Spoiler Timeline Theories

[Twilight_Link10]

Hey I was on Youtube the other day and came across a Zelda Timeline vid to me it was one of the only ones that was relly under standable. So what do you think??

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=F2g65jL3HDg

 

[Zemen]

Wow, there were so many things I saw wrong with this. It sounds fine and dandy if you're new to theorizing (which he says he isn't), but he is WAY too full of himself. He flat out says that this IS the correct timeline....false...

1. He puts ALTTP right after the adult ending of OoT. That's fine and dandy, but that means that OoT is the SW that is spoken of in the BS of ALTTP. Many theorists believe that FSA is supposed to be the seal war that is spoken of. Also, WW makes it pretty clear that the only hero before that game was the Hero of Time and it also makes it clear that Ganondorf only escaped once after his capture and then Hyrule was flooded in the absence of a hero. This means that there should not be any games in between OoT and WW on the adult timeline.

2. He puts the oracle games right after ALTTP and before WW. As I said before, this is almost impossible because of the BS of WW only mentioning one escape made by Ganon and the fact that there was no hero to stop him. Why would Ganon make multiple, non human appearances and then make another appearance as a human with no mention of it in WW? There is no Link between OoT Link and WW Link. That is made clear. Also, He makes it sound like it's supposed to be the same Link and same Twinrova from OoT. First of all, it can't be the same Twinrova. They died in the adult part of OoT, which means if this game was supposed to take place not too long after OoT it would be on the child timeline.

3. The execution of Ganondorf on the CT does not take place while Link is in Termina for MM. The creators have said that the execution of Ganondorf takes place several years after kid Link tells the king of Ganondorf's plans. If the execution took place during the events of MM, then MM would feature an adult Link, not a kid Link. Also, the creators have clearly stated that TP takes place nearly 100 years after OoT. If the OoT Link was TP Link's father, then TP Link's father AND mother was REALLY old when TP Link was concieved. Also, Link has never ever ever ever ever ever ever actually spoken in a Zelda game so why would they make a ghost/skeleton form of him that talks? Also, this guy said that it's implied what happens to kid Link when he returns back to the lost woods. He says that kid Link dies and becomes a stalfos and that is the hero's shade. That makes no sense that the Link in TP is the dead, kid Link's son who somehow becomes a grown up stalfos who teaches him moves. I agree that TP goes after MM, but his explanation for it is terribly false.

4. The new version (which is considered the canon/retconned version) of ALTTP has the palace of the four sword in it. There are a few swords in that palace that are said to be broken pieces of the four sword which implies that Ganon was trapped in the four sword prior to the events of ALTTP and in fact he escaped which leads to the events of ALTTP which would put FSA before ALTTP...this guy doesn't even have those games on the same timeline.

5. He implies that the four sword IS the master sword, but the four sword was given to man by the picori. When the picori blade was destroyed, they reused the blade to make the four sword. In no way is the four sword the master sword.

For as smart as this guy seems to think he is, he missed some HUGE things said by creators and some obvious in game stuff. He overlooked much of the BS' and creator quotes....you can't just completely ignore creator quotes when making a timeline and it appears to me he didn't even look at any or take them into account. He also doesn't seem to know how to pronounce many of the terms in the Zelda series. This is NOT the correct timeline. He's wrong.

 

[sign of table]

I made like a 7 comment response to that video... he didn't respond back...

 

[loki212]

Wow so manythings wrong with that video. Link's Awaking after phantom hourglass? thats so wrong. I dont think he played half those games. He last line was "This is The definitive time line" THis is a joke.

 

[BoxTar]

Look, I am going to flat out say it:

None of the timelines we create or anyone else creates is going to be 100% correct. There are always holes and things that don't fit. I think Zemen has already covered most of the things that were wrong. I am mostly here for reinforcement, if he needs it, which he doesn't. This one just happens to have GIANT holes in it.

My point: Don't think your timeline is foolproof, because the only one that is foolproof is Nintendo's.

(Sorry to be so negetive...)

 

[Bokbok567]

I agree with Nintendo_Master's statement. Anybody can really make their own Legend of Zelda timeline, but it will never be fullproof. Besides didn't the people who created The Legend of Zelda say that their was so actual timeline for the game. Also this is toward people who argue about the timeline, just enjoy the games and don't worry about a timeline for the games let the creators do that.

 

[Zemen]

Also this is toward people who argue about the timeline, just enjoy the games and don't worry about a timeline for the games let the creators do that.

A LOT A LOT A LOT A LOT A LOT of their fanbase comes from people who are interested in the timeline. I guarantee you that there are tons of people who buy the games thinking to themselves "where will this fit on the timeline?"

When a new game is announced one of the first threads that will be posted about it is "where do you think this will fit on the timeline"

You can't just not worry about it. knowing that the games connect together in some way is a BIG part of what makes playing the games fun.

 

[Nemesis]

I believe that even Nintendo's timeline can have some minor holes in it, because nintendo didn't start the timeline before OoT and even nintendo can make mistakes. But as I said, propably just minor plot holes, and I'm sure nintendo is trying to fill up those holes with new games.

And I could accept this timeline like a normal fan-timeline, but not a foolproof timeline with only correct set ups

 

[BoxTar]

I believe that even Nintendo's timeline can have some minor holes in it, because nintendo didn't start the timeline before OoT and even nintendo can make mistakes. But as I said, propably just minor plot holes, and I'm sure nintendo is trying to fill up those holes with new games.

And I could accept this timeline like a normal fan-timeline, but not a foolproof timeline with only correct set ups

There are probably bigger holes in the timeline than you think. Nintendo isn't done making Zelda, and as they make more games, they make sure to make some more holes in the plot, just so they could fill them in the next installment.

 

[link to present]

This timeline thing is making my spin around and around:huh:

 

[Caleb, Of Asui]

No. That is not correct. There were so many problems I noticed.

1. You can't say THAT'S 100% correct. There is a specific timeline that is correct, already decided by Nintendo. We timeline theorize to get as close to the intended chronology as possible. He never used any evidence based on what Nintendo has already told us, let along referencing Nintendo stating it. The timeline I'm going with now is heavily based on what Nintendo has told us, since we know that much is correct.

2. The Master Sword becomes the Four Sword? That doesn't make any sense. I have mentioned in a few of my posts in this forum the concrete connection between FSA and LttP, with assistance of the Four Sword Shrine in LttP. (I won't go into a lot of detail about that here.)

3. A Link to the Past is in the Adult Timeline? Okay, I guess this makes sense with the supposed OoT-LttP connection, but the connection I find between FSA and LttP is far more concrete. Besides, the fact that the Four Sword Shrine EXISTS in LttP COMPLETELY debunks the idea of NOT having Four Swords games before it in the same timeline.

4. The Minish Cap isn't first? I'm not about to say that TMC is first because he gets his cap there. I'm pointing to concrete evidence stated by Miyamoto. He said (before TMC's release) that FS was the first game in the timeline, and we all know TMC is a prequel to that.

5. Oracle Games Between LttP and LA? I know there's the boat at the end and LA has the same Link sprite, but there are a few more important things to consider. OoX's Link doesn't even meet Zelda until... sometime in the middle of the second game, actually. You get to meet her before the special ending.

Though I disagree with his timeline, there were some things (besides the obvious ones) that I agreed with, or at least found interesting.

Each timeline: Ganon dies and Ganondorf dies. My timeline does involve Ganondorf dying once, then Ganon being still alive or revived multiple times. I've always really liked the idea of TWW and TP both having Ganon die under the Master Sword. I've always imagined those being at exactly the same time in both timelines. Having the same thing happen to Ganon and the Silver Arrow in LoZ and LttP on different sides is an interesting repeat of this idea, though he put them at different times. We have a quote from Miyamoto saying the order of LoZ and LttP, implying that they're on the same side of the timeline. (I know a lot of people debunk that, but whatever.) That's an okay attempt to make Ganon's many deaths make sense, but having Ganon revived so often honestly makes sense in a story like this. Fire Emblem's a good example of this: it clearly states that Medeus was killed, revived, killed, revived, and finally killed with some potential of reviving again.

The Hero's Spirit is the Hero of Time? Anyone who cares about the timeline likely considered this possibility in their first playthrough. (I know I did.) It doesn't influence the timeline a whole lot, but it's an interesting connection. I was interested by the fact that he found the sword and shield the Hero's Spirit uses similar to the Guilded Sword and Mirror Shield in MM. That's just an intesting factoid about the connection that I had yet to hear.

 

[sign of table]

4. The Minish Cap isn't first? I'm not about to say that TMC is first because he gets his cap there. I'm pointing to concrete evidence stated by Miyamoto. He said (before TMC's release) that FS was the first game in the timeline, and we all know TMC is a prequel to that.

It was actually Aonuma, and it was quite a while before the FS release. And then Aonuma said that he didn't even work on the game. Then Aonuma directed FSA (I think...) which pretty much solidly stated that FSA has the same Link as FS.

5. Oracle Games Between LttP and LA? I know there's the boat at the end and LA has the same Link sprite, but there are a few more important things to consider. OoX's Link doesn't even meet Zelda until... sometime in the middle of the second game, actually. You get to meet her before the special ending.

Well there's a lot more evidence for OoX/LA... just so ya know...

We have a quote from Miyamoto saying the order of LoZ and LttP

Old quote is old. But I'd agree that they are on the same timeline

 

[Erimgard]

Aonuma wasn't the director or producer on FS, and he was only the producer (not director at all) on FSA for half the time, before Miyamoto siezed control.

Aonuma had very little to do with FSA and nothing to do with FS at all.

 

[Zemen]

Then Aonuma directed FSA (I think...) which pretty much solidly stated that FSA has the same Link as FS.

No where in the game does it straight up say that it is the same Link. The only part of the game that implies it is the BS of the game and the only reason it implies that it's the same Link is because the BS uses Link's name which could also be evidence that FSA just closely follows FS with a different Link. Other than the implication, there is absolutely no, concrete, in game quote saying that it's the same Link. I agree that it's the same Link, but I just wanted to point that out so you don't go thinking that is the case when it's not.

 

[basement24]

I was reading a video game blog who updated a story about this timeline recently. Evidently, the person who made this submitted it to Nintendo to see how he'd done in figuring it out, and they replied with a message that, in the end, stated "there isn't a true frame of reference or time line possible for the series."

You can see the Youtube video here where the creator of the timeline above talks about his submission.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=w5FozOuwQjI&feature=related

Nintendo's response states things we clearly knew, but their overall statement was kind of odd.

Personally, I don't even know if this response is legit. I think it's odd that Nintendo would make a statement like this to some fan in an e-mail, especially given other statements that have been given about the series by Miyamoto. I think if this is a legit e-mail, it's some NOA desk jockey employee's way of answering the question, and shouldn't be taken seriously.

Given that they as recently as E3 have given a period of time for Spirit Tracks in relation to PH, it means that there is awareness of a connection by the developers. There's also the fact that some games are indeed direct sequels (WW to PH as one). This statement by "Nintendo" is not very educated by saying EACH new game is a new Link.

What does everyone think of this?