No Time, No Time, Who's Got the Time

[Master Sword13]

If I had read this thread a couple of weeks ago, I would've completely agreed. However, I've recently begun to believe that a timeline actually IS relevant to the Zelda series, and am in the process of creating one in my spare time.

You're points make sense, but you left out tons of games. The Oracle games, for example, couldn't be the story retold because there is no Zelda in either game. (Excluding the merged version.) Unless you count the Oracles as princesses, your'e theory is broken there. On top of that, even though Link enters the story the same way in both Oracle titles, the story itself it different. For example, Subrosia doesn't make an appearance in OoA.

I respect your theory, however I don't think it could be a legitimate explanation of Zelda games and stories. Sorry.

 

[dadude1200]

that... could be right. i personally prefer timelines because i wouldnt like to think some of them never happened.

 

[DFVI]

For the record, Zelda 2's prelude story tells of the ancient Zelda who rests in the temple, is the first Zelda who started off the entire legend to begin with. Because of the situation surrounding her sleep, all princesses of Hyrule were to be called Zelda. That's the legend.

So all the resulting Zeldas stem off from that one Princess who never revealed the location of the Triforce to her brother.

Even if the game says that, I dont think that she was the first Zelda, because i find it imposible for her to survive the Great Flood,
and the Destruction of Hyrule in WW, (this is only if AOL takes place in the Adult Timeline) , then she is awakened after so many centuries ??

 

[Slash Dart]

The Legend of Zelda is the Legend of ZELDA. The Legend is where a princess was cursed to sleep eternity and then all princesses born in the royal family be named Zelda in honor to her name. After the events of AoL, the sleeping curse was broken thus ending THE LEGEND of Zelda. What do you think there are no sequels after AoL? Because there's no more legend. Plus the title is Zelda 2, not the Legend of Zelda because were now trying to solve the legend in that game. Simple.

Now, to say each game is the same story but told different in Legends or whatnot, the game would have to be called The Legend of Hyrule or simply The Legend.

There now the Legend is truly solved.

 

[Peeps1080]

After seeing this it's the timeline I believe in

 

[Simon]

After seeing this it's the timeline I believe in

But it can't work. SS-OoT, OoT-MM, OoT-WW, LoZ-AoL, MM-TP, WW-PH-ST are all known to be direct sequels. Also how can you possibly try to say that, say MM and WW are the same story?

 

[Satsy]

The 'same story retold' idea only worked with LoZ, AoL, LttP, OoT, and maybe it works with TP. WW wouldn't just be the telling of the same legend, but a merger of two of the games (probably LoZ LttP), due to rehashed themes. I'd say 'LoZ/OoT' but OoT is heavily referenced in the game so that'd just be an awkward recursion. And then as Simon has mentioned, there are a lot of stories now added which have nothing to do with the initial legend, if in fact a Zelda or Triforce are being used at all.

I can understand the thinking behind it, what with how repetitive some of the themes in these games are, but as the games progress it is more of a theory falling apart in slow motion.

 

[Hellfe]

That idea was denied on the second game

 

[RegalBryant]

I believe that the name the legend of zelda is called a legend because all the games create one legend that last generations. at the moment, Skyward Sword starts the legend, and AoL and ST or FSA end it (on my timeline) It's just one really really really long legend,