The Theory of Time: Why People Are Right to Question the Timeline

[Cero]

:foursword:Time and time again, I hear and see people attacking new theories about game placement on any of the timelines. They dismiss these theorists as people who are simply "ignoring" or "fighting against" the "official" timeline. While I agree that Hyrule Historia should not be dismissed entirely, acting as if it is flawless is just silly.

At first I agreed. I remember, awhile back, there was an article about the theory that ALttP was simply a retelling of OoT. It was a compelling theory with interesting points... Until you got to the comment section where the comments were nothing but harsh and dismissive. They cited Hyrule Historia, and I was on their side. I thought they were right in condemning ideas that blatantly disregard the timeline and thought that any deviation from the timeline was simply because they didn't like what Nintendo put together.

But then I actually read the first part of Hyrule's Chronology.

"This is an introduction to the history of Hyrule, told chronologically, which weaves together the numerous Legend of Zelda stories. Is it a legend? Is it an accurate history of a cycle of rebirth? There is evidence that the story of The Legend of Zelda begins with Skyward Sword."

Right off the bat, Nintendo is sure to set up some flexibility. I am taking this to mean, "Hey guys, we are kind of working backwards here so there might be some discrepancies here and there."

But if that isn't enough for you, the next paragraph kind of hits the flexibility point home:

"WEAVING HISTORY: This chronicle merely collects the information that is believed to be true at this time, and there are many obscured and unanswered secrets that still lie within the tale. As the stories and storytellers of Hyrule change, so, too, does the tapestry of events. Changes that seem inconsequential, disregarded without even a shrug, could evolve at some point to hatch new legends and, perhaps, change this tapestry of history itself."

It is my belief that Hyrule Historia was not designed to squelch Zelda Theorists. I think it was just a way to interact with fans and give something to diehard fans who love getting enveloped by the series.

We need to stop dismissing new ideas in regards to the timeline just because HH is in our hands. Nintendo can change it at any time (all it takes is one game). Imagine if it turns out Skyward Sword takes place far in the future when Hyrule was long forgotten? Or what if there aren't three timelines but an infinite number of parallel worlds resulting from the actions taken in each game (imagine if every game had a fallen hero branch? The series would be endless.) Or what if the games are just retellings of the same story (even if they were, who cares?).

Let's stop treating HH as the absolute, final word on the matter and keep having ideas and working on theories regarding the legends.



What do you guys think?

:majora:

 

[Unlucky Monkey]

Imagine if it turns out Skyward Sword takes place far in the future when Hyrule was long forgotten?

You really made a good point here (same goes for the Thread). First of all, the Franchise still contains the word "Legend" in it's title. And I think this word made the Authors write something like:

"This is an introduction to the history of Hyrule, told chronologically, which weaves together the numerous Legend of Zelda stories. Is it a legend? Is it an accurate history of a cycle of rebirth? There is evidence that the story of The Legend of Zelda begins with Skyward Sword."

I think this comes from Prologue of The Lord of the Rings - The Fellowship of the Ring: "Events become Tales, Tales become Myths and Myths become Legends." (This is, of course, not directly quoted from the movie).

Well, a Legend is an very old story. Let's take Homers Iliad as an example. It's attributed to Homer, but the Tale of Troy is so old, no one knows who actually wrote the Iliad. It's not even clear a man called Homer ever existed. Another good example: The Bible.

These are really old tales. And the same goes for The Legend of Zelda. Between most of the games, 100 or even 1000 of years passed. Many things may have happened in these years, and every time, a legend is told, someone adds something new to the story.

Nintendo has done everything right with Hyrule Historia. It's not like you can't debate about Zelda anymore. There are still so many unanswered questions. And yes, it's absolute legit to doubt what Hyrule Historia is telling you. What they gave us is a chronology. And with the words from above, Nintendo made a clear statement. There is enough room for new Legends. And, maybe, another Hyrule chronology will be released, with a different timeline. Maybe every Legend is told by Groose or it's all just a dream of Luigi (who is finally the hero). This is an explanation why most of the Zelda Games are starting with Link, sleeping in his bed.

For me, it's still very interesting to theorise and it's even more fun to read other theories. With the release of A Link Between Worlds, many new questions popped up in our minds. And with the announcement of the upcoming Zelda U, the theorising will not end

 

[Salem]

I like it that way, there are no absolutes in the overall Zelda stories, so more discussions should be.

 

[Jirohnagi]

People are free to question anything and everything they choose. In the case of Zelda it's classed as a Legend/ If it was passed on person to person then there would be differences in the story or it might be set in stone. No one knows it's all open to interpretation. I honestly think, as much as it grieves me to say this, people should be free to criticize the official timeline because it's a "Legend" so no one knows whether HH has the right of it or not. For all we know the original Zelda game might be first in the timeline and we see the rise of Hyrule in it's various ages.

 

[Kahz]

Considering Nintendo doesn't actually give a **** about the timeline and has contradicted themselves often yeah I think we can go against it.

 

[Collbard]

I feel as though the official timeline has done the best job at creating a unified chronology of the Legend of Zelda universe out of anything that I have seen thus far. As fans, we get very tied up with what is considered canon, and rightly so. We are always trying to connect dots, even if those dots might actually be unrelated. I think Nintendo has created a lot of dots, and Hyrule Historia offers the best way of connecting those dots - for now. I do not like everything presented in Hyrule Historia (Particularly, the notion of the downfall timeline), but if I'm having a discussion with someone about the connections between Zelda stories, I think it is good to have at least one solid, unifying theory on which that discussion can be based. Obviously as more games are introduced to the series, the timeline must necessarily change, perhaps even radically so. ALBW definitely shakes up some of the downfall timeline.

A lot of people throw out what they call "theories" when in fact they are taking a couple of ideas and making far-stretching conjectures. I think, in any area of literature or otherwise, this is a dangerous path; so, I think it is good that to have something like Hyrule Historia to serve at least as a basis for the understanding of a timeline. Scholars of Christianity debate authorship, interpretation, translations, and legitimacy of texts in the Bible, but they still use the Bible, as filled with contradictions and uncertainty as it is, as the foundation of the religion. I feel that Hyrule Historia serves a very similar function in the Legend of Zelda. We should debate and discuss the information within it, with an understanding that even with its contradictions, it serves as the underlying compilation of the Legend of Zelda series.

 

[Mr. Ister]

I think it's beyond obvious that Nintendo made most Zelda games without a clear timeline in mind, and only recently has tried to logically chain them together. The result is the extremely convoluted divergent timeline. I think that's fine, as they should be more concerned with making great games with solid gameplay, puzzles, music, etc. (which they did), but people need to understand that a company with no idea how a young series of games will be received is not going to think much about how future/past games will fit into an overarching timeline - they will just want to focus on making the current game a success and going from there.

 

[Dio]

I think it's beyond obvious that Nintendo made most Zelda games without a clear timeline in mind, and only recently has tried to logically chain them together. The result is the extremely convoluted divergent timeline. I think that's fine, as they should be more concerned with making great games with solid gameplay, puzzles, music, etc. (which they did), but people need to understand that a company with no idea how a young series of games will be received is not going to think much about how future/past games will fit into an overarching timeline - they will just want to focus on making the current game a success and going from there.

I think after OOT it was quite clear the series was going to be well received and they could have made more effort after then, but no they didn't and we are left with the mess that is the official timeline.

ALBW which was released after the official timeline brings even more contradictions. Firstly Ganon being in lorule and sealed there makes no sense. He was blown up in ALTTP.

 

[CrimsonCavalier]

The "official timeline" is horseradish. It's absolutely a complete waste of time. The games were no meant to be on a timeline and the HH is just a thing for diehard fans. I mean, I want one, just to collect, but I won't consider it to be anything other than a collectible. The games aren't related.

To argue about something that makes no sense and was never intended to be related is silly. I know it's the "official" stance, but I completely disregard the official timeline. As far as I'm concerned, there is no timeline, and none of the games are related UNLESS it's obvious that they are so.

For example, even without the HH, it's pretty obvious that Oot --> MM --> WW. The other ones are not as easily linked, and the fact that they had to make up multiple "realities" shows that the timeline makes no sense.

 

[Mr. Ister]

So much truth in that post

 

[Retro Ganon]

The "official timeline" is horseradish. It's absolutely a complete waste of time. The games were no meant to be on a timeline and the HH is just a thing for diehard fans. I mean, I want one, just to collect, but I won't consider it to be anything other than a collectible. The games aren't related.

To argue about something that makes no sense and was never intended to be related is silly. I know it's the "official" stance, but I completely disregard the official timeline. As far as I'm concerned, there is no timeline, and none of the games are related UNLESS it's obvious that they are so.

For example, even without the HH, it's pretty obvious that Oot --> MM --> WW. The other ones are not as easily linked, and the fact that they had to make up multiple "realities" shows that the timeline makes no sense.

Considering Nintendo doesn't actually give a **** about the timeline and has contradicted themselves often yeah I think we can go against it.

I think after OOT it was quite clear the series was going to be well received and they could have made more effort after then, but no they didn't and we are left with the mess that is the official timeline.

ALBW which was released after the official timeline brings even more contradictions. Firstly Ganon being in lorule and sealed there makes no sense. He was blown up in ALTTP.

So much truth in that post

I used to think like you four, whom are obviously still butthurt over Nintendo's past negligence to produce a functional chronology. I too shared a strong rooted resentment, yet I'm not done playing Zelda and thinking up things that make me want to play other titles. If the timeline was ever clear cut like fans wanted it ten years ago, we wouldn't feel the way we do about HH now would we??? In order to sustain my sanity, I started to look at the games as what they really were - literal legends (rather than manuscripts of history). While this idea in itself imposed the death of Zelda Theorizing to ones self, I still wanted to believe that Nintendo liked the idea of having fans replay games with a sense of nostalgia.

When you replayed through PH and ST, I'm sure you wanted to visit the world of TWW in the back of your mind. Or maybe TMC made you want to play FSA, etc. This sort of made you feel like what you did in another game actually mattered. Nintendo finally picked up on this desire from fans and thus the Timeline was revealed - This is the lost agenda which fans of today don't know of when theorist began seeking the timeline in the first place. The secondary aim was to break down the canon by corollary and subject it by canonical terms of reference. With a timeline, we could explore and exploit the connections between cultures, folk tales, racial traditions and traits, geography/topagraphy of Hyrulian territories, and all sorts of stuff people have been able to focus on without getting into a timeline debate over and over again. Hyrule Historia only gave us an outline, not an ultimatum. To me, HH was a tribute to the fans that loved not only the worlds that Nintendo created for Zelda fans, but everything else that came with it like in our own countries and culture.

I am in support of this threads intent in sake of revitalizing my own interests in the same way.

 

[CrimsonCavalier]

I used to think like you four, whom are obviously still butthurt over Nintendo's past negligence to produce a functional chronology.

I'm going to have to take great offense at you making the assumption that I am "butthurt" over something that I have never — ever — cared about. When I played the original Legend of Zelda, A Link to the Past, even up to Twilight Princess, I never once thought to myself "If only these worlds were connected by some official timeline."

Why?

Because the games never lent themselves to being interpreted as separate events in a connected universe. Each of them, with some exceptions — clearly defined exceptions — were obviously stand-alone titles, much like Final Fantasy games share gameplay mechanics, certain elements, and the name, but are not meant to be taken as parts of a whole. At no point were The Legend of Zelda games meant to be part of an ongoing tale, an ever-evolving narrative.

The fact that some fans wanted them to be interconnected and started to come up with fan-theories in order to connect the games does not mean that a.) all fans wanted that and b.) that they are actually so. In fact, disregarding the official timeline and playing those old games will clearly show that the games were not meant to be interconnected by a unifying lore. They were stand-alone titles. The games that were actually interconnected, and were related to one another, are clearly defined.

Ocarina of Time is clearly and obviously followed by Majora's Mask. It is a not subject to interpretation. And The Wind Waker comes after Majora's Mask. This can also not be refuted, as the story itself tells you this, although not outright.

However, it is nothing more than a stretch to try to unite the remaining games. Let me say right now that I have not played either Phantom Hourglass or Spirit Tracks, so I can't and will not comment on them or whether or not they fall into the timeline. However, to say that somehow The Legend of Zelda, Adventures of Link, A Link to the Past, Twilight Princess, Skyward Sword, Link's Awakening, Minish Cap, all neatly fall into some sort of timeline, that's just ridiculous.

I too shared a strong rooted resentment, yet I'm not done playing Zelda and thinking up things that make me want to play other titles. If the timeline was ever clear cut like fans wanted it ten years ago, we wouldn't feel the way we do about HH now would we??? In order to sustain my sanity, I started to look at the games as what they really were - literal legends (rather than manuscripts of history). While this idea in itself imposed the death of Zelda Theorizing to ones self, I still wanted to believe that Nintendo liked the idea of having fans replay games with a sense of nostalgia.

When you replayed through PH and ST, I'm sure you wanted to visit the world of TWW in the back of your mind. Or maybe TMC made you want to play FSA, etc. This sort of made you feel like what you did in another game actually mattered. Nintendo finally picked up on this desire from fans and thus the Timeline was revealed - This is the lost agenda which fans of today don't know of when theorist began seeking the timeline in the first place. The secondary aim was to break down the canon by corollary and subject it by canonical terms of reference. With a timeline, we could explore and exploit the connections between cultures, folk tales, racial traditions and traits, geography/topagraphy of Hyrulian territories, and all sorts of stuff people have been able to focus on without getting into a timeline debate over and over again. Hyrule Historia only gave us an outline, not an ultimatum. To me, HH was a tribute to the fans that loved not only the worlds that Nintendo created for Zelda fans, but everything else that came with it like in our own countries and culture.

Now, if you want to argue that they are all stand alone events, in a semi-related world, in which different incarnations of a certain legend/event take place, I can follow that. Each game follows a pretty standard formula, in which a hero must defeat an evil entity by using the power of the triforce. However, not until HH did the stories ever have any relation to one another.

I'll use the fact that there have to be three different timelines for the story to even make sense. And the fact that the three timelines don't make sense is another issue.

I guess what I'm saying is, I'm not sure how or why you think you can categorize all Zelda fans as people who always wanted the stories to be related in some sort of chronology or unified lore. Before the HH, there were a handful of hardcore fans that made fan-created stories, theories, and timelines for fun. It was fun to try and group them together.

Nintendo saw that there was a market for a unified theory, and released HH. To appease some of the more hardcore fanbase, sure, but also to capitalize on their most popular IP. To say that HH is anything other than fan service is disingenuous.

If ever playing a Zelda title made me want to play another Zelda title, it wasn't because of the implied connection in terms of lore. Rather, it was the art style, if anything. In fact, the only time I've ever thought about playing a different Zelda game while playing a Zelda game was when I was playing all the Zelda games in chronological order (by release). Because the games aren't related, I've never had an inclination to play them because of some perceived, made up relationship between them.

The fact of the matter is, the games are not related. There is no chronology. There was never meant to be one. The HH simply shoe horned each game into one of three nonsensical ones. I appreciate the HH for what it is, and like I mentioned, I want one. I accept that this is Nintendo's official stance.

But anyone with half a brain can see that the games are not, and never were, meant to be related. Perhaps from here on out, the games will adhere to one of the three timelines. Perhaps. But perhaps not. And even if starting with Zelda U, games start adhering to the timeline, that will not make previous games suddenly make sense based on the timelines Nintendo has provided.

Essentially, I don't appreciate you thinking you know why I don't rate the HH as true, my emotions or motivations.

 

[Retro Ganon]

I'm going to have to take great offense at you making the assumption that I am "butthurt" over something that I have never — ever — cared about. When I played the original Legend of Zelda, A Link to the Past, even up to Twilight Princess, I never once thought to myself "If only these worlds were connected by some official timeline."

You care to some extent to disregard HH so brashly. Zelda Theorizing bothers you for the mere fact that the release of the Zelda Timeline was fanservice to a sector of the fan-base.

Why?

Well...

Because the games never lent themselves to being interpreted as separate events in a connected universe. Each of them, with some exceptions — clearly defined exceptions — were obviously stand-alone titles, much like Final Fantasy games share gameplay mechanics, certain elements, and the name, but are not meant to be taken as parts of a whole. At no point were The Legend of Zelda games meant to be part of an ongoing tale, an ever-evolving narrative.

I won't argue this from a literal-legends standpoint. But the fact remains that there was just enough care taken, whether through developer interviews or what writers fashioned into the games prologues, that their were dually noted connections. You could even say OoT serves as a well-rooted fan service when seeing how many games Nintendo has made in relating back to its era and general style.

The fact that some fans wanted them to be interconnected and started to come up with fan-theories in order to connect the games does not mean that a.) all fans wanted that and b.) that they are actually so. In fact, disregarding the official timeline and playing those old games will clearly show that the games were not meant to be interconnected by a unifying lore. They were stand-alone titles. The games that were actually interconnected, and were related to one another, are clearly defined.

Says the man that doesn't replay games based on the assumption that storylines don't, for the most part, relate to one another:

If ever playing a Zelda title made me want to play another Zelda title, it wasn't because of the implied connection in terms of lore. Rather, it was the art style, if anything. In fact, the only time I've ever thought about playing a different Zelda game while playing a Zelda game was when I was playing all the Zelda games in chronological order (by release). Because the games aren't related, I've never had an inclination to play them because of some perceived, made up relationship between them.

If you don't care about storyline, that's fine. The theories people made/make are a tribute to the franchise. Nintendo took note of this by making an attempt to interrelate the series. There have been numerous accounts that in the process of trying to make these game relate, Nintendo in some way has noted that legends are just as they are 'legends'. The ALttP manual does this very well when the series was still in its infancy, and came full-swing in SS's intro as well. This can only be assumed that Nintendo's intent was to keep the series lore open for interpretation for the player individually. And while they released their own timeline, it was not done ignorantly. Who are we as fans to say we are more right than the creators when they have been so humble to allow us to still draw our own conclusions too? That's smart marketing right there.

However, it is nothing more than a stretch to try to unite the remaining games. Let me say right now that I have not played either Phantom Hourglass or Spirit Tracks, so I can't and will not comment on them or whether or not they fall into the timeline. However, to say that somehow The Legend of Zelda, Adventures of Link, A Link to the Past, Twilight Princess, Skyward Sword, Link's Awakening, Minish Cap, all neatly fall into some sort of timeline, that's just ridiculous.

Its a shame you didn't play ST, because it does pay tribute to the deeds done in TWW in a way that was nostalgic in the sense I've been referring too. Good game despite all the train-hate.

Now, if you want to argue that they are all stand alone events, in a semi-related world, in which different incarnations of a certain legend/event take place, I can follow that. Each game follows a pretty standard formula, in which a hero must defeat an evil entity by using the power of the triforce. However, not until HH did the stories ever have any relation to one another.

Are you saying that the games are all but re-tellings of a particular event? Because that isn't true. You might want to look back at past interviews regarding the concerns of continuity in the series.

I'll use the fact that there have to be three different timelines for the story to even make sense. And the fact that the three timelines don't make sense is another issue.

A lot of people thought the confirmation of the initial split timeline (around TWW's release) was a cop out too. But it ended up serving as a plausible explanation to re-affiliate the older titles back into the overall zeldaverse. ALBW anyone?

I guess what I'm saying is, I'm not sure how or why you think you can categorize all Zelda fans as people who always wanted the stories to be related in some sort of chronology or unified lore. Before the HH, there were a handful of hardcore fans that made fan-created stories, theories, and timelines for fun. It was fun to try and group them together.

Nintendo saw that there was a market for a unified theory, and released HH. To appease some of the more hardcore fanbase, sure, but also to capitalize on their most popular IP. To say that HH is anything other than fan service is disingenuous.

It was done for fun, but it had an indirect mission which ultimately showed Nintendo that it was a focal point of interests in the fanbase. Whether you clarify yourself a part of that sect is equally shared in other reasons you play the games. Everyone had their part in why HH was released because we are patrons, are we not?

The fact of the matter is, the games are not related. There is no chronology. There was never meant to be one. The HH simply shoe horned each game into one of three nonsensical ones. I appreciate the HH for what it is, and like I mentioned, I want one. I accept that this is Nintendo's official stance.

Yeah, yeah, yeah. I got it the first time Mr. Anti-Canonist.

I suppose if you are content in that, your feelings shouldn't detour those wanting to try and make sense of Nintendo's official timeline from a stoic approach, or sorting their own theories out for that matter. I challenge you to back up those claims with hard evidence, clarifying developers intent within the last five years prior to HH's release.

Do you really appreciate HH? Obviously, aside from the timeline, what reasons do you have?

But anyone with half a brain can see that the games are not, and never were, meant to be related. Perhaps from here on out, the games will adhere to one of the three timelines. Perhaps. But perhaps not. And even if starting with Zelda U, games start adhering to the timeline, that will not make previous games suddenly make sense based on the timelines Nintendo has provided.

I'd trade half a brain for the timeline to make 100% sense too, but then that would defeat the purpose of trying at all now wouldn't it?

And perhaps-definately. They have three different timelines so they can be flexible and not dictate a title to one single continuity based on how the storyline pans out at the end of development. Seems logical given that it is, after all, the least priority when making the game to boot.

Essentially, I don't appreciate you thinking you know why I don't rate the HH as true, my emotions or motivations.

I appreciate it for the fact that people whom share similar opinions as yourself can now have solace in knowing that the all-mighty timeline release finally managed to shut up a good deal of us 'die-hard' hardcore fans - as you put it. But yet theorizing goes on, and your still 'butthurt' about it because of HH's existence. Apparently someone didn't get what they wanted exactly.

Yaaay---fan service! We both won... I guess.

 

[ReveredPartisan]

The games clearly appealed to no consice chronology at the time of their individual releases, within measure. ALttP/LA was mean to come before LoZ/AoL, loosely, without a distinct connection. Similarly, OoT/MM was meant to precede ALttP, again, loosely. There was a relation between them, but no real relation. Just Nintendo throwing down the dice and rolling with what they had on their thin configuration. Each game was meant to be experienced individually, without exception.

This changed with WW. Here, there was a concerted effort on part of Ninendo to relate a game back to another in a tangible way. This is where the series truly became a saga, the complex continuation of a single legend; and many games from here on out would adhere to this: Twilight Princess, PH/ST, and Skyward Sword, specifically. Each one had a unique relationship with the previous entries, OoT to be specific.

To say that the games aren't intertwined is to live in denial, and to say that there's no canonical timeline, or that HH was simply contrived by Nintendo to shut fans up, is a rejection of cold hard fact. Not every game is so clearly connected to one another, but at least 10 of the 16 (not counting ALBW, as it wasn't released at the time of HH) are. With such a vast and complex series, it's only necessary that its chronology be equally complex. That's just logical. The Defeated Timeline isn't forced; it isn't a cop-out, it isn't illogical. It has an intuitive scientific explanation (the Multi-verse Theory), and we shouldn't be offended just because Nintendo outplayed us in this one.

 

[Mr. Ister]

that's one way to look at it