• Welcome to ZD Forums! You must create an account and log in to see and participate in the Shoutbox chat on this main index page.

The Answer to Our Problems...

zeldahuman

The Missing Link
Joined
Feb 22, 2011
Location
Fighting Alongside Link
Okay, look at this image i took from zeldatimeline.com:



I think this may be the answer to all of our problems.

Do you guys think this is legit? I think it is, i actually wasted 15 minutes of my life reading this... seems pretty flawless. What do you all think?
 

Capitaine

Ray of Silver
Joined
May 16, 2011
It doesn't explain why TMC has to be after TP, why Ganondorf "reincarnates" in FSA, or why Ganon ends up in the Sacred Realm after FSA.
 
Joined
Jul 23, 2011
I read that too. I think it's the best I've seen. There are still some unanswered things, but we have to remember there will be more games that might answer thjose things.
 

Garo

Boy Wonder
Joined
Jun 21, 2011
Location
Behind you
There are holes in every timeline theory; the only timeline that is actually flawless is this:

............/--WW/PH--ST
SS--OoT
............\MM--TP

Beyond that, there are going to be holes. In the above timeline, for instance, A Link to the Past being placed in the child timeline creates a hole - Ganon is ostensibly dead at the end of TP. Though a Ganon returns in Four Swords Adventures, there is some debate on whether that Ganon is the same Ganon (which he can't be, because he's dead) or a new Ganon (which many people say he isn't; either way, FSA being placed there creates problems). Even if we accept that FSA can be placed there, he is sealed in the Four Sword; in A Link to the Past, he is sealed within the Dark World, or Sacred Realm, and in possession of the full Triforce.

What this timeline does that others do not is provide a series of events that transpire between games on the timeline. While this is an exceedingly well-reasoned and very accurate timeline, it has holes like any other - holes that can only be resolved with Zelda games that cover certain events, like the Seal/Imprisoning War.
 
Last edited:

basement24

There's a Bazooka in TP!
Joined
Feb 28, 2009
Location
Ontario, Canada
It seems plausible, but to back up theories with games that have "yet to be shown" doesn't really work with me. Yes, it's assumed other games may come along and fill in gaps, but only have LOZ / AOL at the end on the basis that Ganon somehow returns in a game not yet made isn't solid. It would be better to leave LOZ / AOL in an 'unknown' category then instead of to put them on the end because of this.

I'm also confused by how this is laid out with statements like "LA-SLEEPING PRINCESS-LOZ". The sleeping Zelda is the backstory to AOL that says all Princesses named Zelda were named after the original who had the sleeping spell cast on her. To throw in this line of text as if it solves some kind of gap between LA and LOZ isn't very convincing.

Also, to say it's based on Japanese games and not the "mistranslated" American ones is something insulting I see in a lot of timelines. Localization is an adaptation, and is subject to interpretation, may of which are done to better present a story to the audience it is intended for. It's not as if the localization team is the last to hold the game before it heads to retail. It is all done with approval and often in conjunction with game creators. Perhaps I just shut down when I see statements like this, but remarks such as this are basically saying "I did a better adaptation than the official adapters did, and mine should be taken as canon". Those people fail to realize that there's always someone who will come up with a different adaptation, or even a better one than they did.

I would like to see a non-jot note version of this in text format so it can be better explained. The blackboard scrawlings graphic is cute, but it leaves gaps that would be better told through full sentences as to how the thought process went down.
 

Garo

Boy Wonder
Joined
Jun 21, 2011
Location
Behind you
It seems plausible, but to back up theories with games that have "yet to be shown" doesn't really work with me. Yes, it's assumed other games may come along and fill in gaps, but only have LOZ / AOL at the end on the basis that Ganon somehow returns in a game not yet made isn't solid. It would be better to leave LOZ / AOL in an 'unknown' category then instead of to put them on the end because of this.
I think that the order ALttP/OoX/LA--LoZ/AoL is pretty generally accepted.

I'm also confused by how this is laid out with statements like "LA-SLEEPING PRINCESS-LOZ". The sleeping Zelda is the backstory to AOL that says all Princesses named Zelda were named after the original who had the sleeping spell cast on her. To throw in this line of text as if it solves some kind of gap between LA and LOZ isn't very convincing.
I don't think that is meant to be taken as evidence of the timeline, I think it is simply to illustrate the series of events. For example, let's say you have Game 1, 2, 3, and 4. Game 3 has a reference to a character that was killed in Game 4. This reference indicates that Game 3 follows Game 4, which itself is preceded by 1 and 2. So you have 1-2-4-3. But Game 3 takes place a very, very long time after Game 4, and Game 3 references events that happened after Game 4, but that no game shows.

Those statements are simply there to tie the narrative together.

Also, to say it's based on Japanese games and not the "mistranslated" American ones is something insulting I see in a lot of timelines. Localization is an adaptation, and is subject to interpretation, may of which are done to better present a story to the audience it is intended for. It's not as if the localization team is the last to hold the game before it heads to retail. It is all done with approval and often in conjunction with game creators. Perhaps I just shut down when I see statements like this, but remarks such as this are basically saying "I did a better adaptation than the official adapters did, and mine should be taken as canon". Those people fail to realize that there's always someone who will come up with a different adaptation, or even a better one than they did.
Before the timeline became a very murky thing to piece together, NoA's translators were very haphazard, going so far as to mistranslate "Sages" as "Wise Old Men" in A Link to the Past. As a result it made using the English games very difficult when trying to form a timeline. Now, NoA is much more careful when it comes to delicate wording like that, so that timeline clues and important details are not obscured or muddled. It isn't a "NoA's translators suck" thing at all, it's just "I want to be incredibly careful and use the same wording that Miyamoto and Aonuma use."
 

Capitaine

Ray of Silver
Joined
May 16, 2011
Before the timeline became a very murky thing to piece together, NoA's translators were very haphazard, going so far as to mistranslate "Sages" as "Wise Old Men" in A Link to the Past.
Except ALttP wasn't translated by NoA. It was translated in Japan, I believe.

As a result it made using the English games very difficult when trying to form a timeline. Now, NoA is much more careful when it comes to delicate wording like that, so that timeline clues and important details are not obscured or muddled. It isn't a "NoA's translators suck" thing at all, it's just "I want to be incredibly careful and use the same wording that Miyamoto and Aonuma use."
I agree with basement on this. I really don't think amateur fan translators are going to end up conveying more accurate interpretations of the Japanese texts than the official professional translators hired by Nintendo itself. Keep in mind that big companies like that tend to get the best translators possible, so it's unlikely the American texts have as many errors as people like to think there is, especially since translations are often checked over by the original developers to make sure the translations convey the correct information.
 

basement24

There's a Bazooka in TP!
Joined
Feb 28, 2009
Location
Ontario, Canada
I think that the order ALttP/OoX/LA--LoZ/AoL is pretty generally accepted.
I've seen ALttP/LA -- LoZ/AoL, but not that OoX was added in. That part I don't believe is generally accepted. It just seems like the backup they're providing here on the placement of the original NES duo is a game yet ot be made, when it can be backed up in a number of different ways. I just think it's poor proof here, which is why I think a non chalkboard text version with better explanations would be better suited to some of these notations.


I don't think that is meant to be taken as evidence of the timeline, I think it is simply to illustrate the series of events.
The series of events here isn't correct though, or at least what I have come to know as being generally accepted. The backstory of AoL should be the very first thing to happen in the series if all the other Princess Zeldas from OoT, TP and such are to be named after the original sleeping one. This event should be, at this point until proven wrong, either in or before SS if we are to believe it's the earliest game. Thrown in between LA and LoZ at the end of the timeline it seems... odd, and without proof. Again, it's confusing, and in a jot note version I would assume any notations like this are an attempt to prove the train of thought behind placement.
 

Locke

Hegemon
Site Staff
Joined
Nov 24, 2009
Location
Redmond, Washington
I've seen ALttP/LA -- LoZ/AoL, but not that OoX was added in. That part I don't believe is generally accepted. It just seems like the backup they're providing here on the placement of the original NES duo is a game yet ot be made, when it can be backed up in a number of different ways. I just think it's poor proof here, which is why I think a non chalkboard text version with better explanations would be better suited to some of these notations.
LttP/OoX/LA has become more common recently. In OoX, Link is trusted with the Triforce, meaning he must have already saved Hyrule before. LttP is one of the two games that sets up the Triforce properly (the other being AoL). There's also supposedly a quote in a Japanese magazine stating the two share the same Link, though the quote hasn't been found yet (only references on a Japanese wiki). LA states that Link is returning from training (OoX) after saving Hyrule (LttP), and starts out with a boat very similar to the one at the end of OoX.

The series of events here isn't correct though, or at least what I have come to know as being generally accepted. The backstory of AoL should be the very first thing to happen in the series if all the other Princess Zeldas from OoT, TP and such are to be named after the original sleeping one. This event should be, at this point until proven wrong, either in or before SS if we are to believe it's the earliest game. Thrown in between LA and LoZ at the end of the timeline it seems... odd, and without proof. Again, it's confusing, and in a jot note version I would assume any notations like this are an attempt to prove the train of thought behind placement.
The Sleeping Zelda being the very first princess named Zelda has been retconned as early as 1998, possibly much earlier. The story involves the ToC being hidden in North Castle, not to be found again until Link retrieves it in AoL. Therefore, any game with the ToC can't go between the SZS and AoL, making SZS -- OoT -- AoL impossible.
 

basement24

There's a Bazooka in TP!
Joined
Feb 28, 2009
Location
Ontario, Canada
The Sleeping Zelda being the very first princess named Zelda has been retconned as early as 1998, possibly much earlier. The story involves the ToC being hidden in North Castle, not to be found again until Link retrieves it in AoL. Therefore, any game with the ToC can't go between the SZS and AoL, making SZS -- OoT -- AoL impossible.
The story also says that the King who hid the ToC said that the crest would appear on the hand of a person worthy of using it. But it also said that someone else could have used the power before that person was found: "But, what will happen if someone else uses the Triforce before then?" While the next line says if it's misused there will be many evils, it also implies that it could be properly used. I always took from this that the ToC doesn't have to wait for AoL Link to find it.

There's also two versions of the Triforce as such, the physical presence of the golden triganle, and the power that manifests itself within an individual. As far as I recall, the physical triangles only show up (not in flashback) in TWW, LoZ, AoL, ALttP and OoX. So, this can still work with the backstory of AoL given the proper person could have used is before these events. OoT is irrelevant here because it doesn't show itself outside of the power manifestation I would think.

I could be wrong though! :)
 

Pinecove

Last Chance
Joined
Feb 7, 2009
Location
Toronto Ontario
OoT is irrelevant here because it doesn't show itself outside of the power manifestation I would think.
Sorry but you're wrong. The purpose of Ganondorf gathering Zelda, Link and himself atop his tower in OoT was so he could do what he eventually succeeded in doing in TWW: getting the Triforce pieces out of Link and Zelda, so he could get a full wish on the Triforce.

As for the image above: Very good timeline, I've seen this before (also for anyone who talks about Ganondorf, FSA is necessary on ANY timeline to explain how Ganondorf is alive. As for LoZ, that's an entirely different story). There are a few flaws with the theories themselves (for example, the "TP Hyrule = West Hyrule" is completely false. TP Hyrule (if TP comes on the same timeline as AoL) is the Hyrule that we see in LoZ, and as such is located in the south west corner of the AoL map.)

It also fails to mention any development history, but that's fine I suppose.
 

basement24

There's a Bazooka in TP!
Joined
Feb 28, 2009
Location
Ontario, Canada
Sorry but you're wrong. The purpose of Ganondorf gathering Zelda, Link and himself atop his tower in OoT was so he could do what he eventually succeeded in doing in TWW: getting the Triforce pieces out of Link and Zelda, so he could get a full wish on the Triforce.
I think there's still something to be said about the difference between Triforce powers within an individual, and one that is floating free within a castle waiting to be claimed.
 
Joined
Aug 1, 2011
Location
Kalamazoo, MI
On the "original Zelda" issue, that was retconed by LttP. The Triforce wasn't in the hands of the royal family and there was no heir to the throne but Zelda. LttP occurred prior to AoL, so the Zelda in that game couldn't have been the original Zelda. Let's remember that consistency wasn't always a priority for Nintendo.
 

Users Who Are Viewing This Thread (Users: 0, Guests: 1)

Top Bottom