Why do people believe that the entire timeline was made up at the last second?

[Moblinking5000]

Almost every game, when released, had a placement relative to atleast one other game:

-AoL is a direct sequel to LoZ, as it said ingame that it took place many years after Link defeated Ganon, it also introduced the idea of multiple Zeldas to the series.

-ALttP was confirmed to take place long before the NES titles on the back of its packaging, and even featured the ancestors of Link and Zelda from Zelda I, while also delving into Ganon's backstory, revealing that he was a human(ALttP was even the first game to use the name ''Ganondorf'', even before OoT did) as well as giving us the backstory of the Triforce, and establishing things like the Master Sword and the Sacred Realm

-LA was confirmed on its official JP site to take place after Link defeated Ganon in ALttP, with hints such as enemies from ALttP(Like Agahnim) reappearing in LA as dreams.

-OoT was confirmed in interviews to take place before ALttP, and was made clear ingame with it expanding on the origins of Ganondorf, the Triforce, and the Sacred Realm.

-MM obviously takes place after the child ending of OoT; I think everyone can atleast agree on that.

-TWW references the events of OoT heavily throughout the game, and was confirmed by Aonuma to take place long after the adult ending of OoT.

-FS was confirmed to be the oldest tale by Aonuma; keep in mind that this was before TMC and SS.

-TMC is a prequel to FS, made clear ingame with it establishing the origins of Vaati and the Four Sword.

-TP was confirmed by Aonuma to take place long after the child ending of OoT, with TP alluding to the era of OoT with structures such as the now destroyed ToT, for example.

-PH is an obvious sequel to TWW, featuring Tetra and referencing TWW in the intro.

-ST was confirmed to be 100 years after PH. Niko is still alive as an old man, and Tetra is mentioned, with the Hyrule in ST being a different Hyrule from the one we see in all other games.

-SS is obviously a prequel to the entire series, with the origins of the MS, Hyrule Kingdom, and Ganon being expanded on even more.

-ALBW alludes to ALttP, and is said by the developers to take place long after it.

-TFH is a direct sequel to ALBW, confirmed by Aonuma.

-BotW, while having no confirmed placement, most likely takes place long after AoL due to Ganon being devoid of any humanity and having attacked Hyrule multiple times in the past, and taking place in a timeline where the sages from OoT were awakened and remembered in Old Hyrule.

Aside from OoX and FSA, every game has had a confirmed placement at release. Everything I said above(except for my placement of BotW) is factual.

Why does this misconception exist?

 

[Rob N. Hood]

The ending scene in OoX shows Link leaving in the boat that gets wrecked in LA.

 

[YIGAhim]

Well, they are all released relative to one other game, and that's the problem

 

[Jamie]

The entire timeline wasn't made up last second but all of it put together as one thing was definitely an afterthought.

 

[Dio]

Because the timeline is incoherent as a whole. Yes the main 3D games fit nicely in a split timeline and connect but most 2D games do not really fit where they have been placed.

 

[Moblinking5000]

Because the timeline is incoherent as a whole. Yes the main 3D games fit nicely in a split timeline and connect but most 2D games do not really fit where they have been placed.

The 2D games seem to fit fine:

ALttP is before LoZ, LA is after ALttP, ALBW is long after ALttP, etc. as proven above.

I do not see any inconsistencies or incoherencies, but please point them out if you do. .

Well, they are all released relative to one other game, and that's the problem

How is that a problem?

The ending scene in OoX shows Link leaving in the boat that gets wrecked in LA.

Actually, OoX, one of the few placements left ambiguous before HH, had its placement retconned recently.

 

[YIGAhim]

The 2D games seem to fit fine:

ALttP is before LoZ, LA is after ALttP, ALBW is long after ALttP, etc. as proven above.

I do not see any inconsistencies or incoherencies, but please point them out if you do. .


How is that a problem?



Actually, OoX, one of the few placements left ambiguous before HH, had its placement retconned recently.

Because it was only tied into 1 other game instead of being tied to them all

 

[el :BeoWolf:]

Actually, OoX, one of the few placements left ambiguous before HH, had its placement retconned recently.

If you mean Hyrule Encyclopedia, that "retcon" is debatable.

I too hardly see any issues with the timeline

 

[Fraxinus]

When the series first started out, a timeline wasn't put into heavy onsideration for the early titles. There were some relative time placements, such as ALttP taking place before Zelda I, and AoL being a sequel to Zelda I, but other than that, not much thought went into it when they were developed. Then the fanbase made the demand for timeline consideration greater, and Nintendo tried being more faithful to this when creating the games. The timeline became less of an afterthought in newer games, and as such, the games' writing became enslaved to a predetermined timeline placement. I think the lore of games being confined to an established timeline placement (see: Skyward Sword), suffered from this greatly. BotW broke this by being vague with its plcement, and very little of its writing was spent trying to fit it into the timeline. As for the early titles that were not made with specific timeline placements, they hired someone to write their own timeline and it was made canon. It really could have been any theorist's timeline to end up in the Hyrule Historia. Hyrule Historia's timeline was more or less a "last second" timeline, but the concept of the Zelda timeline being a thing that exists has been around ever since Zelda II--it being a sequel to Zelda I basically made Zelda II be the timeline's inception. Fewer installments made the need to determine the timeline less prominent among the writers and fanbase alike, however.

 

[Fierce_Deity]

"Why do people believe that the entire timeline was made up at the last second?"

I never really understood this thinking either since a timeline has existed since the late 80s. I figure it is out of anger due their own theories being shot down when Hyrule Historia was released and organized everything, well mainly a few titles that had yet been officially placed. Notably I think it's due to the Downfall Timeline and the games involved being relegated to a near 'what if' scenario. Prior to HHs release there were 2 confirmed branches after OoT. Placing the games that would eventually be in the DT never really fit in those branches nor did they before OoT yet there was plenty of theories attempting to do so.

 

[Moblinking5000]

"Why do people believe that the entire timeline was made up at the last second?"

I never really understood this thinking either since a timeline has existed since the late 80s. I figure it is out of anger due their own theories being shot down when Hyrule Historia was released and organized everything, well mainly a few titles that had yet been officially placed. Notably I think it's due to the Downfall Timeline and the games involved being relegated to a near 'what if' scenario. Prior to HHs release there were 2 confirmed branches after OoT. Placing the games that would eventually be in the DT never really fit in those branches nor did they before OoT yet there was plenty of theories attempting to do so.

My timeline prior to HH was pretty close, aside from the fact that I put the DT games in the CT after FSA, and moved FS from being between TMC and OoT to right before FSA with the same Link in both games. I understand why they made the third split, though; to keep OoT as a prequel to ALttP, to keep the OoT sage/AoL town connection, etc. And the placement of FS is understandable, since it was the ''first tale''. I have no complaints with the official timeline.

And the DT isn't so much a ''what if'' as it is an alternate history where everything is identical up to the battle with Ganondorf in OoT.

 

[el :BeoWolf:]

Really there could be many more alternate timelines, but since OoT already made a split may as well make it the one to put a "What if the hero failed" scenario there

 

[A Link In Time]

I feel that people are less upset about the actual placement of the games on the timeline than the fact that the official timeline killed the timeline theories that used to dominate Zelda discussions on various forums.

Aside from that, the major complaint I have seen is people claiming the downfall timeline was a cop-out on Nintendo's part as most people assumed only the Child and Adult Timelines existed prior to the release of the Hyrule Historia.

 

[Hyrulian Hero]

Back when timeline theories were viable, I absolutely HATED the idea of a timeline split. Nobody could convince me in any way that a timeline split was anything more than laughable fan-fiction. A big part of the reason for that concept was that, if the timeline could be split because Link traveled back in time or forward in time, why wouldn't the timeline split when Link flung his boomerang instead of swinging the Megaton Hammer? Or when he defeats Ganondorf with a bottle instead of the sword? Or why doesn't it split every time he dies? See, it's ridiculous, right? Right guys?

Well I guess Nintendo took that idea and ran with it because...well, you've seen the timeline. I think the timeline was a mistake in the first place. The Legend of Zelda is a legend, retold throughout the ages, each time through a different set of eyes. I think Nintendo is really rubbing our noses in it with Breath of the Wild which can ABSOLUTELY NOT fit in any of the timelines as we know them without significant retconing. The point of Zelda being a legend is that the story changes with the telling and that's why it's always fresh yet familiar, timely yet timeless.

 

[Link Floyd]

Well, Nintendo has a habit of constantly changing what's canon and what's not so it makes sense why people think this. Like Jamie said, it probably wasn't made up at last second but you can tell they didn't start thinking about a timeline until fans demanded one.