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

[figthersword]

Me too i also agree with Ms. Jo, just like what dar have said they have created by a thin air. The timeline theory is so complicated to analyze.

 

[Satsy]

It's not that the timeline was created out of thin air, it's that they didn't start implementing it really till after Oot.

Not, of course, that the first timeline made no sense anyway:

OoT - LttP - LA - LoZ - AoL

It's just that there are now more things to consider. Many, many more things.

But they also make a pretty undisputable timeline:

(Adult)____WW - PH - ST
_________/
SS - OoT -
(Child)____\MM - TP

And of course naturally, somewhere in there go the first four games, and though it pains me to relent on my previous stance, the Four Swords Series as well (which I shouldn't need to spell out for anyone ).

The idea of the games getting re-told, as I've said elsewhere recently, only really applied before Wind Waker. However as the series grows further, the sheer amount of added features and differing ideals makes the idea nonsensical:

"So there was this guy lookin' for the Triforce on a boat--"
"Boat?! Surely he was on a horse, I heard Hyrule was land, not some ocean!!"
"Psh, why would he be using a boat when there was a perfectly fine train--"
"I'd heard he was a wolf myself!"
"And who said anything about Triforce anyway! It was force gems he was out to--"
"Three force gems? Don't be--"
"Eight, actually"
"That was all one piece of Triforce!!"

... You see?

 

[Octo Rocked]

Before I launch into this, I'll give my position on this whole matter. I'm positive that, until OoT, there really was no plan for a timeline, and that SS, OoT, MM, WW, TP, PH, and ST are the only stories that actually fit well into the timeline. I definitely do believe that there is a timeline. However, I also believe that some stories are, in fact, retellings of the same legend.

And now, let me explain my take on this. You see, "Legend" is a broad word. There's no indication that the word "Legend" is used to mean a single story. Take the Bible. At risk of starting up a debate that doesn't belong here, while some people believe the Bible is a holy book that is entirely true or true in essence, others see it only as a book of fairy tales...legends, if you will. The Bible, in that case, is a single collection of a large number of legends that, ultimately, set the stage for the most important legend: that of the four gospels, central to all Christian faith. Now, all the games have subtitles, like "Ocarina of Time" and "The Wind Waker," much like the books of the Bible have different names, like "Genesis" or "Acts." All these games are just excerpts from a much larger look at Hyrule's history. They are all Legends of Zelda (or rather, Hyrule), but they are each a different Legend of Zelda (or again, Hyrule).

However, like I said, I do believe that there are some games that are simply retellings, just because the plots parallel so closely. A Link to the Past and Ocarina of Time have an almost identical plot (collect three pendants/sacred stones to receive the master sword, enter an alternate, grim world, gather seven sages/maidens, and then fight a man who is revealed to actually be Ganon). On a lesser scale, there is Link's Awakening and Phantom Hourglass, in which Link, after a sailing accident, finds himself on a beach, then goes on a quest to help a giant whale, then returns to his life with only a little indication (Marin becoming a seagull/The titular hourglass and Linebeck's ship) that the whole adventure isn't just one big dream.

So I'm sort of taking a third option, yes, but it's the only way to make any sort of sense of the games' timeline.

 

[NorthApple]

For the record I hate time line theory. I don't believe Nintendo ever intended for there to BE a time line. that is When they created the first two games.

Okay, first off THIS makes a lot of sense, but...

At the risk of repeating myself. As a child and even to my adult days I firmly believe/d that OoT is LoZ retold in a 3D world. I'm willing to say AoL is also a retelling of the same legend, why, you ask?

The variations between these games basically comes down to controls, and play style. Storyline is almost identical. The vast overworlds and creative underworlds (or dungeons) are same as well... Note the location where these dungeons are even placed...

Forest, Graveyard, Mountains, Swamp.... Ocean... The names of the people you meet, or regions are the same in these 3 games (well not so much the original but that one is a basic skeleton with not much detail included anyways). Its not narrow minded by far to think that these 3 games, might in fact all be telling the same story.

... You lost me here. And what happened to LttP, if anything I agree with Octo Rocked above me, that it seems much more similar to OoT that TLoZ. TLoZ was about collecting shards of triforce to save Zelda, not collecting objects to get the Master Sword then awakening/saving the sages/their descendants to get a shot at Ganondorf, all the while travelling between a darker world and a lighter world. There's quite a big difference in the storylines...

But reoccuring place names don't mean much either... I mean, it's all set in Hyrule, right? So you'd kind of expect things to keep the same names, like Kakariko Village, just like villages in real life keep their names throughout history... they might change a little sometimes, but it's still refering to the same place. Reoccuring people's names are a little harder to ignore... but the again, in real life, it used to be traditional to name your children after yourself, or after one of your parents/grandparents in order to honour them... so it's fairly likely the same names could crop up time and again.

Maybe I am just making excuses though... but it seems to me you're doing pretty much the same thing. Timeline theory in any form, when it comes down to it, is always based at its core on what you want to believe, what you think is important and what you lead yourself to ignore etc... but it seems to me that saying "they're all one legend and legends change" could be used as an excuse to ignore just about any fact to do with the games, even some of the big ones. Ganondorf the man is never mentioned in TLoZ/TAoL? Legends change and he just got written out, or is shown in symbolic form since he was always a monster anyway. The triforce was intact at the start of OoT, yet is seperated before the start of TLoZ? Legends change and facts get mixed up, and Ganon/Zelda gain the same triforce pieces at the end of OoT as they have in TLoZ, so it's still similar Etc, etc.

Sure, you might be able to get all the games to fit into a theory this way... but only by glossing over half the details. And to me, that isn't what theories should be based on- they should be built using as much of the existing facts as you can. True, all timeline theories have gloss over some facts... but it gets to a point where the theory ends up invalid because it simply ignores to much. And that's going beyond it being a matter of opinion- it's when it literally doesn't make sense anymore. It would be like saying that clouds are made of candyfloss (cotton candy), and then skimming over all the research that's been done, all the things experts have said etc. In the end, it is a personal choice what you ignore, but in the candyfloss case, there's a point where you become outright blind to the facts.

Not by a long way am I saying that's the case with this theory, but I'm just saying too much has to be ignored for it to work (in game quotes, developer quotes, events in the game etc) and that's too much for other people on the whole to accept it.

In fact it makes it easier to continue the time line for you time line believers. Because there are games that no matter how you figure, they just dont fit in your theory perfectly. And they might never. Because there is just a chance, that nintendo just made the game... Not knowing quite what to expect from their many many fans.

However, even if a timeline doesn't exist, whether a full one or part of it, that still doesn't mean your theory is correct... there is too many conflicting facts for that. Even more, in fact, than any timeline I've seen constructed... just saying.

Anyways, I'm sorry if this has offended you... I tried to word it as neutrally as possible but still point out what I meant, but sometimes I word things a little too clumsily and end up stepping on people's toes. Believe me, as I said in my previous post, it is actually a really interesting theory... just not one I can really get behind or think of as a solution to the "timeline", because to me, it ignores too much. But, as I said, it always comes down to your personal opinion, and I can't fault you for thinking what you like and liking what you think :3

 

[Baysiderulez]

The idea of the games getting re-told, as I've said elsewhere recently, only really applied before Wind Waker. However as the series grows further, the sheer amount of added features and differing ideals makes the idea nonsensical:

"So there was this guy lookin' for the Triforce on a boat--"
"Boat?! Surely he was on a horse, I heard Hyrule was land, not some ocean!!"
"Psh, why would he be using a boat when there was a perfectly fine train--"
"I'd heard he was a wolf myself!"
"And who said anything about Triforce anyway! It was force gems he was out to--"
"Three force gems? Don't be--"
"Eight, actually"
"That was all one piece of Triforce!!"

... You see?

Honestly, that little series of discrepencies, is exactly how legends work, and you more so proved my point then disproved it. I can tell that many of you failed to read about the different Cinderellas that I linked to in my first post. But those were added to show you, just how FARFETCHED they can be from the original and still be the same story. A little deviation about Land, Sea, or Water is nothing. The little clip about a wolf, maybe it was important to one culture for that to be included. As for the number of shards/force gems... Every legend gets exaggerated at one point or another.... That's prolly the most explainable of all.

I can tell you people skipped over my Cinderella links to the various re-tellings of the SAME story. I can tell because you think its unlikely for there to be what is considered a LITTLE variation to occur... If you refuse to look at all 3. At least take a look at Mufaro's beautiful daughters... Notice how much this story varies from the original... Instead of 3 sisters there were 2. Instead of an evil step mother there was a dad. Instead of a fairy godmother there was a snake. Cinderella wasn't mistreated, she was merely kind while her sister was not.

Beginning to sound familiar? Yes variations can be a little far-fetched. That doesn't make them a different story.

 

[bbevington90]

Well, there's definitely a timeline, it's just a matter of what fits into it. SS, OoT, MM, TP, WW, PH, and ST are obviously in a timeline of some kind. I understand thinking that the others are just re-tellings of stories, though. I have a feeling that this "master timeline" that Nintendo has is more like:

SS-OoT
Child: MM-TP
Adult: WW/PH-ST

And for the record, I do generally like to try and place every game into a timeline, the above was just a little bit of "i see what you're getting at"

 

[February Eve]

Others are far better theorists than I, and I don't really have the resources to prove or disprove this particular theory. However, something I've noticed on the site is that it is the more far-fetched or strongly opinionated posts that prompt some of the best discussion. For one thing, in order to explain why you think a theory works, you may not simply need to explain why not, but also provide a suitable alternative. For another, thinking from an opposing viewpoint can show what holes need to be filled in your own theory are and as a consequence make it stronger. So there's nothing wrong with approaching the question from a completely different angle, and it can actually be useful.

And on a purely personal level, I like it if the answer is not as obvious as it appears. If the timeline were released today and it matched up perfectly, I'd think it was pretty neat. But if it were released and Nintendo said something wild like, "Actually, these are all alternate realities that converge here and here" (ahem: I'm not arguing that, I just needed a made-up example) I'd think "WHOA." And it wouldn't add closure so much as it would open even more discussion.

Finally, not necessarily agreeing with the theory, but agreeing with one statement - it's fair to think that two legends can be wildly divergent and yet the same thing. Look at Wind Waker for a canon example. The triforce somehow moprhed into "triumph forks." Another several hundred years, it could be changed to "crying storks." Plus, the world changes, and tales become outdated. Who knows, perhaps along the way a storyteller updated the tale and it gradually eclipsed the original to became the most popular one. It ventures too much into pure speculation to be something that can be proven. But it's not unreasonable as an opinion.

 

[Hanyou]

Jo, have you ever heard of retconning?

There's a very high probability that they had no timeline theory in mind when they made the first game. However, a timeline has since developed and the developers are "retconning" all of the games (or at least most of them) into this timeline. I've never heard anyone argue they had the timeline planned from the start, but that's irrelevant to this debate. Also, while it's unlikely the earlier games will fit perfectly into any timeline, the point of retconning is to reconcile already-existing stories with newer ones. Such is the case with, say, The Hobbit and Lord of the Rings; I doubt Tolkien worked out every detail of the Ring's history when Bilbo stole it from Gollum (in fact, I'm quite sure he didn't, even though Middle-Earth existed for him), but that history exists now thanks to future releases. It's the same for Zelda.

While there was talk of prequels and sequels at least since Zelda II, The Wind Waker gave us our first clear indication of an existing, chronological timeline, with different Links and Zeldas. Certainly, they rehash the same basic theme. There's nothing wrong with this. It's the classic Hero's Journey outlined by Joseph Campbell and repeated in many major cultural stories. Hell, Lucas based the original Star Wars trilogy off of it. Zelda's developers (consciously or unconsciously) invoke the hero's journey multiple times, so the games echo each other, just as they echo other stories (the legend of King Arthur, Lord of the Rings, Beowulf, The Odyssey, and probably several Japanese myths and legends).

But recurring themes do not preclude the existence of an overarching timeline linking the stories. It's almost futile to debate the point since developers have made the existence of a timeline quite clear and the games reference each other as points of history. The Wind Waker's link to Ocarina of Time is indisputable, and it takes place in a different setting (though the same place), with a different game engine and, for the most part, different characters. Whatever themes it echoes, it exists in the same universe as OoT.

I guess I could argue that Terminator 2 is not actually a sequel to The Terminator, but a retelling. You've got the same overarching themes (man vs machine), the presence of an aggressor and protector character, the presence of a helpless victim who comes into their own (Sarah/John Connor), and an ending where the machine is defeated. Maybe Return of the Jedi is a retelling of the original Star Wars. You've got the movie starting on a desert planet, a film whose plot expands from a personal story into a tale of galactic conquest and rebellion, and a large-scale attack on the Death Star culminating in a pretty resolute ending.

Or maybe these films and these games stick with what works (certain basic formulae) and expand upon them while contributing to a larger plot. That's inarguably the case with Zelda, given what the developers have told us time and time again, and given the games' background stories and points of reference.

 

[Locke]

Its funny that you say I'm jumping to conclusions, aren't you doing the exact same thing, only with the opposite.... That they must all be different?

All the games have different elements, many of them major ones. The only way to say the can be the same is to stretch the meaning of "Legend" to its limit. I don't have to stretch anything to say they're different because they already are.
Also, burden of proof
"This burden of proof is often asymmetrical and typically falls more heavily on the party that makes either an ontologically positive claim, or makes a claim more "extraordinary",[4] that is farther removed from conventionally accepted facts."

Think about the first game. The Legend of Zelda. It was created. Hell it was the first game that allowed you to SAVE to your freaking cartridge without having to enter in a code every single time. That was innovative to the gaming industry. But they didn't know that Zelda was going to become a classic, or a best seller, or any of that. Even when the first was so successful and AoL was made... they dared to be different. and Some would call AoL a flop. The stability of the zelda series wasn't really there until after the success OoT.
If anything, take OoT and the games produced after wards to come up with some workable theory. It just doesnt make sense that the timeline would include the games when the future of the zelda franchise was unknown.

The timeline has existed since AoL. That game was made as a sequel to LoZ. It's stated in the title (ZELDA II), in the instruction manual, and in Miyamoto's 1998/99 NP interview and several since then. There is no reason to assume that later games have removed the first four from the timeline completely. They may have obscured their placement, but "to me storyline is important, and as producer, I am going to be going through, and trying to bring all of these stories together, and kind of make them a little bit more clear. Unfortunately, we just haven’t done that yet." -Aonuma
The connections aren't clear yet, but as Aonuma produces more games, he adds more connections to past ones to make sure they remain in the timeline.

However, like I said, I do believe that there are some games that are simply retellings, just because the plots parallel so closely. A Link to the Past and Ocarina of Time have an almost identical plot (collect three pendants/sacred stones to receive the master sword, enter an alternate, grim world, gather seven sages/maidens, and then fight a man who is revealed to actually be Ganon). On a lesser scale, there is Link's Awakening and Phantom Hourglass, in which Link, after a sailing accident, finds himself on a beach, then goes on a quest to help a giant whale, then returns to his life with only a little indication (Marin becoming a seagull/The titular hourglass and Linebeck's ship) that the whole adventure isn't just one big dream.

You (and probably the TS) are confusing gameplay with plot. Collecting stones and entering another world are not what define the overall story of each game. If you take a step back and look at what story is actually being told, you'll find much more differences than similarities.

In OoT, Ganondorf is seeking an alliance with the Hylians in an effort to gain access to the Sacred Realm. He tricks Link into opening the door for him, and Link must awaken the sages so they can cast a seal on the Sacred Realm, trapping Ganondorf inside. In LttP, Ganon is already inside the Sacred Realm and creates a bunshin to deceive the king and gather the seven maidens to create a portal to escape it. Link then rescues the maidens and kills Ganon.

In LA, Link strives to wake up the Wind Fish (I think...never played it unfortunately). In PH, Link strives to rescue Tetra.

Yes, gameplay is more important than story when creating games. But when it comes to the timeline, it's the stories of the games that are connected.



@4 above (TS): I agree with most of what you said in this post. I also thought that Satsy was inadvertantly bolstering your claim. Yes, elements like that can be changed over time. But as I said, this is not the case with the actual story of the games or with the Zelda series. Also, I had called you an outside-the-box thinker as well in that previous post in an attempt to balance out the offense. Sorry it didn't work.

@1 above (Hanyou): This is probably the most intelligent post I've ever read at ZD. I would have preferred not being reminded of my 10th grade English class, but that is a very good point that needed to be brought up and that I 100% agree with.
The Zelda games all share similar themes since they are all part of one series which follows closely with the very common Hero's Journey motif. The stories themselves, however, are most definately different, and are stated by the writers to be so.

 

[Random Person]

I'm not sure if I read this correctly, but I disagree. TP is clearly after OoT in a timeline manner (Not going off of theory here, it's in the game) So you can't say it's the same story retold when one of the stories is the sequel to another.

 

[Tyeforce]

Just because the franchise has "Legend" in its title doesn't mean that every game is just the same legend retold... Logic fail. There is absolutely no evidence that suggests that the title of the franchise is in any way significant to the timeline of the games at all.

 

[figthersword]

Absolutely correct it doesn't mean that it has the same story told. but what if they had an evidence?

 

[Octo Rocked]

You (and probably the TS) are confusing gameplay with plot. Collecting stones and entering another world are not what define the overall story of each game. If you take a step back and look at what story is actually being told, you'll find much more differences than similarities.

In OoT, Ganondorf is seeking an alliance with the Hylians in an effort to gain access to the Sacred Realm. He tricks Link into opening the door for him, and Link must awaken the sages so they can cast a seal on the Sacred Realm, trapping Ganondorf inside. In LttP, Ganon is already inside the Sacred Realm and creates a bunshin to deceive the king and gather the seven maidens to create a portal to escape it. Link then rescues the maidens and kills Ganon.

In LA, Link strives to wake up the Wind Fish (I think...never played it unfortunately). In PH, Link strives to rescue Tetra.

Um, no. I'm not talking about gameplay here. Comparing gameplay is like saying "The games are all the same because in all of them, Link goes into dungeons and solves puzzles so he can beat bosses and get MacGuffins to face the final boss." That's gameplay. What I'm talking about is not exact plot, but plot elements. Phantom Hourglass is divergent enough from Link's Awakening, but the basic plot structure essentially goes "Link ends up stranded on an island that happens to be an alternate reality, which he escapes when he helps a giant whale." Yes, the two plots are wildly divergant, but many of the same plot elements are there. Likewise, while many of the details are wildly different (unlocking the sages' powers as opposed to rescuing the maidens, journeys into the future/past instead of the light world/dark world), the plots parallel each other so closely that, had they been two different series, one could probably sue the other for plagiarism. Those sorts of differences are what the OP was getting at with the Legend theory.

 

[Satsy]

Bayside: To be honest, if nonsensical changes to any story is what bolsters your theory you should probably be worried. Especially when you're applying our world fiction to a fictional world's reality.

Effectively what you're saying is similar to claiming that the battle of Hastings is the same as the battle of Sekigahara, just 'adapted for a different culture'. I'm sure you can see where there are flaws with this. But what you're going by is pretty much the same logic. They're both old battles made worse by unsettled claims of power or the throne, between two sides. Naturally there are a lot of differences. But so's the same in the Zelda stories.

Original backstories are hard to come by. But just because those backstories are similar, it doesn't always make them the same story. Zelda involves fighting a monster for a Princess and saving a Kingdom. Super Mario series, anyone? Link's awakening involves Link finding himself in a strange place looking for a strange being (hidden in an egg) who can help him leave the island. Wizard of Oz. Even outside of the Zelda series, I've often heard people compare Avatar to Pokahontas. Alice in Wonderland and Wizard of Oz also carry a lot of similar themes. Doesn't necessarily mean they're the same story.

And I'm glad someone else mentioned that most of the games reference each other either subtly, directly, or with a wonderful prologue before you even need to touch the controller. Retellings don't often tend to reference themselves, last I checked.

 

[Locke]

Um, no. I'm not talking about gameplay here. Comparing gameplay is like saying "The games are all the same because in all of them, Link goes into dungeons and solves puzzles so he can beat bosses and get MacGuffins to face the final boss." That's gameplay. What I'm talking about is not exact plot, but plot elements. Phantom Hourglass is divergent enough from Link's Awakening, but the basic plot structure essentially goes "Link ends up stranded on an island that happens to be an alternate reality, which he escapes when he helps a giant whale." Yes, the two plots are wildly divergant, but many of the same plot elements are there. Likewise, while many of the details are wildly different (unlocking the sages' powers as opposed to rescuing the maidens, journeys into the future/past instead of the light world/dark world), the plots parallel each other so closely that, had they been two different series, one could probably sue the other for plagiarism. Those sorts of differences are what the OP was getting at with the Legend theory.

Those similar plot elements represent similar themes. Themes are reused all the time. However, the general outcomes of the stories are different. The cinderella stories can be different versions of the same legend because they all have the same general outcome (girl gets guy, iirc. sorry TS I didn't read them). In OoT, Ganondorf is sealed in the SR with the ToP and the ToC is split into 8 shards and the ToW into two. In LttP Ganon is killed and the entire Triforce falls into the hands of Link. The games may have similar plot elements and themes, but the outcome and the [what's the term in literature for the 'point of the story'?] are completely different.

Bayside: To be honest, if nonsensical changes to any story is what bolsters your theory you should probably be worried. Especially when you're applying our world fiction to a fictional world's reality.

Hes applying our world's fiction to a fictional world's fiction. The point he's trying to get across is that all the Zelda games are fiction [based on reality], even within the Zelda universe.

Effectively what you're saying is similar to claiming that the battle of Hastings is the same as the battle of Sekigahara, just 'adapted for a different culture'. I'm sure you can see where there are flaws with this. But what you're going by is pretty much the same logic. They're both old battles made worse by unsettled claims of power or the throne, between two sides. Naturally there are a lot of differences. But so's the same in the Zelda stories.

I don't remember anything about history, but if those are two different battles, that's not what he's trying to say. What he's trying to say is that [insert two different names and descriptions of the same battle here] are the same battle. Or (@TS) are you trying to say that they are entirely fiction and not based on historical events at all? (as in there is no Zelda universe, or if there is one it has nothing to do with any of the games)