• 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.

Mah Timeline Theory

Petman1325

Poe Catcher
Joined
Aug 25, 2008
Location
Georgia, USA
Well, as much as the next guy, I do select the timeline theory of Zelda. There is a split timeline in my beliefs. So, without further ado, here is my theroy.
-----------------------------------MM, WW, PH, MC, FSA, ALttp, FS
Timeline starts at Ocarina of Time.<
-----------------------------------LoZ, AoL, TP, OoA, OoS

Notice how I slipped most of the Capcom games and Link to the Past on the top. That would symbolise that Link and Tetra did eventually find a land, founded it, and created their kingdom. On the bottom, this would symbolise that the famed war had begun after Zelda was warned about Ganondorf's plans at the end of the game, thus, causing the war. Legend of Zelda makes clear descriptions of the war happening. Then, the overworld in Twilight Princess looks slightly similar to that of Legend of Zelda.
 
Joined
Oct 18, 2008
Location
In my coffin
Gender
Non-binary
Do we have any evidence that Link and Tetra find a new Hyrule.
And even if they did they would not name it Hyrule,because at the end of WW the King said that the next land would not be Hyrule,it would be Link and Tetra's.
 

Vincent

Retired Super Mod and HK
Joined
Oct 24, 2007
Location
Location:
It's probable that they would eventually settle down, and possibly create their own kingdom. It is also possible that they did not listen to the King and called it Hyrule anyway.
 

Welbanks

My mom says im cool...
Joined
Aug 29, 2008
Really my only big disagreement here is that you have it as
.......MM-WW
Oot<
.......LoZ-AoL
I always thought it was pretty much confirmed that it went
.......WW-PH
OoT<
.......MM-TP
 

Zemen

[Insert Funny Statement]
Joined
Nov 11, 2008
Location
Illinois
MC was created AFTER WW. in MC there is absolutely no mention of a flooding, great sea or deflooding or anything of the sort. there is also no mention of a previous Hyrule. there is no mention of Link and Tetra who would be the founders (according to your timeline). there is no mention of Ganondorf and the Master Sword. as i said before. this game was created after WW and if it was meant to go after WW on a timeline it would have been made obvious, but i see no evidence for this theory. unless you wanna say it goes after WW because of the toon link design in the game but that would be a terrible argument.
 
Joined
Jan 1, 2009
Location
Hyrule and Azeroth
No offense, but this timeline isn't very good. For the split MM should be on the CT.

I don't see any evidence for putting LoZ/AoL right after CT OoT. And not after TP. Nothing makes sense like that. State of triforce, Ganon etc. And why is FS after LttP? FSA implies that FS is directly before FSA.
MC was created AFTER WW. in MC there is absolutely no mention of a flooding, great sea or deflooding or anything of the sort. there is also no mention of a previous Hyrule. there is no mention of Link and Tetra who would be the founders (according to your timeline). there is no mention of Ganondorf and the Master Sword. as i said before. this game was created after WW and if it was meant to go after WW on a timeline it would have been made obvious, but i see no evidence for this theory. unless you wanna say it goes after WW because of the toon link design in the game but that would be a terrible argument.
Ok that bit about no mention of Ganondorf and the MS is some of the absolute stupidest logic I've ever heard.

You said before when I said "why isn't Vaati or the FS shown in TP" you said it was because TP had nothing to do with Vaati or the FS. Yet you continue with the same logic the, you, yourself, disproved. Oh and that bit about Toon Link? I've never once heard that as evidence. Once again. Every single bit of evidence for tMC-OoT can be used for tWW-tMC.

Oh that bit about not hearing about a flood? Why would they mention a flood if the game has nothing to do with the flood? Also the land is completely surrounded by water.
this game was created after WW and if it was meant to go after WW on a timeline it would have been made obvious, but i see no evidence for this theory.
If tMC was meant to go first they would have made it obvious. But they didn't. An explanation for the hat in new Hyrule. And an explanation for the tunic.

There is absolutely no reason to believe in tMC first except for assuming the hat and the lack of Ganondorf mean something. You can believe OoT = first because of the tunic and the lack of Vaati and have just as much evidence. Then there is the flooded land in tMC. The Triumph Forks. The implication of tMC-FS-FSA/LttP. The oracles.

No one has ever claimed the design of Link as evidence. Stop making it out as such; it's annoying.
 

Zemen

[Insert Funny Statement]
Joined
Nov 11, 2008
Location
Illinois
No offense, but this timeline isn't very good. For the split MM should be on the CT.

I don't see any evidence for putting LoZ/AoL right after CT OoT. And not after TP. Nothing makes sense like that. State of triforce, Ganon etc. And why is FS after LttP? FSA implies that FS is directly before FSA. Ok that bit about no mention of Ganondorf and the MS is some of the absolute stupidest logic I've ever heard.

You said before when I said "why isn't Vaati or the FS shown in TP" you said it was because TP had nothing to do with Vaati or the FS. Yet you continue with the same logic the, you, yourself, disproved. Oh and that bit about Toon Link? I've never once heard that as evidence. Once again. Every single bit of evidence for tMC-OoT can be used for tWW-tMC.

Oh that bit about not hearing about a flood? Why would they mention a flood if the game has nothing to do with the flood? Also the land is completely surrounded by water. If tMC was meant to go first they would have made it obvious. But they didn't. An explanation for the hat in new Hyrule. And an explanation for the tunic.

There is absolutely no reason to believe in tMC first except for assuming the hat and the lack of Ganondorf mean something. You can believe OoT = first because of the tunic and the lack of Vaati and have just as much evidence. Then there is the flooded land in tMC. The Triumph Forks. The implication of tMC-FS-FSA/LttP. The oracles.

No one has ever claimed the design of Link as evidence. Stop making it out as such; it's annoying.

there is actually quite a bit of evidence for it to go first, you just dont want to believe it so you dont even consider it.

now see the whole TP not mentioning Vaati and MC not mentioning Ganondorf thing is not the same thing.

my point is that the whole reason there is a new Hyrule is because of Ganondorf, but there is no mention of Ganondorf causing a flood, being defeated by the hero of winds thus causing the hero of winds and tetra to find new land.

let me explain this a little better because you seem to not be getting it and that is my fault because i didnt explain it clear enough.

you say MC goes after WW/PH for whatever reasons you have. this would mean that the Hyrule in MC is the new Hyrule. the reason there is a new Hyrule is because Link, the hero of WINDS, defeated Ganondorf allowing the traditions of Hyrule to live on. why is there no mention of Link defeating Ganondorf? why is there no mention of the hero of winds? now you say my logic contradicts itslef, but it doesnt. Vaati literally has no connections to anything in TP. Ganondorf is the whole reason why there needed to be a new Hyrule in the first place, therefor he should be mentioned somewhere along with the person who not only founded the new Hyrule, but defeated Ganondorf who was the reason the old Hyrule was flooded, but this isnt mentioned anywhere. i would think its a pretty popular story but, no, its not mentioned anywhere in YOUR timeline placement of the game that was created RIGHT after WW.

Vaati has absolutely no affect on anything that happened in TP. he didnt cause the magic wielding tribe to go to the twilight realm. he didnt help ganondorf until later on in the adult timeline (which TP is not in). he had no contact with the master sword. he wasnt a factor in anything that took place in TP so it makes sense that hes not mentioned, but if MC goes where you say it goes, then it makes no sense that Ganondorf isnt mentioned because he had a direct affect on everything in that game.


if Ganondorf never existed then MC wouldnt take place according to your timeline. without Ganondorf the world wouldnt have been flooded and a new Hyrule wouldnt have been sought out. do you see my point? whether or not the game is about Ganondorf, Ganondorf is the reason that game would exist on your timeline, but hes not mentioned at all. neither is the hero who found the new hyrule or the princess who found the new hyrule or any texts on the great sea. based on the logic i just presented, the logic you think is so terrible, it makes no sense that MC goes after WW but does not mention anything in WW except for the triforks which would be the only connection and IMO a very lame connection because unless you actually take the time to translate the text, you wouldnt even know that the game mentioned the triforks

this next explanation is based on MY placement of MC.

now if Vaati never existed then TP would still take place because as far as we know, Vaati had no connections to Ganondorf prior to FSA. whether or not Vaati existed doesnt affect if Ganondorf exists. TP would still take place as normal. the game doesnt need to mention Vaati because Vaati has no affect on anything in that game whereas in your palcement of MC, Ganondorf would have had a huge affect on prior events thus i believe there would be some sort of in game quote, text, etc.. that would explain this but theres nothing.

if you honestly still argue with me that this makes no sense and isnt a good argument im not replying to any of your stuff anymore. the argument i presented DOESNT go both ways. i just explained why. if you dont understand then im sorry because i cant make myself more clear.

and for the record, i never once said that someone was saying the design is the reason for a placement. all i said was that certain arguments made against MC being first are just as bad as that one. chill out, homes. and also, for the record i have heard people base their placement of MC cus of the graphics.
 
Joined
Feb 2, 2009
Location
Brasil
Well, as much as the next guy, I do select the timeline theory of Zelda. There is a split timeline in my beliefs. So, without further ado, here is my theroy.
-----------------------------------MM, WW, PH, MC, FSA, ALttp, FS
Timeline starts at Ocarina of Time.<
-----------------------------------LoZ, AoL, TP, OoA, OoS

Notice how I slipped most of the Capcom games and Link to the Past on the top. That would symbolise that Link and Tetra did eventually find a land, founded it, and created their kingdom. On the bottom, this would symbolise that the famed war had begun after Zelda was warned about Ganondorf's plans at the end of the game, thus, causing the war. Legend of Zelda makes clear descriptions of the war happening. Then, the overworld in Twilight Princess looks slightly similar to that of Legend of Zelda.

It's a nice first theory, but it doesn't work. You see, MM and TWW have been confirmed to come in different timelines. The confirmed part goes as follows:
...../-TWW/PH
OoT
.....\MM-TP

Also, Miyamoto confirmed that OoT is the Seal War, which means it should go after TWW.

FS is a prequel to FSA, not a sequel.

Everything else seems plausible.

I'll post my timeline here, so you can compare:
...../-TWW/PH-TMC-FS/FSA-LttP/LA-OoX-LoZ/AoL
OoT
.....\MM-TP

MC was created AFTER WW. in MC there is absolutely no mention of a flooding, great sea or deflooding or anything of the sort. there is also no mention of a previous Hyrule. there is no mention of Link and Tetra who would be the founders (according to your timeline). there is no mention of Ganondorf and the Master Sword. as i said before. this game was created after WW and if it was meant to go after WW on a timeline it would have been made obvious, but i see no evidence for this theory. unless you wanna say it goes after WW because of the toon link design in the game but that would be a terrible argument.

All the books in TMC library use the new Hylian script shown in TWW, not the old script from OoT.
http://www.omniglot.com/writing/hylian2.htm

This is more than enough to say that TMC comes after TWW, and not before OoT.

there is actually quite a bit of evidence for it to go first, you just dont want to believe it so you dont even consider it.

No, you are the one ignoring the fact that the language used in TMC is TWW hylian and not OoT hylian. If that's not intent for TMC and TWW to come in the same timeline, the developers don't have any clue about what they are doing...
 

Zemen

[Insert Funny Statement]
Joined
Nov 11, 2008
Location
Illinois
It's a nice first theory, but it doesn't work. You see, MM and TWW have been confirmed to come in different timelines. The confirmed part goes as follows:
...../-TWW/PH
OoT
.....\MM-TP

Also, Miyamoto confirmed that OoT is the Seal War, which means it should go after TWW.

FS is a prequel to FSA, not a sequel.

Everything else seems plausible.

I'll post my timeline here, so you can compare:
...../-TWW/PH-TMC-FS/FSA-LttP/LA-OoX-LoZ/AoL
OoT
.....\MM-TP



All the books in TMC library use the new Hylian script shown in TWW, not the old script from OoT.
http://www.omniglot.com/writing/hylian2.htm

This is more than enough to say that TMC comes after TWW, and not before OoT.



No, you are the one ignoring the fact that the language used in TMC is TWW hylian and not OoT hylian. If that's not intent for TMC and TWW to come in the same timeline, the developers don't have any clue about what they are doing...

you do know that both of these games came out withint like one or two years of each other, right? now lets see what kind of things they reused in MC from WW. they reused the toon link idea. they reused the design of the NPCs. they reused monsters. OMG THEY REUSED THE HYLIAN TEXT TOO!? that must mean it goes after WW because there is no way they wouldnt make a new language!!!!
 

Skull_Kid

Bugaboo!
Joined
Sep 15, 2008
Location
Portugal
you do know that both of these games came out withint like one or two years of each other, right? now lets see what kind of things they reused in MC from WW. they reused the toon link idea. they reused the design of the NPCs. they reused monsters. OMG THEY REUSED THE HYLIAN TEXT TOO!? that must mean it goes after WW because there is no way they wouldnt make a new language!!!!

Lolz at Zemen's sarcasm... But yes, I agree with Zemen, they were just reusing ideas, like they did in part with FSA, in wich they reused some of MC's sprites and combined them with ALttP's environment... I don't like this timeline, and I still think that the adult timeline only has two games: WW and PH
 
Joined
Feb 2, 2009
Location
Brasil
But, if they really wanted to make connection to any other game and intended for TMC to come before OoT, then why not reuse OoT stuff instead??
 

Zemen

[Insert Funny Statement]
Joined
Nov 11, 2008
Location
Illinois
But, if they really wanted to make connection to any other game and intended for TMC to come before OoT, then why not reuse OoT stuff instead??

lol i coudl swear i just explained why. because they had the WW stuff right in front of them. i would bet money that they were making MC while they were making WW and WW was just closer to being done so it came out first. if they make the game at the same time, it would be much more conveniant to use some of the same ideas that arent important to the game itself. the fact that the hylian text is the same doesnt affect the plot of the game in any way and they focue more on the gameplay than the timeline. if youre doing homework with a friend who has their notes right next to you and you know there notes are good, are you gonna go get your notes or are you just gonna share with your friend seeing as how its already right in front of you? why waste the time to go get your notes when you already have good notes there at your disposal?
 

Pinecove

Last Chance
Joined
Feb 7, 2009
Location
Toronto Ontario
i would bet money that they were making MC while they were making WW

Random fact: TMC came out only after TWW, ALttP/FS and FSA. No way that they were making TMC while making TWW. TWW was released in 2002! TMC was released in 2005.
 
Last edited by a moderator:

Users who are viewing this thread

Top Bottom