Timeline Discussion

[Mikey the Moblin]

@Moe the Moblin

...what

 

[leroiducouscous]

So 3 shadows of bosses from A Link to the Past in Link's Awakening is meatier substance than one passage from a game manual that I feel like you are misinterpreting to begin with.

You know, my timeline is nothing more than a fan fiction, and there is no such thing as good or bad interpretation in fan fictions. ^^
I've never even aimed to be "convincing" in the first place. I just wanted to express the vision I personnaly like the most about Zelda universe, so maybe it could inspire some people to make their own timeline / story / fan fiction.
If you like some aspects in my timeline but not some others, be my guest and take the inspiration you like to create your own personal Zelda story if you want

For instance, I talked once with a guy who wrote a giant fan-fiction in which Link's Awakening episode took place during the events of The Adventure of Link, and it was quite a good story overall (and maybe it inspired me ^^).

By the way, thank you for the LA manual translation

1. ALttP Link's a playboy who's been with so many chicks he loses track.

It took me some time to see what you meant by that, but I see now

 

[Spiritual Mask Salesman]

You know, my timeline is nothing more than a fan fiction, and there is no such thing as good or bad interpretation in fan fictions. ^^

Ah, that's cool, but I typically feel there is a distinction between theorizing and fan fiction. In the case of timeline theorizing though, I suppose you are right that any attempt to make a fan made timeline while an official timeline endorsed by Nintendo exists would be fan fiction.

 

[Mangrove]

Yes I know, but I've always found weird that Link and Zelda don't know eachother in OoX, as Link enters Hyrule castle at the beginning like it's his house... To me, it's a little plot hole inside those games.

I do like the point you brought up about Link entering Hyrule Castle at the beginning of the Oracles games, to the Triforce no less, yet somehow not already knowing who Zelda was. Maybe it's like a Hyrule Warriors situation where Link was a knight or something but never interacted with Zelda? And him getting to the Triforce was an off-screen dungeon-crawling journey? This lessens Zelda's reintroduction as timeline strength in my head now. The fact that the Link's Awakening remake even changed the ship to be closer to the OoX ship might even suggest a future retcon in OoX remakes where Zelda clearly knows Link.

(Also, that bit about "foreign countries" in the JP manual confirms Oracle's placement prior to LA don't @ me)

The end of the Oracle games has Link leaving Hyrule (Zelda is on Hyrule Castle's balcony), not Labrynna or Holodrum. He could be going back to those foreign countries to train, but it could also just be unnamed foreign countries.

 

[Moblinking5000]

So, something that I've been thinking about lately is the amount of timeline deniers. Why do they exist for this series, and not others? 80% of the series pretty much has obvious connections to one other game.

Zelda 2 is a direct sequel to Zelda 1, as mentioned in game and the manual as taking place after Link retrieved the ToP and ToW and defeated Ganon.

ALttP is a prequel to the NES games, as mentioned on the box and in the JP manual.

OoT is a prequel to ALttP, confirmed in interviews after OoT's release, and made obvious by the fact that Ganondorf, the original human form of Ganon mentioned in the backstory of ALttP, is the main antagonist.

MM is a direct sequel to OoT, being made obvious by the game mentioning him defeating evil and saving Hyrule by traveling through time and him having the OoT ingame.

TWW is a sequel to OoT, being made obvious by the fact that the Hero of Time is directly referenced countless times.

FSGBA was called ''the oldest tale'' by Aonuma at its release, placing it before any of the other games that existed at that time.

TMC deals with the origins of the FS and Vaati, so it's before FS.

TP is a sequel to OoT, confirmed in interviews, and implied ingame by the Pedestal of Time still existing in the ToT, the fact that there's a picture of the OoT Fisherman in Lake Hylia, that the Hero's Shade teaches you OoT/MM songs, etc.

PH is an obvious direct sequel to TWW, as the events of TWW are summarized in the backstory and Tetra is present.

ST is a sequel to TWW as Tetra is mentioned and Niko is still alive.

SS is an obvious prequel to the series. Hyrule Kingdom doesn't exist yet, and the MS is forged. Not to mention this was confirmed in interviews.

ALBW is a sequel to ALttP as confirmed in interviews, and the world is more or less the same as the one in ALttP.

BotW was confirmed to take place at the end of a branch that has many attacks by Ganon. Similarly to Zelda 2, we have a Hyrule where the OoT sages are mentioned, with the events of OoT being retold from the perspective of the Zora with Ruto being given the focus.

How do people deny these facts by saying, ''hur hur it's the same story being retold'', or ''Nintendo just made it all up to make money'', I don't know.

 

[Mangrove]

So, something that I've been thinking about lately is the amount of timeline deniers. Why do they exist for this series, and not others? 80% of the series pretty much has obvious connections to one other game.

How do people deny these facts by saying, ''hur hur it's the same story being retold'', or ''Nintendo just made it all up to make money'', I don't know.

I always assumed they weren't as close fans of the series/surface level, looking at these games as they would look at Mario or Final Fantasy.

 

[Mikey the Moblin]

the only thing I would say is that I really don't trust Aonuma with timeline stuff
I think he's on record saying things that flat out contradict in game stuff
but like 90% of those game connections are real and tangible yeah, and I know some people here like the "same story" idea but that's probably just because it's neater and easier to explain inconsistencies, of which there are honestly a lot

 

[AwdryFan1997]

So, something that I've been thinking about lately is the amount of timeline deniers. Why do they exist for this series, and not others? 80% of the series pretty much has obvious connections to one other game.

AoL is a direct sequel to Zelda 1, as mentioned in game and the manual as taking place after Link retrieved the ToP and ToW and defeated Ganon.

ALttP is a prequel to the NES games, as mentioned on the box and in the JP manual.

OoT is a prequel to ALttP, confirmed in interviews after OoT's release, and made obvious by the fact that Ganondorf, the original human form of Ganon mentioned in the backstory of ALttP, is the main antagonist.

MM is a direct sequel to OoT, being made obvious by the game mentioning him defeating evil and saving Hyrule by traveling through time and him having the OoT ingame.

TWW is a sequel to OoT, being made obvious by the fact that the Hero of Time is directly referenced countless times.

FSGBA was called ''the oldest tale'' by Aonuma at its release, placing it before any of the other games that existed at that time.

TMC deals with the origins of the FS and Vaati, so it's before FS.

TP is a sequel to OoT, confirmed in interviews, and implied ingame by the Pedestal of Time still existing in the ToT, the fact that there's a picture of the OoT Fisherman in Lake Hylia, that the Hero's Shade teaches you OoT/MM songs, etc.

PH is an obvious direct sequel to TWW, as the events of TWW are summarized in the backstory and Tetra is present.

ST is a sequel to TWW as Tetra is mentioned and Niko is still alive.

SS is an obvious prequel to the series. Hyrule Kingdom doesn't exist yet, and the MS is forged. Not to mention this was confirmed in interviews.

ALBW is a sequel to ALttP as confirmed in interviews, and the world is more or less the same as the one in ALttP.

BotW was confirmed to take place at the end of a branch that has many attacks by Ganon. Similarly to AoL, we have a Hyrule where the OoT sages are mentioned, with the events of OoT being retold from the perspective of the Zora with Ruto being given the focus.

How do people deny these facts by saying, ''hur hur it's the same story being retold'', or ''Nintendo just made it all up to make money'', I don't know.

Agreed. I think a lot of people exaggerate the whole "confusing" thing when they clearly just haven't watched Back to the Future Part II. The only problem I have with the original Hyrule Historia timeline is the whole Downfall Timeline thing, but that's more of a problem with The Wind Waker. I also don't like the Four Swords series being included on the main timeline, but since I'm now learning that was something Mr. Aonuma said, I guess I'll just have to live with it.

BOTW's placement has always been an enigma. I think being ambiguous is a good thing, but I also prefer to have an answer. I will say one of the few things I liked about The Game Theorists' various videos is that MatPat mentions the Rito appearing in some wall decorations or something. Personally, I prefer to believe in timeline convergence, but I would also accept Arlo's Jurassic Park 2 Theory (more properly known as the Recurrence Theory).

If you ask me, I don't really see OoT being a prequel to ALttP. It's clearly intended to tell the tale of the Imprisoning War, but there's so many differences between the two that I kinda consider the 2D games their own separate timeline at this point. I mean, a lot of these differences come from the American manual, which added a lot of lore without considering that another prequel would be made, but there's still a lotta discrepancies in the Japanese manual.

 

[Mikey the Moblin]

If you ask me, I don't really see OoT being a prequel to ALttP

it's a prequel because it explains how ganondorf got his beast form in the first place
it's also the origin of the seven sages
ALttP says he used to be a thief, not a monster

 

[Spiritual Mask Salesman]

So, something that I've been thinking about lately is the amount of timeline deniers. Why do they exist for this series, and not others? 80% of the series pretty much has obvious connections to one other game.

AoL is a direct sequel to Zelda 1, as mentioned in game and the manual as taking place after Link retrieved the ToP and ToW and defeated Ganon.

ALttP is a prequel to the NES games, as mentioned on the box and in the JP manual.

OoT is a prequel to ALttP, confirmed in interviews after OoT's release, and made obvious by the fact that Ganondorf, the original human form of Ganon mentioned in the backstory of ALttP, is the main antagonist.

MM is a direct sequel to OoT, being made obvious by the game mentioning him defeating evil and saving Hyrule by traveling through time and him having the OoT ingame.

TWW is a sequel to OoT, being made obvious by the fact that the Hero of Time is directly referenced countless times.

FSGBA was called ''the oldest tale'' by Aonuma at its release, placing it before any of the other games that existed at that time.

TMC deals with the origins of the FS and Vaati, so it's before FS.

TP is a sequel to OoT, confirmed in interviews, and implied ingame by the Pedestal of Time still existing in the ToT, the fact that there's a picture of the OoT Fisherman in Lake Hylia, that the Hero's Shade teaches you OoT/MM songs, etc.

PH is an obvious direct sequel to TWW, as the events of TWW are summarized in the backstory and Tetra is present.

ST is a sequel to TWW as Tetra is mentioned and Niko is still alive.

SS is an obvious prequel to the series. Hyrule Kingdom doesn't exist yet, and the MS is forged. Not to mention this was confirmed in interviews.

ALBW is a sequel to ALttP as confirmed in interviews, and the world is more or less the same as the one in ALttP.

BotW was confirmed to take place at the end of a branch that has many attacks by Ganon. Similarly to AoL, we have a Hyrule where the OoT sages are mentioned, with the events of OoT being retold from the perspective of the Zora with Ruto being given the focus.

How do people deny these facts by saying, ''hur hur it's the same story being retold'', or ''Nintendo just made it all up to make money'', I don't know.

It's probably easier as a fan to just disregard any connections, and I could get that aspect of wanting to not put much thought into the games – ignorance is bliss sometimes. It's the fans that know about the timeline and actively engage in conversations about it, but do so to the end of discrediting that there was a framework for a timeline before it was released officially, that I don't understand. Just say you don't like it and move on.

This didn't bother me so much a few years ago; I think writing for our frontpage is what made me get a tad irritated by this. Every single time I write any kind of Daily Debate about the timeline the Disqus and Facebook comments get filled with people who argue tooth and nail that the timeline is a bunch of bull, and that fans are stupid to think the games are connected. Then there are the people who say the timeline is too complex (but it's really not that bad). At this point I think people like that are either extremely uninformed about the timeline (giving the benefit of doubt), or simply joined the conversation to fan flames.

 

[Moblinking5000]

I always assumed they weren't as close fans of the series/surface level, looking at these games as they would look at Mario or Final Fantasy.

Alot of these are obvious from just playing them, though.

the only thing I would say is that I really don't trust Aonuma with timeline stuff
I think he's on record saying things that flat out contradict in game stuff

Such as...? The only contradictory things he's said are things about when games were in development, IIRC, which aren't really contradictions if that was when games are in development, as plans change.

Agreed. I think a lot of people exaggerate the whole "confusing" thing when they clearly just haven't watched Back to the Future Part II. The only problem I have with the original Hyrule Historia timeline is the whole Downfall Timeline thing, but that's more of a problem with The Wind Waker. I also don't like the Four Swords series being included on the main timeline, but since I'm now learning that was something Mr. Aonuma said, I guess I'll just have to live with it.

BOTW's placement has always been an enigma. I think being ambiguous is a good thing, but I also prefer to have an answer. I will say one of the few things I liked about The Game Theorists' various videos is that MatPat mentions the Rito appearing in some wall decorations or something. Personally, I prefer to believe in timeline convergence, but I would also accept Arlo's Jurassic Park 2 Theory (more properly known as the Recurrence Theory).

If you ask me, I don't really see OoT being a prequel to ALttP. It's clearly intended to tell the tale of the Imprisoning War, but there's so many differences between the two that I kinda consider the 2D games their own separate timeline at this point. I mean, a lot of these differences come from the American manual, which added a lot of lore without considering that another prequel would be made, but there's still a lotta discrepancies in the Japanese manual.

I don't think convergence makes much sense for reasons I've explained elsewhere(a DT placement is, IMO, the only place BotW makes sense in), but I won't get into it unless you want to.

I think that's probably why the third branch was created; to seperate the IW from OoT to keep true to the original intention of ALttP, and to keep OoT a prequel to ALttP to keep true to (some degree of) the original intention of OoT, while resolving some plotholes OoT created(like Ganon being sealed with the ToP when he has the full thing in ALttP). If you place the 2D games in their own line, you have to explain how the AoL towns are named after the OoT sages, for example.

 

[AwdryFan1997]

Alot of these are obvious from just playing them, though.



Such as...? The only contradictory things he's said are things about when games were in development, IIRC, which aren't really contradictions if that was when games are in development, as plans change.



I don't think convergence makes much sense for reasons I've explained elsewhere(a DT placement is, IMO, the only place BotW makes sense in), but I won't get into it.

I think that's probably why the third branch was created; to seperate the IW from OoT to keep true to the original intention of ALttP, and to keep OoT a prequel to ALttP to keep true to (some degree of) the original intention of OoT, while resolving some plotholes OoT created(like Ganon being sealed with the ToP when he has the full thing in ALttP). If you place the 2D games in their own line, you have to explain how the AoL towns are named after the OoT sages, for example.

How about we just assume they were generic town names, like they were originally intended to be?

 

[Moblinking5000]

How about we just assume they were generic town names, like they were originally intended to be?

Because every official statement in regards to those towns confirm that, in universe, the towns in Zelda 2 are named in honour of the OoT sages.

 

[Mikey the Moblin]

Wow it's so weird to finally recognize that multiple people share the same timeline interpretation as me

Is this what fandom wars are like

 

[AwdryFan1997]

Because every official statement in regards to those towns confirm that, in universe, the towns in AoL are named in honour of the OoT sages.

Well of course, that's how they are now, but back then they were just towns. That's how it is with my timeline. Just names for towns. No coincidence.