The order of those parallel events isn't relevant because those stories aren't important anymore. It's all presented as myth in BotW/TotK where there seems to be a reoccurring theme regarding the falsity of legends. The implications of this along with all the newly added lore and cross references brings into question the validity of the entire timeline.
I think the timeline of a new timeline is relevant, but I do like variations on the Living Legend theory so I can roll with it.
As corny as it sounds, all those older games are just legends now, which is why I keep on hammering the point about looking backwards to no avail, when we should be looking ahead and paying attention to how future titles connect to eachother in this new era of Zelda that is intentionally set far off from those previous eras, only to confuse and fuel speculation while Nintendo could be withholding that final piece of the puzzle that makes everything make sense like they did when they created that 3rd split, except this one has actual in-game ties that support it just like Ocarina of Time.
Yeah, I understand now. You're not crafting a specific theory, you're proposing a new way of
theorizing. The moral messaging of BotW/TotK: move forward into freedom. I probably was too critical of what is ostensibly a thematic theory, not a specific timeline proposal.
I wasn't addressing the why of a fourth timeline, but a when. I was saying that if a fourth split does happen, the end of Skyward Sword would be the logical place for it to happen. We already know that how ever we place BotW & TotK in any timeline (singular, three, four, or any other mess) related events still happen. Placing the games at the end of the downfall or child timelines, the Twilight realm still exists, and a crossing would still have to have happened (evident by items and Zelda's speech in BotW). Just like placing the games at the end of the Adult timeline, we have references to other timeline events. So, it's not a valid argument against a fourth timeline. It is a point in favor of a singular timeline because the referenced events are the actual events, rather than similar events that we never played through.
I think, to Turo's point, in a 4th timeline, the older games are just legends now, including Skyward Sword.
And I agree that the parallel events argument is in favor of a singular timeline: and I just argue that if you have to make a singular timeline anyway, might as well make the
whole timeline a singular timeline. Otherwise it remains unnecessarily complicated.
As for the Rito thing: the Encyclopedia is explicit..."Due to the unnatural properties of the sea, it is inhospitable to the Zora. They evolve over the span of a century into the Rito." Maybe there was interbreeding with an unseen Rito race, but that is a fan-made retcon.
If you're trying to move stuff around so it's different then you are not abiding by the rules that Nintendo established.
This is true and irrelevant. Theories are designed to fill in gaps: Ryuu's Rito theory fills in the gap of "how are there Rito at the founding of Hyrule." My linear timeline theory tries to fill in "how are there references in TotK to all 3 timelines." I would argue mine intentionally retcons the established timeline, and not much else. I think it's about
what you're retconning and why.
Is there a better explanation for the Rito being at the founding of Hyrule than that they already existed before Wind Waker? I think so.
Is there a better explanation for the TotK references than a linear timeline? I don't think so.
The goal is to retcon the books to preserve the games. Or at least mine is. The books have a lot of errors or leaps in logic: they aren't reliable like the games.
