My Zelda Timeline Theory

[Moblinking5000]

So, Wind Waker's prologue seems to hint at OoT, but TP tells a similar story. Who's to say that these events played out weren't the events of TP?

Well, let's look at the hero/Ganon conflict in TWW's backstory and compare them:

-The hero is called the ''Hero of Time''(title given to OoT Link, NOT TP Link)

-The hero sealed Ganon(he didn't kill him like in TP)

-Ganon has the ToP in TWW(he keeps it inbetween OoT and TWW, but not between TP and TWW if we go by that placement)

So, Zelda plays the Ocarina, which sends him back. In Majora's Mask, we learn that the Ocarina RESETS time,

Zelda says that she uses her powers as a sage to send him back in OoT. That should indicate that the ending of OoT and MM use different time travel.

Before time resets completely, we see a brief moment where Link falls through time, since he was the one who played the Ocarina. Everyone else was still going about their buisness until the timeline got reset.

Zelda played the Ocarina at the end of OoT, though.

So, therefore, Link's new actions would alter the timeline and make a new one in place of the adult era of the game.

If the later AT/DT part of OoT is erased, how is it remembered in games like TWW, Zelda 2 or BotW?

but Link now knows how to beat Ganon and has the Triforce of Courage since the Triforce transcends time.

What proof do you have for the Triforce transcending time?

Also, you not liking a game like ST doesn't mean it's not canon. That's not how canoncity works.

 

[Ryuu Kage Desu]

The sci-fi lens is why I'm a linearist. I was looking into multiversal science (specifically the validity of free-will-via-quantum-fluctuation and probability fields) because I was writing a paper, and it just seemed anti-science to have a split. Matter can't choose to do one thing over another, and matter can't choose to do a different thing than it did the first time. To say that matter can go back in time and have that change anything about the outcomes (as is required for the CT), or that what happened could have, within canon, happened differently (as is required for the DT) just doesn't seem to be the case.

This is why the Adult Timeline, the one in which all of Ocarina of Time occurred, is the only canon timeline, but it is also why Twilight Princess cannot come before Wind Waker, which is my main problem with the timeline here.

Sounds like my kind of paper. I would love to read it. I wrote a similar (I'm only guessing at exactly how similar.) paper on how I find that quantum science and string theory are poor approaches to determining human free-will. The science of quanta and psychology do seem to have some relative seeming precepts, but in reality they don't really equate. Your dislike of the "random" defeat of Link, leading to the downfall timeline, is a problem I had as well, but I approached it from a different angle. It's what led me to the idea that Link's defeat, leading to the downfall, was the natural course, which was diverted with the use of time manipulation. Without a multiverse, where timelines split, we would have quite a few grandfather paradoxes.

Haha, I knew I would make some people mad, but damn. It's just a game, guys. Is it really wrong that this is the way I imagined the timeline since literally before I went to preschool?

Creating your own narrative is actually pretty cool. It's when you say that it's a theory, that tells me, at least, that you are suggesting that this is something that could be a part of the canon universe. For instance, I always liked the idea that Link, in Majora's Mask, was actually searching for Saria, instead of Navi. It's not canon. I never made a theory about it. I still like it, though.

I do enjoy the idea that there is another way to shuffle the games, to create a different flow of time. Unfortunately, I simply have yet to find one that fits the in game lore, enough to work.

 

[GZ Zelda]

I've bolded engagement with the OP's timeline.

We see the adult versions of characters celebrating, then we see that Link is back in a slightly altered version of his own timeline. We can tell that it’s a different timeline because it’s now before Ganondorf attacked, not after. Not to mention, if it were the same timeline than the Door of Time wouldn’t even be open yet.

I don't know if it's true that we can tell it's a different or slightly altered version of this timeline. Link gets sent back to before Ganondorf attacked, that's true, but the Door of Time is open without the presence of the three elemental stones. This would either require future Zelda to send Link to a different universe (the HH/ZE canon), or future Zelda opened the door like how those Song of Time blocks get sent through time by the melody (the linear solution to this problem). I'm not going to jump to the conclusion that it is one or the other, but assuming a different cosmology for this one game because of an open door doesn't seem rational to me.

First of all, the Triforce is never canonically transferred to Link at the end of OoT. That was just a theory made to justify Ganons stupid ex machina in TP. Furthermore, how is the rest of that a stretch? The Ocarina of Time is clearly able to rewind time and displace objects regardless of when they appeared. This is proven by simply watching the ending cutscene with a hylian shield equipped as child link, one you got as an adult. It’s not a stretch at all to assume that Zelda was able to alter the timeline to allow link to meet her before Ganon attacked.

How does he have it on his hand then? In the multiverse, there would only be one Triforce, meaning there couldn't be a complete one in the Sacred Realm. Link also doesn't have the Hylian Shield in the ending cutscene, unless he brings it back with him, which then suggests that this is a different Link traveling back in time than the one that is asleep in Kokiri Forest, because the one in Kokiri Forest didn't have a Hylian Shield. The Ocarina of Time also doesn't have the ability to delete a person; it may have the ability to move someone from Kokiri Forest to the Temple of Time and transfer consciousnesses, except this ability is not shown or elaborated on in any of its other uses, and also would require the same process to be done to Navi, and it would require the assumption of the existence of the multiverse and it would require the assumption that Zelda's Lullaby has the ability to alter timelines. You could do a similar thing for the linear timeline: Link getting sent back in time by Zelda, to the same timeline, assumes that past Link wouldn't spot future Link and that

So you’re perfectly willing to say “I don’t buy it” to canon material that’s literally spelled out for you in game, but when calling out that your timeline makes no sense due to the fact that Zelda would have no reason to not mention adult link you say “oh we don’t see that he’s here so he’s clearly not.” Well why not? What reasoning do you have to prove that, against all odds, she never told Link about why his future self isn’t around?

You’re also trying to base your argument on the assumption that you’re already correct, and I shouldn’t have to tell you why that doesn’t work. The fact of the matter is that if you wanted to somehow prove that you’re right, the burden of proof lies with you to disprove why the official timeline is wrong, which you simply haven’t yet, because you can’t. It’s the canon timeline for a reason, and that reason is because that’s literally what the game was telling the player by showing 2 time period, neither of which can physically lead to the other.

She never told future link why his future self was in Termina because she hadn't sent future link back in time yet, and to be like "I will send you back in time at the end of all of this and you will go and get stuck in a timeloop in Termina" isn't super useful to her ultimate goal, which is beating Ganondorf. Same reason Impa isn't like "You will seal Demise but then Ghirahim will travel back in time and revive him" in SS.

I don't assume I'm already correct; I just don't assume the split timeline to be correct just because it was written in HH and ZE. I prefer in-game evidence. And I haven't seen in-game evidence for the split timeline. The only game where it directly appears is the last 5 minutes of Ocarina of Time and there isn't that much evidence that this occurs in a different timeline: no more than a linear timeline. There is nothing stopping the "first timeline," Link travels back in time to tell Zelda that Ganondorf is going to attack (something she already knew was going to happen), and the "second timeline," Link collects three stones, before returning to the castle to find Zelda and Impa fleeing, traveling to the future, completing the temples, and beating Ganondorf followed by a big, Link-less party, from physically leading to another: having Link with Zelda didn't convince the king any more than his daughter's literally prophetic dreams. Also she couldn't have had those prophetic dreams if the course of action was ever uncertain.

I really don’t care if you disagree or not. The point is that neither of you can be correct because you’re ignoring a plot point that’s been there for 25 years and trying to justify your reasoning by doing the same things that you question the official timeline for doing.

Namely, jumping through hoops to get a conclusion. You said it yourself, your own proposed timeline has 4 separate things you need to make up an excuse for, with not a single one of them being supported by in game evidence. Compare that to the one even kinda good argument that you had against the split timeline, which is easily explained by examining either OoT or MM.

We aren't ignoring the plot point...well OP is. OP, if you've waded through this stuff for any input, you can't just discard the future part of Ocarina of Time. The Zelda timeline, linear or split, has both the party happen and Link meeting Zelda happen within canon (which means Twilight Princess has to occur in unflooded Hyrule).

It is not jumping through hoops to think that Zelda sending Link back in time is actually Zelda sending Link back in time. It is to jump through hoops to say that a) random forest boy with triangle hand convinces king that prophetic dream daughter is correct in thinking that big bad traitor Ganondorf is, in fact, still big bad traitor Ganondorf and b) the Ocarina of Time can switch timelines, rather than simply sending matter through time. Those are two hoops that I cannot jump through. The 4 separate "excuses" are pretty mild: all are supported by currently unexplained in-game evidence: the time dilation in Termina and its effect on Link, the consequence of the Great Deku Tree's plan, the Palace of the Four Sword (bit of a retcon, but so is the rewriting of the Imprisoning War), and the resurrection of Ganon before Zelda 1 and 2.

You’re ignoring factual data in favor of your theories that have been proven wrong without a shadow of a doubt. You’re pretending that you’re looking at in-game evidence for your conclusion when the game specifically shows how you’re wrong. You’re stretching connections between plot points immediately after trying to say that the canon timeline is doing the same thing, only to be wrong about that too.

You might not be a flat-earther, but you sure as hell have the same thought process as one.

I'm not ignoring factual data other than external sources, which I've acknowledged, disagree with me. Ultimately, our disagreement is about the end of Ocarina of Time and the fundamental laws of the Zelda universe, and I don't think there is enough evidence in the ending of that game to justify, on its own, assuming a split timeline. It is more possible that the Door of Time was opened by Future Zelda than it is that she sent Link to a new timeline. It is more possible that Zelda's prophetic visions were truly, deterministically prophetic and that a random forest boy didn't convince the already-unreasonably-trusting King of Hyrule that Ganondorf was a bad guy. It is more possible that Link didn't take the Master Sword out of the Adult Timeline, as we see it in the adult timeline. It is more possible that Link didn't take the Triforce of Courage out of the Adult Timeline, as we see it in the adult timeline. It is more possible that two Links coexist. It is more possible that there is a linear timeline. These are not stretches, they are individual games of probability surrounding each of the pieces of evidence.

I don't follow dogmatic "canon" beliefs if the given evidence says they are wrong. I've analyzed the evidence, and nowhere here do I see a picture of a split, I only see the book telling me there is a split. In fact, all the individual elements that would require this to be a split seem unfounded: Link travels with things that are not there in the timeline he goes back to, and remain in the timeline he leaves.

OP: you have to move TP to sometime after Wind Waker.

 

[GZ Zelda]

Zelda plays the Ocarina, Link goes back through time, everyone is celebrating for a brief moment before an unexplained white screen preceeding Link's return to the child era. So, basically, that's always been my thought process. That whole timeline gets reset, but Link now knows how to beat Ganon and has the Triforce of Courage since the Triforce transcends time. So, therefore, Link's new actions would alter the timeline and make a new one in place of the adult era of the game.

This does explain how TP could occur before WW, that the timeline where Ganon one got "pruned," to borrow a term from Loki. However, this does create issues because that means that Ocarina of Time, in the new timeline, never actually happened. And in a timeline already filled with conveniences to make presumably more satisfying narrative results, that doesn't seem super great.

Sounds like my kind of paper. I would love to read it. I wrote a similar (I'm only guessing at exactly how similar.) paper on how I find that quantum science and string theory are poor approaches to determining human free-will. The science of quanta and psychology do seem to have some relative seeming precepts, but in reality they don't really equate. Your dislike of the "random" defeat of Link, leading to the downfall timeline, is a problem I had as well, but I approached it from a different angle. It's what led me to the idea that Link's defeat, leading to the downfall, was the natural course, which was diverted with the use of time manipulation. Without a multiverse, where timelines split, we would have quite a few grandfather paradoxes.

This was on my college email, which they DELETED how dare they. But it was essentially on what you are talking about: people are trying to use the fact that there are probability fields on the quantum scale (and the even-more-insane random vibrations of the strings) to justify that a human brain can fundamentally alter the course of cause-and-effect physics to make alternative decisions, but that the sun, because it is not conscious, cannot do the same. Like, no to all of that. We don't have that power.

And Link definitely doesn't have that power considering all of the shown times where predestination occurs (EVEN WITHIN OCARINA OF TIME, ZELDA HAS PROPHETIC DREAMS THAT REQUIRE PREDESTINY). I think you understand my fundamental disagreement with the way that time works, and my attempt to attribute actual science to the Zelda timeline. The DT and the CT/AT are fundamentally exclusive timelines, and that seems SO antithetical to all the research done, and, at the very least, an attempt at using observations to make predictions. Also, I guess I just don't see any issues with grandfather paradoxes (those are the ones where you kill your grandfather). There aren't really any grandfather paradoxes I can think of....And, for bootstrap paradoxes, they hurt your brain because the origin of the information is lost, but the fundamental basis for the information started somewhere, you know, it didn't just manifest. And the problems that the split timeline creates regarding time dilation and Termina, post-Spirit Tracks/Great Sea Hyrule, the emergence of Ganondorf in Zelda 1 after what is otherwise a prosperous kingdom, Four Swords Adventures, are fixed with my linear timeline.

Unfortunately, the linear timeline above is less-than-convincing. It creates more problems than it solves. There isn't evidence the Triforce transcends time, Four Swords Adventures Ganon being the first seems highly unlikely, the subsiding of the Great Sea leading directly into A Link to the Past doesn't seem probable considering the new kingdom's size (and no real jump start of a new cycle), the erasure of the Adult Timeline works in theory, but in practice, it de-canonizes seen events, which is what the linear timeline is explicitly supposed to prevent. With some adjustment, though, this timeline could work, and could maybe even work better than the split timeline cuz it would at least be following the rules of time.

 

[Alucard]

Also, you not liking a game like ST doesn't mean it's not canon. That's not how canoncity works.
[/QUOTE]

Actually, I like Spirit Tracks. I just find it unimportant to the timeline, as GZ Zelda mentioned.

Linearist for life!

 

[Ryuu Kage Desu]

Also, I guess I just don't see any issues with grandfather paradoxes (those are the ones where you kill your grandfather). There aren't really any grandfather paradoxes I can think of....And, for bootstrap paradoxes, they hurt your brain because the origin of the information is lost, but the fundamental basis for the information started somewhere, you know, it didn't just manifest.

The problem with grandfather paradoxes is actually related to the bootstrap problem, in their nature, rather than the details. If your grandfather was killed before having children, you would not be born to be able to go back in time and off the guy. It is also recontextualized as killing yourself in the past, making the causal link smaller. Using spiting timelines allows for each of these events to happen, without paradoxical consequence. The source of all the bootstrap pulling, grandfather killing, and past suicide, all originates from universe A, and happens in universe B.

I also don't think predestination, or prophesy, indicates the removal of free-will. When all roads lead to Rome, it is no surprise that everyone travels toward Rome at some point. The choice of which road to travel, and when to travel, are still available.

It's always sad when great papers get lost. Mine is trapped on my old computer, but it's still there.

I like Spirit Tracks. I just find it unimportant to the timeline

for a summary form, sure. In reality, I think all events are important, even the minor ones.

 

[Alucard]

OP: you have to move TP to sometime after Wind Waker.
[/QUOTE]

Honestly, I would, I think that makes for a better story.

This timeline of mine, however, isn't entirely from my own theories, it comes partially from a website that is now defunct known as Zelda Capital, which posted a linear Zelda timeline in 2007-2009 (I forget exactly when and its not like I can double check anymore), so a couple years prior to the release of the dreaded official timeline.

I updated the timeline a bit, but it was basically this:

Creation --> Ocarina of Time --> Majora's Mask --> Twilight Princess --> Wind Waker -> Oracles --> Link's Awakening --> A Link to the Past --> Legend of Zelda --> Adventure of Link.

I simply added in Skyward Sword and Minish Cap.

for a summary form, sure. In reality, I think all events are important, even the minor ones.
[/QUOTE]

Fair enough. So, Wind Waker, then Phantom Hourglass, then Spirit Tracks, and then the Oracles. This does work fine and I've seen a lot of pre-Hyrule Historia timelines with similar theories.

 

[MightyMario]

But wait where do The Faces of Evil, Wand of Gamelon, and Zelda’s Adventure fall in the timeline?

 

[GZ Zelda]

Creation --> Ocarina of Time --> Majora's Mask --> Twilight Princess --> Wind Waker -> Oracles --> Link's Awakening --> A Link to the Past --> Legend of Zelda --> Adventure of Link.

I haven't seen this timeline before, this is really interesting. This kind of takes those "LA takes place in Zelda 2 era" theories (which was a NoA timeline) and makes them as part of the Wind Waker saga. I still think that the Minish Cap games should come before A Link to the Past, idk ur thoughts abt that.

 

[Alucard]

But wait where do The Faces of Evil, Wand of Gamelon, and Zelda’s Adventure fall in the timeline?

You're asking all the right questions

 

[Aro]

Personally I think this is a great and well thought out theory, it might even have a good amount of truth in it

 

[Alucard]

Personally I think this is a great and well thought out theory, it might even have a good amount of truth in it

Thanks!