Official Nintendo Magazine's Timeline

[Locke]

All credit goes to RiverZora who actually bought the magazine and posted the info on ZI.

We've also joined the Zelda timeline debate as ONM's Fred Dutton tries to make sense of one of the greatest Nintendo mysteries.

source

The whole FS series first,

Other than that it's a Miyamoto timeline on the CT with OoX stuck at the end because it's 'as good a place as any'.

They also acknowledge that tMC could also just as easily go after Spirit Tracks.

No mention of an AT placement possibility for anything else...

That's
.............................. -- WW/PH -- ST (-- MC -- FS/FSA)
(MC -- FS/FSA) -- OoT
............................../MM -- TP -- LoZ/AoL -- LttP/LA -- OoX


Overall it looks pretty good, though I still don't think the FSA can go before OoT. It appears that they went mostly off Aonuma's "first story" quotes and the Miyamoto Order, but I'd really like to see what else they have to say about their timeline. And of course, I'd also like to see what you guys think about it!

Keep in mind that this is from the research of one Zelda fan who happens to work for the official magazine, and is not by any means an 'official timeline.'


On a sad note, they referred their readers to some theorizing websites, and ZD wasn't among them.




EDIT: RZ got the scans up. Here's their article (from ZI):

Everyone loves a good mystery, right? And doubly, everyone loves a good Zelda game. Is it any surprise then that one of the most feverishly debated topics among the more obsessive ranks of the Nintendo faithful is exactly where each of Link's adventures fit in an over-arching Zelda timeline?

At first glance, it might seem like a fairly straightforward exercise, but delve a little deeper and you'll find that the labyrinthine twists, turns and contradictions of the Zelda mythology add up to one hell of a head scratcher. Is there one Link, or a whole lineage of heroes? What's the 'earliest' Zelda game? Is Majora's Mask a direct sequel to Ocarina Of Time? Or is it actually Wind Waker? Are Nintendo making it up as they go along?

Type 'Zelda Timeline' into Google and you'll be met with countless fansites and forums dedicated to picking apart the tiniest, most obscure intricacies of Zelda lore. Heck, there's a thread on our very own forum that is currently a staggering 87 web pages long. To save you from wading through the senseless ramblings of these passionate-but-unhinged enthusiasts, over the next few pages we've done our best to get to the bottom of the mystery. So, give us a second to raise our Zelda superfan flame shield... and we'll begin.

Out Of Line
First up, let's throw out the two most logical assumptions - that the games line up chronologically in the order in which they were released, or that all the games feature the same incarnation of Link. Sorry, but that would just be too easy. A cursory examination of the various games' instruction books, plots and quotes from Nintendo themselves immediately discount the possibility. The games' stories dart back and forth like a Quentin Tarantino movie at its most obtuse and convoluted. Almost every Zelda game (with a couple of exceptions) tells the story of a different Link and Zelda in a different time period.

It's widely accepted that certain chunks of the franchise slot together neatly, as follows:

-The Adventure of Link (NES) is a direct sequel to The Legend Of Zelda (NES).

-Link's Awakening (Game Boy) follows on from A Link To The Past (SNES).

-Ocarina Of Time (N64) precedes Majora's Mask (N64) which precedes Twilight Princess (Wii).

-The Minish Cap (GBA) precedes Four Swords (GBA), which itself precedes Four Sword Adventures (GameCube).

-Spirit Tracks (DS) follows Phantom Hourglass (DS) which is a sequel to Wind Waker (Wii).

-Oracle Of Ages and Oracle Of Seasons (both GBC) fit together as one.

All that's left is to slot these chunks together. Easy, right? Series producer Eiji Aonuma stated upon its release that Four Swords is the earliest game in the timeline. That game, and its direct sequel, Four Swords Adventures, featured the evil Vaati as Link's primary adversary. Seeing as The Minish Cap tells the story of how Vaati came into being, we can therefore assume that it's a prequel and the earliest game in the timeline.

In The Beginning
Before Four Swords was released, Miyamoto and Aonuma insisted that Ocarina Of Time was Link's first adventure. Surely then, Ocarina comes next, followed by its oddball sequel, Majora's Mask. This is where things start to get complicated. When Twilight Princess came out, Aonuma had this to say, "In Ocarina Of Time, Link flew forward seven years in time, he beat Ganon and went back to being a kid, remember? Twilight Princess takes place in the world of Ocarina of Time, a hundred and something years after the peace returned to child Link's time. In the last scene of Ocarina of Time, child Link and Zelda have a little talk, and as a consequence of that talk, their relationship with Ganon takes a whole new direction."

Essentially, this means that the timeline splits with Ocarina Of Time into two parallel dimensions - one which leads to Majora's Mask and Twilight Princess, and another separate thread that leads next to The Wind Waker, Phantom Hourglass and Spirit Tracks. Still with us?

Miyamoto insisted at the time that the original Legend Of Zelda and its direct sequel follow on from Ocarina Of Time, meaning we can either place them in a 100 year gap between Majora's Mask and Twilight Princess, or directly after. A Link To The Past logically comes next, followed by Link's Awakening. The start of the latter, which sees Link shipwrecked on a mysterious island, ties in nicely to the end screen of ALTTP, which tells of Link heading off to explore the world outside Hyrule. The two Oracle games are the hardest to place, with Miyamoto insisting they can slot in anywhere.

So, that wasn't so hard, right? Well, there's a good number of timeline 'scholars' who would look at this version of events and scoff. Firstly, many fans insist Ocarina Of Time is basically a remake of A Link To The Past, detailing the creation of the Triforce and the rise of the evil Ganondorf. They can't really exist in the same timeline as they're essentially the same game.

If you explore the library in The Minish Cap you'll notice reference to old Hyrulian treasures - the Triumph Forks - and how they were lost in 'The Great Flood'. Could this be a reference to the submerged Hyrule seen in Wind Waker and Phantom Hourglass? If so, there's no way Minish Cap can be the oldest Zelda yarn.

Muddying the waters further, there are suggestions in Adventure Of Link that the Princess in that game is the first ever Zelda, making that the earliest game in the timeline. Many fans would also argue that Four Swords Adventure lines up perfectly as a direct prequel to A Link To The Past, sharing many topographical similarities with the SNES game and a number of items.

Spanners In The Works
Also, consider the inconsistencies in the location of the Master Sword in all the games, the heated debate about The Imprisoning War mentioned in A Link To The Past's backstory (is it the conflict depicted in Ocarina Of Time or not?) and the fact that the geography of Hyrule is completely different in every game and, well, it's Nurofen time.

Zelda head honcho Eiji Aonuma has confirmed that there is a timeline master document sitting around somewhere at Nintendo HQ. Even so, perhaps the most convincing solution to the timeline conundrum is that, well, there isn't one. Outside of the obviously linked games (Wind Waker/Phantom Hourglass etc.), Nintendo are purely inventing and modifying scenarios and mythologies on the fly. After all, with Nintendo, gameplay is always king. Plot comes second.

Still, it's a fun little exercise for us Zelda enthusiasts. Why not bust out all your Zelda games, play them back to back and let us know your theory? Sounds like a pretty good way to mark time before Aonuma's next masterpiece touches down this Christmas...

FURTHER READING
If we've piqued your interest in further Zelda timeline discussion, there are loads of fansites out there expanding on some of the theories we've discussed here. Here are a few good starting points:
www.zeldauniverse.net, www.zeldawiki.org, www.zeldainformer.com

And don't forget to stop by the enormous 'Legend Of Zelda: Timeline Princess' thread in the General Nintendo Chat section of our own web forums at:
www.officialnintendomagazine.co.uk/forums

and their timeline:

 

[Vincent]

I'm still not feeling TMC at the front. And what on earth possessed them to put LoZ and AoL after TP?

 

[Zemen]

I'm still not feeling TMC at the front. And what on earth possessed them to put LoZ and AoL after TP?

Are you saying that LoZ/AoL should go before TP or are you saying that LoZ/AoL should not be on the CT at all? If they are on the CT then of course they would take place after TP...

Anyway, I don't think FS/FSA have any chance of being before OoT. MC definitely does and I've always thought OoX should take place at the end of the CT. Makes sense to me.

 

[Locke]

Are you saying that LoZ/AoL should go before TP or are you saying that LoZ/AoL should not be on the CT at all? If they are on the CT then of course they would take place after TP...

I'd assume he meant directly after TP, and would rather it be placed after LttP. Then the answer to his question would be "Miyamoto Order."

 

[athenian200]

That's a really good timeline. It's actually very similar to mine after doing more research. The difference is that I swapped LoZ/AoL and ALttP's positions, but that was because it was easier for me to imagine Ganon surviving his ALttP death than his LoZ one, ALttP was originally a prequel to LoZ, and the Master Sword's placement makes a lot more sense in ALttP immediately after TP.

One thing I'll admit, though... I hate the degree of logical consistency and detail alignment people demand in their theories. It takes all the fun out of theorizing, and pretty much forces everyone to make rather unsatisfying timelines that align with popular ideas or be ignored.

 

[Steve]

Good to see Zelda Wiki get a a reference ^_^, but too bad Zelda Dungeon didn't.

Anyway, I think their timeline is decent, however I don't see The Minsh Cap or the Four Swords games being before Ocarina of Time. Secondly, The Legend of Zelda and The Adventure of Link are definitely not before A Link to the Past, as the game was made specifically to be a prequel to the other two (hence the name).

 

[Pinecove]

Anyway, I think their timeline is decent, however I don't see The Minsh Cap or the Four Swords games being before Ocarina of Time. Secondly, The Legend of Zelda and The Adventure of Link are definitely not before A Link to the Past, as the game was made specifically to be a prequel to the other two (hence the name).

The Japanese name was "Triforce of the Gods" not ALttP. In fact the legendary box which people say proved ALttP-LoZ was mistranslated! ALttP-LoZ is a possibility but it sure as hell isn't fact.

 

[MrMosley]

The Japanese name was "Triforce of the Gods" not ALttP. In fact the legendary box which people say proved ALttP-LoZ was mistranslated! ALttP-LoZ is a possibility but it sure as hell isn't fact.

It wasn't mistranslated. It said pretty much the exact same thing on the Japanese box.

 

[Zemen]

It wasn't mistranslated. It said pretty much the exact same thing on the Japanese box.

True. I tried finding the Japanese version of the box but I can't but I do remember that it essentially said the same thing that the NOA box for ALTTP.

If someone could find the direct translation from the Japanese box and post it, that would be awesome.

 

[Erimgard]

True. I tried finding the Japanese version of the box but I can't but I do remember that it essentially said the same thing that the NOA box for ALTTP.

If someone could find the direct translation from the Japanese box and post it, that would be awesome.

Too lazy to look it up right now, but I have it memorized almost word for word:

"This time the stage is set a very long time before Link accomplished a feat, the epoch when Hyrule was one kingdom".

Doesn't specifically mention LoZ/AoL, although it's possible that's what the "feat" is.
It was stated that "link accomplished a feat" could also be "link will accomplish a feat". Thus:

"This time the stage is set a very long time before Link will accomplish a feat".

There's multiple debates as to the meaning here. Is the "feat" referring to LoZ? Or is the "feat" referring to his current actions in aLttP?

Is "the stage is set" a reference to when this game takes place? Or is it a reference to when the backstory takes place?

It's extremely ambiguous.

And what Pinecove meant when he said it was mistranslated is that Dan Owsen, the man in charge of localizing Japanese text into American text at the time, and thus, the man who was in charge of the aLttP NoA box was interviewed in 2003, and he stated that the box was wrong.

He was no longer employed by Nintendo at this point, so take it with a grain of salt.

In the same interview, he said that Miyamoto himself didn't really know that the timeline was, yet, when asked his opinion on it, Dan Owsen gave the exact same timeline order that Miyamoto did.

So he said:

Miyamoto doesn't really know the timeline
The box was wrong
Miyamoto's proposed timeline was right

Mr. Owsen enjoys confusing us apparently.

 

[Jesper]

I still mean that OOT laid the foundation for Link's clothing (yeah)

In all the other games, he always had this tunic after some playing (or starting out with it)

It's a stupid theory yes, but i dont look upon it as all that stupid :3

I almost agree with the timeline, just some minor difficulties in it :3

 

[Locke]

RZ got the scans up. See them in the OP.



some comments as I read it myself:

-they called their timeline thread (and probably all timeline forums) "senseless ramblings these passionate-but-unhinged enthusiasts." Not really related to the timeline, but I just thought I'd point out that I felt somewhat insulted by that comment.

-they shouldn't have included LttP/LA as one of the commonly accepted arcs. I agree with it and I think that's the way it was intended, but it can go other places without too much fuss.

-WW is for Wii?

-As I had assumed, they used Aonuma's outdated "earliest tale" quote. Oh well, at least they're not using the hat argument.

-How did they jump from LoZ being after OoT according to Miyamoto to it being either between MM and TP or directly after? They provided no explanation for why it can't be AT. I'm a little disappointed at that.

-It appears they didn't realize that the princess in AoL had been asleep for who knows how many years. So just because it was the first Zelda doesn't make AoL the first game. At least they didn't put it there though.

-It looks like they just gave up after a while. They did do a much better job than GT and came up with a decent timeline, but they didn't really do anything to explain the inconsistencies they mentioned. I guess that's all you can expect out of a magazine, but I think they owe us explanations for things like why they think Aonuma's quote is more important than FSA's connections with LttP and why LttP "logically comes next" after LoZ/AoL, and why LoZ/AoL can't even be considered to possibly be on the AT.

Yes it's a good timeline, but I think it deserved more than three pages.

 

[Zemen]

-they called their timeline thread (and probably all timeline forums) "senseless ramblings these passionate-but-unhinged enthusiasts." Not really related to the timeline, but I just thought I'd point out that I felt somewhat insulted by that comment.

That right there is a hint that they probably don't care so much and this is just something they implemented to sell the magazine.

-they shouldn't have included LttP/LA as one of the commonly accepted arcs. I agree with it and I think that's the way it was intended, but it can go other places without too much fuss.

I agree. I too think that ALTTP/LA is the correct way, but there is so much debate about it that calling it the norm is dumb.

-WW is for Wii?

lawlz

-As I had assumed, they used Aonuma's outdated "earliest tale" quote. Oh well, at least they're not using the hat argument.

The hat argument is much stronger than many people think if it's argued correctly.

-How did they jump from LoZ being after OoT according to Miyamoto to it being either between MM and TP or directly after? They provided no explanation for why it can't be AT. I'm a little disappointed at that.

It's because they aren't unhinged enthusiasts lol. It's a decent, not thought out timeline.

-It appears they didn't realize that the princess in AoL had been asleep for who knows how many years. So just because it was the first Zelda doesn't make AoL the first game. At least they didn't put it there though.

A lot of people don't realize that. For all we know, the Zelda spoken of in AoL could have been sleeping for hundreds of years. Just because she is the one awakened does not make AoL the first game (or in turn make LoZ the first game).

-It looks like they just gave up after a while. They did do a much better job than GT and came up with a decent timeline, but they didn't really do anything to explain the inconsistencies they mentioned. I guess that's all you can expect out of a magazine, but I think they owe us explanations for things like why they think Aonuma's quote is more important than FSA's connections with LttP and why LttP "logically comes next" after LoZ/AoL, and why LoZ/AoL can't even be considered to possibly be on the AT.

I agree. I think that they made a decent timeline with little to no thought. Some of their placements are correct, IMO, but the reasons they placed certain games are for reasons that are much less important than others. It's not a bad timeline, just poor effort behind its creation.

 

[Jesper]

MC is not logic placing in that position, sadly. (IMO of course)

The Light Force (in MC)

is given to the humans as a gift from the Minish.
That is the power Zelda has. No Triforce!
The Triforce laid the foundation of Hyrule, (or the three godesses created the Triforce afterwards)
In WW, Ganon seems like he is getting killed. The Triforce takes form, and stays on the bottom of the sea, as well as Ganondorf.
then comes PH, then ST, and then the Spirit Tracks are gone after a long long long time, and Hyrule changes shape (as in all games)
The Minish comes takes shape or whatever you wanna call it, and they know magic.
Zelda is given the Light Force (OPPSS!!!!!! LONG TIME AGO ZELDA, there must be a long way till MC after ST, because; The Light Force has flown in the veins of all the Princesses ever since the Minish gave it to them. Vaati is born as a Minish and lays the foundation of a new villain, and therefore Hyrule (before MC) has not been troubled at all. It makes perfect sense IMO.
If you cant come up with a good argument for this, then I guess my MC placement wins.

 

[Smertios]

True. I tried finding the Japanese version of the box but I can't but I do remember that it essentially said the same thing that the NOA box for ALTTP.

If someone could find the direct translation from the Japanese box and post it, that would be awesome.

今度の舞台はリンクが活躍した頃よりも遥か昔、ハイラルが、まだ一つの王国であった時代。
This time, the stage is set very long before the time when Link accomplished a feat, the epoch when Hyrule was still one kingdom.

走る、ぶつかる、かつぐ、投げる。押す、引く、泳ぐ、剣を振る・・・
Run, strike, carry, throw. Push, pull, swim, swing the sword...

ハイラルの国中を自由自在に駆け巡り、黄金の力『トライフオース』を手にしたとき、あなたは伝説の勇者になれるのです。
Roaming freely all over the country of Hyrule, you'll get used to being the hero of legend once you have obtained the golden power, the "Triforce".

Translation according to Jumbie over ZL.

Must notice that it's almost undeniable that the first sentence refers to LoZ/AoL, as there was no other game other than LttP available back at 1991...

I have never heard of the alternative translation Erimgard talked about here...