Disputing the Downfall timeline

[lance9384]

I'm making a bold accusation that the developers/writers of Hyrule Historia came up with a creative but less realistic way to explain the fallen hero branch of the timeline (which contains the classic Zelda titles).

The Official Explanation: Rather than Adult Link defeating Ganon, he is defeated at the hands of Ganon and manages to take the Triforce of Courage as well as the Triforce of Wisdom. This explains how he has the full Triforce, causes the imprisoning war and creates the dark world from the Sacred Realm.

The Problem: While this is a creative way to tell the story, it also tells a disappointing story. Not so much because Link is defeated, but because it is told in a way of "what if". The hero succeeds is just as hypothetical as him being defeated. You could say the hero fallen timeline could never actually happen just for the simple fact that Link does indeed defeat Ganon leading to Wind Waker and so on. Other minor story continuation errors include Twinrova existing later in the Oracles, etc. This obviously isn't news since we've had years to gripe about this, but I've made a solution several years ago that never made traction with the community, and I'm here to attempt it again to have more people discuss it and accept it.

The Solution: It's simple, really. Since time travel is already an issue with most people, we have to understand multiple timeline theory already as it is. We've accepted (by force) that there were two timelines, and now there's three. The best interpretation of this is knowing the moment when Link travels through time once he pulls the Master Sword. Think of it this way; if you were in the perspective of any bystander watching Link, you would witness him disappear in the transportation of time and are left with nothing of him remaining. And it is at this moment of the rest of the world that Link will never return. In his own existence, he returns in his own timeline as a child after he defeats Link. But it is NOT the same line of time as the moment a person would theoretically witness him vanish into time itself.
The evidence of this is Princess Zelda in the Adult Timeline returning him to his proper time, but the adult timeline continues as is without Link. The "downfall" timeline shares a similar fate the moment Link travels through time; he NEVER returns to prevent Ganon from entering the sacred realm and obtaining the Triforce for himself. I will now consider the downfall timeline as the Classic timeline as it continues as normal completely on it's own leading into the classic titles of the series.

Recap: In Ocarina of Time, Link pulls the master sword and vanishes from the classic timeline forever as he appears seven years in the future. The moment he appears seven years in the future creates a second branch of the timeline where he defeats Ganon, and the moment Zelda transports him back into the temple of time to return the master sword, he creates the third new Child timeline. Link's absence in the classic timeline best explains why evil thrives thru the events of A Link to the Past. He is not there to defeat Ganon or Twinrova leading to the events of Alttp and the Oracles. Please keep in mind that there are no legends of a hero being defeated in any of the series' lore EXCEPT Hyrule Historia. The obvious reason why is because of this theory; Link vanishes once he pulls the master sword and there is no hero to be known in this timeline until A Link to the Past. The Spirit of the Hero must return at the age of Alttp to defeat Ganon.

I understand Hyrule Historia is canon, but we must understand that despite their supposed original intent, there is a better explanation to be heard. And I believe that this explanation of events in regards to the timeline best fits what is possible rather than a theoretical assumption that Link can be or not be defeated.

 

[Jirohnagi]

Sorry but how is it that time travel is an issue. Clearly no one has an issue with the fact that AS PART OF THE GAME, you play it as both child and adult, in fact it was so hated it became part of two other games at least.

Also it's emphatically stated links body is held in stasis because of his youth. Gotta state the only person who witnessed link's return as an adult was Sheik (zelda) and she knew where that'd be. No one else witnessed it, in fact OOT link was the perfect case of dropping out of the scene, to those in the forest it just seemed that the deku trees warning about dying outside the forest was right, and he didn't interact with many people, those he did remembered him as a kid, no one bar sheik sees the transition. And yes it is the same time he returns to at the end of the game, he is in fact placed back in his timeline to either just before Ganondorf makes his move on claiming the castle or just after their first meeting.


Sorry but trying to dispute something the series creators back is kinda futile and while people may ***** and moan about the DT line the only real complaint is why is it where it is? hell the issue is more why isn't there a DT for every zelda game as they all seem to be pivital points in hyrules history

Biggest reason the DT Timeline actually fits where it does hangs on that final battle in ALTTP we see a war being waged against Ganondorf at the start, blatantly showing that the master sword isn't used how it came to be in a forest on it's own who knows. Link is indeed removed from the Adult Timeline by Zelda owing to the fact she's the sage of time (deus ex machina anyone?) and this leads to Wind Waker because no one stops Ganondorf when he breaks free from the sacred realm.
The fact no one is around to stop him points to there being no reincarnation of Hylia's chosen knight but it is instead a succession of individuals who possess courage in abundance who fight ganondorf, it also implies that the dorf broke free fairly quickly and why not? he has the power of the gods on his side, one third has broken up the other has split into two so theres quite literally nothing to stop him bar a seal on the master sword.

 

[lance9384]

I'm not disputing the fact that the third branch exists. I agree with why there's three branches and never looked back with only two branches. But the biggest problem I have with their explanation is that Link can either win or lose at the final battle. It's a lazy explanation to be honest which is why I came to my conclusion about a better explanation as to why Ganon was able to succeed in the downfall timeline.

Yes, Link is in stasis within the sacred realm. I can revise my previous thoughts by explaining what happens. Once Link pulls the master sword, he is transported in the future to the Chamber of Sages within the Sacred Realm in a different branch of the timeline. Regardless of the circumstances as to how Link gets there, he disappears from the downfall timeline events which allows Ganon to enter the Sacred Realm and acquire the Triforce entirely. Those two events happening in the Sacred Realm do not interact with each other because they happen at separate times of the different timelines.

 

[DragonEleven]

I think you're misunderstanding how the time travel in OoT works... it's only his spirit that is sent back and forth in time... his body remains within the sacred realm for the 7 years he skips, so he doesn't cease to exist at any point... this is why his body continues to age.

Also, Ganondorf would not have been able to acquire the full Triforce when he entered the Sacred Realm... Link's circumstances do not change the fact that Ganondorf's heart was not balanced, so the Triforce would still have split... Ganondorf would still have had to track down the other two pieces... and seeing as after seven years he'd been unable to get either of them, if Link hadn't returned then he would probably have never found them, making the downfall timeline impossible.

 

[Aku]

Eh, I'm just going to be blunt and say that maybe DT should be it's own alternate universe or timeline (or one branching at SS instead) where OOT simply never took place. That way there would be the two logical timelines post OOT, and one where you don't have to engage in mental gymnastics just to retrofit OOT Link dying in there somewhere. Heck, even ALTTP can be DT's Ganondorf's background (craving power and killing his group of thieves so that only he can have it) vs. the OOT Ganondorf that leads to WW and TP
(thinking of the plight of his people, wanting him and them to have the verdant land and pleasant wind of Hyrule instead of a desert filled with death.)

And BOTW would fit on this 'new' DT timeline too, removing the same mental gymnastics to 'explain' the weird should-not-go-here stuff. The Rito are the easy descents of the Fokka on this timeline, not of a group of misbegotten Zora, these Koroks never became 'forest children'so were Koroks the whole time, and there can be a Rito Sage named Medli to name one of the DBs after. The Gerudo would not be a former race of thieves (just a tiny splinter group followed Ganondorf, the rest were mercantile) and this DT mercantile group would have the pointed ears rather then the OOT's rounded ones.

Trying to keep OOT as the 'explanation' of the DT creates more problems then it solves, because much of the 'history' of the DT (even in new games) differs from that what is supposedly in the branches that have OOT's 'history.'

 

[el :BeoWolf:]

I don't understand the issue people are having with the timeline. All three timeline splits are what if scenarios. There could be a timeline where the hero of winds dies, or one where Link takes a **** in the woods, but we don't see those timelines because they don't matter to the whole story yet. It's not too hard to keep straight. Not that's not to say there aren't a few loose ends, but overall it's pretty clear to see what's what

 

[Moblinking5000]

Eh, I'm just going to be blunt and say that maybe DT should be it's own alternate universe or timeline (or one branching at SS instead) where OOT simply never took place. That way there would be the two logical timelines post OOT, and one where you don't have to engage in mental gymnastics just to retrofit OOT Link dying in there somewhere. Heck, even ALTTP can be DT's Ganondorf's background (craving power and killing his group of thieves so that only he can have it) vs. the OOT Ganondorf that leads to WW and TP
(thinking of the plight of his people, wanting him and them to have the verdant land and pleasant wind of Hyrule instead of a desert filled with death.)'

Inconsistencies in the ALttP manual such as Ganon killing his own band of thieves can be explained by oral tradition. Ganondorf never even cared about his people; his speech in TWW was most likely him trying to get Link to let his guard down(which worked) and/or him trying to make himself the good guy in his own mind. If he cared about his people, why did he just leave them in the desert seven years after he obtained power? He was always power hungry.

And how do you explain the town names in AoL if OoT never took place?

And BOTW would fit on this 'new' DT timeline too, removing the same mental gymnastics to 'explain' the weird should-not-go-here stuff. The Rito are the easy descents of the Fokka on this timeline, not of a group of misbegotten Zora, these Koroks never became 'forest children'so were Koroks the whole time, and there can be a Rito Sage named Medli to name one of the DBs after. The Gerudo would not be a former race of thieves (just a tiny splinter group followed Ganondorf, the rest were mercantile) and this DT mercantile group would have the pointed ears rather then the OOT's rounded ones.

BotW fits on the DT timeline as it is too, and it probably has the most evidence placing it there. The Rito can be explained as you said(among tons of other explanations or the fact that they're so different that they can't really be the same Rito as in TWW), Kokiri are spirits, meaning they can take any form they want in any timeline, and while Medoh has a similar name to Medli, Medoh is never explicitly stated to be named after Medli unlike Ruta and Naboris, which is irrelevant anyway since you don't have BotW in a timeline where OoT or any games relating to it happen. And while we're on the subject of sages, how do you explain the fact that two of OoT's sages are explicitly mentioned in the game, with Ruto's mention going into a summary of the events of OoT from the perspective of the Zora?

Trying to keep OOT as the 'explanation' of the DT creates more problems then it solves, because much of the 'history' of the DT (even in new games) differs from that what is supposedly in the branches that have OOT's 'history.'

Such as?

And it doesn't matter which has more problems anyway; what matters is what's true to the creators. OoT was made to be the prequel to ALttP; this was stated in interviews back in 1998. The DT allows this to remain true while reconciling most of the flaws.

 

[Cfrock]

The two issues with this are that:
1. The canon explicitly states that Link fights Ganon and loses
2. As DragonEleven said, with no Link we face the question of how Ganon got the Triforce of Courage

I can understand that many people don't like the idea of Link losing but trying to reconcile that by denying it isn't going to get you very far. The fact is, this series was never made with a concrete timeline in mind (specific games were intended to relate to each other in specific ways but Nintendo is more than willing to retcon the series if they find it convenient at any given time), so there will always be things that don't make sense, don't match up, and are unsatisfying or disappointing in terms of continuity.

My advice would be to learn to live with it (or read my hot take on the nature of the timeline split provided here:

Spoiler

The timeline split is caused by the splitting of the Triforce in OOT.

OOT is the only time in canon that the Triforce has ever split into separate pieces when touched. In all other examples of it being touched it remains whole and grants the wish of whoever touched it (SS, ALTTP, WW, ALBW, etc.). The split is the result of Ganondorf's heart (or spirit or whatever) not being 'balanced' and each separate piece is subsequently granted to those who embody the respective values of power, wisdom, and courage, those people being Ganondorf, Zelda, and Link.

Since the Triforce is about balance (as evidenced by a lack of balance being a barrier to using it) it follows that no one piece can become dominant over the others. That is to say, no one bearer can be triumphant over the others. But given that reunification can only come from two of the three bearers being defeated in some form, the only way balance can be maintained is if all three bearers can be triumphant simultaneously. Enter the timeline split.

Each timeline represents a triumph for a specific piece of the Triforce. The Adult Timeline, in which Zelda sends Link back to the past and then continues on to restore Hyrule (up until the Flood), is the Wisdom Timeline. The Child Timeline, in which Link is given the chance to prevent Ganondorf's reign of terror, is the Courage Timeline. And the Downfall Timeline, in which Ganon defeats the Hero and claims the entire Triforce, is the Power Timeline.

To add circumstantial weight to this idea is the diagram of the timeline provided in Hyrule Historia. It starts with a single branch which then splits, forming the Downfall Timeline, and then soon after splits again, forming the Child and Adult Timelines. Given that there was room to set the three branches out along a single line, this strikes me as a deliberate decision.

The split between the Child and Adult Timelines must specifically indicate the battle with Ganon, since the creation of both Timelines is the immediate result of Zelda's actions once it was won, which implies the Downfall Timeline is the result of some earlier event, potentially Ganondorf touching the Triforce.

I do, however, recognise that the layout of a diagram might mean little other than the typesetter thought it looked better or fit the page more efficiently, and so this isn't concrete.

To summarise: In order to maintain a balance between the Triforce following its split, a new timeline is created (through the divine power of the Triforce itself) to accomodate Ganondorf defeating the other Triforce bearers with his Power. The original timeline continues with Zelda having the Wisdom to send Link back to his childhood (where he demonstrates great Courage in facing Ganondorf's challenge much sooner), thus creating another new timeline and resolving the issue of imbalance, as each bearer of the Triforce has triumphed simultaneously in a convoluted, timey-wimey manner that may or may not involve quantum entanglement.

In my view, the split Triforce is a more robust explanation for why the timeline splits occur when they do, and is based on lore from the games without retconning any given information, while maintaining some thematic consistency across the disparate outcomes. That's how I make sense of it.

 

[Aku]

Inconsistencies in the ALttP manual such as Ganon killing his own band of thieves can be explained by oral tradition. Ganondorf never even cared about his people; his speech in TWW was most likely him trying to get Link to let his guard down(which worked) and/or him trying to make himself the good guy in his own mind. If he cared about his people, why did he just leave them in the desert seven years after he obtained power? He was always power hungry.

Well, he sounded reeal sincere about the way he talked about them, his speech seems to come off as a character-building moment to many, making him more well rounded. And besides, who says he left them in the desert? Would they have wanted to live in a Hyrule that was now dark and gloomy and crawling with Redeads?

And how do you explain the town names in AoL if OoT never took place?

Towns can be named after their founders, like they do in real life. Plus these unawakened Sages likely scattered after the Ganonapocolypse happened, they could have been influential leaders of the survivor groups, scattering to the four winds to protect them. The bigger question though is, why don't we see these towns in the games post OOT, and why are the sages afterwards (in the older DT games) mostly humans? If the Sages have been awakened (and they can pass it down through their children) they should have descendants that look like them (not the human maidens) or should still be around (instead of the weird glowey guys in robes in TP.)

BotW fits on the DT timeline as it is too, and it probably has the most evidence placing it there. The Rito can be explained as you said(among tons of other explanations or the fact that they're so different that they can't really be the same Rito as in TWW), Kokiri are spirits, meaning they can take any form they want in any timeline, and while Medoh has a similar name to Medli, Medoh is never explicitly stated to be named after Medli unlike Ruta and Naboris, which is irrelevant anyway since you don't have BotW in a timeline where OoT or any games relating to it happen. And while we're on the subject of sages, how do you explain the fact that two of OoT's sages are explicitly mentioned in the game, with Ruto's mention going into a summary of the events of OoT from the perspective of the Zora?

Why wouldn't they give the Rito's DB a name of one of their sages? What makes their DB the exception rather then the rule, when all of the others are named so? Since the the sages wouldn't have been awakened in the CT, and BOTW would have had to take place post WW if they were awakened, and why honor a Link that failed in the DT? Couldn't they also just be exceptional leaders of their peoples that were honored years later, founding towns and new lives in a time of chaos, and having DBs named after these exceptional people? It doesn't mean these people never existed, it's that OoT never happened.

Such as?

Trying to retcon/shoehorn in something years after the fact, which is what they did with OoT when they started considering it their favorite. Just because it's OoT, doesn't mean it necessarily works.

And it doesn't matter which has more problems anyway; what matters is what's true to the creators. OoT was made to be the prequel to ALttP; this was stated in interviews back in 1998. The DT allows this to remain true while reconciling most of the flaws.

The problem is, what's true to the creators tend to change. Minish Cap was stated to be the oldest game in the series timewise at one point, now it's not. Gannondorf was originally just a manpig, then a mere Gerudo thief, now he's an Incarnation of Demise's Hatred. What's to say they won't change something about the lore later that retcons something in OoT just like they have done in others?

 

[Moblinking5000]

Well, he sounded reeal sincere about the way he talked about them, his speech seems to come off as a character-building moment to many, making him more well rounded. And besides, who says he left them in the desert? Would they have wanted to live in a Hyrule that was now dark and gloomy and crawling with Redeads?

There were places in Hyrule that didn't have Redeads, such as Kakariko. You would think that he would've gone to great lengths to protect his people and ensure that they live in the safest place possible after he takes over Hyrule, but at no point in OoT does he say he did it for his people; only centuries later, does he bring up the subject, after he'd had time to reflect on his actions and tell himself that his atrocities were justified.

Towns can be named after their founders, like they do in real life. Plus these unawakened Sages likely scattered after the Ganonapocolypse happened, they could have been influential leaders of the survivor groups, scattering to the four winds to protect them. The bigger question though is, why don't we see these towns in the games post OOT, and why are the sages afterwards (in the older DT games) mostly humans? If the Sages have been awakened (and they can pass it down through their children) they should have descendants that look like them (the human maidens) or should still be around (instead of the weird glowey guys in robes in TP.)

We don't see these towns in other games because the obvious answer is that they weren't created until sometime before AoL.

And HH isn't clear as to whether the IW sages are even the same sages as the Awakened Sages from OoT. We know that there are several groups of sages in Zelda anyway.

And the creators have said that in universe, the towns are named after the OoT sages for their actions as sages, and HH also says this. They have never gone back on this.

Why wouldn't they give the Rito's DB a name of one of their sages? What makes their DB the exception rather then the rule, when all of the others are named so?

Maybe it is, only after a sage not named Medli but one with a similar name, or a different Medli, or it's not named after a sage, as only two of the four DBs are explicitly named after sages, and it's never said all of them are named after sages. You can't use Medoh(or Rudania, for that matter) to say that BotW takes place in a certain place as there is no confirmation as to who--or what it's named after.

Since the the sages wouldn't have been awakened in the CT, and BOTW would have had to take place post WW if they were awakened

Or post AoL, since they're awakened on the DT too, not to mention the fact that Hyrule, the MS, and Ganon aren't beneath the sea in the DT.

and why honor a Link that failed in the DT, couldn't they just be exceptional leaders of their peoples that were honored years later, founding towns and new lives in a time of chaos, and having DBs named after these exceptional people? It doesn't mean these people never existed, it's that OoT never happened.

They're explicitly called ''sages'' ingame, though. And as I said, the tablet talking about Ruto even summarises OoT from the perspective of the Zora.

The problem is, what's true to the creators tend to change. Minish Cap was stated to be the oldest game in the series timewise at one point, now it's not.

Only because of SS; it's still the oldest game compared to everything else though. When a developer says that something is the oldest, it's common sense to assume that they mean the oldest of all titles released up to now, as is the case with any franchise.

Gannondorf was originally just a manpig, then a mere Gerudo thief, now he's an Incarnation of Demise's Hatred.

None of those contradict eachother; Ganon being born due to Demise's Hatred doesn't change the fact that he was born as a Gerudo, and him being born as a Gerudo doesn't contradict him being a Demon King in the early games.

What's to say they won't change something about the lore later that retcons something in OoT just like they have done in others?

When that happens, our understanding of the canon will then change, but until then, there's no reason to make unnecessary assumptions.

And the only placement that has potentially changed is the OoX(depending on the ambiguous canoncity of HE). Every game placement in relation to the other games at the time of their release has remained the same as they have in interviews and boxes.

 

[el :BeoWolf:]

Minish Cap was stated to be the oldest game in the series timewise at one point, now it's not. Gannondorf was originally just a manpig, then a mere Gerudo thief, now he's an Incarnation of Demise's Hatred.

These aren't retcons, just adding to the lore. Minish Cap was the oldest game up until that point
Ganon started out as a demon pig king, which was later revealed to not be his original form, and was later revealed to be the incarnation of Demise's hate.

 

[Aku]

The two issues with this are that:
1. The canon explicitly states that Link fights Ganon and loses
2. As DragonEleven said, with no Link we face the question of how Ganon got the Triforce of Courage

I can understand that many people don't like the idea of Link losing but trying to reconcile that by denying it isn't going to get you very far. The fact is, this series was never made with a concrete timeline in mind (specific games were intended to relate to each other in specific ways but Nintendo is more than willing to retcon the series if they find it convenient at any given time), so there will always be things that don't make sense, don't match up, and are unsatisfying or disappointing in terms of continuity.

My advice would be to learn to live with it (or read my hot take on the nature of the timeline split provided here:

Spoiler

The timeline split is caused by the splitting of the Triforce in OOT.

OOT is the only time in canon that the Triforce has ever split into separate pieces when touched. In all other examples of it being touched it remains whole and grants the wish of whoever touched it (SS, ALTTP, WW, ALBW, etc.). The split is the result of Ganondorf's heart (or spirit or whatever) not being 'balanced' and each separate piece is subsequently granted to those who embody the respective values of power, wisdom, and courage, those people being Ganondorf, Zelda, and Link.

Since the Triforce is about balance (as evidenced by a lack of balance being a barrier to using it) it follows that no one piece can become dominant over the others. That is to say, no one bearer can be triumphant over the others. But given that reunification can only come from two of the three bearers being defeated in some form, the only way balance can be maintained is if all three bearers can be triumphant simultaneously. Enter the timeline split.

Each timeline represents a triumph for a specific piece of the Triforce. The Adult Timeline, in which Zelda sends Link back to the past and then continues on to restore Hyrule (up until the Flood), is the Wisdom Timeline. The Child Timeline, in which Link is given the chance to prevent Ganondorf's reign of terror, is the Courage Timeline. And the Downfall Timeline, in which Ganon defeats the Hero and claims the entire Triforce, is the Power Timeline.

To add circumstantial weight to this idea is the diagram of the timeline provided in Hyrule Historia. It starts with a single branch which then splits, forming the Downfall Timeline, and then soon after splits again, forming the Child and Adult Timelines. Given that there was room to set the three branches out along a single line, this strikes me as a deliberate decision.

The split between the Child and Adult Timelines must specifically indicate the battle with Ganon, since the creation of both Timelines is the immediate result of Zelda's actions once it was won, which implies the Downfall Timeline is the result of some earlier event, potentially Ganondorf touching the Triforce.

I do, however, recognise that the layout of a diagram might mean little other than the typesetter thought it looked better or fit the page more efficiently, and so this isn't concrete.

To summarise: In order to maintain a balance between the Triforce following its split, a new timeline is created (through the divine power of the Triforce itself) to accomodate Ganondorf defeating the other Triforce bearers with his Power. The original timeline continues with Zelda having the Wisdom to send Link back to his childhood (where he demonstrates great Courage in facing Ganondorf's challenge much sooner), thus creating another new timeline and resolving the issue of imbalance, as each bearer of the Triforce has triumphed simultaneously in a convoluted, timey-wimey manner that may or may not involve quantum entanglement.

In my view, the split Triforce is a more robust explanation for why the timeline splits occur when they do, and is based on lore from the games without retconning any given information, while maintaining some thematic consistency across the disparate outcomes. That's how I make sense of it.

Oh no, I'm not bothered at all by the idea that OoT Link loses. In fact, I'd considered it ironic that one of the most beloved Links is also only one to get his ass beat and die by the hand of Ganon.

I know there are people that hate the idea that this Link loses, but at the same time, even as I offer up any scenario where it might be possible that either this 'canon' might either not be entirely fully baked all the way through or that there could be an alternate way where this Link never has to lose, you will have a lot of the same people defending this 'canon' explanation, even while it seems like they hate it.

But yeah, you're right, there was no concrete timeline in mind until fans demanded one, and I won't doubt there might be more reimagining/retconning/reinterpretation down the line.

These aren't retcons, just adding to the lore. Minish Cap was the oldest game up until that point
Ganon started out as a demon pig king, which was later revealed to not be his original form, and was later revealed to be the incarnation of Demise's hate.

True, maybe it might be seen by some as adding onto, but I had been going by the what the devs had considered it previously. At the time they considered it the oldest game, then they changed their mind and said 'Now this game is the oldest.' Won't be surprised if they make a game further back then SS, showing the war between Hylia and the Demon King.

I doubt Ganon(dorf) will stop evolving, actually. I am not disputing that at all. The only thing I seem to sense however, is that there seems to be a lot of fans that might not want him moving on from being Ganondorf. Him being the floating demon pig cloud or Dark Beast Ganon is perfect for what an Incarnation of Hate looks like. It even might be that the devs are moving on by the weird little blurb about DBG in the Compendium 'This is considered his true/orginal form' rather then stating 'This creature might have been/had once been human/Gerudo' which would be what the Hyrulian historian and especially the player, expects. That's where I'm thinking Ganon is heading next, a small possible hint that his next evolution is that he might have been a demon or something before his incarnation as Ganondorf, making him not just an Incarnation of Hate but a possible anti-Hylia.

 

[Moblinking5000]

Oh no, I'm not bothered at all by the idea that OoT Link loses. In fact, I'd considered it ironic that one of the most beloved Links is also only one to get his ass beat and die by the hand of Ganon.

I know there are people that hate the idea that this Link loses, but at the same time, even as I offer up any scenario where it might be possible that either this 'canon' might either not be entirely fully baked all the way through or that there could be an alternate way where this Link never has to lose, you will have a lot of the same people defending this 'canon' explanation, even while it seems like they hate it.

But yeah, you're right, there was no concrete timeline in mind until fans demanded one, and I won't doubt there might be more reimagining/retconning/reinterpretation down the line.

They didn't have a concrete timeline in mind?

AoL was clearly made to be a direct sequel to LoZ, and was made clear ingame.
ALttP was made as a prequel to LoZ, as made clear by both the US and JP box(the US one says that Link and Zelda in ALttP are the predecessors of the ones in the original NES game, and the JP box says that ALttP takes place when Hyrule was still one kingdom, which is a phrase used by Impa in AoL), and the fact that it goes into the origin of the Triforce and Ganon, expanded upon in OoT, and that the JP backstory says that it sets the stage for ''The Legend of Zelda''.
LA didn't have a confirmation of where it was, but the manual made it clear that it was after Ganon was killed by a Link, and one of the Nightmares takes the form of Agahnim, making it clear where it takes place.
OoT was stated to take place long before ALttP in multiple interviews, which made sense considering that we saw Ganondorf, the original human shape of the Demon King Ganon first mentioned in ALttP in the manual and by the Swamp Palace maiden, as well as his rise to power. There were some issues that caused confusion, but HH and the introduction of the DT fixed these mistakes.

You get:

OoT-ALttP/LA-LoZ/AoL

All of this was confirmed at the time before fans started demanding one, and is still true, just with more games that have been added to the franchise since then. And the placement of the 3D games are obvious ingame(with the possible exception of BotW)and were confirmed at the time of their release.

I doubt Ganon(dorf) will stop evolving, actually. I am not disputing that at all. The only thing I seem to sense however, is that there seems to be a lot of fans that might not want him moving on from being Ganondorf. Him being the floating demon pig cloud or Dark Beast Ganon is perfect for what an Incarnation of Hate looks like. It even might be that the devs are moving on by the weird little blurb about DBG in the Compendium 'This is considered his true/orginal form' rather then stating 'This creature might have been/had once been human/Gerudo' which would be what the Hyrulian historian and especially the player, expects. That's where I'm thinking Ganon is heading next, a small possible hint that his next evolution is that he might have been a demon or something before his incarnation as Ganondorf, making him not just an Incarnation of Hate but a possible anti-Hylia.

Demise is already more or less an ''anti Hylia'', though.

The Compendium says that he's ''considered'' to be Ganon's original form, not that he outright is. They may also be referring to original form for beast Ganon, too, not his original Ganondorf human shape, since Ganon is used as shorthand for his beast form, and the JP manual for ALttP says that Ganon appeared as noxious gas during the IW, making it sound like a form similar to the Calamity. Not to mention that there's contradictory info in the game, such as Urbosa saying that he was originally a Gerudo in the Japanese version, which is given more prominence due to it being an unavoidable cutscene in the main story with voice acting.