Yet Another TotK Timeline Placement Theory

[Turo602]

For @Turo602, what is the order of parallel events in the hypothetical 4th timeline? Which games take place before which? Or, if not parallel events, how do you explain all the references in TotK? I guess I'm critical cuz I don't know the order.

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.

A 4th timeline is just a means of preserving the previous canon as the muddled history of Hyrule presented in BotW/TotK would only be a factor to its respective timeline that conveniently splits around the founding of Hyrule, an event that occurs right before Ocarina of Time and its branching timelines, due to the fact that the events of Breath of the Wild are confirmed in Tears of the Kingdom to have happened after Zelda’s interference with time.

It's basically the reverse of what they did with the Downfall Timeline, which was created to separate the old lore from the newer ideas and concepts they wanted to establish on hardware capable of richer and more complex storytelling. Only now, this 4th timeline would be used to separate the new games from everything else while still being able to acknowledge all of its history through minor details, subtle references, and important landmarks to keep its Hyrule rich and familiar to fans. Except the order of events or whether or not they really happened isn't the point anymore when there's still 10,000 years of unaccounted for events in between that is the focus of this story and era.

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.

It means just make good stories with the current storyline. Work with the canon you have, not the canon you want.

There's still no real placement for BotW and TotK other than they come last, so there is no official canon in regards to their placement on the timeline. So it's a bit absurd to restrict theorizing of their placement to the canon we have when they negate it entirely, while also accepting the fact that the canon is flawed, only to reject a placement that abides by those same flawed pre-established conventions because it's not "good writing." If you're willing to accept the flaws and rules laid out by Nintendo, then why do you hold theories to a different standard? Literally nothing changes about the games or original timeline with a 4th branch and no amount of "better writing" is going to make these games suddenly fit into one of the timelines they so adamantly contradict without some sort of leap of faith.

 

[Bowsette Plus-Ultra]

There's still no real placement for BotW and TotK other than they come last, so there is no official canon in regards to their placement on the timeline. So it's a bit absurd to restrict theorizing of their placement to the canon we have when they negate it entirely, while also accepting the fact that the canon is flawed, only to reject a placement that abides by those same flawed pre-established conventions because it's not "good writing." If you're willing to accept the flaws and rules laid out by Nintendo, then why do you hold theories to a different standard? Literally nothing changes about the games or original timeline with a 4th branch and no amount of "better writing" is going to make these games suddenly fit into one of the timelines they so adamantly contradict without some sort of leap of faith.

Again: writer with the canon you have, not the canon you want. BotW and TotK's placement (or lack thereof) in the timeline is stupid, but just trying to mover it around and retcon it accomplishes nothing. I don't care about making the current timeline work, I care about giving the future games to writers who actually give a ****. Good writing won't fix the series' continuity problems right now, but it could make future entries slip together better.

But based on Echoes of Wisdom I doubt Nintendo will be giving a ****. It immediately delves into not giving a ****..

Restructuring the timeline doesn't actually take much retconning though. Especially if you're going by what the games and supplementary (manuals/strategy guides) tell us

And I would prefer zero retconning. Work with the canon you have,. not the canon you want. Take what you have and make good stories from it that link together well.

 

[Ryuu Kage Desu]

What does this mean? Twilight Princess, Wind Waker, and Zelda 1 all still happen: why add another split?

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.

The Skyward Sword split also requires parallel events. This is the problem with all of these splits now: parallel events in every timeline are required except a single linear timeline. And when every timeline needs to happen in every timeline, you have to pitch new branches including those parallel events.

How does Impa get the bracelet? How does Skyloft return to the surface? When was the Sealing Spike placed in the Imprisoned?

For @Turo602, what is the order of parallel events in the hypothetical 4th timeline? Which games take place before which? Or, if not parallel events, how do you explain all the references in TotK? I guess I'm critical cuz I don't know the order.

As I alluded to above, while related events in separate timelines is a point in favor of a singular timeline, they aren't viable criticisms against having multiple timelines. The Same McGuffins exist, as does the deities, and other realms. Related events are bound to happen in parallel timelines, particularly with the heavy hand of divine guidance the series has. In one timeline, Hyrule went to war with the Twilight realm. In another, the kingdom may have simply ran out of salt, and Midna simply popped over to borrow a Triforce wish.

We see how they evolve. It isn't like, "oh, maybe Groose became the Gerudo" or "maybe the Parella became the Zora." We know that the Zora became the Rito. What you're proposing is convergent evolution which is possible but there isn't evidence for.

Actually, hybrid speciation is closer to what I think happened. We actually don't see any Zora transform into a Rito. What we do know, from the games, is that the WW Rito have Zora ancestors, the Zora still exist off screen, and that version of the Rito needs to go through a magical alteration as they grow older. We also get from additional text that the WW Rito were intended to natively take the place of the Zora, in their creation. What we understand from the new games, is that the current Rito exist fully along side the Zora, existed at the founding of Hyrule, and don't go through any magical change to reach adulthood. We also see, in numerous cases, that the Zora are keen on coupling with other races (Species? Peoples? Groups?). Seems to be plenty of reason for hybrid speciation.

I mean the Rito are also in Twilight Princess HD. Not saying it's impossible; just saying that you have to acknowledge that you exit theory when you make a move that contradicts the games.

There aren't any contradictions here. This theory about the Rito is based on what we see in game, numerous games, in fact. Trying to restrict what counts as theory, based on what you agree with, like, or understand is not a good look. Even a flawed theory is still theory, and personal opinion is a poor gauge on which to base it's validity.

It isn't dogma to say that the Rito existing before Wind Waker goes against Wind Waker's presented narrative. If you want to put a TotK backstory pre-WW, that's fine, I just need a better explanation as to the Zora-Rito situation. I saw someone say there's the Mountain Rito vs. Volcano Rito; perhaps that's the explanation?

I have given plenty of reasoning behind my belief of the Rito existing well before Wind Waker. To say that it is all wrong, because of a theory crafted before the new games is dogmatic thinking.

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 both agree and disagree with this statement. In a way, as far as a fourth timeline goes, the order of related events wouldn't matter so much, because it is all forgotten history. Placing an incursion from the Twilight realm before or after an iteration of Link sailing the high seas doesn't make any difference; not when we only see the aftermath of it all. Just the same, we are given enough evidence in game to tell us that these events really did happen.

 

[Turo602]

Again: writer with the canon you have, not the canon you want. BotW and TotK's placement (or lack thereof) in the timeline is stupid, but just trying to mover it around and retcon it accomplishes nothing.

I don't care about making the current timeline work, I care about giving the future games to writers who actually give a ****.

Good writing won't fix the series' continuity problems right now, but it could make future entries slip together better.

What exactly is being retconned or moved around when they still take place at the end and the timeline is still in tact? You're not addressing anything and keep repeating to "work with the canon we have" yet don't want to actually work with it, which is exactly what I've done. We both ultimately want the same thing, but you want to ignore the canon for "better writing" without actually elaborating on what that means.

 

[Bowsette Plus-Ultra]

What exactly is being retconned or moved around when they still take place at the end and the timeline is still in tact? You're not addressing anything and keep repeating to "work with the canon we have" yet don't want to actually work with it, which is exactly what I've done. We both ultimately want the same thing, but you want to ignore the canon for "better writing" without actually elaborating on what that means.

If you have to move games around, create a new timeline, or "decanonize" something then you're retconning it. That's still trying to change the canon to be something that you find more convenient. The best solution is to take it as is and focus on telling better stories from now on.

As for better writing? Write with a focus on decent storytelling for once. You don't have to think of each game as part of a larger narrative at all times, but consider its placement in whatever continuity you're planning at the time. For instance, if you're writing a game called Echoes of Wisdom then think of how it works in the timeline now and work to make that concrete. Sprinkle in world-building and history that gives it a firm placement and don't pussyfoot around having meaningful lore.

 

[Turo602]

If you have to move games around, create a new timeline, or "decanonize" something then you're retconning it. That's still trying to change the canon to be something that you find more convenient. The best solution is to take it as is and focus on telling better stories from now on.

Nothing has been moved around or de-canonized. What evidence do you have to say that a 4th timeline is a retcon when we have no information on which timeline these games follow?

As for better writing? Write with a focus on decent storytelling for once. You don't have to think of each game as part of a larger narrative at all times, but consider its placement in whatever continuity you're planning at the time. For instance, if you're writing a game called Echoes of Wisdom then think of how it works in the timeline now and work to make that concrete. Sprinkle in world-building and history that gives it a firm placement and don't pussyfoot around having meaningful lore.

And a 4th timeline negates this how? Was The Wind Waker not written with a placement in mind or Twilight Princess? This is the same exact situation, except we are not being told yet where these games fit.

 

[Bowsette Plus-Ultra]

And a 4th timeline negates this how? Was The Wind Waker not written with a placement in mind or Twilight Princess? This is the same exact situation, except we are not being told yet where these games fit.

If you have to add another pointless timeline then you're just engaging in more retconning to make the canon you want.

 

[Turo602]

If you have to add another pointless timeline then you're just engaging in more retconning to make the canon you want.

I'm engaging with rules Nintendo has established. Unless you can provide actual in-game evidence to suggest this is a retcon, you're just saying things for the sake of it. Yes, you dislike Zelda lore, everyone gets that, but you have yet to actually address a single thing.

 

[Bowsette Plus-Ultra]

I'm engaging with rules Nintendo has established. Unless you can provide actual in-game evidence to suggest this is a retcon, you're just saying things for the sake of it. Yes, you dislike Zelda lore, everyone gets that, but you have yet to actually address a single thing.

Here are the rules that Nintendo has established:



If you're trying to move stuff around so it's different then you are not abiding by the rules that Nintendo established.

 

[Turo602]

Here are the rules that Nintendo has established:

View attachment 77755

If you're trying to move stuff around so it's different then you are not abiding by the rules that Nintendo established.

I see 2 games separated by a line from the rest of a timeline... almost like a new timeline.

 

[Bowsette Plus-Ultra]

I see 2 games separated by a line from the rest of a timeline... almost like a new timeline.

But distinctly not a timeline, since they won't branch out. Bad continuity? Sure. Timeline? No.

 

[Turo602]

But distinctly not a timeline, since they won't branch out. Bad continuity? Sure. Timeline? No.

Do you have any official statements that say they won't ever branch out or are you really going to try to use this image as some sort of final placement for those games when everyone already knows this image doesn't say anything other than the games come last and are yet to be determined?

 

[Bowsette Plus-Ultra]

Do you have any official statements that say they won't ever branch out or are you really going to try to use this image as some sort of final placement for those games when everyone already knows this image doesn't say anything other than the games come last and are yet to be determined?

That canon doesn't exist right now. The current rules you have are this:



I also don't have any official statements saying that Zelda and Metroid won't crossover in a game that ends with Zelda and Samus smooching, but I certainly wouldn't assume it's on Nintendo's plate.

 

[Turo602]

That canon doesn't exist right now. The current rules you have are this:

View attachment 77756

I also don't have any official statements saying that Zelda and Metroid won't crossover in a game that ends with Zelda and Samus smooching, but I certainly wouldn't assume it's on Nintendo's plate.

The current rules we have is what is told to us in the games and the timeline we have and the fact that Nintendo wants us to speculate on timeline placement of just these 2 games. Now unless you can provide in-game evidence or official statements about Metroid being canon to Zelda, then you're creating a false equivalence.

 

[Angopik]

And I would prefer zero retconning. Work with the canon you have,. not the canon you want. Take what you have and make good stories from it that link together well.

But the retconning has been happening for decades. I know you prefer they don't do any, but they're not likely to all of a sudden change their philosophy to it.

That canon doesn't exist right now. The current rules you have are this:

If we went just by that, then botw and totk aren't even connected. Nor are they connected to the rest of the series.

Do you have more info around that pic? When was that shared?

Was that released before or after TotK Master Works?