• 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.

Why is Zelda Theorizing All About the Timeline?

Retro Ganon

Canon-Candy-Coded
Joined
Mar 2, 2010
Location
Gannon-Banned Island
Gender
Demon Theorist
Hi, I'm Retro Ganon. I'm new to these boards as you can tell and I came here to theorize because this website doesn't seem to be wrapped up their anuses about the timeline and how they measure one's theory by the size of anothers E-Penis. I think its especially smart that Zelda Dungeons separates timeline and storyline theorizing as opposed to other places I have looked into.

Anyway...

I'm probably not going to take a stands on a chronological order until I do more research and theorizing in the 'Mysteries of Hyrule' board, so I'm not looking for a debate here.

I just want to know why it seems the timeline makes up more than half of Zelda Theorizing activities on such boards as Zelda Universe? Guess I don't understand what the fuss is about when the games, currently as there are 15 official canonical titles, don't seem to provide enough restrictions to define one true timeline... Especially when a lot of others feel like they do.

I'm pretty opened minded about it all, but I'd like to hear from the 'experts' perspective. I have a few more questions, but I'll wait until people start replying first.

Thanks.
 

athenian200

Circumspect
Joined
Jan 31, 2010
Location
a place of settlement, activity, or residence.
It's mostly because everything else about the Zelda series is pretty well defined. The games are very internally consistent. Also, most other theorizing doesn't involve bits and pieces of concrete evidence that cause people to act as if their position is more factual. People like timeline theorizing because they're so sure there's a concrete answer that can be derived from the evidence, and are comfortable shooting down any subjective insights that seem too theoretical. Yet their own subjective insights are acceptable... sigh.

The problem is that there's just enough information for two people to be equally convinced that their interpretation of the timeline is the absolute truth, yet come up with two different theories. This leads to a lot of nerd rage and virtual blood being spilled. The more controversial and overarching a topic is, the more people insist on talking about it, and shoving their own opinion down other people's throats. That's why I've never found a message board yet that didn't have at least one topic about the existence of God, or a thread that was derailed into that discussion. To me, the discussions suffer for largely the same reason... we really don't know if there's a timeline or not, or what it is if there is one. But a lot of people think they know that there is one, AND what it is.

I created a timeline theory out of boredom (for fun), but people grilled me and acted like there was only one right way to do it. That kind of took the fun out of it. :(
 

Zemen

[Insert Funny Statement]
Joined
Nov 11, 2008
Location
Illinois
One of the main reasons I theorize the timeline is because it helps me focus more on each individual game which greatly enhances my experience when playing the games. I literally look at each detail and seeing how the games connects just amazes me and makes me excited when I notice even the smallest connection. The idea that the games all fit together somehow makes me stick with the series especially since it's up to the fans to figure out exactly how it fits together. I can't think of any other series in the video game world that require that much effort from the fans/players. It's amazing. I used to be one of those theorists that would just drill my ideas into everyone. I would post my timeline and believe that it was absolute and get mad when people thought otherwise. A while back when I redid my timeline I realized that my way wasn't at all absolute, that I had to keep an open mind. Now I don't argue my timeline so much as I try to help people see flaws with their timelines. I'm sort of a "spell checker" of timelines right now.


we really don't know if there's a timeline or not, or what it is if there is one.

We do know, for a fact, that there is a timeline. Miyamoto and Aonuma refer to it all the time when they speak of the Zelda series. Aonuma has said that there is a document that tells how all of the games connect together. There are plenty of quotes from Nintendo reps (and Aonuma) on certain games saying where they are placed in the timeline. The timeline is not a theory in itself. We know that there 100% is a timeline.

I created a timeline theory out of boredom (for fun), but people grilled me and acted like there was only one right way to do it.

In few respects there really is only one way to do a timeline. For instance, Aonuma has confirmed a split timeline. There is plenty of in game evidence to support a split timeline so when someone posts a linear timeline they will get "grilled" because right off the bat it goes against what the creators themselves have set up as a base to start. Another example is that we know that the split starts with OoT and MM-TP and WW continuing on in the opposite directions of the split based on interviews with Aonuma. Because of that we know that the timeline has to have...
........WW
OoT<
......../MM-TP

Somewhere in there. Also, since OoT is the introduction of Ganon/dorf as a villain, we know that no game featuring Ganon/dorf can go before OoT. The only game that really makes any sense in front of OoT is MC, but that's a whole other debate.

Anything after that is up for debate. Where you place the games around that initial set up is completely up to you, but that is an example of how there really is a "right way" to theorize the timeline.
 

Locke

Hegemon
Site Staff
Joined
Nov 24, 2009
Location
Redmond, Washington
The timeline actually gives you pieces to work with. Most other theories are just hypotheses with plenty of room for disagreement but little facts to debate. I like to think of the timeline as a big beautiful multi-dimensional puzzle. Nintendo has given us plenty of possible connections to explore and an innumerable amount of facts to debate which are more important and try to fit the pieces together. It's a lot more mentally stimulating (imo...I guess more creative people might enjoy making up other theories for which we don't have as many facts) and appeals to people's motivations for exploration and achievement.
 

Xinnamin

Mrs. Austin
Joined
Dec 6, 2009
Location
clustercereal
The timeline is not only the biggest theorizing subject in the Zelda world, being that it encompasses every single game in the canon, it's also the most concrete of them. If you take other theories, like maybe those involving Majora's origin or the Dark Interlopers or things like that and you only have concrete details from one game to really work with. Sure you can connect details from different games and make connections about those smaller theory subjects, but then you're bordering on fanfiction, and fanfiction isn't all that interesting to debate. Plus those small theories are typically formed from half-baked connections between apparently unrelated aspects of different games. The timeline is often built from sturdier connections between common aspects of the many games, so there's more to work with, more supports to pull out, and more controversies to debate. Other theories can be dismissed with "oh that's just a coincidence", and there's rarely have enough evidence to prove a connection as something greater than coincidence. In contrast, the timeline can't simply be thrown out like that since every timeline is built off of multiple strong and supportable claims. It's more interesting to debate since it's simply more debatable, and that's what attracts so many people. I feel like the timeline is more of a community theorizing effort that allows people to play off of each others' ideas to solve a big riddle, whereas other theories are often simply more often than not fanfic material.

Personally, I'm a story theorizer who likes to look at the mysteries within the games and not the connections among the games, but that's because I prefer to imagine rather than debate.
 

Retro Ganon

Canon-Candy-Coded
Joined
Mar 2, 2010
Location
Gannon-Banned Island
Gender
Demon Theorist
[FONT=&quot]
It's mostly because everything else about the Zelda series is pretty well defined. The games are very internally consistent. Also, most other theorizing doesn't involve bits and pieces of concrete evidence that cause people to act as if their position is more factual. People like timeline theorizing because they're so sure there's a concrete answer that can be derived from the evidence, and are comfortable shooting down any subjective insights that seem too theoretical. Yet their own subjective insights are acceptable... sigh.
[/FONT]

[FONT=&quot]Hmm. Well everything can’t be too concrete otherwise we wouldn’t have so many theories like you said. :)

The problem is that there's just enough information for two people to be equally convinced that their interpretation of the timeline is the absolute truth, yet come up with two different theories. This leads to a lot of nerd rage and virtual blood being spilled. The more controversial and overarching a topic is, the more people insist on talking about it, and shoving their own opinion down other people's throats. That's why I've never found a message board yet that didn't have at least one topic about the existence of God, or a thread that was derailed into that discussion. To me, the discussions suffer for largely the same reason... we really don't know if there's a timeline or not, or what it is if there is one. But a lot of people think they know that there is one, AND what it is.
[/FONT]

[FONT=&quot]I think the attitude of “I/We have it all figured out” kinda hinders debate, don’t you think? Though I’m a bit of an optimistic when it comes to sorting out multiple conclusions, even though opponents will more than likely always feel their view superior. Which is fine by me so long as people (including myself) can allow for understanding different concepts – not necessarily agreeing.[/FONT]

[FONT=&quot]On a side note…[/FONT]

[FONT=&quot]Funny thing you brought theological debate into the picture. I use to get into such studies on certain church-related forums until I figured simple faith was just the right way to go. But don’t get me wrong! This doesn’t hinder my ability to be objective too!

I created a timeline theory out of boredom (for fun), but people grilled me and acted like there was only one right way to do it. That kind of took the fun out of it. :(
[/FONT]

[FONT=&quot]People with patience issues? I’ll try to watch myself in the future. :)[/FONT]


[FONT=&quot]
One of the main reasons I theorize the timeline is because it helps me focus more on each individual game which greatly enhances my experience when playing the games. I literally look at each detail and seeing how the games connects just amazes me and makes me excited when I notice even the smallest connection. The idea that the games all fit together somehow makes me stick with the series especially since it's up to the fans to figure out exactly how it fits together. I can't think of any other series in the video game world that require that much effort from the fans/players. It's amazing.
[/FONT]

[FONT=&quot]I guess I can understand the thrill and never ending battle to finding the truth, when there are so many possibilities out there. I suppose it is stimulating (hence my wry comment about E-Penis in these regards… only a joke!).[/FONT]

[FONT=&quot]
I used to be one of those theorists that would just drill my ideas into everyone. I would post my timeline and believe that it was absolute and get mad when people thought otherwise. A while back when I redid my timeline I realized that my way wasn't at all absolute, that I had to keep an open mind. Now I don't argue my timeline so much as I try to help people see flaws with their timelines. I'm sort of a "spell checker" of timelines right now.

[/FONT]
[FONT=&quot]I’m glad to hear this for your sake. I look forward to whatever debates we shall have in the future! [/FONT]

[FONT=&quot]Not to sound coy and rude, but I noticed you had a Zelda Theorizing social clique. Though it seems only reserved for whom you deem as ‘elite’ in regards to timeline theorizing skills. Isn’t this a tad arrogant and uninviting to newbies? Aside from the other aspects of this board in comparison to ZU, ZI, and ZL, this is the only aspect which rubbed me the wrong way, and thus partially added to the reason for this thread. I know you have your rights, but could you create a general social group which involves theorists of all levels? I’m sorry if this sounds prudent, but you are the Theorizing Mod aren’t you?

In few respects there really is only one way to do a timeline. For instance, Aonuma has confirmed a split timeline. There is plenty of in game evidence to support a split timeline so when someone posts a linear timeline they will get "grilled" because right off the bat it goes against what the creators themselves have set up as a base to start. Another example is that we know that the split starts with OoT and MM-TP and WW continuing on in the opposite directions of the split based on interviews with Aonuma. Because of that we know that the timeline has to have...
[/FONT]

[FONT=&quot]When you say there is ‘only one way to theorize’ are you saying there is a certain procedure of canonical elements which one should address before going into a debate? This sounds sort of idealistic because every theory thread is different… but if there is an outline or hierarchy of canon to be addressed pray tell. Developer intent and official script is a given… but what about other areas?[/FONT]

[FONT=&quot]
The timeline is not only the biggest theorizing subject in the Zelda world, being that it encompasses every single game in the canon, it's also the most concrete of them. If you take other theories, like maybe those involving Majora's origin or the Dark Interlopers or things like that and you only have concrete details from one game to really work with. Sure you can connect details from different games and make connections about those smaller theory subjects, but then you're bordering on fanfiction, and fanfiction isn't all that interesting to debate. Plus those small theories are typically formed from half-baked connections between apparently unrelated aspects of different games.
[/FONT]

[FONT=&quot]Ah, but isn’t it the smaller theories which get built up that end up becoming the base-work for timeline theories stability? If so, why dismiss the activity when it is constructive nonetheless? Maybe I’m misunderstanding your point.[/FONT]

[FONT=&quot]
The timeline is often built from sturdier connections between common aspects of the many games, so there's more to work with, more supports to pull out, and more controversies to debate. Other theories can be dismissed with "oh that's just a coincidence", and there's rarely have enough evidence to prove a connection as something greater than coincidence. In contrast, the timeline can't simply be thrown out like that since every timeline is built off of multiple strong and supportable claims.
[/FONT]


[FONT=&quot]This statement seems diminishing to freshening up on knowledge of different aspects of Hyrulian history... for sake of keeping popular opinion/rhetoric standardized within timeline debate.
[/FONT]
[FONT=&quot]
Personally, I'm a story theorizer who likes to look at the mysteries within the games and not the connections among the games, but that's because I prefer to imagine rather than debate.
[/FONT]

[FONT=&quot]This statement is almost a oxymoron. When you say you’re a storyline theorists I think of someone like me whom might tackle an issues, such as the Dark Tribe relating to other tribes in Hyrules history, and trying to tie them together. Those are small elements within various storylines which don’t necessarily have to point towards a timeline dilemma imo. [/FONT]
 

Locke

Hegemon
Site Staff
Joined
Nov 24, 2009
Location
Redmond, Washington
When you say there is ‘only one way to theorize’ are you saying there is a certain procedure of canonical elements which one should address before going into a debate? This sounds sort of idealistic because every theory thread is different… but if there is an outline or hierarchy of canon to be addressed pray tell. Developer intent and official script is a given… but what about other areas?
I think he means that saying things like "I think TP comes before OoT because I think Ganondorf survived and decided to get his revenge by breaking into the SR and taking the ToX" (supporting a statement with fanfic) is not good theorizing. One should always stick to developer quotes, game quotes, etc. and provide facts and evidence to support their theories.
Or another way of looking at it is that you shouldn't think of a good story then try to find evidence to support it, but look at the evidence and piece the story together from that. In the specific case he pointed out, this evidence includes the set-in-stone placement of those six games and one should build the rest of the timeline around that.

Ah, but isn’t it the smaller theories which get built up that end up becoming the base-work for timeline theories stability? If so, why dismiss the activity when it is constructive nonetheless? Maybe I’m misunderstanding your point.
I agree that the smaller theories about certain aspects of the Zelda universe are vital to forming a good timeline theory. Whenever you explore a timeline connection between two or more games, it usually involves figuring out these smaller mysteries. I just think that the timeline is basically a compilation of these theories (and therefore more important and more eligable for debate) and their purpose is to form a coherent image of the entire Zelda story.
 

Xinnamin

Mrs. Austin
Joined
Dec 6, 2009
Location
clustercereal
[FONT=&quot]Ah, but isn’t it the smaller theories which get built up that end up becoming the base-work for timeline theories stability? If so, why dismiss the activity when it is constructive nonetheless? Maybe I’m misunderstanding your point.[/FONT]

[FONT=&quot]This statement seems diminishing to freshening up on knowledge of different aspects of Hyrulian history... for sake of keeping popular opinion/rhetoric standardized within timeline debate.[/FONT]

[FONT=&quot]This statement is almost a oxymoron. When you say you’re a storyline theorists I think of someone like me whom might tackle an issues, such as the Dark Tribe relating to other tribes in Hyrules history, and trying to tie them together. Those are small elements within various storylines which don’t necessarily have to point towards a timeline dilemma imo. [/FONT]
1) What I was trying to say is that the little theories have so little concrete detail that they can go in so many separate directions. Like for example, the Interlopers. There are theories that they tie to Majora, and theories that they tie to the Sheikah. One subject can go off in drastically different directions and as such the little theories don't count for much as concrete evidence for the timeline, so I can hardly call them stabalizing. I will concede that they do act to strengthen a timeline theory, but they're rather weak as the connecting evidence don't you think? Maybe I'm not making myself really clear, but that's my opinion anyways.

2) My point with that statement was simply that smaller theories were not as debatable as the timeline due to lack of concrete evidence, which contributes to the timeline's popularity as the main Zelda theory subject. Maybe I'm conveying the wrong thing...I apologize if I'm failing to make my thoughts clear (I'm rather a stream-of-conciousness type of writer, and thus am sometimes very disorganized with words :sweat:)

3) By story theorist I meant that I stick inside one or two definitely connected games and paid no mind to how any theories I make tie in with the overlying timeline or if anything I believed about one story conflicts with the canon of another game. I don't really bother connecting elements from multiple games that are not confirmed sequels, but that was more a side note at any rate.
 
Joined
Feb 2, 2009
Location
Brasil
Hi, I'm Retro Ganon. I'm new to these boards as you can tell and I came here to theorize because this website doesn't seem to be wrapped up their anuses about the timeline and how they measure one's theory by the size of anothers E-Penis. I think its especially smart that Zelda Dungeons separates timeline and storyline theorizing as opposed to other places I have looked into.

Anyway...

I'm probably not going to take a stands on a chronological order until I do more research and theorizing in the 'Mysteries of Hyrule' board, so I'm not looking for a debate here.

I just want to know why it seems the timeline makes up more than half of Zelda Theorizing activities on such boards as Zelda Universe? Guess I don't understand what the fuss is about when the games, currently as there are 15 official canonical titles, don't seem to provide enough restrictions to define one true timeline... Especially when a lot of others feel like they do.

I'm pretty opened minded about it all, but I'd like to hear from the 'experts' perspective. I have a few more questions, but I'll wait until people start replying first.

Thanks.

To be honest, sometimes I do not understand either.

The case with e is kinda different. I'm not much of a gamer and I don't like the storyline of the games much either. But the thing is, it's a puzzle. I simply love puzzles. Miyamoto and Aonuma have said there is a timeline, so there is no point denying it. But nobody knows what the order actually is. Trying to decode the mystery and order the game makes it a great puzzle to spend your time on. It's about as good as Rubik's cube... :P

lol
 
Joined
Jan 1, 2009
Location
Hyrule and Azeroth
It's about as good as Rubik's cube...
'Cept I can solve a Rubik's cube in like a minute, whereas the timeline is still one big ****ing mystery lol

Anyways, it's probably because the timeline is the most intriguing part of theorizing to most people. I find it more interesting, anyway, but I never have done much non-timeline theorizing, so maybe it's just my bias......
 

Zeruda

Mother Hyrule
Joined
May 17, 2009
Location
on a crumbling throne
It's because everybody wants to be right. Everybody wants answers, and Nintendo won't give us any yet. Timeline theorizing is fine, but it makes me laugh at how people take the stupidest things too seriously and completely ignore what is canon. On top of that, it causes arguments, and people LOVE to argue. So, timeline sections attract arguing which leads to more timelines and more arguing. That's why such sections always revolve around the timeline.

Personally, I stay away from timeline theories unless the people who are participating them pay attention to facts and provide sources. My favorite part of Zelda Theorizing is getting into great character/design details, such as the reasons for a character's pallet(sp?), the reasons for voice actors chosen, etc.
 
C

Caleb, Of Asui

Guest
Timeline theorizing is definitely a big part of the Zelda community. It's not like everything we talk about is the timeline, as some questions are raised about elements of one game. Involve two games, however, and it can be difficult to say nothing about the timeline. Involve three games and there's a low chance it won't be about the timeline. Ever since Ocarina of Time came out and fans noticed connections to A Link to the Past, fans have been theorizing about the timeline (which is funny, because that theory has pretty much been disproven by now). I'm not old enough to know what the timeline debates from back then were like, but I can imagine that there wasn't much controversy until The Wind Waker. That caused a major division in the community for a while about whether or not the timeline is split, and things have only become more confusing and convoluted since then - although I suppose there is a sort of a trend that Nintendo kills any huge argument after a while (and it always seems to be related to Ocarina of Time. Big game, huh?).

(As a side note, my personal philosophy about the timeline is that Nintendo usually makes it pretty clear where each game goes related to all the previously-existing games, even if it takes them from 2003 to 2007. XD)
 

athenian200

Circumspect
Joined
Jan 31, 2010
Location
a place of settlement, activity, or residence.
Miyamoto and Aonuma have said there is a timeline, so there is no point denying it. But nobody knows what the order actually is.

I don't believe them. I think they just maintain that there's a timeline because if they said there wasn't one, people would stop trying to piece it together, which would destroy something that draws a lot of attention to the series. Insisting that it's there, but a mystery, drives people nuts trying to figure it out.

It's also possible that there IS a timeline, but it's not based on the actual games. It could be that the games are not the actual source of what's considered canon, and there's a timeline out there that retcons several things and includes several stories that never made it into a game. In other words, just because there's a timeline for the Zelda series doesn't mean we have all the pieces, or even that the games depict events as they're currently considered to happen.
 

Users who are viewing this thread

Top Bottom