• 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 the "official" Timeline Looks Like It Does

Joined
Jan 12, 2011
Location
Germany
Today at school I was wondering why the "offizial" Timeline looks like it does. First it seemed very strange to me, that Nintendo decided to give the ALttP/OoX/LA-LoZ/AoL-Part the status of "only" a what-if-scenario but after thinking about it I knew why.

Look at most the timelines we have here in the forums and especially look at the games that have ganon in them. No matter which timeline you take. it will end mit Ganon being stabed in the forhead, turnt to stone and leaved at the bottom of the sea or being stabed in the chest and losing the ToP or with him being burnt to ashes. Doesn't matter which timeline you pick, Ganon will be dead in every one on every side of the split and every try to revive him has failed. This means Nintendo can't bring him back in one of their next Zelda-games.

But now look at their timeline. The child timeline ends with FSA. In this game Ganon is only sealed in the Four Sword. He is alive! This gives Nintendo the possibility to bring him back. This was only possible with the moving of ALttP and it's sequels.

But this could mean that this timeline isn't the "real" Zelda-timeline. It's just a trick of Nintendo, so they don't have to creat new villians like they did with their last 3 games. Instead they now can use good old Ganon over and over.

And by the way, the placing of TMC and FS prior to OoT gives them the possibility to bring Vaati back in the adult timeline as well as in the what-if-timeline.

Pleas tell me what you think.
 

TNinja

Of the Gorons
Joined
Aug 14, 2010
Location
Death Mountain
I think that's interesting, but i never really understood the whole timeline split thing with Ocarina of Time. I played and beat OoT many times, but i still couldn't understand it. But after I thought of for a long time I finally started to get it. But now they have this whole "What if" theory which creates another timeline, and I'm confused again.
 

-KingJason

Superficies Rex
Joined
Sep 18, 2011
Location
Kentucky
All the whatif split is saying is that Link never succeeded in taking the power/ kingdom of Hyrule away from Ganondorf. This then lead to the Imprisonment War to try and get Ganondorf out of power.
 
Joined
Dec 21, 2011
Well I'm not much of a timeline theorist, I just like to play the games for what they are, thinking that everything is separate except for the obvious direct sequels(WW - PH & OoT - MM).

However, my opinion is that if people do want to create a timeline they should focus on the known facts of what the game gives you, not made up theorys or ideas about the game which might not even be true.

The whole "what if" scenario split of the timeline seems far fetched to me because it's just a "what if" scenario. No game ever explained it, no game ever showed it, so why include it? I know the fun of creating a timeline is to fill in the missing gaps because, admittedly, Zelda games don't give you much to go on. However I feel like making a total separate timeline based off of an event that was never shown in the game seems sort of bogus to me. Atleast the split timeline previous to this one was actually justifyed by a known scene in the game, not just some thought up idea.
 
X

XtremeOne1

Guest
The whole third timeline, the "Link failed" makes no sense though. If Link fails, then Ganon wins and isn't the Endless Cycle broken? How does the Triforce of Courage continue to past down to Link and why are the future Links involved in the "Endless Cycle" and how are they the holders of the triforce of courage if they aren't Link's descendents?
 
Joined
Aug 1, 2011
Location
Kalamazoo, MI
And by the way, the placing of TMC and FS prior to OoT gives them the possibility to bring Vaati back in the adult timeline as well as in the what-if-timeline.
Yeah, but who would want to?

In all honesty, I do believe you make a good point. It does simplify a lot of the more complicated maters of the timeline.
 
Joined
Jan 12, 2011
Location
Germany
Yeah, but who would want to?

In all honesty, I do believe you make a good point. It does simplify a lot of the more complicated maters of the timeline.

Well, I wouldn't mind if they bring Vaati back, but I really hate the way they did it. Especially LoZ and ALttP were one of the best and most popular Zelda-games of all time. Turning them into a "what-if"-scenario that never actually happend is like saying the whole success of Zelda is based on a lie...
 
Joined
Dec 19, 2011
i never understood it either. i guess nintendo was just messing with us again

I think that's interesting, but i never really understood the whole timeline split thing with Ocarina of Time. I played and beat OoT many times, but i still couldn't understand it. But after I thought of for a long time I finally started to get it. But now they have this whole "What if" theory which creates another timeline, and I'm confused again.

i never got it either. nintendo logic for the win. i mean the game is all about time. yeah it's really weird.
 

H3roOfTime

Hero of Time
Joined
Dec 22, 2011
i like it haha its creates a more simple timeline and i like the back to the future sort of theme with the whole alternate timeline when OoT Link supposedly fails saving hyrule, AND the disappearance of adult link in the adult timeline.
 
Joined
Dec 23, 2011
I thought it was an interesting concept that Link would somehow not succeed. It proposes that there was some sort of rip in the space/time continuum and that multiple Links exist on multiple planes and that the fact that Link played with time using the Ocarina, he inadvertently opened up the possibility of having different outcomes to the same situation. Okay, if that doesn't sound like a Sci-Fi movie, I don't know what does! ^^ But it, to me, is really the only way to explain the idea that there is a third way the ending of OoT could have gone-- badly.

The mind boggles, whether that timeline is truly official or not!
 
Joined
Dec 10, 2011
Location
Bay Area
Interesting to see. It matches with what lots of people said and before SS was out Minish Cap was considered by many to be the first so it still precedes all other Zeldas sans SS. I see the two timeline thing not really as one with Link defeated and one where he succeeded but rather one timeline where Link was sent to the sacred realm that lead to the events of the Original Zelda and a new timeline that was forged when Link returns seven years later to create the events that would lead to Twilight Princess. It's like a river that has an offshoot but that offshoot is Link's return.
 

HookShotFTW

Weapon of a Lifetime
Joined
Nov 2, 2011
Location
California
Well I quickly understood the first split timeline but this kind of blindsided all of us the closest thing I can think of it is that the what if timeline is right after link gets back with the spiritual stones and the child era is different than after he comes back although it just seems like a time loop to the adult timeline...
 
Joined
Dec 19, 2011
Location
Merritt Island FL
I always thought that Link failing could have been a possibility, it's nice seeing a timeline that utilizes that. However, there is a flaw (sort of). In Zelda II, it is said that every princess after Zelda would be named Zelda, so shouldn't there be at least one game that goes after Zelda II?
 
Joined
Dec 22, 2011
I think there's a misconception over that new third timeline. It's not a "what-if", and it's really not about Link failing. Here is a possible explanation:

There are three timelines because three people created these timelines - first Ganon when he enters the Sacred Realm to take over the world, then Link when he goes back in time to get the Lens of Truth, and then Zelda when she sends Link back in time to be a child again. In other words, the second timeline came from the first, and then the third timeline came from the second.

In a nutshell, when you go back in time to change something, the future changes and creates a new timeline.
 
Last edited:

Faedeur

The Juror of Courage
Joined
Oct 25, 2009
Location
Wherever the winds take me.
This new official timeline is far from bulletproof. There is a LOT that needs explaining, not only about this apparent third split, but also with the positioning of some games, like the four swords series. I can get behind TLC before lot, but fsa and fs being so far apart makes no sense. And I have always taken issue with tops and taol being after alttp, but thats just me. Regardless, we will need to see their reasoning behind this to get a better understanding of it. Because at the moment, while most of it makes sense, there are still some huge holes.
 

Users who are viewing this thread

Top Bottom