Spoiler My Take on the Timeline(s): Development Theory.

[person]

Actually, at the time of Ocarina of Time, there was a timeline. It went like this:

OoT--ALttP/LA--LoZ/AoL


When Majora's Mask was released (due to OoT being the Seal War [we technically can say it was, as they didn't say it wasn't when it was released]), it went like this:


OoT--ALttP/LA--LoZ/AoL
......\MM


The modern canon works like this:


............/WW/PH--ST
SS--OoT
............\MM--TP


The modern "timeline" might works like this:

............/WW/PH--ST
SS--OoT
............\MM--TP__ALttP/(OoX)/LA--LoZ/AoL


There needs to be another game in-between TP and ALttP that brings about the Seal War for that to work, though. That's why I used the underscore.

Anyway, there was already a split at MM. Most people just don't realize that.

This is exactly what I intended to mean, except that I have decided to keep everything not in the modern canon as it was at the time OoT was released; as an alternative timeline to WW/PH--ST. I don't say that there is a split which results the two timelines, but I rather place them in two different but parallel universes (this is kind of difficult to explain, but if you read the book "Nations" by Terry Pratchett, you'll understand it better).

 

[JuicieJ]

This is exactly what I intended to mean, except that I have decided to keep everything not in the modern canon as it was at the time OoT was released; as an alternative timeline to WW/PH--ST. I don't say that there is a split which results the two timelines, but I rather place them in two different but parallel universes (this is kind of difficult to explain, but if you read the book "Nations" by Terry Pratchett, you'll understand it better).

I understand what you're saying. However, it's incorrect. The Wind Waker is a sequel to the time Link left behind, while Majora's Mask is a sequel to the time Link came back to. However, what you're saying may be the case with the FSS, as in it may be a separate/alternate legend.

 

[Caleb, Of Asui]

Actually, at the time of Ocarina of Time, there was a timeline. It went like this:

OoT--ALttP/LA--LoZ/AoL

Oh goodness. >_< I meant that there was no Adult Timeline. There was a single Child Timeline, and what existed of the Adult Timeline wasn't really a timeline. You could have argued at the time whether the Child Ending or Adult Ending of Ocarina of Time is what "actually happens," ala which timeline the 2D games go on, but given that both Ocarina of Time and Majora's Mask conclude on the Child Timeline, it would have made more sense that the Child Ending is what "actually happens." The fact that Twilight Princess now requires that A Link to the Past go later on the Child Timeline only confirms that arguing that way at that point would have been a correct interpretation of Ocarina of Time's story, and by extension the way Nintendo wrote the story at the time of its release.

Deniro, you're right that the Seal War does not need to be depicted directly in a game. When they did that with Ocarina of Time they decided they had to make that an alternate version of the Seal War because it involved a hero, thus altering the location of the Triforce pieces and the circumstances of Ganondorf's sealing. The most direct possible depiction of the Seal War as it's told in A Link to the Past would have to be a spin-off because it cannot involve a hero (in other words, a Link).

Another thing, Deniro, I can't agree with your assertion that the NES games go at the beginning of the timeline, before the Triforce is put in the Sacred Realm. The Triforce is in the Sacred Realm in Ocarina of Time and A Link to the Past (until a certain point in each story, of course) because that's where the Goddesses left it when they created Hyrule. This is seemingly contradicted by Twilight Princess, but I could explain why the Triforce pieces' appearance there makes sense and does not contradict A Link to the Past, but I won't take the space to elaborate on my theory here.

This thread is supposed to be about how set-in-stone the games are chronologically when they're made, and my position on that is that in relation to the existing fiction they are completely set in stone chronologically, but by the nature of the timeline debate we do not necessarily know what that stone in which they're set looks like - it's in the hands of Nintendo, but they've decided not to show it to us, and it's our job as fans to figure out what that stone must look like (assuming we're interested enough in the overarching story).

 

[JuicieJ]

Oh goodness. >_< I meant that there was no Adult Timeline. There was a single Child Timeline, and what existed of the Adult Timeline wasn't really a timeline. You could have argued at the time whether the Child Ending or Adult Ending of Ocarina of Time is what "actually happens," ala which timeline the 2D games go on, but given that both Ocarina of Time and Majora's Mask conclude on the Child Timeline, it would have made more sense that the Child Ending is what "actually happens." The fact that Twilight Princess now requires that A Link to the Past go later on the Child Timeline only confirms that arguing that way at that point would have been a correct interpretation of Ocarina of Time's story, and by extension the way Nintendo wrote the story at the time of its release.

So, are you saying that the time Link left behind wasn't originally supposed to stay in existence? If you are, that's not true. There was a festival in the credits that took place in the time Link left behind. Even if that's not what you're saying, Ocarina of Time didn't "conclude on the Child Timeline". It concluded on both. The split was created at the very end of the game, leaving two times behind. Upon OoT's release, ALttP and the other games were supposed to come after the time Link left behind. But, again, that's not so today.

 

[Caleb, Of Asui]

So, are you saying that the time Link left behind wasn't originally supposed to stay in existence? If you are, that's not true. There was a festival in the credits that took place in the time Link left behind. Even if that's not what you're saying, Ocarina of Time didn't "conclude on the Child Timeline". It concluded on both. The split was created at the very end of the game, leaving two times behind. Upon OoT's release, ALttP and the other games were supposed to come after the time Link left behind. But, again, that's not so today.

Ocarina of Time does conclude the future part of the story, but after it has been wrapped up we see Link return to his childhood to do things over again. When we see the words "The End," we're back on the Child Timeline. It logically makes more sense to continue the over-arching story from that point where the story ends rather than the future he leaves behind that does not lead into the next game they created. My point is, you could very well theorize at the time that the 2D games go on either timeline, and that when Nintendo released The Wind Waker and Twilight Princess, they didn't change where the 2D games go, but rather confirmed one side of the argument. (That is to say, if you think Twilight Princess proves that the 2D games go on the Child Timeline, and there's no reason to think it doesn't.)

 

[JuicieJ]

Ocarina of Time does conclude the future part of the story, but after it has been wrapped up we see Link return to his childhood to do things over again. When we see the words "The End," we're back on the Child Timeline. It logically makes more sense to continue the over-arching story from that point where the story ends rather than the future he leaves behind that does not lead into the next game they created.

Right, it does say "The End" while showing the CT, but that doesn't have to mean that all games previously made must then come after that time. Saying that is like saying The Wind Waker doesn't have to take place on the AT.

My point is, you could very well theorize at the time that the 2D games go on either timeline, and that when Nintendo released The Wind Waker and Twilight Princess, they didn't change where the 2D games go, but rather confirmed one side of the argument. (That is to say, if you think Twilight Princess proves that the 2D games go on the Child Timeline, and there's no reason to think it doesn't.)

This statement, however, is very legit. Well-said.

 

[Locke]

Ocarina of Time does conclude the future part of the story, but after it has been wrapped up we see Link return to his childhood to do things over again. When we see the words "The End," we're back on the Child Timeline. It logically makes more sense to continue the over-arching story from that point where the story ends rather than the future he leaves behind that does not lead into the next game they created.

The backstory of LttP tells of the Adult portion of OoT. If LttP followed OoT at all (which it did), it followed the AT.

 

[Caleb, Of Asui]

The backstory of LttP tells of the Adult portion of OoT. If LttP followed OoT at all (which it did), it followed the AT.

Technically, Ocarina of Time followed A Link to the Past's backstory, but with some major differences. As the Seal War is told in A Link to the Past, there was no hero involved, the Triforce does not split when Ganon touches it, and rather than the sages deliberately sealing Ganon away because of what he's already done with a third of the Triforce, they seal an entrance to the Sacred Realm for reasons independent of Ganon's conquest, which happens to occur while Ganon has gone in to get the Triforce, resulting in him being trapped in the Dark World. There's just too many inconsistencies between Ocarina of Time and A Link to the Past's backstory (mostly stemming from the fact that the Hero of Time is present) to say that the future section of the game eventually leads into A Link to the Past, but on the other hand there are too many similarities to say that Ocarina of Time isn't a version of the Seal War, which it was certainly created as. At the time of Ocarina of Time's release, however, the Seal War referenced in A Link to the Past took place between the child ending of Ocarina of Time and the whole of A Link to the Past. Considering that's the way it evidently fits together now because of newer releases and was a legitimate theory at the time, there's no reason to think that wasn't how Nintendo originally designed the story.

 

[Locke]

there's no reason to think that wasn't how Nintendo originally designed the story.

The story in Ocarina of time isn't actually original, it deals with the Sages' Imprisoning War from the Super Famicom's ALttP.

and also

The stories in The Legend of Zelda may not match up as the series progresses. We actually expend a lot of time trying to make them match up, though. It would make things a lot easier if the players said, "Oh, that doesn't really matter."

and also

If they come out and explicitly state what a specific timeline is, that kind of locks them into that version of the story and limits their ability to then come up with different ideas for the series going forward.

(I include this one to show that the timeline does change as new games modify relationships between older ones.)

 

[ZeldaFan225]

ok, i think i know about the split time line, people say that since link was a kid and meet tingle, that he cant be in wind waker if there was a split time line, but if tingle existed in OoT then link did not meet him untill he was reborn in the future as toon link in wind waker, does anyone agree with this?

 

[person]

I understand what you're saying. However, it's incorrect. The Wind Waker is a sequel to the time Link left behind, while Majora's Mask is a sequel to the time Link came back to. However, what you're saying may be the case with the FSS, as in it may be a separate/alternate legend.

You're still missunderstanding. What I mean is that I see the two as two alternative realities following the adult ending of OoT. In one of the alternative realities the gods do interfere (WW), in the other alternative reality the gods do not interfer (ALttP). Better explained, I see them as two different versions of the adult timeline.

 

[JuicieJ]

You're still missunderstanding. What I mean is that I see the two as two alternative realities following the adult ending of OoT. In one of the alternative realities the gods do interfere (WW), in the other alternative reality the gods do not interfer (ALttP). Better explained, I see them as two different versions of the adult timeline.

No, I'm not misunderstanding, I understand completely. I hate to say that it's wrong, but it is. The in-game information clearly contradicts that sort of thing.

ok, i think i know about the split time line, people say that since link was a kid and meet tingle, that he cant be in wind waker if there was a split time line, but if tingle existed in OoT then link did not meet him untill he was reborn in the future as toon link in wind waker, does anyone agree with this?

Tingle has nothing to do with anything in the "timeline". He's just a character Nintendo re-used in WW.

 

[link9]

Tingle has nothing to do with anything in the "timeline". He's just a character Nintendo re-used in WW.

Exactly. He's just some random dude. And he is in both splits anyways (MM).

 

[Caleb, Of Asui]

Minor characters like Tingle and Malon reappearing has little to do with the timeline. If you're going to timeline theorize, you have to look at the bigger picture, not the random details.

You're still missunderstanding. What I mean is that I see the two as two alternative realities following the adult ending of OoT. In one of the alternative realities the gods do interfere (WW), in the other alternative reality the gods do not interfer (ALttP). Better explained, I see them as two different versions of the adult timeline.

The theory makes sense, I suppose, but as I've stated before, there are simply too many inconsistencies between Ocarina of Time and the Seal War told in A Link to the Past for it to work. Plus, because of the way the Master Sword's placement is explained in Twilight Princess, A Link to the Past almost surely takes place on the Child Timeline.

 

[Capitaine]

I still don't see why OoT must have been an alternate version of the Imprisoning War. It's just wrong to say that the developers are completely unable to expand on their own stories by doing things like adding a Hero to a story that did not mention a Hero before. On top of that, Miyamoto said that certain details may not match up. What if SS is about the Interlopers? TP never said anything about a Hero being involved in that conflict, so would you say that SS isn't about the Interloper conflict? The developers can add to or subtract from their stories however they see fit, as long as they think the outcome of the game in general is positive.