How can Breath of the Wild possibly take place in all three timelines?

Hey,

As many of us know by now, Breath of the Wild's timeline placement has been confirmed: It takes place at the end of all three timelines simultaneously! The Zelda timeline is already confusing enough (for example: How come Link getting sent back to his childhood created a new universe rather than overwriting the latter half of Ocarina of Time?).
However, it has gotten to a point where I cannot comprehend it anymore with Breath of the Wild. How can it possibly take place in all three timelines?

-Are the other games not cannon anymore?

-Is Breath of the Wild not cannon?

-Did something take place that severely messed up the space-time continuum?

-Is it supposed to take place in just whichever single timeline we choose?

I know Nintendo has been very clear that the gameplay comes before the timeline (to which I agree), but I just don't get how a reunified timeline works. If you are going to completely defy the laws of nature, why not just have no timeline at all? I think Breath of the Wild should have just been a reboot of the story (because gameplay wise, it is a reboot). At least we finally have a Zelda 3.

 

They didn't say it was at the end of all three timelines, just that it was at the end of the timeline currently and that which branch it belonged to was up to fan theories.

Aonuma will do what Aonuma wants.

There is no science to the Zelda timeline. Aonuma just does what he wants to do. Zelda is a fantasy series, the laws of science do not apply. It plays by its own rules.

Things are canon until Aonuma changes his mind. There may be other games set before BoTW that explain a convergence or something but until then we have to live with the mystery until Aonuma fills in the blanks/changes his mind.

The only answer is the man himself.

(And please don't say 'Zelda 3' ever again, at least until Aonuma does, which hopefully he never will).

 

If they weren't canon then Nintendo wouldn't bother saying how BotW relates to them as it wouldn't matter. Yes, the other games are still canon.

If it wasn't canon then they wouldn't bother giving it a timeline place at all. Yes, BotW is canon.

It did at the end of Ocarina of Time and created three timelines. Technically, unifying the timelines would actually be cleaning up the mess Zelda made.

Yes, that's actually what they said when they "confirmed" its placement. The entire premise of this thread is flawed. Nintendo did not says BotW is at the end of all three timelines. They said it was at the end and left it completely unresolved as to which timeline specifically they meant. No doubt this is to leave themselves room to move BotW around the timeline in the future if they want to. Until they say anything that actually concretely places BotW on any given timeline, it's entirely left up to the individual to speculate about which timeline it is at the end of.

 

Tbh, how can BOTW appear in any timeline but not the others? There are many references to all 3 timelines, there is absolutely no way IMO that it takes place in just one of those, it blatantly takes place in all 3, it's the only thing that could possibly make sense

 

Part of Breath of the Wild's marketing was for the player to be able to choose their own path. This could be carried over into its timeline placement. That is, if one player feels it's the DT and another think it's the AT- neither are wrong. The references and stuff aren't really that specific are they? Like no character says "the world of Hyrule was once covered by ocean and the people lived on mountain tops." But the rock salt description kind of gives a hint to it. It's not something I'm endorsing, just throw another option out there.

 

Well there are different ways to interpret things. The Rock Salt from the ancient sea might not be referencing the Great Sea, instead the Lanayru Sand Sea. Rito could still evolve from a group of the Zora on a timeline besides the Adult Timeline. We have the Tunic of the Wild which looks like the tunic design only found on games on the Downfall Timeline. Or one can use these things to say that the game should be in a specific timeline.

So yeah, it's like a toss up. It isn't confirmed on any timeline, but whatever timeline it will end up on, if it ever gets an official placement, the only thing that is confirmed it that it will be at the very end of whatever timeline it ends up on. Until then it's all up to fan speculation and nobody is wrong or right about anything.

 

There was a book that came out Japan only that confirmed breath of the wild was a timeline reunification
Ignoring all logic in doing so
Like
In order for it to be a reunification it has to fit in all three timeline paths
Instead it kind of fits in none of them because it incorporates elements of all three timelines intermittently

 

LOL The thread that answers its own inquiry.

In that same vein, riddle me this:
How can Twilight Princess be making deliberate historical connections between Ocarina of Time and A Link to the Past when Twilight Princess and A Link to the Past are ON DIFFERENT TIMELINES?

ANSWER: since because of Zelda timeline nonsense, that's how.

 

So it sounds like people are saying that we should throw the laws of nature out if the window. However, if that were to be done, what's the need for a timeline in the first place? Why could it not be like the Mario games? Mario goes on 30 years of adventures and never ages, and Bowser falls into a pit of lava at the end of many Super Mario games. But you are supposed to forget about continuity or any logic in the Mario franchise completely. But for Zelda, if time was not really restricted to any natural laws, then all of the game's might as well take place at the same time somehow.

I guess it makes since if the timeline vote takes place in is "up to our interpretation," but if that was the case, it's timeline placement was confirmed before it was released. I am pretty sure I heard them say something about not wanting to put it into a timeline.

Also, what's wrong with Zelda 3?

 

Mario games make it clear there is no series continuity whereas Zelda actively builds on its lore and references past events from other games.

'Zelda 3' is dumb because A Link to the Past was 'Zelda 3', it was the third Zelda game released...

We may have a Zelda 2 but that game was highly experimental and Nintendo didn't yet know which direction the franchise would take.

At the time of release Zelda 2 was very accurately Zelda 2 both in release and timeline lore since only 2 Zelda games existed. But if we look at Zelda 2 now the title makes literally no sense. It'd be something like Zelda 11 if we counted its place on the timeline (counting the Downfall timeline first).

Calling a game 'Zelda 3' at this point would make literally no sense after about 15 releases since Zelda 2.

 

I mean, we all ignore the laws of nature in Zelda when we use magic, or use the Ocarina or Stasis to manipulate time, or transform into other creatures, or when dragons fly without wings, or when ghosts show up, or when... I'm sure you get my point. Why is three timelines somehow converging into one such a radical notion?

If you need natural laws to make it acceptable/work then I'm sure there's some quantum black magic that can fit the bill.

There never was one. Zelda would have been absolutely fine as a series of unrelated adventures. You have a few entries that are directly linked and have in-game connections (LoZ/AoL, OoT/MM, OoT/WW, WW/PH/ST, MC/FS/FSA, ALttP/ALBW) but the rest? Outside of people saying they are chronologically connected there's nothing in-game to connect them. No shared geography, no historical references, no cultural artefacts. There's nothing to tie ALttP to OoT other than someone saying they are connected, nothing tying LA to OoX other than someone saying so. The games don't need to be in a shared chronology. And people can debate it until the sun blows up, but Nintendo have definitely spent the majority of the last thirty years not caring about it. The fact that no timeline can exist without glaring holes, contradictions, and flat out nonsense is evidence of this. The bulk of these games were created without any regard for how they connect to others, and trying to force them to do so is the intellectual equivalent of forcing a square peg into a round hole.

Now that there's an official timeline you'd think Nintendo would be bound to it. At the very least, they have to actively think of and include connections, right? Instead they set BotW ten thousand years in the future and say it's up to fans to decide on which timeline they think it fits. To put that in perspective, human beings only began to practice agriculture about ten thousand years ago. All of our history, everything we've ever recorded and ever known, all of it happened in the last ten thousand or so years. BotW may as well be a reboot. I have no doubt in my mind at all that they included this huge gap to free them from the responsibility of having to make actual timeline connections because they do not care about it.

All of the random place names and items in BotW are just references, little nuggets of series trivia that long-time fans will recognise and go "Hey, I know that", the same way there've been multiple Spectacle Rocks, multiple Death Mountains, multiple Hyrule Fields, all of them in different places, all of them different shapes, all of them unrelated to one another except through name. They aren't an attempt at world building in the way a lot of people seem to want. Zelda lore is mostly just repetition, using familiar names and items because it's simpler than making up new stuff for every game and given time it'll feel robust enough to most people that it'll be distinctly Zelda. The continued policy of "Let the fans interpret it as they see fit" is further evidence of this. If Nintendo had, or even cared about, an actual, real, planned timeline they wouldn't say that because there would be an answer to the question of timeline placement, one that made sense and could be backed up with in-game content. Since the timeline came out we've had three Zelda games (four if you count Tri-Force Heroes, I guess). One of them (SS) retconned a whole bunch of existing lore, showing that Nintendo don't care about it since they'll change it (ahem butcher it) on a whim to shoehorn in some gameplay mechanics. Another one was conceived and intended as a direct sequel (ALBW) and has clear connections to ALttP because of that, but not to any other games in the franchise. And the third is BotW which I talked about above as being a 'reset button' a best, a 'get out of jail free' card at worst.

I know I'm coming off as really negative here, and I don't mean to give the impression of a ranting killjoy (even if that's exactly what I am). It's just that it frustrates me to see so many people put so much effort into something they clearly feel passionate about and yet Nintendo repeatedly demonstrate that they do not care about it. I used to theorise about Zelda myself years ago, and while I wouldn't say the Hyrule Historia specifically is what made me stop, it was the increasingly apparent lack of care from Nintendo that put me off, coupled with the resulting desperation from other theorists to try to understand something that was never intended to make sense. The timeline is smoke and mirrors. Zelda has never had one. Some specific games are direct sequels or prequels, but these are tiny islands of continuity in a vast ocean of caprice and fleeting fancy.

The bottom line is that @Spirit is right. If Aonuma decides to alter things then he will. If he decides BotW is on all three timelines then he's going to do that, regardless of whether it makes sense. And it won't make sense, but he and the rest fo Nintendo just don't care. That's what being a Zelda theorist, especially a timeline theorist will get you, repeated slaps in the face and no end of confusion and frustration.

 

For the last time, no, this hasn't been confirmed, assuming that you're referring to the interview I think you're talking about. Aonuma said that it is the furthest game and said that the specific branch it happens on is being left to the players to debate for now, although he said that later games may give a clearer answer.

Sorry If I sound hostile, but I'm getting tired of people spreading misinformation on this subject.

Ritos and Koroks have existed in Old Hyrule before; Koroks appeared in a painting in ALBW and Rito are seen meeting with an incarnation of the Hero in a mural in TPHD. Ancient seas have existed throughout the series; rock salt can appear everywhere as minerals are displaced when a natural disaster takes place(the Leviathan quest confirming that this happened before BotW). Medoh is never confirmed ingame to be named after Medli like how Ruta and Naboris are named after Ruto and Nabooru.

The only thing going for the CT is the steeped in twilight reference, which is called Tasogare in the JP version, which was used to refer to the SR in the JP ALttP manual, not to mention that there are allusions(although not necessarily actual historical) to other timelines. Considering the similarity to the US Postal Creed, it's mostly referring to the ability of the hero to persevere through anything as long as the MS is at his side.

As for what seems to put a serious wedge in a CT placement, you ask? The fact that Ruto and Nabooru awoke as sages. They never awoke in the CT, as that is the only timeline where the later events of OoT difn't happen.

As for an AT placement, Hyrule was destroyed at the end of TWW; the JP version had Daphnes literally wish to erase Hyrule. Not to mention that MS was left under the sea with Hyrule.

On the other hand, let's look at the DT:

OoT sages awakened? Check.

In Old Hyrule? Check.

Ganon lacking any of his humanity? Check.

Most battles with Ganon, as per Aonuma? Check.

In another era where Hyrule is declining? Check.

Evidence of a re-emergence of Hylia worship in AoL(Goddess Statue)? Check.

Not to mention other circumstantial evidence(although most evidence is circumstantial), which you can see in my topic where I argued for a DT BotW placement.

As far as I know there is no ultimate trump card that makes a DT placement impossible like there is above for the AT and CT.

But that is how I justify putting BotW on one timeline and not the others; because one(DT) has more evidence and no major issues, and the other two timelines have atleast one major issue and weaker evidence, IMO.

Master Works doesn't confirm a BotW convergence. It sort of implies a DT placement, with mentions to Ganon losing his sense of reason in his constant revivals leading to BotW among other things.

Also Cfrock:

Are you saying you know Zelda better than people who make the games?

 

I did not intend to begin a thread where people would begin to feel like they are "coming off as negative." I was merely asking a question about something I did not quite understand because I did not watch/read the interview so I just heard people say that the game takes place "at the end of all 3 timelines."
I do understand why the Zelda timeline is a subject that would get some people upset. I have a few problems with the timeline myself (i.e. it's pretty depressing and dismisses the older games as evil alternate universe scenarios). IMO, Zelda games would be better without a rigid official timeline and better with just occasional direct sequels and continuity nods to other games in the series. I am also not trying to scorn Aonuma for anything about this. So there is no need to feel upset about anything here.

Overall, I am happy that we are seeing a new age of Zelda that introduces a non-linear progression system with a massive amount of equipment to find. I am just a little saddened that I don't think there will ever be another Ocarina of Time style Zelda or any kind of sequel to any of the previous games. Plus, I am not sure if a botw style Zelda game would work in a Hyrule that is not in ruins because it would be too linear that way.

 

Not even slightly, quite the contrary in fact. I'm saying nobody but the people who make the games knows what's going on.

My point is that whatever they say goes and they say whatever suits them at a given time. The almost random nature of references in every game is evidence that they just put in whatever they feel like with each game with no real thought or intention to what it means. An example would be the golden triangle on the Hylian Shield in OoT. It sparked a wave of speculation about the nature of the Triforce, which Miyamoto himself stepped in to put an end to by outright denying Tetraforce theory. They then removed the triangle from the shield in TP, only to put it back on in OoT3D. They changed a lot of other design details in that game so there was no reason they couldn't have left out the triangle like they've done in every game since. Inevitably, the theories resurfaced, the theories Nintendo didn't want people to make. You'd think they'd be aware of that consequence, given that they even publically acknowledged it. But no. They liked the design, they wanted it to be like the original, so just do it, who cares what the fans will think it means. It doesn't mean anything, so sayeth Nintendo, but there it is, all the same.

Nintendo do whatever they please with Zelda lore. They clearly don't feel beholden to it. That means they will add things, remove things, change things, or move things at their discretion. I'm not saying I know the games better than them. Not one bit. I'm saying only Nintendo know what's going on, and that changes with their whims almost every game.

Don't worry about it, my dude, that's just me. I always assume people see a wall of text and think "This dude is angry about something", so I just wanted to clarify that I'm not.

 

Funny enough, I was actually just reading about the Mandela Effect and it seems like it applies to the BoTW timeline placement scenario. Pretty cool in my opinion.