Yet Another TotK Timeline Placement Theory

[Turo602]

I don't know if anyone has made this point yet as all I ever see surrounding the topic of Tears of the Kingdom's timeline placement is whether the distant past is a re-founding of Hyrule in the distant future or whether we should take it at face value and consider it the actual founding of Hyrule before the timeline split with Ocarina of Time. However, something I think a lot of people seem to be neglecting about its timeline placement, whether we go the re-founding route or take the game at face value is that the events of Breath of the Wild and Tears of the Kingdom would all exist in its own self-contained alternative timeline.

At the start of the game, Zelda comes across a mural depicting the Imprisoning War that is partially obscured by bombable rocks. Once you bomb these rocks later in the game, you'll reveal depictions of Zelda’s role during the Imprisoning War. Based on this alone, we can infer that Zelda has already altered history and everything from the Imprisoning War to Ganondorf's return is all occurring on a new timeline where Zelda was present as a dragon in the sky all along.

There's further evidence of this fact all throughout Tears of the Kingdom as well, like Zelda’s Purah Pad with the spirit of Mineru having been held since the Imprisoning War for Link in the present and even the Legend of the Sky Island side adventure that confirms the Temple of Time and the land it sits on was once on the surface and lifted into the sky by the sages to protect Link from Ganondorf in the present, which was absent in Breath of the Wild, meaning Zelda’s plan was already in effect long before her disappearance.

If we were to take the game at face value and say that Rauru's founding was before Ocarina of Time, there'd be some pretty big implications there with the rest of the timeline, making BotW and TotK fall on some alternate history of whatever timeline it's supposed to take place on as opposed to an alternate version of events we've never seen during some re-founding of Hyrule in the far future. But regardless of when we assume Rauru founded Hyrule, it all has to be occurring on this new timeline created by Zelda herself.

We know for a fact that the events of Ocarina of Time occured some time long before the Calamity in this timeline, but we also can't say for certain what actually happened as there seems to be a running theme within Tears of the Kingdom about uncertainty and misinformation, especially in regards to legends, which is something even written in the Creating a Champion book that makes it clear that the events of Breath of the Wild specifically cannot be disputed.

Even the hero's aspect challenges what we thought we knew about the hero by turning him into some strange amalgamation of a Hylian, Gerudo, and
Zonai which itself could be playing into the notion that the past isn't always passed down accurately as it is merely just an aspect of the hero as legend would have you believe, as opposed to Link himself, who many don't even seem to recognize as being Zelda’s champion due to his unimpressive build and everyman qualities. Or, it's simply the result of Zelda’s interference in the past which saw the Imprisoning of Ganon, therefore robbing the Hero of Time of his duty, thus the lack of the iconic green tunic in the future.

With how closely elements of Ganondorf's story mirror his own in Ocarina of Time, a case can be made that they're one in the same, which can be evidenced by the presence of Koume and Kotake, who appear to be a lot younger than they were in Ocarina of Time, making it possible that these events predate Ocarina of Time by at least 300+ years if they are indeed the same Koume and Kotake, or that they've simply been redesigned and we are witnessing the real-time events of Ocarina of Time play out right in front of us as they "actually" happened and not the "legend" that we experienced in 1998.

Another example of this would be the ancient sages who mysteriously remain without names and hide their identities behind masks that correspond to each Champion's Divine Beast despite not having been created yet. We also know that each Divine Beast was named in honor of past sages from Ocarina of Time and Wind Waker, so it's also unlikely that these ancient sages bear the exact namesakes of the Divine Beasts despite influencing their design.

But with the Ganondorf parallels to Ocarina of Time, it can also be reasoned that these ancient sages are indeed the same ones who inspired the names for the Divine Beasts from Ocarina of Time. Ruto, for example, was specifically cited in both renditions of the Zora Monuments in Breath of the Wild and Tears of the Kingdom and now a confirmed ancestor of Sidon. Why include this detail in the same game where Sidon just happens to meet a past Zora sage who is not only a woman like Ruto, but wears a mask that resembles the exact Divine Beast named after Ruto?

I'm sure there's still a lot of holes in this, like the Rito being a thing during the founding of Hyrule if we are to assume these events are depicting the first ever founding of Hyrule or some weird retconned version of Ocarina of Time, but the one thing I think this game makes abundantly clear, is that it's all happening on a self-contained alternate timeline of events to whatever we perceive to be the original timeline, in a way, mirroring the 2 dragon uroboros imagery as the story doesn't exist on a linear timeline, but a paradoxical circular event.

I honestly wouldn't put it past Nintendo to lump these games in a new timeline to avoid having an answer to all the inconsistencies while also opening up room for future games to occupy space on a new branch like they've pretty much been doing with every mainline game since The Wind Waker. It also feels like that may have been the intention of Tears of the Kingdom's story all along. With all the questions everyone had about Breath of the Wild's timeline placement, they purposely take us to the opposite point in time and hand wave everything in between with time travel.

 

[Malon]

OMFG I'm so ******* impressed.

 

[Ryuu Kage Desu]

I suppose the idea that Rauru's Hyrule is the nation that predates Skyward Sword isn't common enough to register, yet.

As I see it, the creators already told us that the new games, BotW/TotK, are separated; by time. They specifically wanted us to fit the games in the timeline we saw most fitting, by telling us in many ways, that a whole lot of time has passed.

I'm sure there's still a lot of holes in this, like the Rito being a thing during the founding of Hyrule

I don't believe the Rito are as big of a problem as people make them out to be. There is not only evidence to suggest that there are Zora present (all be it off screen) in the Adult Timeline, but crossbreeding is a thing that the Zora seem to do. I think the blood connection we are shown, in Wind Waker, between a Zora sage and a Rito sage, is likely due to one such coupling. It would also explain why the WW Rito look so different from the Rito we see now. The Zora, or at least a portion of them, mated with an already existing Rito, for the survival of their children.

 

[Spiritual Mask Salesman]

This is definitely something I have considered. I started thinking of Breath of the Wild and Tears of the Kingdom as self-contained games, funnily enough, about a few weeks into playing Tears of the Kingdom last year.

They really do essientially serve as a reboot of the lore. With the lack of focus on the Triforce, and focus on the Zonai which are a race that seemingly swooped in from nowhere, but suddenly have this big hand in shaping Hyrule apparently. It's no longer the lore we've been familar with, and I do think it's intentional so the devs can remove themselves from the confines of the timeline.

I could be content thinking of the Wild Era games this way. Theories that it's all taking place on a new timeline split does give an in-universe reasoning, which is nice.

As for holes in the theory, you've posited that the past era from Zelda's memories might be something like 300 years before Ocarina of Time. We know that for some reason all Gerudo had round ears during the era of Ocarina of Time. But in the cutscenes from that past era in Tears we see the Gerudo around Ganondorf have pointed ears and Ganondorf is the only one with rounded ears.

Also the timeframe already would put the Kingdom of Hyrule founded by the Royal Family of Hyrule as something already established, making a need for Rauru to step in obsolete.

So I still think a refounding of Hyrule makes the most sense with all the information we have, and a refounding makes it to where the need for a new timeline split doesn't really need to be a thing.

don't know if anyone has made this point yet as all I ever see surrounding the topic of Tears of the Kingdom's timeline placement is whether the distant past is a re-founding of Hyrule in the distant future or whether we should take it at face value and consider it the actual founding of Hyrule before the timeline split with Ocarina of Time.

I've definitely seen alternate timeline theory for BotW/TotK before. I don't know if we've discussed it here.

 

[GZ Zelda]

I don't know if anyone has made this point yet as all I ever see surrounding the topic of Tears of the Kingdom's timeline placement is whether the distant past is a re-founding of Hyrule in the distant future or whether we should take it at face value and consider it the actual founding of Hyrule before the timeline split with Ocarina of Time. However, something I think a lot of people seem to be neglecting about its timeline placement, whether we go the re-founding route or take the game at face value is that the events of Breath of the Wild and Tears of the Kingdom would all exist in its own self-contained alternative timeline.

When Zelda goes back in time, she already went back in time in the past of Breath of the Wild and Tears of the Kingdom. But there are still the numerous references to other games that cannot be accounted for if it were on a separate timeline from the beginning.

But with the Ganondorf parallels to Ocarina of Time, it can also be reasoned that these ancient sages are indeed the same ones who inspired the names for the Divine Beasts from Ocarina of Time. Ruto, for example, was specifically cited in both renditions of the Zora Monuments in Breath of the Wild and Tears of the Kingdom and now a confirmed ancestor of Sidon. Why include this detail in the same game where Sidon just happens to meet a past Zora sage who is not only a woman like Ruto, but wears a mask that resembles the exact Divine Beast named after Ruto?

The legend described in Learnings of the Zora Part 2 could not have possibly been the legend in Tears of the Kingdom's past because there was no "hero of legend" in TotK's past.

I'm sure there's still a lot of holes in this, like the Rito being a thing during the founding of Hyrule if we are to assume these events are depicting the first ever founding of Hyrule or some weird retconned version of Ocarina of Time, but the one thing I think this game makes abundantly clear, is that it's all happening on a self-contained alternate timeline of events to whatever we perceive to be the original timeline, in a way, mirroring the 2 dragon uroboros imagery as the story doesn't exist on a linear timeline, but a paradoxical circular event.

If the game takes place on an alternate timeline, you still need to include SS, OoT, TP, ALttP/OoA/OoS/LA, ALBW/TFH, WW/PH/ST and MC (and presumably FS/FSA if MC is included).

Having BotW and TotK take place on an alternate timeline is just another form of the parallel events theory that @Moblinking5000 uses for a DT placement. The Koroks evolved another way, the Rito evolved another way, the hero that fought the twilight, Midna and Zant turned into a wolf another way at a different time, the Minish were part of Hyrule in another way, the Hero of Winds wore the Island Lobster shirt another way. It is just fanfiction, and I don't say that lightly.

I don't believe the Rito are as big of a problem as people make them out to be. There is not only evidence to suggest that there are Zora present (all be it off screen) in the Adult Timeline, but crossbreeding is a thing that the Zora seem to do. I think the blood connection we are shown, in Wind Waker, between a Zora sage and a Rito sage, is likely due to one such coupling. It would also explain why the WW Rito look so different from the Rito we see now. The Zora, or at least a portion of them, mated with an already existing Rito, for the survival of their children.

There is zero indication in any of the games pre-Wind Waker that there are Rito.

So I still think a refounding of Hyrule makes the most sense with all the information we have, and a refounding makes it to where the need for a new timeline split doesn't really need to be a thing.

A refounding makes significantly more sense than a fourth timeline branch, I fully agree. Post-DT or AT are the obvious contenders, but we need parallel events or a merged timeline for it to truly make sense, whether refounding or pre-SS. Pre-SS makes Ocarina of Time a narrative nightmare; post-AT makes Wind Waker a narrative nightmare; post-DT makes the most sense but the missing Triforce and Z2 infrastructure is inexplicable. At the end of Z2, the kingdom is actually well-off, has multiple settlements, a complete Triforce and no need for a refounding.

I'm not sure what the answer is, but I can tell you for sure that a fourth timeline is not what the Zelda series needs to make sense. Consolidation should always be preferred to expansion, wherever possible.

 

[Mikey the Gengar]

I'm not sure what the answer is, but I can tell you for sure that a fourth timeline is not what the Zelda series needs to make sense. Consolidation should always be preferred to expansion, wherever possible.

I can understand why you'd want this espwcially for traditional media but I prefer whatever gives the devs most freedom to make the games they want, cause that's the most important thing. Timeline is a secondary bonus that helps the universe feel more cohesive... usually

 

[GZ Zelda]

I can understand why you'd want this espwcially for traditional media but I prefer whatever gives the devs most freedom to make the games they want, cause that's the most important thing. Timeline is a secondary bonus that helps the universe feel more cohesive... usually

I agree that freedom leads to good design, but restrictions also lead to good design. Tears of the Kingdom had too much story freedom and it literally made people whose job it is to cover Zelda theory NOT want to do that. Imagine: this hobby thing we have is your 300k YouTube subscriber job and you'd rather talk about Elden Ring! And you get new theorists like Gossip Geist and WizCatchesLightning who upload irregularly and aren't grounded; and Zeltik is making a podcast and doesn't have a new theory for months at a time.

This could have been avoided if they left a Tolkinian impression of depth which requires COHESIVE backcloths and casual mentions. The more specific, the worse we are; the more complex, the worse we are. We have to simplify this, or Makar in ALBW and Midna's Helmet in TotK will completely fall apart and, in some cases, large parts of the mythos will collapse under a @Bowsette Plus-Ultra-esque lack of trust.

I will re-iterate our feasible options:

1. End of DT with parallel events
2. End of CT with parallel events
3. End of AT with parallel events
4. New timeline with parallel events, pre-SS
5. New timeline with parallel events, post-SS
6. Merged timeline
7. Linear timeline

All of these have problems, obviously. Which has the least? I don't know: that's the debate. Me personally: I DO NOT WANT TO HAVE TO FANFICTION PARALLEL EVENTS AND A MERGE! I much prefer to fanfiction a behind-the-scenes for Ocarina of Time, an undoing of the flood, and an unsealing from the Four Sword. These would be required in the parallel event timelines anyway: might as well just use the games that we have and put them in an order that makes sense.

If you don't think there are parallel events, you have to de-canonize a significant chunk of the Depths and Sky content in TotK, and multiple pieces of spoken and written dialogue. I'm just not comfortable doing that for the sake of a cleaner timeline without parallel events, I'm sorry.

They really do essientially serve as a reboot of the lore. With the lack of focus on the Triforce, and focus on the Zonai which are a race that seemingly swooped in from nowhere, but suddenly have this big hand in shaping Hyrule apparently. It's no longer the lore we've been familar with, and I do think it's intentional so the devs can remove themselves from the confines of the timeline.

There have been four games that do not deal with the Triforce: Spirit Tracks, Minish Cap, Four Swords and Four Swords Adventures. If this is not a reboot, which I don't think it is, Tears of the Kingdom past should logically take place in the era of one of these games.

 

[Mikey the Gengar]

restrictions also lead to good design

I believe in this wholeheartedly in terms of design, but when you're making a decision between story and gameplay, you do the thing that improves the gameplay at the cost of the story, thats all I'm saying. If you can do both, by all means, do both

 

[Bowsette Plus-Ultra]

I agree that freedom leads to good design, but restrictions also lead to good design. Tears of the Kingdom had too much story freedom and it literally made people whose job it is to cover Zelda theory NOT want to do that. Imagine: this hobby thing we have is your 300k YouTube subscriber job and you'd rather talk about Elden Ring! And you get new theorists like Gossip Geist and WizCatchesLightning who upload irregularly and aren't grounded; and Zeltik is making a podcast and doesn't have a new theory for months at a time.

This could have been avoided if they left a Tolkinian impression of depth which requires COHESIVE backcloths and casual mentions. The more specific, the worse we are; the more complex, the worse we are. We have to simplify this, or Makar in ALBW and Midna's Helmet in TotK will completely fall apart and, in some cases, large parts of the mythos will collapse under a @Bowsette Plus-Ultra-esque lack of trust.

I will re-iterate our feasible options:

1. End of DT with parallel events
2. End of CT with parallel events
3. End of AT with parallel events
4. New timeline with parallel events, pre-SS
5. New timeline with parallel events, post-SS
6. Merged timeline
7. Linear timeline

All of these have problems, obviously. Which has the least? I don't know: that's the debate. Me personally: I DO NOT WANT TO HAVE TO FANFICTION PARALLEL EVENTS AND A MERGE! I much prefer to fanfiction a behind-the-scenes for Ocarina of Time, an undoing of the flood, and an unsealing from the Four Sword. These would be required in the parallel event timelines anyway: might as well just use the games that we have and put them in an order that makes sense.

If you don't think there are parallel events, you have to de-canonize a significant chunk of the Depths and Sky content in TotK, and multiple pieces of spoken and written dialogue. I'm just not comfortable doing that for the sake of a cleaner timeline without parallel events, I'm sorry.


There have been four games that do not deal with the Triforce: Spirit Tracks, Minish Cap, Four Swords and Four Swords Adventures. If this is not a reboot, which I don't think it is, Tears of the Kingdom past should logically take place in the era of one of these games.

I see de-canonizing stuff for the sake of convenience as a cowardly sort of storytelling. Zelda isn't Star Wars with its almost sixty years of interwoven spaghetti lore comprised of thousands of books, comics, audio dramas, video games, movies, and TV shows. Zelda is (by comparison) a series whose canon struggles not because it's any sort of complex, but because the writers behind it either do not care or are advised not to care.

I think of it with the same logic by which I approach any of my modern dips into fanfiction: work with the canon you have, not the canon you want. Does the downfall timeline make any sort of sense with the games that come after it? Absolutely not, but take the canon as you have it and make something that works. Does TotK trip on its own dick with its storytelling and remove all consequence from the narrative? Sure, but take the existing events of both games and turn them into a quality third game.

 

[Turo602]

I'm not sure what the answer is, but I can tell you for sure that a fourth timeline is not what the Zelda series needs to make sense. Consolidation should always be preferred to expansion, wherever possible.

Yet, it's all they've done with each and every mainline entry since The Wind Waker, which picks up from a different point in time from Ocarina of Time to say there are indeed multiple timelines with Twilight Princess conveniently being a parallel event to The Wind Waker but now following from Majora's Mask. Then we have Skyward Sword which once again, conveniently takes us to the beginning, before any timeline split shenanigans.

It's clear each of these games are being placed far and away from each other as to not step on any toes creatively. That's why a downfall timeline was created, so they could lump all the inconsequential games together away from the more modern 3D entries with deeper and more complex lore and storytelling that they were able to rethink and expand on with the leap in hardware.

Would a 4th timeline really be so far-fetched? We are in a new era of Zelda made possible, once again, by a leap in hardware and from a storytelling perspective, I think it makes a lot of sense if you want stronger cohesion between games in the future, even if past entries are left muddled and ambiguous as they were back when Nintendo decided the older entries didn't matter anymore and put them together on a new timeline.

The Ocarina of Time era of games are now those older games holding the series back from evolving, which is why Breath of the Wild purposely puts itself so far into the future because that lore is over with. The Hero of Time is no longer the focal point and this time, rather than discard it and act like none of it ever happened, they're using aspects from that era to flesh out the world of Hyrule even if it's not narratively relevant anymore.

Now this isn't to say definitively that these game take place or should take place on a 4th timeline branch. It's merely an idea that came to mind while playing the game and seeing potential evidence of such a possibility. Is it the most interesting proposal? Maybe not, but I think it fits Nintendo's track record.

Personally, I just really like the idea of these games setting up a larger world for new games to occupy and be the new focal point for the series like the Hero of Time once was. Like, it would be really cool to see a shadow of a dragon flying overhead in a game like Echoes of Wisdom that we know is Princess Zelda from the future. Or a character that matches the unaccounted for Leviathan. More Yiga backstory. Etc.

 

[Ryuu Kage Desu]

There is zero indication in any of the games pre-Wind Waker that there are Rito.

And? How does that disprove anything? Secondly, if there is even one possible connection, does that disprove your "zero?"

Personally, I just really like the idea of these games setting up a larger world for new games to occupy and be the new focal point for the series like the Hero of Time once was. Like, it would be really cool to see a shadow of a dragon flying overhead in a game like Echoes of Wisdom that we know is Princess Zelda from the future. Or a character that matches the unaccounted for Leviathan. More Yiga backstory. Etc.

I not only think this would be great, but I don't think a separate timline is the best/only way to get that. It could all work, with what we already have. I'm not saying that the fourth timeline is a bad idea, just that it's not necessary.

 

[GZ Zelda]

And? How does that disprove anything? Secondly, if there is even one possible connection, does that disprove your "zero?"

Because to override what is shown in-game in favor of a new hypothetical form of evolution to justify a preconceived notion of a timeline is to exit theory. If you have one connection of a Rito in SS, MC, FS or OoT, I'd love to see it.

Yet, it's all they've done with each and every mainline entry since The Wind Waker, which picks up from a different point in time from Ocarina of Time to say there are indeed multiple timelines with Twilight Princess conveniently being a parallel event to The Wind Waker but now following from Majora's Mask. Then we have Skyward Sword which once again, conveniently takes us to the beginning, before any timeline split shenanigans.

The only game that screws up the timeline is Twilight Princess. FSA and MC should fit neatly around FS, PH and ST fit behind WW, SS fits at the start, ALBW and TFH fit after ALttP, and BotW and TotK fit at the end of a merged timeline. The only game that complicates this is Twilight Princess, which is references in Tears of the Kingdom and would need to take place in the hypothetical past of a hypothetical new timeline anyway.

Would a 4th timeline really be so far-fetched? We are in a new era of Zelda made possible, once again, by a leap in hardware and from a storytelling perspective, I think it makes a lot of sense if you want stronger cohesion between games in the future, even if past entries are left muddled and ambiguous as they were back when Nintendo decided the older entries didn't matter anymore and put them together on a new timeline.

It would be. A 4th timeline is just a linear timeline with parallel events to the initial three. At that point, just make a linear timeline.

The Ocarina of Time era of games are now those older games holding the series back from evolving, which is why Breath of the Wild purposely puts itself so far into the future because that lore is over with. The Hero of Time is no longer the focal point and this time, rather than discard it and act like none of it ever happened, they're using aspects from that era to flesh out the world of Hyrule even if it's not narratively relevant anymore.

But it is still a focal point and its events still occur. It is narratively relevant insofar as the world of BotW/TotK had Ocarina of Time take place in its past.

Now this isn't to say definitively that these game take place or should take place on a 4th timeline branch. It's merely an idea that came to mind while playing the game and seeing potential evidence of such a possibility. Is it the most interesting proposal? Maybe not, but I think it fits Nintendo's track record.

I think it's interesting if you acknowledge the need for parallel events and the burden that places on the new 4th timeline. The 4th timeline needs to include every game except Four Swords and Four Swords Adventures. Or the references in Tears of the Kingdom need to be de-canonized.

Personally, I just really like the idea of these games setting up a larger world for new games to occupy and be the new focal point for the series like the Hero of Time once was. Like, it would be really cool to see a shadow of a dragon flying overhead in a game like Echoes of Wisdom that we know is Princess Zelda from the future. Or a character that matches the unaccounted for Leviathan. More Yiga backstory. Etc.

I fully agree; this is why I argue for a linear timeline. It gives equal weight to all games and leaves tens of thousands of years at the end for different variations of TotK's Calamity. It ignores the messiness of parallel events and a merge. It pinpoints the refounding as justified after the subsided flood, and justifies the cross-timeline references in TotK. A 4th timeline is the same concept, just more complicated. That's my only objection: I think otherwise we agree in regards to its beneficial storytelling potential.

 

[Turo602]

The only game that screws up the timeline is Twilight Princess. FSA and MC should fit neatly around FS, PH and ST fit behind WW, SS fits at the start, ALBW and TFH fit after ALttP, and BotW and TotK fit at the end of a merged timeline. The only game that complicates this is Twilight Princess, which is references in Tears of the Kingdom and would need to take place in the hypothetical past of a hypothetical new timeline anyway.

It would be. A 4th timeline is just a linear timeline with parallel events to the initial three. At that point, just make a linear timeline.

But it is still a focal point and its events still occur. It is narratively relevant insofar as the world of BotW/TotK had Ocarina of Time take place in its past.

I think it's interesting if you acknowledge the need for parallel events and the burden that places on the new 4th timeline. The 4th timeline needs to include every game except Four Swords and Four Swords Adventures. Or the references in Tears of the Kingdom need to be de-canonized.

I fully agree; this is why I argue for a linear timeline. It gives equal weight to all games and leaves tens of thousands of years at the end for different variations of TotK's Calamity. It ignores the messiness of parallel events and a merge. It pinpoints the refounding as justified after the subsided flood, and justifies the cross-timeline references in TotK. A 4th timeline is the same concept, just more complicated. That's my only objection: I think otherwise we agree in regards to its beneficial storytelling potential.

A 4th timeline is not far-fetched when it's abiding by rules established in the series already and can actually serve a purpose. Is it complicated and convoluted? Of course it is, but that’s the nature of time travel. A merging of timelines like it's DC comics or a linear timeline are a lot harder sells here as it is imposing new rules to the series.

I'm just trying to put myself inside Nintendo and try to see where they're possibly going with this and a 4th timeline just seems very functional from a development standpoint. As a fan, I get wanting the series to feel more connected, but I also think people are putting too much thought into how these games connect to past games as opposed to what they mean for the future.

Also, Ocarina of Time having occurred in BotW's/TotK's past doesn't make it a focal point of its storytelling. It's part of its world's history, but isn't relevant like it was in games like The Wind Waker and Twilight Princess.

 

[Bowsette Plus-Ultra]

Just adding another branch to a timeline that already doesn't make sense without some heavy caveats feels like sticking a sixth lane on a congested five lane highway; you haven't actually solved the problem and now there's a sixth lane to jam up.

 

[Turo602]

Just adding another branch to a timeline that already doesn't make sense without some heavy caveats feels like sticking a sixth lane on a congested five lane highway; you haven't actually solved the problem and now there's a sixth lane to jam up.

It keeps the original timeline canon and addresses a lot of the inconsistencies brought up in the last 2 games about the timeline itself, while allowing them to tell new stories set in this version of Hyrule's events without muddling up the previous games which on this timeline, are myth and legend. It's not perfect, but the timeline never was nor am I suggesting this is a fix to the timeline, but an opportunity for stronger storytelling between games moving forward.