• 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.

Three-Branched Timeline Split Explanations

Dec 29, 2011
Vancouver Island, BC, Canada
This is the best explanation of the three-split timeline so far! thank you :) I still would rather believe the timeline without a split, as I do not think Nintendo would do the split, but it is still very plausible.
Oct 11, 2011
Even though fans can, and already have, come up with good theories to explain the existence of the Downfall Timeline, I can't see how these match the facts we know.

The information we have today is that Link is defeated in the future by Ganondorf, after Link has drawn the Master Sword (so Ganondorf can take the ToC and ToW from Link and Zelda respectively). This means that the mechanic that split the AT and creates the DT must allow Link to encounter Ganonodrf on two timelines. The mechanic that split the timeline into the AT and the CT did not allow Link to exist on two timelines at the same time. Consequently, I see no other plausible scenario than that the DT is the story of what happened if Link was defeated by Ganondorf.

/Blue Window
Dec 11, 2011
So are there any new/updated translations. I question, even though I'm no expert, Glitterberri. In that translated timeline, Ganon is referred to as the "Prince of Thieves" rather than King. In the games, I believe he has often been called "king" . That translation also claims Ganon was revived in the Wind Waker, when only he escaped the seal from OoT and then later the seal placed on Hyrule.

Sir Analog

Hope Rides Alone
Dec 29, 2011
Clocktown, Termina
Someone explained it like this:

But I think that's a stretch...
Oct 11, 2011
Originally Posted by Links Ultimate

Well,This explains it,but I still really don't understand how link could actually fail to beat Ganondorf,and I don't understand the whole Song of storms paradox.

As it seems now, the whole DT is a "what if"-story; the DT is what would have happened if OoT Link failed to defeat Ganonodorf. We have yet no in-universe explanation for this, so it seems like this new timeline exists just because it exists.

And for the Song of Storms-padarox. I don't think it has been solved, as of today.

/Blue Window


You're just not thinking fourth dimensionally

imagine that this line represents the original flow of time leading to ganondorf ruling Hyrule:
\ __________________ / ________________________________ \
Past: Link's life Present Link in sleeping Ganondorf is rules Hyrule

Counting all of links ****ing with the past as one time, it throws Hyrule in an alternate Future were every thing is essayer for link to defeat ganon:
\ _________________ / ____________________________ \
Past: Link's life Present: Link in sleeping Ganondorf: is rules Hyrule
(it would be to hard to properly connect the the lines to the other parts of the timeline so just imagine their there)
________________/ ___________________ \
Other Present: Link is sleeping Other future: Ganon is defeated

However when zelda sent link back in time she created a third timeline where Ganondorf was stopped before he got near the sacred realm:
\ __________________ / ___________________ \
Past: Link's life Present: Link in sleeping Future: Ganondorf is rules Hyrule
________________ / ___________________ \
Other Present: Link is sleeping Other Future: Ganon is defeated

\ _____________ / ___________________________________ \
Past: Link's life Present: Ganon is "executed"/Majora's 'mask Future: Twilight Princess

It mite just be a movie but it is right about time travel. link dose not go back to the same future every time there are slit differences like if you did not go to the Lon Lon ranch as a kid then Epona wont recognize you, put if you go back to the past then go to the Lon Lon ranch she will.




affect one and you affect the others.

p.s. pay no attention to the lines in between the slashes it is only there to keep the slashes were they are.
Last edited by a moderator:


How Link "fails" in OoT

Okay, so I thought I could just post this on every topic that's skeptical on the Zelda timeline from Hyrule Historia, or I could just make a topic for it. This video accurately explains how Link does NOT succeed in OoT. He succeeds (adult timeline), he gets sent back to the past (child timeline), and he removes himself in another timeline. There's 3 splits because Ganon/dorf still exists in the one where he is removed from. Oh well I suck at explaining things, just watch this guy's amazing video:

Dec 29, 2011
Vancouver Island, BC, Canada
I love the idea of Ganondorf winning in one timeline. Then I've heard something about how the people of Hyrule eventually overrun him, or something like that. anyways, I think it would be a cool idea to make a game at the start of this timeline, introducing a NEW character and having his adventure in beating Ganondorf. It would be the perfect opportunity to introduce another character into the series, as almost a "side-game" like Majora's Mask, and it would also be pertty much the only opportunity to introduce a new protagonist into the series, even if only temporarily. I doubt it will happen, but I really think its the perfect opportunity.


Brave Knight of Truth
Dec 22, 2011
Toronto, Canada
This guy's theory throws everything off. Let me explain:

In this guy's timeline, he states that once Link changes the past by getting the lens of truth, he goes into an alternate future instead of his normal future. That makes complete sense. What doesnt make sense to me is that he states that once Link goes back to the do the Spirit Temple, he states that Link goes back to his original time. Now, considering Link just changed the past, he shouldn't return to his original future, he should go into another alternate future. If this guy is going with alternate futures everytime Link is going into the past and changing something, we would have 6 or 7 spilts in the timeline. And that's just the main quest; if we including Link going back to do side quest stuff it would go up to 13 or 14, but then again side quests are not generally used in timeline.

In conclusion, I gotta give this guy a tap on the back for trying to decifer Nintendo's timeline, but it still just doesn't work. Also, if this guy is keeping FSA after TP and not FS, it is wrong, cause FS and FSA cannot be separated by thousands of years; its the same Link!
Jul 27, 2011
not gonna lie, before this video i totally hated the 3-split timeline, now, i kinda like it, good job YourHeroes

Goddess Sword

In my opinion, when Link return to the past and changes things, he only modify the future he came from and doesn't create an alternate future.

The time doesn't work the same way in each game, it can even contradict itself in the same game, so it makes it difficult to end up with the most realistic timeline possible.
Oct 11, 2010
Of course there are still holes, because following the story of OoT, Link goes back 3 times in total (Lens of Truth, Spirit Temple, and Zelda sending him back). In theory this would create 4 timelines, so I offer a hypothesis that might explain it a bit.

When you originally get the Song of Storms, the windmill guy claims that Link had already played the song at the windmill in the past. This would indicate that the timeline DID NOT SPLIT when Link went back the first time for the Lens of Truth. Link learned the song, and went back in time to play it "again" (though it was technically the first chronological playing of the song in the windmill). Apart from the windmill guy's account, there is other evidence that Link had "already" claimed the Lens from underneath the well: namely, it was already drained.

My hypothesis is: Link going back JUST FOR THE LENS OF TRUTH (or any other meaningless thing, for that matter, that any player may have done outside the main story) did not significantly alter the past enough to create an alternate timeline. He didn't alter anyone's life/death or anything of any serious consequence, and thus it remained the same continuous timeline. NO SPLIT. However, when he returned as a child to the Spirit Temple after having learned the Requiem of Spirit from Zelda/Shiek, he removed himself from the original timeline. Not every sage was awakened (because Link never saw Nabooru) and Ganon[dorf] was victorious.

Link goes back 7 years to meet Nabooru, and thus set events into motion at the Spirit Temple (creating the first split), setting loose Twinrova, and going back to the future to set Nabooru free and have the full team of Sages with which he defeats Ganon[dorf] and Zelda sends him back to his childhood, splitting the timeline for the second and final time.


Site Staff
Nov 24, 2009
Redmond, Washington
This video was brought up before. Here was my response: (similar to fused_shadows)

First, I'm going to point out some flawed logic in his green arrows. With green arrow #1, he claims that Link changes the past and therefore green arrow #2 must go to an alternate future. Okay, I've seen that argument before. I've countered it in other threads, but that's not what I'm getting at here. His problem comes with arrows #3 and #4. #3 has Link going to the past again and changing more things. Arrow #4 then would go to another alternate future. Another alternate future. If #2 and #3 can lead to the same future, why can't #2 lead to the same future as the original timeline? According to his logic, there should be 4 futures.

lol "Zelda II: Link's Awakening"

"In all these games, they never talk about the Hero of Time at all." Well duh, they were all (with the exception of OoX) released before OoT.

He evidently is not using "everything" we know about the Historia timeline, since OoT's ending has been translated. The result of Link's discussion with Zelda is that Zelda sends him on his side journey instead of into the ToT. Ganondorf is caught later. Admittedly, the section of TP's backstory describing Ganondorf's execution has not been translated.

And finally, as I've been saying a lot recently, "The Hero is Defeated".... this does not happen in his original timeline.

...and ima merge this with some other similar threads.
(the last line applies here as well)

@The Doctor: Guru-Guru's sanity isn't serious enough to create an alternate timeline? xP

Users who are viewing this thread

Top Bottom