GameTrailers Timeline Theory

[Pseudocide]

http://www.gametrailers.com/video/zelda-retrospective-the-legend/15194

their timeline theory
to sum up

.........../WW-PH-OoX
MC-OoT
...........\MM-LA-LoZ-Aol-FS-AlttP-Oox

from 2006 so no TP included but still amusing to see their reasoning

 

[Locke]

This was discussed a while ago (I thought there was a more recent discussion as well), and MrMosley had some good stuff to say about it.

Game Trailer's timeline insn't very well constructed at all. There is a lot of information that they made up in that video to place certain games in certain places. So I don't agree with it at all.

Here are a few things they screwed up:

It has never officially been confirmed that Gustaf, the ancient King of Hyrule who's ghost comes to you during MC, was the Hero of Men mentioned during the intro of MC. A lot of people believe he is, and a lot of people also believe that MC takes place first, but no where during MC has it been confirmed that he is that same Hero. Althought MC may make sense to take place first by other reasons, this is not one that is accurate or factual.


GT's timeline states that after Link leaves Termina (MM Child Timeline or Hyrule A as they call it), that he tries to return to Hyrule via the sea, where he then gets shipwrecked and ends up on Koholint Island, where Link's Awakening takes place. All of this is made up. The true placement of LA was meant to take place after ALttP, where LA's manual directly talks about Link leaving Hyrule to clear his mind and search for enlightenment incase Ganon is to return. Also, it is clearly shown at the end of Majora's Mask that Link is back in the Lost Woods, where he is riding Epona.


They also place LoZ after LA, in which they say that Link returned to Hyrule to find that "Ganon had won the war". The question here is, what war? GT never makes any reference to a war taking place in Hyrule on the Hyrule A (Child) side of the Timeline. This timeline was also created before TP was even released. In TP, we find that after the events of OoT on the Child Timeline (Hyrule A), Ganondorf was sent to trial for attempting to take over Hyrule, and ended up being placed in the Twilight Realm after an attempted execution.


One thing that they do get right is the placement of AoL after LoZ, but placing both after LA is completely wrong. GT talks about the actual Legend of Zelda, in which the Prince of Hyrule had his sister, Zelda, placed in a deep sleep. Then, sometime later, the Prince felt really guilty for what he had done, and ordered that every female princess born into the Royal Family thereafter should be named Zelda. This would make perfect sense as to how all the Zelda's have the same name, but are obviously different generations of Zelda. However, it would not explain how if this Zelda, talked about in the manual of AoL as being the original Zelda before any other, was never referenced to in any other game in the series. The supposid sleeping original Zelda obviously remained in the North Castle for ages on end until Link was able to awaken her in AoL, but it seems odd that she is never talked about in any other legend besides AoL, which takes place long after some of the other titles. Also, she is never referenced on the Hyrule B side of the timeline at all, meaning she is still sleeping in the North Castle in that timeline. I don't believe the people of Hyrule would just completely abandon and forget about their sleeping beauty like that.


GT then places FSA after AoL (and completely ignored FS's placement altogether). This makes no sense because Ganon was destroyed in LoZ. The entire purpose of the monsters coming after Link in AoL was to kill him so that they could revive Ganon. Since Link was never killed in this game, Ganon was never revived, and thus could not be living in FSA. Many actually believe FSA takes place before ALttP, which makes more sense. GT actually places FSA before ALttP in their timeline, but only uses Ganon's trident as a backup for that reasoning. To me, thats a pretty weak example of why a game should be where it is, as Ganon has seen to use the trident in many other titles as well. It is more likely that FSA takes place before ALttP because Ganon is still in the Dark World during the game apparently. ALttP talks about the sages sealing Ganon within the Dark World in a previous age, but this cannot be the same time they sealed him in OoT, as he broke free of that seal and went on to create the events which took place during WW, plus, it would place ALttP between OoT and WW, which wouldn't make any sense either, as WW clearly states that Hyrule saw an age of peace after OoT until Ganon escaped. The sealing of Ganon in the backstory of ALttP must be a different time which he was sealed.


And my last reason is the last portion of GT's timeline, which states that the Oracle titles, which we will call OoX, took place at the same time on each side of the timeline. Honestly, I can't figure out how GT was so oblivious as to come up with this theory, as it is proven just by playing OoX that each game transpires after the first one you beat. So really, their order comes in whatever fashion they are played and completed in.


So theres my two cents on GT's timeline. I know its a lot, but they messed up a lot.

I think the underlying problem with their timeline is that they constructed it backwards. That is rather than examining the evidence and making determinations from that, they decided on placements and then tried to look for evidece to support them, and they often couldn't find any so were forced to make up stories. I talked about this in my argument guide* and actually used the specific example of their reasoning behind MM/LA to demonstrate the fallacy of basing theories on assumptions that were based on theories. They wanted to put MC first to explain the hat, so they made up the story of Gustaf being the HoM to trick us into believing they had actually based the placement on evidence. They wanted to place LA after MM for God knows what reason, so they made up the story of Link trying to return to Hyrule via the sea, even though anyone who has actually played MM would know that such a thing never happened and never would happen (he returned the way he came - the Lost Woods).

Their "actual" Legend of Zelda completely ignores Triforce consistency. And to top it all off, to use their own words, the ending of Twilight Princess dramatically disproved all of these ideas.


*Here's the relevent section from Advanced Argument Concepts, part of my Argument Guide (link in my sig, "how to argue with me").

Circular Logic

First, I warned last week about assumptions. Misuse of assumptions is probably one of the most common flaws in arguments I see at ZD. It usually invalidates arguments and can often lead to circular logic. Recall that "If A, then B; A; Therefore, B" is a valid argument structure. First you can support the hypothesis, then support that A is true, which leads to B being true. Circular logic generally takes the form "If A, then B; If B, then A; Therefore, B." This is invalid, because the only way to prove B is by proving A, and the only way to prove A is by proving B. Neither can be proven without the other first being true, so the conclusion can never be reached. For example, if we replace A with the statement "Link left Great Bay on a boat after MM" and B with "LA is a direct sequel to MM," some may try to argue thusly:

If Link left Great Bay on a boat after MM, then LA is a direct sequel to MM.
If LA is a direct sequel to MM, then Link left Great Bay on a boat after MM.
Therefore, LA is a direct sequel to MM.

Of course, written this way it is obviously false. This argument may just be represented in the form of the statement "I think LA is a direct sequel to MM because Link must have left Great Bay on a boat after MM." The assumption that Link left Great Bay on a boat is invalid because it is based on the as-of-yet unproven theory that LA is a direct sequel to MM, and therefore the conclusion that LA is a direct sequel to MM is invalid because it is based on an invalid assumption.

 

[MrLuigi]

I really hate their time line. It's screwed up beyond repair.

The only placement I find factual is is Ocarina of Time.

 

[Pseudocide]

true and sorry DuckNoises, i got to get better at using the forum search feature.
i think it would be interesting if they tried again and did it properly....
if nothing else having video "evidence" makes the presentation more believable if not more accurate

 

[r3trogamer]

Zelda Timeline ?

http://www.gametrailers.com/video/zelda-retrospective-the-legend/15194...... watch the video ?

 

[Rafa1996]

It is very old, before TP was released. He had his points, but I don't think OOA & OOS are on separate branches of the timeline. TP did disaprove his ideas IMO..

 

[Caleb, Of Asui]

I hope you understand that that's a theory, and not the official timeline. And at that, this video is rather infamous for being a poorly-done timeline. Practically all the placements they make are shots in the dark or random assertions with little basis on fact. I'll go ahead and dissect it for you:

- They say very little can be considered absolute, while in reality essentially all the games have some very concrete connections to the others, especially recently.
- The Hero of Men is not King Gustaf.
- The Minish Cap cannot come before Ocarina of Time - compare how long Hyrule has been established in each game.
- They say the split timeline is a theory, although it's now confirmed. Excusable, given when the video was made.
- Link's Awakening coming right after Majora's Mask doesn't make sense because Link came to Termina over land, not sea. Technically, though, Link's Awakening could go nearly anywhere on the timeline, but was obviously meant as a direct sequel to A Link to the Past.
- Link's Awakening is not rumored to be a dream. That's stated in-game.
- They connect Ocarina of Time's Child Ending to The Legend of Zelda when according to Nintendo it's supposed to be directly connected to Twilight Princess.
- Placing the Sleeping Zelda story after The Minish Cap's backstory is kind of a shot in the dark.
- They fail to acknowledge that A Link to the Past was designed as a prequel to The Legend of Zelda and that the Triforce is supposed to have resided in the Sacred Realm from Hyrule's creation to A Link to the Past.
- The Seal War does not reference the alternate future from Ocarina of Time. It's a separate event prior to A Link to the Past that relates directly to its story.
- The Oracle games do not take place on different timelines. One leads into the other with the password-linked ending.
- It's not all the same Link and Zelda from beginning to end except for The Minish Cap and The Wind Waker--it's clearly supposed to be a different Link and Zelda in almost every game.

There's just too many holes in their timeline for it to be at all reliable. Plus, it's a bit outdated by now.