seriously, and grill you mercilessly if you depart too much from accepted convention, don't rely enough on evidence or developer quotes, flatly being told you're "wrong" when we have no certainty regarding what's "right." They can be such sticklers for detail, not really able to appreciate imagination. Kind of sad, really.

Wow... Thank you. I totally smiled reading this. Haha.
Yea I understand about people grilling me on here. I guess I was just surprised. Yea the video is DEEP in detail. I guess this timeline just doesn't seem right yet because it lacks detail.

Granted I was up late last night when I posted this and I actually lost the paper with which I had written down what games were in what order.I'm looking for it now. I'll keep you posted on how the vid is coming along. Thanks again.

OH! And Twilight Princess should be AFTER Link's Awakening. Shoot. Because this explains the complete change of scenery. In my opinion. Who knows. I'm probably wrong. Still fun to imagine though.

 

[Simon]

Your placement of Oot after Zelda, Zelda 2 and the Oracles games is VERY interesting. Would like to see the detailed analysis.

 

[zack125]

5. In Minish Cap a story is told that tells of a blade coming from the sky, the picori blade which later is turned into the master sword. I believe this to be the Skyward Sword.

It's my understanding that the picori blade is turned into the four sword, not the MS.

 

[PhantomTriforce]

Hey, you have an interesting theory. But let me point out some of your mistakes:
1) ALttP is before LoZ/AoL - it states it in the back of the SNES version box
2) LA is a direct sequel to ALttP, therefore also before LoZ/AoL
3) Ganondorf is born in OoT, which puts it before ALttP, and taking MM with it since it is OoT's direct sequel
4) This is not really a mistake, but you need to come up with an explanation of how Ganon in FSA exists, and how Ganon from WW came out of his stone form

That's all I can think of right now, hope I helped

 

[ItsJustTheChad]

Hey, you have an interesting theory. But let me point out some of your mistakes:
1) ALttP is before LoZ/AoL - it states it in the back of the SNES version box
2) LA is a direct sequel to ALttP, therefore also before LoZ/AoL
3) Ganondorf is born in OoT, which puts it before ALttP, and taking MM with it since it is OoT's direct sequel
4) This is not really a mistake, but you need to come up with an explanation of how Ganon in FSA exists, and how Ganon from WW came out of his stone form

That's all I can think of right now, hope I helped

Hoo boy. I didn't take ANY of that into account. I'm gonna do my original theory first and then i'm gonna try a new theory newly adopted from your advice. Thanks!

 

[Majora's Cat]

Haha, my friend... you are bold. Not many support the single timeline theory... but you've made one that's believable! Well done indeed! :clap: Though I am a strong believer of the split timeline theory... but what you've done has to take guts.

But I would like to point out a few flaws in this timeline. First of all... Minish Cap/Ocarina of Time aren't first in the timeline? Wow. It's brave of you to say that the original Legend of Zelda is indeed the first chronologically. I don't see much logic here because the Minish Cap and Ocarina of Time have plenty of reasons why they would be first. It's not that I think it's wrong... but it does leave lots of questions about the rest of the timeline you've shown here. It's not like I have anything against it - it's just that there's not enough evidence supporting it.

As for the Wind Waker taking place after Twilight Princess... that could very well be true. Although it's not as obvious as Wind Waker taking place after Ocarina of Time, TP does share many similarities and locations with its N64 predecessor. It's very much possible, and I applaud you for that as well.

I'd say there's a few more flaws in the timeline but it's good stuff. I understand why FSA was at the end - no other place to put it, huh? Ah... stupid FSA - it screws everything up. :xd:

 

[David]

What I'd like to know is where is your evidence that the Four Sword becomes the Master Sword. I've never or read heard anything about the Four Sword becoming the Master Sword. From my understanding, the Master Sword was forged solely for the purpose of banishing evil and was blessed by the sages to contain that power. I'd recommend reading all of the "story" and "characters" under each picture of the game here at ZD. They have compiled the original stories printed in the game manuals and those stories bring some controversy to your theory. I'm not attacking your theory, I find it interesting. I just noticed some inconsistencies that you put when they are compared to the actual story within each game.

I can tell you've thought a lot about this and can tell that you've done a good job. So way to go! Being very bold is something I respect.

 

[KratosFan]

I have one reason why there shouldn't be a single timeline.

They wouldn't be able to add in any more back story.

Basically, if there is a single timeline, there has to be a "FIRST" game. therefore meaning that they can never make anymore prequels, and wouldn't be able to add any backstory. without the ability to add extra back story, the newer games would get lame stories after a while, because time would only be able to move forward, they couldn't go back to the beginning, in between the middle, or in a completely different universe altogether.

There's my two cents, feel free to say what you like

 

[Locke]

It's my theory for a single timeline.

Your first mistake.

3. In Zelda 2 the prince or King (i forget) in his sorrow declares all princess' born of the royal family shall be named Zelda. Also when Link discovers the Triforce on his hand Zelda explains that Link is a part of the triforce of Courage and vice versa.

prince, not king; and impa, not zelda (if that's from the manual)

5. In Minish Cap a story is told that tells of a blade coming from the sky, the picori blade which later is turned into the master sword. I believe this to be the Skyward Sword.
6. The first 2 Zelda games don't have the master sword. Some believe them to be the last games because the four sword which was formerly the master sword was eventually destroyed.

The picori blade becomes the four sword. Both the FS and the MS appear in the same game (GBA LttP) as two different swords. There are lots of other contradictions, but I'll refrain from using them as evidence until we know more about SS.

Zelda->Zelda 2->

These must come after OoT and/or FSA.

• Ganon wasn't 'born' until OoT.
• The Triforce is split, which isn't supposed to happen until after the SW.
• Miyamoto said in 1999 that they were after OoT, and nothing has changed enough to contradict that.

A Link to the Past->Oracle of Seasons/Ages->

Again, after OoT, for mostly the same reasons.

Ocarina of Time->

OoT was stated as recently as this year to have been the first game before SS is added to the timeline.

Twilight Princess->Windwaker->

There are some very long threads describing how this can't work. It goes against dev quotes, Ganondorf is inconsistent, and more.

Since he is a part of that piece he will never be destroyed permanently.

Why would the ToP be any different than the other pieces? By that logic there should be one Link and one Zelda as well. I'm not saying that there is necessarily more than one Ganondorf, just that your reasoning doesn't make sense to me.

What I meant was don't think about developer statements. Just think about the timeline. We're looking at the story presented here. It's my first post. If it offends you sorry. Just a theory ya know...

Welcome to ZD and to Zelda theorizing. The developers made the stories. What they say about the stories have just as much clout as the games themselves, unless they are in direct conflict. Developers, developers, developers, developers!

I can sort of see the first three, because the Zelda in Zelda 2 might have been the first Zelda

Zelda from the SZS being first or not has no impact on AoL's placement, as there is an unspecified time period inbetween in which other games could have taken place.

Yea the video is DEEP in detail. I guess this timeline just doesn't seem right yet because it lacks detail.

I also anxiously await this video. I'll try not to let my preconceptions from reading this thread interfere with analyzing the evidence you present. I will still probably scoff at your lack of faith in the developers.

OH! And Twilight Princess should be AFTER Link's Awakening. Shoot. Because this explains the complete change of scenery. In my opinion. Who knows. I'm probably wrong. Still fun to imagine though.

By this you mean you're just moving the one game between MM and TP?

I have one reason why there shouldn't be a single timeline.

They wouldn't be able to add in any more back story.

Basically, if there is a single timeline, there has to be a "FIRST" game. therefore meaning that they can never make anymore prequels, and wouldn't be able to add any backstory. without the ability to add extra back story, the newer games would get lame stories after a while, because time would only be able to move forward, they couldn't go back to the beginning, in between the middle, or in a completely different universe altogether.

There's my two cents, feel free to say what you like

The time period before OoT is a single timeline, and they're adding backstory just fine. In fact, Aonuma just recently refused to state that SS was the 'first' game because he said that would prevent them from making more prequels.



I lol'd at how polite this community has become. I find it interesting that so many people can complement someone for "boldness" and "ingenuity" in ignoring facts and presenting an argument based on trivial connections. Maybe I'm a bad person for encouraging sound theory practice? I might complement you myself if I see strong arguments in your video, but for now I can't take your timeline seriously until developer quotes are considered.


edit: here's the thread I had in mind about TP->WW (I said threads because this problem always comes up when debating linear timelines):
link
It's a long read, but I highly suggest it. This guy's a pretty good linearist, though he also ignores dev quotes. It's pretty apparent by the 2nd or 3rd page that TP->WW can't work.

And here's a thread about LoZ/AoL being before OoT.

 

[Ice6661]

very valid points locke64.
there are a few points in your timeline tho ItsJustTheChad that are kinda grouped together that are right
like OoT and MM. and Zelda and ZeldaII
im not to sure about some more
i beleive that MC should be around the same time as OoT cuz from the timelines that i have seen it says that reasons why MC could be one of the first games cuz thats how link gets his hat (if i am correct)
of course this theory is so confusing to talk about.

 

[ItsJustTheChad]

Okay! So i've read everything and i'll postpone the video just to clarify some more things and do some more research. But it's still a single timeline theory. Here we go.