Spoiler My views on the timeline placement of BotW/TotK.

[Bowsette Plus-Ultra]

people seem to think that timelines merging means that elements from one timeline suddenly get to exist in the others
but what it actually means is that each timeline individually and uniquely eventually progressed to identical states, which physically couldn't happen because the zora evolved into rito in the adult timeline, which means the rito in botw are from another source
saying "oh all the timelines are together now!" makes botw make less sense

I mean, it could be a cool thing if there were a game about different diverging timelines literally crashing in on each other and elements bleeding over, but that would be far too cool a storyline for Nintendo to write.

 

[Mikey the Gengar]

I mean, it could be a cool thing if there were a game about different diverging timelines literally crashing in on each other and elements bleeding over, but that would be far too cool a storyline for Nintendo to write.

sure, if spacetime collapsed and the multiverse collided with itself (like every pop culture IP is doing right now) then it could happen

 

[Bowsette Plus-Ultra]

sure, if spacetime collapsed and the multiverse collided with itself (like every pop culture IP is doing right now) then it could happen

Hey, the repetition doesn't matter too much if they can do it well. If Zelda can be a game about a twink rescuing an idiot girl for 30 years then they can do the multiverse thing one time.

 

[Mikey the Gengar]

honestly, nintendo might not even realize that everyone else is doing it lol

 

[Bowsette Plus-Ultra]

honestly, nintendo might not even realize that everyone else is doing it lol

It wouldn't surprise me. They're still writing like they're producing very early SNES games.

 

[Mangrove]

Maybe you have a looser "contradiction" definition then I do, but the idea that there was a Zelda sleeping in the North Palace and also a Zelda from Z1 seems like an obvious contradiction assuming there should only be one Zelda.

Oh, I was thinking my idea of a "contradiction" was stricter. Before going forward then, I'll say upfront that while I might find an idea stupid and not implied, I'll only call it a contradiction if it goes against anything officially stated, but not if it goes against something many people would assume.

It makes sense that we would assume that there is only one Zelda from Zelda 1, and I can see people finding it dumb that there's a straight up second, older Zelda in Zelda 2. But, I can't say it's a contradiction if Zelda 1 never explicitly stated it would be impossible. With Zelda 2's backstory from the manual, adding in that all Zeldas are named after the one that fell asleep, I saw it as an addition to the old lore rather than anything contradicting old lore. Whether or not it's a stupid addition is subjective, but it's not a contradiction.

And Z2 establishes Ganon's resurrection is achieved by Link's blood. But there is no indication that there was another hero between ALttP and Z1, it's framed as a direct prequel.

As for ALttP - Z1, I'm unsure why, but I never saw it as a direct prequel, as in I never saw ALttP happening shortly before Z1. I saw it happening a long time ago, long enough for the popular Hyrule landmarks of ALttP to be unrecognizable, aside from formations like Spectacle Rock. No more villages, no more populated areas of any sort, really, and radically moved locations. I suppose all that could have changed in between ALttP Link's time and Z1 Link's time, but I always felt like it was longer, and I can't pinpoint why, or anything in game that implies that. Do you have anything that confirms the time period being short between the two?

This is a contradiction either way: Zelda was either fully briefed on the AT and the hero became part of the legend (except didn't), or she wasn't and Ganondorf (who was already in the throne room with the king planning to kill him) should have been able to kill him and take Hyrule.

Did you mean to say "Zelda was either fully briefed on the CT"? If she was fully briefed, Link would still be a legend, but only the Royal Family would keep that legend, meaning it may or may not be a legend among the people of Hyrule later. According to HH, the legend was lost and the Hero of Time wasn't remembered on the CT. Gdorf wouldn't have killed the King in the window-cutscene, or I don't think he would have, since he was already looking for the Spiritual Stones before Link got there (cursing Deku Tree, Dodongo Cavern, and Jabu-Jabu). His plan was to get the three Stones for the Temple of Time, and at some point, he knew Link had them, and followed Link into the Temple of Time instead.

I agree that this is "thematic" in some sense, but Link actually did ride away from Hyrule on a horse in Majora's Mask. So, like, what's going on there?

You're right that Link rode away on a horse in Majora's Mask, but I'm not sure if WW was trying to reference that, since they use the same Link image as the one battling Ganon, or Adult Link. In OoT, only Adult Link could ride Epona.
I could see it as a prior intention, especially with the Tingle Tuner details. Thing is, multiple endings had already been seemingly planned back in 2005 with a "bad ending" game being developed with Sheikh being the focus. If the "Bad Ending" route was actually the Downfall ending we'd get confirmed years later, I have trouble believing both the Downfall and Adult timelines were planned and not the Child timeline. This is a lot of speculation on my part, though.

Well that's the problem, there's Hero of Men, Hero of Minish, Hero of Four Sword 1, Hero of Four Sword 2 LONG BREAK Hero of Light. I guess it's not a contradiction, more a "since when are there multiple Ganon's?" question.

I agree on this, I just wanted to emphasize that TP was the one that really ruined the FS - FSA progression. The same way I don't find a second, new Ganon a contradiction is the same way I don't find a contradiction for another Zelda in Z2. FSA seemed to go a different direction thing during development then how it actually came out, and I think having a second Ganon is a mistake that they just had to roll with, but I don't know any interviews or articles I could pull up to confirm this.

This is exactly what I'm talking about: the ZE timeline was flimsy but functional before BotW, but since BotW and TotK, the thing @Moblinking5000 tried doing (fitting TotK-backstory in before OoT) just contradicts so many other pieces of information, like Rito ev, Korok ev, Triforce origins, Master Sword origin etc. It seems like what most people have done is add another timeline split after SS, but now there are just 4 parallel Ganondorfs? It's all just messy and disorganized hypotheses, I really do think a condensed continuity is the only way to go so we can actually start making theories again. Once TP and WW exist in separate universes, a lot of the contradictions and references and thematic meanings etc. just fall apart.

I guess I'm just curious, what is your own timeline? And how does TotK fit into it?

I think we discussed a lot of this on the Timeline Discussion thread, and I'm willing to go back to it to respect the original point of the thread we're on now. Here's my timeline, used with only in-game references:

Adult: SS - OoT - WW/PH - ST - TMC - FS - FSA - TFH
Child: SS - OoT/MM - TP - ALttP/OoX/LA - ALBW - TLoZ/TAoL - BotW/TotK

Regardless for a fan placement or an official placement, I'm pretty lost. I agree with this thread's main opinion all the way up to OoT Ganondorf being an extension of TotK's rotting Gdorf under Hyrule Castle. The events in TotK's past seem too much like parallels of OoT events, especially with the kneeling of Ganondorf. In OoT, I find it too hard to believe that Ganondorf would be trusted as someone who bows to Hyrule's kings after what happened in TotK(past). I remember people would make the same argument for FSA occurring before OoT, that the events of FSA were forgotten/forgiven, which is too much for me. I'm not entirely against the idea that OoT Ganondorf COULD be sourced from TotK(past) Dorf, and that all other Ganons after (besides FSA) are the same one, but would OoT Ganondorf really be allowed to enter the castle to submit to Hyrule's King? Would the Twinrova sisters be able to? It's not contradictory, but I find it dumb.
I also agree that having an Imprisoning War before OoT is dumb, or at least the naming of it. Maybe OoT Ganondorf could've been sealed right next to TotK(past) Ganondorf under Hyrule Castle, but then Rauru the Zonai would need TWO hands.

The only thing that may not seem to gel that well with this is the fact that Impa says that the Calamity is the ancient Demon King revived as a vengeful spirit(I'm paraphrasing the JP). Now, technically speaking, both OoT Ganondorf and TotK Ganondorf are both Demon Kings, but if someone were playing TotK as their first Zelda game, they would naturally assume that this is the same Demon King from the rest of the game, and not some other Demon King, yes? Well, true, but there's precedent supporting the fact that Nintendo themselves doesn't hold true to this standard in regards to the wider series lore. For example, in TP, people mention an ancient hero, and the Hero's Shade talks about how he accepted life as the hero. People who have never played another Zelda game and have no clue about the series lore would naturally assume that the HS is the same hero mentioned by people in TP, right, and it would make logical sense, too. Well, yes, but they would be wrong, as the HS is the Hero of Time, who is forgotten on the Child Timeline, meaning that the hero mentioned is some other hero who we may not have seen yet. In FSA, the protagonist is named Link, and the backstory says that Link(who we know as the one from FS) was the hero who sealed Vaati previously. The game doesn't go too far out of its way to say that the Link you play as is a new hero to the point where prior to HH, alot of people, myself included, believed them to be the same hero. And that goes for both series fans and newcomers, in that case. So, using that same principle, we can not confirm if Impa is talking about the Demon King from this game, or another Demon King, especially when the Calamity isn't super relevant in TotK compared to BotW.

It's possible, but it feels messy to rely on weak story telling decisions, allowing it only because they've done it in the past. I could say that since Nintendo had confirmed that ALttP is not a sequel to the same OoT we played, then with Nintendo's standards, TotK doesn't have to be a sequel to the same BotW we played. Actually...

Officially, Aonuma confirmed BotW is at the end of one of the three timelines, and if TotK is a direct sequel, it should be with BotW at the end of a timeline, but with parallel OoT events like another warped Imprisoning War (and the comfort of alternate timeline stories with AoC), TotK being on its own timeline makes the most sense for me. Was TotK confirmed to be at the end of one of the three timelines with BotW? IIRC, Age of Calamity kept being called a prequel to BotW before release, which is technically right, but not the full truth. We know TotK is sequel to BotW, which is on the official timeline, but do we know it's the same BotW we played and not a timeline parallel to BotW? A lot of the NPCs don't seem to remember us for some reason, maybe those sidequests didn't exist in TotK's BotW? I feel like a crazy person for implying this, but Nintendo had confirmed that ALttP is not a sequel to the same OoT we played, so I don't know.

My current thoughts on the official timeline would be:
Adult: SS - TMC - FS - OoT - WW/PH - ST
Child: SS - TMC - FS - OoT/MM - TP - FSA
Downfall: SS - TMC - FS - OoT(alternate) - ALttP/LA - OoX - ALBW - TLoZ/TAoL - BotW
New: SS - TotK(past) w/ OoT(alternate) - BotW(alternate) - TotK

The BotW(alt) can work as the version of BotW where their champions are taken back in time for Age of Calamity, even. It seems really stupid, but it IS up to Nintendo standards.

 

[Ryuu Kage Desu]

people seem to think that timelines merging means that elements from one timeline suddenly get to exist in the others
but what it actually means is that each timeline individually and uniquely eventually progressed to identical states, which physically couldn't happen because the zora evolved into rito in the adult timeline, which means the rito in botw are from another source
saying "oh all the timelines are together now!" makes botw make less sense

I agree with the first part. I prefer a narrative that "All roads lead to roam," rather than a Deus-ex-Dragonbreak narrative.

I will say that there seems to be more and more evidence people are pointing out, that suggest there were Rito before Skyward sword. There are the statues in Skyview Temple that look more like the current Rito, than loftwings. There is the design, coloring, and over all look of the Storm Ark (TotK), compared to the Sand Ship (SS). And, there is the legend of the Storm Ark, which has elements that suggest the Rito existing before the cloud barrier.

Others have also been others that have pointed out that there are many cases of species intermingling. Gerudo taking Hylian men as husbands. Zora coupling with Hylians... Zoni and Hylian... I'm sure there is a lusty Hylian bar maid in here somewhere. None the less, it's not out of the question that Laruto was in a cross species relationship, leading to Medli having a bloodline branching from more than one species.

I've also stated that if the Rito existed before the flood, we don't have a case of Zora being turned into a new race, but being added to an already existing people. A process, by the way, that was never in game, so I still hold in suspicion.

All we really have, before BotW/TotK, is one data point, and an incomplete history, which is not enough to go on anymore.

 

[Jkilzer]

So, I get that alot of people, have been readdressing the timeline debate of where BotW(and in turn, TotK) take place in the Zelda timeline since the release of TotK. I figured that as one of the most prominent theorists on this board, I should do the same.

So, here it is: before the release of TotK, I was adamant that BotW could only be on the DT. I still stand by a DT placement for BotW and TotK. We still have a Hyrule attacked many times by Ganon, according to Aonuma, the OoT sages are remembered in a non flooded Hyrule(TotK even has Sidon confirming he's a descendant of Ruto, doubling down on said connection), Creating a Champion says that Calamity Ganon is the same Ganondorf from OoT having been revived multiple times(by saying that the Ganondorf that became the Calamity was born in the same era as Nabooru). Which is weird right, since TotK Ganondorf is a different guy? Seems contradictory in some ways, no? Hell, TotK Ganon doesn't even seem to remember being Calamity Ganon...if he really did become the Calamity, he should remember.

Well, I have a way to reconcile this, but it means that people have to come with the terms that TotK Ganon is the earliest known Ganon, not OoT Ganon. This makes sense , as nothing in OoT says that its Ganondorf is the first Gerudo male ever named Ganondorf. And it also makes sense since the backstory of TotK takes place during Hyrule's founding. I know some people argue that it's a REfounding, but if that were the case, I would've felt like we would've been made more aware of it. We see some strong evidence supporting this being the founding of Old Hyrule, not some DT New Hyrule; there's a smoke ring around Death Mountain like in OoT that doesn't exist in BotW or the present day of TotK, meaning the developers had to have purposely added this to tell us something. It also seemed to be more heavily forested in like in earlier games like FS and OoT. We also have a Koume and Kotake that are very young. And we also know ingame from Zelda that the Zonai were around during the time of ''earliest legend'' despite the BotW/TotK era having legends about the Era of the Hero of Time.

So, how can OoT Ganon be born and running around while TotK Ganon is sealed away? Well, remember that Ganon is known for having offshoots of his spirit escape seals and become their own unique people/creatures/creations. Some examples include in ALttP, when part of his spirit escaped the Sacred Realm creating the dark priest Agahnim, or in BotW, how Calamity Ganon's spirit fragments created the Blight Ganons, etc. It's not hard to imagine, based on precedent that can be observed in the games, that something similar happened here. Over the generations, some part of TotK Ganondorf's spirit and malice bypassed the seal and gave birth to another Gerudo child, who is the Ganondorf that we see in OoT, and most games in the series aside from TotK and FSA. Despite effectively partly being a reincarnation of TotK Ganondorf, he doesn't have his memories or the same exact personality traits(hence why I consider TotK Ganon and OoT Ganon different people, like how FSA Ganon is a seperate person from OoT Ganon despite being a reincarnation of OoT Ganon). Anyway, TotK Ganondorf doesn't escape until TotK; people might question how he didn't awaken in OoT when there was a hole beneath where HC used to be(in fact, it even looks similar to the malice/miasma holes in TotK...hmm...), but it's probable that it didn't go deep enough; remember that Calamity Ganon attacked multiple times prior to BotW, and he didn't set TotK Ganon free regardless.

So as we know, OoT Ganon keeps getting defeated over and over on the DT and being revived again and again, and he becomes a mindless beast, losing his humanity both physically and mentally, and eventually, OoT Ganon becomes Calamity Ganon, only thing left of him being his vengeful spirit made of malice. And OoT Ganon's spirit and malice is literally a part of TotK Ganon's spirit and malice, so Calamity Ganon stays stuck/sealed to Hyrule Castle for the most part as everything about him at this point literally belongs to TotK Ganon far beneath said castle, establishing a connection between the two. After BotW ends and OoT/Calamity Ganon faces his latest sealing courtesy of Zelda, TotK Ganondorf awakens.

TL;DR version. OoT Ganondorf and TotK Ganondorf are seperate Demon Kings, with TotK Ganon being the first, and OoT (DT) Ganon=BotW/Calamity Ganon.

The only thing that may not seem to gel that well with this is the fact that Impa says that the Calamity is the ancient Demon King revived as a vengeful spirit(I'm paraphrasing the JP). Now, technically speaking, both OoT Ganondorf and TotK Ganondorf are both Demon Kings, but if someone were playing TotK as their first Zelda game, they would naturally assume that this is the same Demon King from the rest of the game, and not some other Demon King, yes? Well, true, but there's precedent supporting the fact that Nintendo themselves doesn't hold true to this standard in regards to the wider series lore. For example, in TP, people mention an ancient hero, and the Hero's Shade talks about how he accepted life as the hero. People who have never played another Zelda game and have no clue about the series lore would naturally assume that the HS is the same hero mentioned by people in TP, right, and it would make logical sense, too. Well, yes, but they would be wrong, as the HS is the Hero of Time, who is forgotten on the Child Timeline, meaning that the hero mentioned is some other hero who we may not have seen yet. In FSA, the protagonist is named Link, and the backstory says that Link(who we know as the one from FS) was the hero who sealed Vaati previously. The game doesn't go too far out of its way to say that the Link you play as is a new hero to the point where prior to HH, alot of people, myself included, believed them to be the same hero. And that goes for both series fans and newcomers, in that case. So, using that same principle, we can not confirm if Impa is talking about the Demon King from this game, or another Demon King, especially when the Calamity isn't super relevant in TotK compared to BotW.

The only real potential problem with a DT placement is the Imprisoning War thing, but this can be easily explained one of two ways:

1) There were two Imprisoning Wars(one Post-SS, one Pre-ALttP) like how we have two World Wars in real life

2) Parts of the Imprisoning War from the ALttP backstory legend(including the name) were smudged together with the Zonai War(this concept is not new to the series; see the backstory of ALBW, which ''smudged'' together different events together as one over time)

This reconciles all the information we know about the placement of BotW/TotK then and now, and it does so in a manner that doesn't ignore any previous or current developer intent.

Im of the opinion that there is two Ganondorfs. OG is TOTK Ganondorf and OoT Ganondorf was groomed from birth to replace the original. Basically the witch mothers even named him after the TOTK demon king.

 

[Zettafleya]

Regardless of where everything takes place, there can only be one single entity known as 'Ganondorf' or 'Ganon'.
Having multiple wouldn't make sense, and they must be the same entity due to the curse.

Perhaps Nintendo is right in saying it takes place at the end of the timeline.
But fans will always rip everything apart and piece it all together in ways that make more sense, so we are doomed to this.

Real question is, what comes next? And where will it go in the timeline?

 

[Ryuu Kage Desu]

Regardless of where everything takes place, there can only be one single entity known as 'Ganondorf' or 'Ganon'.
Having multiple wouldn't make sense, and they must be the same entity due to the curse.

We have two Zeldas at the same time (Zelda 2), and we have two Links at the same time (Twilight Princess). Supposedly they are bound by the curse as much as Ganondorf, if not more.

 

[Bowsette Plus-Ultra]

We have two Zeldas at the same time (Zelda 2), and we have two Links at the same time (Twilight Princess). Supposedly they are bound by the curse as much as Ganondorf, if not more.

I dunno if it's accurate to say we have two Links at the same time. One of them is pretty dead (and wasn't even acknowledged as a Link until a decade after release). Heck, even Zelda 2 just pretends that the previous Princess Zelda doesn't exist.

 

[Ryuu Kage Desu]

Being dead doesn't mater. It's two people with the spirit of the hero. Same goes for Zelda. doesn't mater if the second game doesn't engage with a character; they still exist. Link's parents are classically absent from any mention, yet we know they logically exist (or existed) in games they never get so much of a mention. We have two souls of Link at the same time, and two Zeldas at a different time.

 

[Bowsette Plus-Ultra]

Being dead doesn't mater. It's two people with the spirit of the hero. Same goes for Zelda. doesn't mater if the second game doesn't engage with a character; they still exist. Link's parents are classically absent from any mention, yet we know they logically exist (or existed) in games they never get so much of a mention. We have two souls of Link at the same time, and two Zeldas at a different time.

I mean, it doesn't matter when your lore is as poorly thought out as the Legend of Zelda's. It isn't like the games maintain narrative consistency between entries. They can play fast and loose with the idea at release and then claim they totally meant to do that fifteen years later with the benefit of hindsight. Nintendo's aim was clearly to stay as vague as possible with the Hero's Spirit so they could encourage fanfiction in lieu of lore.

 

[Ryuu Kage Desu]

I mean, it doesn't matter when your lore is as poorly thought out as the Legend of Zelda's. It isn't like the games maintain narrative consistency between entries. They can play fast and loose with the idea at release and then claim they totally meant to do that fifteen years later with the benefit of hindsight. Nintendo's aim was clearly to stay as vague as possible with the Hero's Spirit so they could encourage fanfiction in lieu of lore.

Then why are so many stuck on the idea that there can only be one Ganondorf at one time? People say one Ganon at a time is lore, then when I point out the flaws in that idea, they say the lore is busted, so it doesn't mater. If it doesn't mater, then why debate and theorize in the first place?

 

[Bowsette Plus-Ultra]

Then why are so many stuck on the idea that there can only be one Ganondorf at one time? People say one Ganon at a time is lore, then when I point out the flaws in that idea, they say the lore is busted, so it doesn't mater. If it doesn't mater, then why debate and theorize in the first place?

I'm all for pointing out how dumb the lore can be, but I've no intention of adding to it with contrivances like there being two Ganons. It just stems from a frustration instilled in me by stuff like TotK, since that game gives no ****s about its own lore.