• 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.

Hyrule Historia Book: A Bunch of Bull?

Joined
Apr 6, 2011
If it looks like I am forcing down my thoughts on you, then I apologizes. I'm just tired of people saying that the timeline is wrong and then show a fan-timeline with games all over the place. If you want to know what I believe in the Timeline, I believe in this:
Classic Timeline
ALttP-OoX-LA-LoZ-AoL
Split Timeline
SS-OoT-WW-PH-ST
-----\MM-TP
Four Swords Timeline
MC-FS-FSA

As long as the Timeline doesn't contradicts that, I'm fine and from what I see, the official timeline is fine to me.
 
R

Rando Roots

Guest
If it looks like I am forcing down my thoughts on you, then I apologizes. I'm just tired of people saying that the timeline is wrong and then show a fan-timeline with games all over the place. If you want to know what I believe in the Timeline, I believe in this:
Classic Timeline
ALttP-OoX-LA-LoZ-AoL
Split Timeline
SS-OoT-WW-PH-ST
-----\MM-TP
Four Swords Timeline
MC-FS-FSA

As long as the Timeline doesn't contradicts that, I'm fine and from what I see, the official timeline is fine to me.


Ah, see! We agree on how the games relate to each other. Before I heard of the third split, I believed this timeline was the closest I was going to get:

-----------------------------------------------Wind Waker---Phantom Hourglass---Spirit Tracks---Minish Cap---Four Swords---Four Swords Adventures
Skyward Sword - Ocarina of Time<
------------------------------------------Majora's Mask---Twilight Princess---A Link to the Past---Oracle of Ages/Seasons---Link's Awakening---The Legend of Zelda---Zelda II: Adventures of Link


We need to stop arguing (my bad). I just feel that these games are connected in this order with pretty solid things seen in the games...
 
Joined
Apr 6, 2011
I agree. I believe this timeline debates has gotten old and pointless. I didn't care about the timeline till the official timeline came out. I think our opinions about the timeline should not be forced down upon each other throats. I am perfectly willing to accept the Four Sword Trilogy comes after Spirit Tracks if there was a good explanation why. Anyway, since Zelda games are pretty much stand alone stories, it doesn't matter anyway.
 

Faedeur

The Juror of Courage
Joined
Oct 25, 2009
Location
Wherever the winds take me.
I am willing to believe that TMC comes prior to OOT, as OOT states that a civil war broke out (in which Link's mother died). A civil war would mean that a unified kingdom already existed prior to in-fighting, spurring a civil war. But I feel that FS would be better suited prior to FSA. The fact that the game states "You know what will happen if you draw this sword" when you try to pull the Four Sword at the beginning of FSA shows that Link has had some prior experience with the sword.

As for the third split, I feel it could be best placed after FSA. The Master Sword is in the Lost Woods (ala TP), the maps of ALTTP and FSA are uncannily similar, and there are all kinds of items in FSA that are in ALTTP (Moon Pearls, magic medallions, Fire Rod, etc). Further, it gives a fair explanation of how Ganon became the pig-demon we see in ALTTP/OOX/TLOZ.

I'm not going to complain and rag on about the official timeline. But I will not adhere to it. That is my choice. Personally, I feel the official timeline would be better as

........................./--------TWW-PH---ST
SS----TMC----OOT
.........................\MM----TP----FS-FSA---IW----ALTTP-OOX-LA----TLOZ-TAOL

(though I still feel TLOZ and TAOL would be better after ST, but that's my opinion. This would feel better as an official timeline.)
 
Joined
Oct 18, 2008
Location
In my coffin
Gender
Non-binary
I still don't see the problem with FSA going after TP. There was never any proof that FSA took place directly after FS.
 

fused_shadows

Brave Knight of Truth
Joined
Dec 22, 2011
Location
Toronto, Canada
I'm with Hyrule Historia now. They made the timeline so much easier, with so much more possibilities. I'm personally changing up my own timeline to something similar to Hyrule Historia's:

.......D/?
SS--S/TMC--D?..............D/?.....D/?
...................S/OoT-C/MM--S/TP--S/FSA
..............................A/WW-S/PH-S/ST-?
.........................................D/?...D/?....D/?
..............................D/Alttp--S/OoX--S/LA--S/LoZ-S/AoL-S/?
..........................................D/?.......D/?.....D/?.....D/?.....D/?

Legend: D/= If Link is defeated in the previous game
S/= If Link is successful in the previous game
A/= Adult Spilt
C/=Child Spilt.
?=unknown game.

Isn't it perfect? With the new inclusion of a spilt in the timeline every game via the possibility of Link being defeated, Nintendo's next Zelda game could be the prequel or sequel in any way they want! I like this!

Now to start acting serious. This timeline above if the timeline Hyrule Historia is suggesting is the official timeline. All they did was add in the possibility of Link dieing in OoT. Well, I say that if they did it to one game, they have to do it to every other game.

This book just made what used to be about connecting games based on facts and theories so it looked like a good timeline into a guessing game of, "What if," "I feel like pulling this out of my ***", and such. I hate what they did to the timeline, and when they are released in North America I'm going to burn it in a fire.
 
Joined
Apr 6, 2011
Not really what-if, more or less a last resort considering that all the classic games were made before the popular Ocarina of Time. And I doubt they must do that to every other Zelda game with what-ifs unless there's a good story to it. It is okay to not like the official timeline, just don't make a big deal out of it.
 
Joined
Dec 21, 2011
Location
California
They're just going to change stuff next time they have a conflict in story. Either that, or the story will start to get stupid. I really hope that does not happen. That is why it is best to never release timelines like this... they can limit and change the style of the overall story forever.
 

mαrkαsscoρ

Mr. SidleInYourDMs
Joined
May 5, 2012
Location
American Wasteland
i agree that the four swords trilogy should be together,but putting them ebfore past SOLEY b/c of ganon's trident is playing the link's hat card

and i also thought it was more likely for the shade to be skyward link
 
Joined
Jun 21, 2011
Location
MN, USA
[Extremely Slight Spoiler Warning for both OoT and MM]

There is something that sort of explained the 3rd split for me. Someone posted it on the forums and I am sorry that I can't find the thread right now, but it made a lot of sense. Within the game, there are three stories, the child (before the master sword), the adult, and the child (the well and the spirit temple). The third split in this theoretical case is the second child timeline. Adult Link escaped the adult timeline, but the events still happened, and that means the child link can escape that smaller child story timeline and the events will still happen, but because it is in the past, there will be different consequences. Link does not defeat Ganon in that timeline because he is no longer part of that timeline. It doesn't entirely make sense with the popular idea of time travel, because Link disappears, but he already does that in the adult timeline, so there is nothing stopping him from doing that in the secondary child timeline. This doesn't explain Ganon gaining the full triforce (unless the Gods/Goddesses gave the triforce pieces to the correct people later in life for some really strange reason, but that's for another forum thread I suppose), but it does explain how a third split would be able to happen, which I think was Nintendo's main point, as there are a lot of little quirks that make the timeline technically impossible anyways.

Majora's mask has timeline splits as well, but those splits all lead to the end of Termina, so nothing can really happen after that. There is only one split that is successful and that is when link is successful.

I highly doubt this was Nintendo's intention for the timeline originally, but when they were pressured in working on a timeline they decided to find something that would kind of work and it actually worked decently well.
 

Locke

Hegemon
Site Staff
Joined
Nov 24, 2009
Location
Redmond, Washington
There is something that sort of explained the 3rd split for me. Someone posted it on the forums and I am sorry that I can't find the thread right now, but it made a lot of sense. Within the game, there are three stories, the child (before the master sword), the adult, and the child (the well and the spirit temple). The third split in this theoretical case is the second child timeline. Adult Link escaped the adult timeline, but the events still happened, and that means the child link can escape that smaller child story timeline and the events will still happen, but because it is in the past, there will be different consequences. Link does not defeat Ganon in that timeline because he is no longer part of that timeline. It doesn't entirely make sense with the popular idea of time travel, because Link disappears, but he already does that in the adult timeline, so there is nothing stopping him from doing that in the secondary child timeline. This doesn't explain Ganon gaining the full triforce (unless the Gods/Goddesses gave the triforce pieces to the correct people later in life for some really strange reason, but that's for another forum thread I suppose), but it does explain how a third split would be able to happen, which I think was Nintendo's main point, as there are a lot of little quirks that make the timeline technically impossible anyways.
The HH explicitly describes the events of the third timeline, so why are you trying to make stuff up to replace the canon explanation? Ganondorf kills Link during the final battle, meaning he's still there for the final portion. It's a "what-if" split, and there's no getting around it.

Majora's mask has timeline splits as well, but those splits all lead to the end of Termina, so nothing can really happen after that. There is only one split that is successful and that is when link is successful.
Each cycle in MM merges at the end. All the giants are released, all the people Link helped have been helped, etc., no matter which three days it happened.

I highly doubt this was Nintendo's intention for the timeline originally, but when they were pressured in working on a timeline they decided to find something that would kind of work and it actually worked decently well.
Nintendo has been concerned about the timeline since Zelda II, which is explicitly a continuation of the story in LoZ. You'll notice that not many of the games have changed position compared to when they were released. The originals are all still in the corrected Miyamoto Order, LttP still follows OoT despite WW sharing that position - the only games that may have shifted are those in the FSS, but their position was never really defined in relation to the main series in the first place.
 
Joined
Jun 21, 2011
Location
MN, USA
This message is for Locke. I'm not quite sure how to do quotes on this forum, so I apologize for that. I'm not making things up personally, I am just stating what I have read from a forum thread earlier that made a lot of sense to me. What I meant about I doubt it was Nintendo's intention for the timeline was that they probably didn't intend a 3 way split originally, but it made more sense to them (emphasis on the word "them") later on to work with. Also, I am curious where it states that Link is killed. This is not a challenge or anything, it's more of a curiosity thing so I can correct my thinking with a source. If someone could get me a page number, that would be especially great, as then I can take a look at it. To my previous knowledge, it only stated that Link was "unsuccessful" and if the terminology is as different in Japan as I expect it is, there could be a completely different meaning than what most people in America think.

Honestly, the thing I would really like is an official localization of Hyrule Historia, but that may not happen. It's hard to say if it is likely or unlikely to happen, as there is evidence pointing towards both possibilities, but it would clear some controversies up quite a bit. I am sorry if I sound obnoxious at all, as that is far from my intention. The Legend of Zelda is a great series for discussion and creative thought and I just want to further my knowledge of official things for the series.
 

Locke

Hegemon
Site Staff
Joined
Nov 24, 2009
Location
Redmond, Washington
Okay, I can agree with you on the split. While both WW and LttP were sequels to OoT, they may not have known how they actually connected until the HH was written.

Page 92 says that the HoT challenged Ganondorf (i.e. the final battle at the end of the game) and was defeated.
The thief, Ganondorf, obtains the Triforce of Power and gets his hands on Princess Zelda. Link, the Hero of Time, challenges him for the destiny of Hyrule, but is defeated.
 
Joined
Jun 21, 2011
Location
MN, USA
Okay, I can agree with you on the split. While both WW and LttP were sequels to OoT, they may not have known how they actually connected until the HH was written.

Page 92 says that the HoT challenged Ganondorf (i.e. the final battle at the end of the game) and was defeated.

I think I figured the quote thing out! Thank you for pointing out the page. This is kind of a bummer o_O. The "what-if" idea is considered the "original" then :/. This at least confirms what I thought before that the creative thinking skills of the fans out-do Nintendo's story telling skill with the Zelda Series. Just as everyone else says, maybe they'll change the timeline when there are more games and people are arguing over it again. At least even after Hyrule Historia has come out and has been translated, there is still discussion on Zelda Theory. Thank you for the source Locke! I still really wish I could find that forum thread about the 3 way split that I explained, it's really long, but a good read, just like the Majora's Mask story that was on ZU.
 

Users who are viewing this thread

Top Bottom