• Welcome to ZD Forums! You must create an account and log in to see and participate in the Shoutbox chat on this main index page.

Redone:At Last,my Timeline!

hylianbeast

Sage of Destiny
Joined
Jul 1, 2010
Location
Chamber of Sages
After watching Lancun's timeline on youtube,and reading the comments on my last timeline,I decide to make a new one. But you guys will see something wrong.
Child: /WW/PH-ST
MC-SS?-4S-4SA-OoT
Adult: /MM-TP-WLLttP/LA-LoZ/AoL-OoA/OoS

I now have to believe that there are two ganons for this timeline to make sense.
 
Last edited:
Joined
Nov 14, 2009
Location
Mesa, AZ
Pretty much the same as my timeline, except for Skyward Sword's placement. Though it's possible for SS to take place between TMC and FS/FSA, I don't think it's likely, unless there's in game proof placing it there.

You might want to reformat the way you type your timeline, though. It should look something like this:

             /—TWW/PH—ST
TMC—(SS)—FS/FSA—OoT
             \MM—TP—ALttP/LA—TLoZ/TAoL—OoX

Here's my timeline:
                /—TWW/PH—ST
(SS)—TMC—FS/FSA—(SS)—OoT
                \MM—TP—ALttP/LA—TLoZ/TAoL—OoS/OoA

The difference between my timeline and yours is that I place SS either before TMC or between FSA and OoT, while you place it between TMC and FS. Also, you represent the Oracle games with "OoX", signifying that they can go in either order, whereas I put definitively place OoS before OoA. I think the whole "OoX" thing is rather sloppy.
 
Joined
Nov 14, 2009
Location
Mesa, AZ
By OoX, I meant which ever one you played first.
I know, but that's still saying "either OoS/OoA or OoA/OoS". That's just plain sloppy in my opinion. The whole point of being a timeline theorist is to piece the games together. When you say "eh, these two games could go either way, it doesn't matter", that's just being lazy and it's going against your goal as a timeline theorist. I'm not directing this at you, I'm directing it at everyone here who does this. I know that the whole "OoX" thing has become a widely adopted thing, but people are using it without realizing how sloppy and unprofessional it really is. Now, if you're going to decide on a definite order for the Oracle games, you have to look outside of the games themselves, because the games were made specifically to be played in either order, for gameplay's sake. But you'll notice something about the titles of the games... In every official media you see that lists both Oracle games, you'll always see Oracle of Seasons listed first. It's not unlike Pokémon games, where there are two versions, though one version is always listed first and is considered the "primary" version (for example, Pokémon Red is always listed before Pokémon Blue, Pokémon Gold before Pokémon Silver, Pokémon Ruby before Pokémon Sapphire, Pokémon Diamond before Pokémon Pearl, Pokémon Black before Pokémon White, etc.). The situation with the Oracle games is very similar. Every official source will put Seasons before Ages. This heavily implies that OoS was meant to take place first. This point is also strengthened by the official manga, which tells the story of OoS, followed by OoA. While I know that the manga is far from canon, there has to be a reason why the games' stories were told in that order. All of this shows that the intent is for OoS to come first, followed by OoA, and then the linked ending. Of course, they couldn't restrict the games to this order when they were released, because what if someone bought OoA first? Then they either couldn't play the game, or they could play it, but never get the full, proper story. Because of this, they had to bend the story to fit the circumstances and gameplay. However, the true intent of the order of these two games is made clear outside of the games themselves, as I've explained.
 
Last edited:

ironknuckle1

Archer Extraordinaire
Joined
Aug 31, 2009
Location
Fishing pond
I know, but that's still saying "either OoS/OoA or OoA/OoS". That's just plain sloppy in my opinion. The whole point of being a timeline theorist is to piece the games together. When you say "eh, these two games could go either way, it doesn't matter" that's just being lazy and it's going against your goal as a timeline theorist. I'm not directing this at you, I'm directing it at everyone here who does this. I know that the whole "OoX" thing has become a widely adopted thing, but people are using it without realizing how sloppy and unprofessional it really is. Now, if you were to decide on a definite order for the Oracle games, you have to look outside of the games themselves, because the games were made specifically to be played in either order, for gameplay's sake. But you'll notice something about the titles of the games... In every official media you see that lists both Oracle games, you'll always see Oracle of Seasons listed first. It's not unlike Pokémon games, where there are two versions, though one version is always listed first and is considered the "primary" version (for example, Pokémon Red is always listed before Pokémon Blue, Pokémon Gold before Pokémon Silver, Pokémon Ruby before Pokémon Sapphire, Pokémon Diamond before Pokémon Pearl, Pokémon Black before Pokémon White, etc.). The situation with the Oracle games is very similar. Every official source will put Seasons before Ages. This point is also strengthened by the official manga, which tells the story of OoS, followed by OoA. While I know that the manga is far from canon, there has to be a reason why the games' stories were told in that order. All of this shows that the intent is for OoS to come first, followed by OoA, and then the linked ending. Of course, they couldn't restrict the games to this order when they were released, because what if someone bought OoA first? Then they either couldn't play the game, or they could play it, but never get the full, proper story. Because of this, they had to bend the story to fit the circumstances and gameplay. However, the true intent of the order of these two games is made clear outside of the games themselves, as I've explained.

First of all the manga is non canon. Both games have the same beginning cutscene where Link is rushing out of the forest and goes into Hyrule Castle to find the Triforce and then based on the game is teleported either to holodrum or labrynna. Both games have the same start and its not like Link finished one adventure completely forgot it then went back touched the triforce and did the other. Another thing is no matter which game you play in the end you light the second to last torch so since theirs one left then which ever one you are playing is first. The point is that most people due to this bits of evidence think that OOS and OOA happen at the same time and then the Linking of the two games brings them back together otherwise how would you explain how in one world their is 2 torches lit and in the other world two other torches lit. Due to alot of this most people use OOX to classify OOS and OOA because their is no distinct order on which goes first since it was the player of the games choice of which to play first.
 
Joined
Nov 14, 2009
Location
Mesa, AZ
First of all the manga is non canon. Both games have the same beginning cutscene where Link is rushing out of the forest and goes into Hyrule Castle to find the Triforce and then based on the game is teleported either to holodrum or labrynna. Both games have the same start and its not like Link finished one adventure completely forgot it then went back touched the triforce and did the other. Another thing is no matter which game you play in the end you light the second to last torch so since theirs one left then which ever one you are playing is first. The point is that most people due to this bits of evidence think that OOS and OOA happen at the same time and then the Linking of the two games brings them back together otherwise how would you explain how in one world their is 2 torches lit and in the other world two other torches lit. Due to alot of this most people use OOX to classify OOS and OOA because their is no distinct order on which goes first since it was the player of the games choice of which to play first.
You're completely ignoring what I've said. Yes, I know that the manga isn't canon, but it shows intent for the order of the games, as does the fact that Oracle of Seasons is always listed before Oracle of Ages. And saying that they happen at the same time is ridiculous. That can't happen, unless you claim that there are two different Links. You need to understand that the games were designed to be played in either order for the sake of the player, not the story. From a timeline perspective, you can't just say that the games take place in either order, or that they happen simultaneously. One has to take place first, followed by the second, in a definite order. All evidence points towards OoS taking place first, then OoA.
 

ironknuckle1

Archer Extraordinaire
Joined
Aug 31, 2009
Location
Fishing pond
You're completely ignoring what I've said. Yes, I know that the manga isn't canon, but it shows intent for the order of the games, as does the fact that Oracle of Seasons is always listed before Oracle of Ages. And saying that they happen at the same time is ridiculous. That can't happen, unless you claim that there are two different Links. You need to understand that the games were designed to be played in either order for the sake of the player, not the story. From a timeline perspective, you can't just say that the games take place in either order, or that they happen simultaneously. One has to take place first, followed by the second, in a definite order. All evidence points towards OoS taking place first, then OoA.
I dont see anything saying that OOS always go first because if you played OOA first then obviously that would go first. The reason that in pokemon games and such games are said red and then blue or ruby and then sapphire is because it sounds better it is easier to remember. I mean its easier to remember ruby and sapphire then sapphire and ruby. Again the manga is non canon it doesnt matter what it implies because their are so many things that are wrong or different in the manga such as most of the plot of ALTTP in the manga is changed.
 
Joined
Nov 14, 2009
Location
Mesa, AZ
I dont see anything saying that OOS always go first because if you played OOA first then obviously that would go first. The reason that in pokemon games and such games are said red and then blue or ruby and then sapphire is because it sounds better it is easier to remember. I mean its easier to remember ruby and sapphire then sapphire and ruby. Again the manga is non canon it doesnt matter what it implies because their are so many things that are wrong or different in the manga such as most of the plot of ALTTP in the manga is changed.
Again, you're not understanding what I've said. Yes, you can play the games in either order, and it makes sense either way, because the games were designed that way. But in the timeline, there has to be a definite order to the two games.

Here, let's use a real life example. Say that there was a great hero who saved one country from danger, and then he was called to another country, which is also saved. Now, if this was a real life event, you couldn't just say that the hero saved either country in whatever order. No, history has an order to events. Even if the events could be switched around in any which way, there still must be a definite order to them. And because of the nature of the Oracle games, there's no way to definitely place either game from in game evidence, because the in game evidence changes depending on which game you play first. That doesn't mean that the stories go in whatever order you feel like in the timeline, though.

Let's use another Pokémon example, shall we? In Pokémon Gold, Silver, and Crystal, the leader of the Viridian City Gym is Blue, who was the rival of Pokémon Red and Blue, and the trainer who you battle atop of Mount Silver is Red, the protagonist of Pokémon Red. Now, let's look back at Pokémon Red and Blue. Much like the Zelda series, the Pokémon series lets you name your own trainer. However, like the Zelda series defaults the name of the hero to Link, the Pokémon games have a set of default names, too. But the difference is that these names change depending on which version you're playing. If you're playing Pokémon Red, your trainer's default name is Red, while your rival's default name is Blue. In Pokémon Blue, these names are reversed. So, using your logic, the names could go either way, right? Well, Pokémon Gold, Silver, and Crystal break that theory, because the games clearly show that the protagonist from Red and Blue is indeed named Red, while the rival is named Blue. This would make Pokémon Red the primary, canonical version, because it has the true default names.

This same idea holds true for the Oracle games. The games may give you an option of what order you play the games in, but just because you as the player can choose whichever option you want doesn't mean that there isn't an intended official option. But because we don't have a third game that specifically tells what was the correct order of the two Oracle games, and because the games are made to be played in either order, we have to look elsewhere for evidence, which can be found in the ordering of the titles in official media and the manga. Understand?
 
Joined
May 16, 2008
Location
Kentucky, USA
I know, but that's still saying "either OoS/OoA or OoA/OoS". That's just plain sloppy in my opinion. The whole point of being a timeline theorist is to piece the games together. When you say "eh, these two games could go either way, it doesn't matter", that's just being lazy and it's going against your goal as a timeline theorist.

Seasons is generally the accepted first game. The manual of seasons begins with Link riding through Hyrule and tells the story of the Triforce sending him to Holodrum and all that, while the Ages manual starts of with him waking up in some mysterious woods. But that's about the only thing, besides the manga which isn't important, that puts OoS first. I use OoX in my timeline simply because its order does not matter. The timeline doesn't have to have both titles in there, separate. It doesn't make it look any less orderly or like you did any more research, just that you felt like typing them out instead of combining them. And it doesn't make you a better theorist to order them either. Their order is not important at all to the overall timeline. They don't drastically change any other games than themselves so looking for evidence of which to place first is unnecessary.
 
Joined
Nov 14, 2009
Location
Mesa, AZ
Seasons is generally the accepted first game. The manual of seasons begins with Link riding through Hyrule and tells the story of the Triforce sending him to Holodrum and all that, while the Ages manual starts of with him waking up in some mysterious woods. But that's about the only thing, besides the manga which isn't important, that puts OoS first. I use OoX in my timeline simply because its order does not matter. The timeline doesn't have to have both titles in there, separate. It doesn't make it look any less orderly or like you did any more research, just that you felt like typing them out instead of combining them. And it doesn't make you a better theorist to order them either. Their order is not important at all to the overall timeline. They don't drastically change any other games than themselves so looking for evidence of which to place first is unnecessary.
I know that it's not really important to the timeline, but neither are some games, like LA, MM, or PH. There's not really important to the timeline, they're just additional quests of past Links that take place outside of Hyrule and have no mention of Ganon, the Master Sword, or the Triforce. You could technically remove them from the timeline and it really wouldn't change anything, yet everyone still places them. Why? Because they still happened, even if they don't really affect the timeline. It's the same principle for why I prefer to order the Oracle games like I do. Yes, they can happen in either order and it doesn't matter, but leaving it at that is very unprofessional. What would you do if your history teacher had that kind of attitude? Every event has to have a definite point in time when it happened. If you just brush that aside and say "eh, it works either way, so it doesn't matter", well...that's just sloppy. No, it doesn't make you any less of a theorist, nor does it make me any better of a theorist for putting them in a definite order, but I think that people really need to escape the whole "OoX" thing. It's just silly. If you believe that OoS comes first, then put it first! It's not like typing a few extra characters is going to kill you.
 
Joined
Jun 13, 2010
ok i no you say theres two ganons but if there was one like a lot of ppl say than how does ganondorf come back after tp btw this is for the ppl who believe in the 1 ganon thing
 
Joined
May 16, 2008
Location
Kentucky, USA
ok i no you say theres two ganons but if there was one like a lot of ppl say than how does ganondorf come back after tp btw this is for the ppl who believe in the 1 ganon thing

I simply assume that he did not die in TP. His defeat was never confirmed in-game or, to my knowledge, by a developer to be a "death" so I don't see any reason to consider it so. Plus, there are many repeating characteristics that Ganon/dorf shows throughout the series to consider him more than one person.
 

Pinecove

Last Chance
Joined
Feb 7, 2009
Location
Toronto Ontario
Mosley said:
I simply assume that he did not die in TP. His defeat was never confirmed in-game or, to my knowledge, by a developer to be a "death" so I don't see any reason to consider it so. Plus, there are many repeating characteristics that Ganon/dorf shows throughout the series to consider him more than one person.

Okay, you and I are going to debate this once and for all. No evading question this time. :P

Ganondorf clearly died. He was stabbed in his weak spot in the chest with the Master sword, which repels evil. Upon being stabbed by Link, Ganondorf's Triforce of Power faded, his neck was snapped by Zant, and he never moved again.

Now you may argue that Ganondorf's death is suspicious because of him apparently dying while standing up. However, as I pointed out to you in a recent debate, this could be rigor mortis. And before you say that rigor mortis only sets in after around 2-3 hours, I'd like to quote my friends discovery health and wikipedia:

Discovery Health said:
Physical exertion just prior to death: If someone dies while engaged in strenuous activity like exercising or struggling against drowning, rigor mortis can set in immediately. This instant onset, sometimes called cadaveric spasm, happens because the person's muscles, at the moment of death, were depleted of oxygen energy and ATP. This is why the victim of a violent attack may still be clutching the attacker's hair or a piece of clothing.

Source: http://health.howstuffworks.com/diseases-conditions/death-dying/rigor-mortis-cause.htm/printable

Wikipedia said:
Cadaveric spasm, also known as instantaneous rigor, cataleptic rigidity, or instantaneous rigidity, is a rare form of muscular stiffening that occurs at the moment of death,

Source: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cadaveric_spasm
 
Joined
May 16, 2008
Location
Kentucky, USA
Okay, you and I are going to debate this once and for all. No evading question this time. :P

Ganondorf clearly died. He was stabbed in his weak spot in the chest with the Master sword, which repels evil. Upon being stabbed by Link, Ganondorf's Triforce of Power faded, his neck was snapped by Zant, and he never moved again.

The only problem Pinecove is that none of it is clear enough to me. Like, for instance, the whole scene with his neck snapping. How could Ganondorf's neck literally snap from a presence (Zant) who wasn't even really there? Zant was already defeated way before hand. I'll be honest in saying that originally, I though Ganondorf had died. But the scene with Zant is something I think more symbolic than literal. As for the Triforce, I agree that he likely lost the ToP at the end. Which would technically mean that he would die since he didn't have its power anymore.

Now you may argue that Ganondorf's death is suspicious because of him apparently dying while standing up. However, as I pointed out to you in a recent debate, this could be rigor mortis. And before you say that rigor mortis only sets in after around 2-3 hours, I'd like to quote my friends discovery health and wikipedia:

The whole thing with a cadaveric spasm is interesting. Good that you took the time to look that info up ;). I am a human science major too but I had forgotten about those. Anyway, here is my argument:

A cadaveric spasm is rare to occur. Yes, they can occur due to strenuous muscle activity just before death. But even if they do happen, its usually in the area of specific strenuous muscle activity and not the entire body. Therefore, in order for Ganondorf to remain standing at the time of his "death", his legs would have to be pretty well depleted of ATP. There was no fight against Ganondorf that caused him to use his legs stenuously, so logically even if a cadaveric spasm occured, it wouldn't have been in his legs and he wouldn't have been able to remain standing if he died.

Additionally, if the developers went as far into it as to actually say "Okay well Ganondorf had a cadaveric spasm so he's gonna remain standing", then they would have had to actually look into the subject enough to know that his legs would have to be depleted of ATP.
 
Joined
Jun 13, 2010
i dont think he died and here i my reasons. the "weak"point was because of the sages which could act as a type of seal.so when link stabed ganondorf i think his soul literally went into the sword and so the ToP lest cause thee was no one in that body which would yes give death to ganondorf so ganondorfs soul left his body and searched for a new one which would be aginim and wated for the master sword to be pulled to gain more of his power.its preety silly to think about but it is zelda and anything could have happened

i no wat i said was silly but think about it could have happened lol
 
Last edited by a moderator:

Users who are viewing this thread

Top Bottom