Breath of the Wild Timeline placement?

[Hyrulian Hero]

I'm not trying to say that there's no merit to what you said, I'm trying to get the point across that every theory is wild speculation until Nintendo says otherwise. I think the way I formed opinions and the way everyone else formed theirs are equally reaching. Each theory seems as possible or (more accurately) impossible as the next. Let's just keep in focus that nobody is "righter" than anyone else in this matter.

 

[Moblinking5000]

I'm not trying to say that there's no merit to what you said, I'm trying to get the point across that every theory is wild speculation until Nintendo says otherwise. I think the way I formed opinions and the way everyone else formed theirs are equally reaching. Each theory seems as possible or (more accurately) impossible as the next. Let's just keep in focus that nobody is "righter" than anyone else in this matter.

My theory is based on evidence, though, not ''wild speculation'' as you call it. I think that there's far more evidence for the DT than the other two. CT only has the Embers of Twilight line, which I explained earlier(not to mention that if I remember correctly, the Dark World in the JP TotG manual was referred to as Tasogare as well), and there's more contradicting evidence against it(State of Ganon and the OoT sages being awakened), and the AT only has Ritos(who don't even act the same or have the same culture or physical features as the ones in TWW) and Koroks(and since the Kokiri are spirits, they can most likely transform whenever they want), not to mention all the problems like the MS, Old Hyrule, Ganon, and the Triforce being gone in the AT.

I honestly think that unless if there's serious retconning that the DT is the only place that works, atleast that's the way I see it.

I'm open to hearing any new arguments, but with the evidence provided, DT is the most likely IMO.

 

[Hyrulian Hero]

Oh boy, perhaps I wasn't clear. I can't really elucidate further examples without straight up arguing so I won't. You seem to have selectively cherry-picked certain things to sate a certain confirmation bias, the same as every other timeline theory I've ever heard. By saying your theories aren't speculation, you're saying that you know for certain where BotW fits on the timeline. Your speculation is based on evidence, no doubt. As is every other timeline theory about BotW. I'm not saying you're wrong or even that I disagree with you, I'm saying that the evidence you're using isn't proof. Nobody has proof so it's all speculation. The point I'm trying to make by confusing the situation is that there is iron-clad evidence that BotW takes place in the child timeline. The same with the adult timeline. The same with the downfall timeline. I'm also trying to point out that all the evidence in the world means nothing as Nintendo isn't beholden to logic when it comes to the timeline so trying to hold them to logic is a fruitless battle. I appreciate the evidence you're providing, there's certainly merit to it! Just know that every other timeline theory is just as valid until Nintendo pulls the next timeline updateout of their posteriors.

 

[Amy Lu Minati]

Didn't Aonuma say it would become clear as we played the game? Apparently not I guess.

 

[Wiggum]

I'm also trying to point out that all the evidence in the world means nothing as Nintendo isn't beholden to logic when it comes to the timeline so trying to hold them to logic is a fruitless battle.

I'm so glad to see that statement, which makes me have to ask you and everyone else in the world who has even the slightest interest or concern about Zelda game timelines ... Why do you even think about it when we all know that Nintendo didn't make these games on any specific timelines, or with any intent to tie games together, much less create an adult timeline, child timeline, downfall timeline, whocareswhatitis timeline, etc.??? You all admit (practically speaking) over and over that you realize you're arguing/debating a pointless topic, as there is NO answer to the question(s) here. It just seems like a pointless endeavor that just gets people arguing with each other for no reason.

It's like me arguing with you about whether or not a sports team from the 1980's can or would beat a given sports team from the current day. Yah, it's the same sport, but rules have changes ... athletes are bigger/stronger/faster now ... so on and so forth. Point is, they are similar, but not the same, and not related in THAT kind of way. It's a comparison you cannot make. Same with this timeline mumbo-jumbo.

Nintendo takes the liberty with each and every instance of this game to change, tweak, improve, tailor, etc. the people, geography, history etc. to fit the game narrative they are working on. Why on earth would they bind themselves to something they started 30 years ago when they had no idea where this would go in the future?

How about enjoying the games for what they are? ... noting similarities from one game to the next, and how Nintendo does nice things like have the ruins of Lon Lon Ranch in this game? It's not important exactly where Lon Lon was in a previous game compared to this one. That detail has no real or meaningful bearing on anything whatsoever. The point is, they carry elements from one game to the next for continuity and familiarity ... that's it. It's not about creating some historically perfect and accurate tale.

Just know that every other timeline theory is just as valid until Nintendo pulls the next timeline updateout of their posteriors.

Exactly, and I touch on that above. I'm honestly not trying to tick anyone off here, or tell you that you're "dumb" for caring or wanting to discuss how the games fit together. I'm just saying, in summary, to not get bogged down in trying to make a square peg fit in a round hole. We know the peg is square, we know the hole is round, and we know they do not fit each other properly. Just because you've got a "thing" that might fit in a "hole", doesn't mean they really fit, even if you can find a way to force it.

This is a series of video games based on a "legend" that morphs itself as the developers see fit in order to make each next game they create work the way they want it. That's it, nothing more, nothing less. Just embrace THAT and move on.

 

[Locke]

there is iron-clad evidence that BotW takes place in the child timeline.

Is there? Enlighten me.

 

[Hyrulian Hero]

I'm so glad to see that statement, which makes me have to ask you and everyone else in the world who has even the slightest interest or concern about Zelda game timelines ... Why do you even think about it when we all know that Nintendo didn't make these games on any specific timelines, or with any intent to tie games together, much less create an adult timeline, child timeline, downfall timeline, whocareswhatitis timeline, etc.??? You all admit (practically speaking) over and over that you realize you're arguing/debating a pointless topic, as there is NO answer to the question(s) here. It just seems like a pointless endeavor that just gets people arguing with each other for no reason.

It's like me arguing with you about whether or not a sports team from the 1980's can or would beat a given sports team from the current day. Yah, it's the same sport, but rules have changes ... athletes are bigger/stronger/faster now ... so on and so forth. Point is, they are similar, but not the same, and not related in THAT kind of way. It's a comparison you cannot make. Same with this timeline mumbo-jumbo.

Nintendo takes the liberty with each and every instance of this game to change, tweak, improve, tailor, etc. the people, geography, history etc. to fit the game narrative they are working on. Why on earth would they bind themselves to something they started 30 years ago when they had no idea where this would go in the future?

How about enjoying the games for what they are? ... noting similarities from one game to the next, and how Nintendo does nice things like have the ruins of Lon Lon Ranch in this game? It's not important exactly where Lon Lon was in a previous game compared to this one. That detail has no real or meaningful bearing on anything whatsoever. The point is, they carry elements from one game to the next for continuity and familiarity ... that's it. It's not about creating some historically perfect and accurate tale.




Exactly, and I touch on that above. I'm honestly not trying to tick anyone off here, or tell you that you're "dumb" for caring or wanting to discuss how the games fit together. I'm just saying, in summary, to not get bogged down in trying to make a square peg fit in a round hole. We know the peg is square, we know the hole is round, and we know they do not fit each other properly. Just because you've got a "thing" that might fit in a "hole", doesn't mean they really fit, even if you can find a way to force it.

This is a series of video games based on a "legend" that morphs itself as the developers see fit in order to make each next game they create work the way they want it. That's it, nothing more, nothing less. Just embrace THAT and move on.

I um...I can't tell if you're saying I'm arguing timelines or what. The only posts I've made so far have been in an attempt to confuse the situation to remind us of exactly what you quoted. I just want to be clear, I haven't argued that I have any answers at all except that nobody has answers. I suppose that's my point.

Is there? Enlighten me.

The town square from Twilight Princess is in BotW as is Wolf Link and references to Twilight. Of course there are work around to these things, Wolf Link is an easter egg, Twilight exists in BotW timeline separate from Twilight Princess, and the exact same town square could have also existed apart from TP. I'm pointing out that those pieces of evidence are as easily accepted or discredited ad any evidence for any timeline.

 

[Moblinking5000]

I'm so glad to see that statement, which makes me have to ask you and everyone else in the world who has even the slightest interest or concern about Zelda game timelines ... Why do you even think about it when we all know that Nintendo didn't make these games on any specific timelines, or with any intent to tie games together,

Actually, while they didn't plan out say, SS, when the franchise began, there was always connections between the games even in the earlier days of the series.

AoL was a direct sequel to LoZ, with the ingame intro saying that it took place after Link defeated Ganon.

ALttP was said on the back of the JP box to be set before Link accomplished his feat, and the NoA box said that it featured the predecessors of Link and Zelda, the boxes making it clear that it was set before the events of the NES games as a prequel. The manual goes into Ganon's past, revealing that he was once a human thief named Ganondorf (something OoT touched upon even more), and the creation of the Triforce.

LA didn't have a confirmed placement at the time, but it took place after a Link killed Ganon as per the manual, and as the Nightmares take forms of ALttP bosses, it's obvious where it fell.

OoT was made as a prequel to ALttP as mentioned in countless interviews at that time, touching on the elements mentioned and ending with a timeline split that can be witnessed ingame; after Link is sent back, we see that the future continued to exist (Lon Lon party).

The DT was probably conceived later to fix the contradictions between OoT and ALttP, after trying to make FSA the new ALttP prequel didn't work out, but there was always some sort of timeline.

 

[Wiggum]

A few things ...

First, @Hyrulian Hero , my comment(s) was/were not directly pointed at you. I was just using your quote because it hit the bullseye on my main point.

@Moblinking5000 ... to continue my statement above to Hyrulian Hero, and to address you ... While elements and issues (actions) of one game (or many games) have carried over into the story of another game, that doesn't mean they are on a timeline with each other, or even meant to be true "sequels" to each other. Yes, some games are most definitely sequels to others, and that's been made known with "fact", and the games were designed/developed to be just that - with great continuity and no real "problems" with the story, history, geography, etc. However, I still stand fast on my point that with as many games as have been made in the LoZ franchise, not all of them are meant to be a direct continuation, in-fill, prequel, etc.

I'm not - to state again - a Zelda historian or timeline follower or expert. In fact, I'm very green in that regard. I just think from what I've read here and in other places, it's pretty obvious to me that trying to place every single game within some certain timeline, as if every little aspect of the history, story, geography, events, etc. were that well thought out by the devs to make sure that the entirety of all the games ever released are in perfect harmony with each other ... well, that's just plain crazy-town.

I stress again that the best way to view all these games - and their stories and events that happened in each - is to first take each game for what it is, on its own. If they (Nintendo) say that MM is the direct sequel to OoT, then that's all I need to know. If they don't delcare game X to be on timeline A, B, or C ... or make any statements about it ... then I don't even think it should be pondered. That game (X, in this case) is just another installment of the franchise, and is meant to exist on its own.

Quite frankly, if you ask me ... the only "story" that needs to be know of any importance is that somehow Ganon and "the evil that is Ganon" continues to rear its ugly head ... and Link/Zelda continue to fight it and ultimately succeed. Worrying about the trivial details of things such as where Zora's domain was in one game vs. another ... or if the Rito people evolved from the Zora ... or if at one time the Rito didn't get their wings until they A) got a scale from the dragon at Dragon's Roost and were adults ... Seriously, none of that matters. Case in point, maybe the way the Rito were in WW is how Nintendo wanted them to be ... but for BotW, it didn't fit the game they wanted to make ... so they changed them, gave the kids wings, allowed them to fly, and we ended up with a shrine quest using 5 of the kids practicing their song.

What's wrong with that? It's just a game. The story doesn't have to be perfect, and every game doesn't have to fit into a timeline ... and even if some do, what's the difference? Nobody is writing the history of Hyrule, where we need to place all this stuff perfectly into a historically accurate context and sequence of events.

I do appreciate the zeal so many of you have about the lore, history, geography, evolution of the races, etc. I really do, and I'm sincere about saying that. I just find it very odd that you all revel in debating each other about something that was never meant to be "perfect', but you all try to make points about how this or that is how the pieces fit together, when you (the collective you) admit that there is "evidence" everywhere that can be used to support multiple different claims of how it all fits together.

I'm happy that I just enjoy the games for what they are ... and that the stories are relatively cool - even though I don't really care about the stories. These games are meant to be enjoyed, and we should all just sit back, relax, and enjoy them.

That's all I'm really saying.

 

[Vaati101]

For those saying BotW is most likely down the DT, I just want to point out something about Calamity Ganon. If this is indeed on the DT, then how is it possible for Calamity Ganon to bear a striking resemblence to Ganondorf from Twilight Princess? For the downfall timeline, this should be impossible as Ganon's human form was long gone since ALttP. There is noting about Calamity Ganon that resembles the blue pig monster known as Ganon from the DT. What about the red hair/mane that Calamity Ganon has? that is completely absent from DT Ganon. If anything, Calamity Ganon's face should rule out the DT as it literally has the skeletal features of a human and not a Pig monster. heck you can even see what resembles the crown Ganondorf wore in Twilight Princess fused to his skull, with the jewel to boot.

I can't see BotW being on the DT, not with Calamity Ganon bearing more of a resemblemce to Ganondorf than Ganon from LoZ.

 

[Moblinking5000]

A few things ...

First, @Hyrulian Hero , my comment(s) was/were not directly pointed at you. I was just using your quote because it hit the bullseye on my main point.

@Moblinking5000 ... to continue my statement above to Hyrulian Hero, and to address you ... While elements and issues (actions) of one game (or many games) have carried over into the story of another game, that doesn't mean they are on a timeline with each other, or even meant to be true "sequels" to each other. Yes, some games are most definitely sequels to others, and that's been made known with "fact", and the games were designed/developed to be just that - with great continuity and no real "problems" with the story, history, geography, etc. However, I still stand fast on my point that with as many games as have been made in the LoZ franchise, not all of them are meant to be a direct continuation, in-fill, prequel, etc..

If B is after A, and C is before A, and D is after C, and E is before C, then you have a sequence of:

E>C>D>A>B

that doesn't mean they are on a timeline with each other,

Even if we pretend that even the earliest games didn't have the connections they had, and that every game didn't connect to atleast one other game until HH(even though anyone paying attention to developer interviews and ingame evidence would've known otherwise), and the idea of a timeline was never made until HH, HH proves that there is a timeline now. Arguing otherwise is like arguing that the world is flat. You don't have to be interested in it, but that doesn't change the fact that it exists.

as if every little aspect of the history, story, geography, events, etc. were that well thought out by the devs to make sure that the entirety of all the games ever released are in perfect harmony with each other ...

Things like geographic places changing places are due to gameplay reasons and not timeline reasons, yes, as it would get boring to have every incarnation of Hyrule have the same places. Doesn't mean that the lore behind the timeline is a conspiracy, or that the developers are liars.


@Vaati101, TP Ganondorf is the same person as OoT Ganondorf, who is in all timelines, so that doesn't prove CT. Calamity Ganon's robo spider form, even if it takes inspiration from Ganon's human form, still isn't his human form. His face is his only human feature.

 

[Wiggum]

If B is after A, and C is before A, and D is after C, and E is before C, then you have a sequence of:

E>C>D>A>B

Actually ... in your example from above ... we only know that D is after C ... but we don't know if D is before or after either A or B ... so now the "debate" begins on exactly where after C it comes.

Now, not to get too specific ... but it's THOSE type situations where someone will say "well, in D, this/that happened ... which would only make sense if it was after B ... but, something else in D indicates that we were leading up to B ... so we don't know where D is really supposed to be, other than that it's definitely after C.

That (meaning my argument above) is what I see being bandied around here so much. And my only real point was/is ... if there IS evidence of BOTH scenarios ... the argument/debate should end with a simple agreement between parties of "we will never know unless the devs come out and tell us exactly where it goes in the timeline." No need to continue making a point of where YOU or anyone else thinks it should be, since there's "evidence" that supports both sides of the argument.

 

[Vaati101]

@Vaati101, TP Ganondorf is the same person as OoT Ganondorf, who is in all timelines, so that doesn't prove CT. Calamity Ganon's robo spider form, even if it takes inspiration from Ganon's human form, still isn't his human form. His face is his only human feature.

And that backs up the flaw I pointed out. If BotW is in the DT and Calamity Ganon is trying to regenerate a physical form of itself, he should regenerate into something similar to Ganon from LoZ or his other incarnations from the DT, he should have no trait of his human form if BotW is in the DT as it no longer exists. Yes Calamity Ganon is nothing but a monster, but you can't shrug off the fact he bears a resemblence of a Ganon that cannot be possible down one Timeline.

 

[Wiggum]

And that backs up the flaw I pointed out. If BotW is in the DT and Calamity Ganon is trying to regenerate a physical form of itself, he should regenerate into something similar to Ganon from LoZ or his other incarnations from the DT, he should have no trait of his human form if BotW is in the DT as it no longer exists. Yes Calamity Ganon is nothing but a monster, but you can't shrug off the fact he bears a resemblence of a Ganon that cannot be possible down one Timeline.

Serious question here ... but how does being on one timeline vs. another dictate what form Ganon should be regenerating as? Why can't he regen into whatever the devs want him to be? How would a timeline dictate what he's allowed or not allowed to regenerate into?

Just being honest here, but it sounds like your "point" is based simply on what you think should happen ... and doesn't consider that the form that Ganon may or may not take on, or resemble, etc. is entirely devoid of connection to a timeline.

 

[Moblinking5000]

And that backs up the flaw I pointed out. If BotW is in the DT and Calamity Ganon is trying to regenerate a physical form of itself, he should regenerate into something similar to Ganon from LoZ or his other incarnations from the DT, he should have no trait of his human form if BotW is in the DT as it no longer exists. Yes Calamity Ganon is nothing but a monster, but you can't shrug off the fact he bears a resemblence of a Ganon that cannot be possible down one Timeline.

But even if this is the CT, it still can't be TP Ganon's human form, as TP Ganondorf was reincarnated as a new Ganon in FSA, and that one shows no signs of returning to his human form anytime soon.

And you can't argue that BotW is inbetween TP and FSA, because recent creator comments have said it's at the end of one of the branches.

Also, he may resemble his human form, but whether it's meant to just be similar or literally the face of human Ganondorf is debatable, as the nature of the Mirror of Twilight and the Dark Mirror are so similar that some said that FSA and TP shouldn't even be on the same timelines back in the day as they HAD to be the same mirror and the MoT was broken on the CT. They were wrong.

Resemblance is not absolute proof. Using it as evidence is fine, but make sure to consider the other evidence before you decide where it is.