Legend of Zelda Timeline Discussion

[etecoon]

I heard something about miyamoto saying he has a document and that it all ultimately does make sense, but then again even if he did say that it doesn't mean it's true.

an interesting take I've heard on it is that it is literally a legend, an oral myth, hence why you see a lot of zelda games with similar elements but things changed, it's the same story being retold by different people

 

[Scott!]

Nintendo of America has said there is no timeline, which directly contradicts what the designers of the game have said. We put our faith in the designers, who know what they're talking abut because it's their game.

As for the idea that the legends are just the same story, there are things that contradict that. In the beginning of Wind Waker, the OoT story is told as a story to act as a prologue. That coupled with the creator saying that WW comes 100 years or so after the adult end of OoT heavily suggests that there is a timeline, rather than one retold story.

 

[etecoon]

coupled with the creator saying that WW comes 100 years or so after the adult end of OoT heavily suggests that there is a timeline

I thought something like this was probably where that came from, is there any source for this? It still just seems very unlikely to me I guess, it seems like more time than that should have passed given that the events of hyrule's demise are rarely discussed and that the zora turned into a totally different species...again, not totally relevant here as it doesn't really impact the games placement, but it's something I've wondered about

 

[Spire]

No, I wasn't referring to it as a direct sequel, but just as Miyamoto said, it follows AoL in the timeline.

But how exactly do you know Ganon first obtained the Trident in LoZ/AoL? Evidence, please? And are you sure FSA Ganon and LoZ Ganon are the same Ganon? Also, I still believe comparing maps helps decide the timeline somewhat. FSA's Hyrule looks EXACTLY like WW's Hyrule, which if you ask me, signifies something. Hyrule must have gone through massive changes since FSA until it formed the Hyrule of LoZ.

I said Ganon obtains it in FSA, which FOLLOWS LoZ/AoL, because he did not have it in those games (not that he was even in AoL aside from the Game Over screen).

not that it has any relevance to actual order of games but



where does this come from? I've seen "WW is 100 years after OoT" a lot on the internet but I've never seen anything in the actual game that indicates this, and it doesn't really make sense...I've also seen this said about TP...

Well that's what happened. In Ocarina of Time, you awaken the six sages of Forest, Fire, Water, Shadow, Spirit, and Light, with the seventh being Zelda, the sage of time (something that's inferred from many titles, including FSA). These Sages are awakened only by Adult Link, not when he's a child, so they're only relevant to the Adult timeline. 100 years later (in this same timeline), WW occurs, but between the two times, stained glass windows of the seven sages must have been built in the basement of Hyrule Castle, where the Master Sword was moved to. This is confirmed in WW when you travel to Hyrule Castle beneath the sea.

In AoL, there are towns named after these sages, meaning that AoL must take place in the Adult Timeline, and hence, it's prequel LoZ must also.

I heard something about miyamoto saying he has a document and that it all ultimately does make sense, but then again even if he did say that it doesn't mean it's true.

an interesting take I've heard on it is that it is literally a legend, an oral myth, hence why you see a lot of zelda games with similar elements but things changed, it's the same story being retold by different people

But then there's games like AoL, MM, and PH that are direct sequels. Are they the same legend told in a different way? No. They are continuations of their preceding legends. We can designate that perhaps there are only x amount of legends (including their sequels) in the series. These would be:

Legend of Zelda (+AoL)
A Link to the Past (+OoS/OoA/LA)
Ocarina of Time (+MM)
Wind Waker (+PH)
Four Swords Adventures
Twilight Princess
Spirit Tracks
Zelda Wii

Then of course The Minish Cap and Four Swords are hard to place.

That's essentially one legend told in eight different ways (including their sequels). However, what's innately wrong with that is the fact that Miyamoto (in 1998) said that OoT is a prequel to the other games, solidifying the first official timeline. In 2006/7, Aonuma stated that OoT splits into two timelines, specifying that the Adult Link one leads into WW one hundred years later, and the Child Link one leads into MM, then to TP one hundred years later. That further confirms that they know there's a timeline, and that they care about it. It can easily be discerned that Aonuma cares more about the timeline than Miyamoto, since Miyamoto has stated that he puts gameplay before story, and Aonuma focuses just about equally on both.

I thought something like this was probably where that came from, is there any source for this? It still just seems very unlikely to me I guess, it seems like more time than that should have passed given that the events of hyrule's demise are rarely discussed and that the zora turned into a totally different species...again, not totally relevant here as it doesn't really impact the games placement, but it's something I've wondered about

A lot can happen in 100 years. Think about how much time it's taken us to get here from 1900 (rounding down). Think about how much has happened. World War II could be seen as Ganon's return to Hyrule, and his destruction of it all. The Goddesses then flooded it instantly. This was divine intervention, not natural flooding. This flooding could simply take days to happen, given that the Goddesses could cast as much water on the land as they wanted.

EDIT: Also, here's an excerpt from the intro in WW. It should solidify a lot of this for you:

Originally Posted by Wind Waker Intro
"The people believed that the Hero of Time would again come to save them. ...But the hero did not appear."

That alone says that it follows Ocarina of Time, because it mentions none other than the Hero of Time.

 

[etecoon]

hmmm, so TP and WW really take place at roughly the same time then? I'd thought about that but I didn't know if both/either were confirmed, interesting clarification...

However, what's innately wrong with that is the fact that Miyamoto (in 1998) said that OoT is a prequel to the other games, solidifying the first official timeline

yeah, I didn't believe that or anything, I just thought it was one of the more interesting and original perspectives I've seen on the series, I think to some extent it may always be ambiguous because they want to leave some of it to your imagination

another interesting thing is that hyrule castle appears pretty similar in TP and WW but different from OoT, the adult timeline this makes sense because it was destroyed, one of those things that is probably an insignificant result of game design having been separated by a long period of time but it could also indicate that it was destroyed during the war with ganondorf? in TP the temple of time is in ruins and also no where near castle town as it is in OoT, this would seem to indicate a relocation...

I have a lot of random thoughts about how the games are related to each other that don't actually pertain to any of the games placement in the timeline o_O

I think the TP/child side is especially ambiguous, on the adult side ganon is defeated and shortly afterward returns prompting the flooding of hyrule, on the child side...it seems like him being responsible for a war and then being captured and executed is all that is shown, how does he come to be in possession of the triforce of power when presumably he never gains access to the sacred realm? or I guess you'd have to assume that he in fact does...also have to wonder exactly to what moment link is sent back to, if after he opened the sacred realm and let ganondorf in then it makes less sense for ganondorf to have been captured and executed, in link's absence, when it was basically the same situation taking place on the other timeline...

out of curiosity because there are a few games I haven't played(most relevantly FS and FSA, I never had a GBA) and I can't think of it myself, what puts LTTP and its connected games on the adult timeline? the temple of time in TP has engravings in the walls that appear a lot to me like the seven wise men that are shown in LTTP's prologue, and to me TP also perfectly explains how the master sword came to be in the lost woods, the ruined chamber in which its pedestal is definitely reminded me of its location in LTTP

 

[Clownbot]

I apologize if you already explained this, Spire, but wasn't ALttP created as a prequel to the original games?

 

[Spire]

I apologize if you already explained this, Spire, but wasn't ALttP created as a prequel to the original games?

Yes, but then in the 1998 timeline interview, Miyamoto said that the games followed this order:

OoT - LoZ/AoL - ALttP, with LA not fitting anywhere because, "it could theoretically be placed anywhere".

 

[Clownbot]

Hmm.

It's too bad Nintendo tends to contradict themselves a lot when explaing the timeline.

 

[Phantom7]

And when exactly have they done that?

LA seems to fit best at the end of the timeline, though, because it's obviously the same Link from ALttP, and it seems his adventures are ending according to what the Windfish said at the end of the game.

 

[Deleted member]

I'm confused. Where do the CD-i games fit into all this?

 

[zaneebaslave]

Well lets put it this way: They didnt happen, therefore do not exist.

 

[Scott!]

The CD-i games are not considered part of the Zelda canon, and Nintendo wishes they never happened. Thus, they have no bearing on the timeline.

 

[Phantom7]

If you want to know how the CDi games fit, visit the CDi thread. The only place they fit on any timeline is between octoroks for dinner and illegally burning cakes.

 

[Terra~]

I'm confused. Where do the CD-i games fit into all this?

LOL, thank you for humoring me a little <3

 

[KrIsP!]

It's already been said that spirit Tracks takes place over a thousand years after Wind Waker where technology has advanced. Are you tying to tell me the first two games come after this? Not to mention the original Ganon was used here, in OoT wasn't the whole transformation from Ganondorf to Ganon supposed to be some ancient forbidden evil magic? Correct me if I'm mistaken but but I think the first game should be before OoT.

 

[Scott!]

OoT was created as a prequel. It is the first time that Ganondorf becomes Ganon. Also, I haven't seen sources for either of these, but I've heard that ST comes about 100 years after PH, not 1000. Just because there's technology in ST doesn't mean that the other games can't follow it. LoZ and AoL really could fit in after that really easily, since the overall level of the world isn't shown too clearly.

 

[Phantom7]

Exactly. Miyamoto announced before OoT's release that the timeline so far was:

OoT - LoZ - AoL - ALttP

If you've completed WW, it's obvious that it follows OoT, then obviously PH and ST follow, so this is what we can make of that:

OoT - WW - PH - ST - LoZ - AoL - ALttP

(Of course, in my opinion, FS/FSA follows hundreds of years after ST)

 

[Llumys]

I'd like to see some reasons why the games are placed in this order organized in the OP, since I'm new to the whole timeline concept.

Also, I know nothing about MC, but do all the following Links where the point green hat because of that bird thing?

 

[Azure Flame]

This is all this topic needs..

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cHIP9UtkQDQ

9:56 is the good part.

 

[Clownbot]

"We have... a sequel to the original... a PREQUEL to the original...a sequel to the prequel, a PREQUEL to the prequel, and a sequel to the Young Link of the prequel's prequel!

WHAT THE ****?"

Best moment in Zelda timeline discussion. Ever.

 

[Phantom7]

But has it really been confirmed that the timeline (or at least part of it) follows that specific order?

OoT - ALttP - LA - LoZ - AoL
-
MM

Because I'm sure there's an interview with Miyamoto that disproves that timeline. I'm pretty sure ALttP is a sequel to AoL.

 

[Darkurai]

I have my own personal canon believes this (that's an old picture, so it lacks Spirit Tracks), but I also believe that something else could be very possible.

This is another possibility: There is no timeline. It's all the same story. It's the Legend of Zelda, and what do we know about legends? As they're retold many times, they change a bit. Thus, I believe that every version of the tale has a slightly different plot and window dressing but keeps the same basic elements; like the Arthurian legends of our own world. Playing each game is like listening to a different version of the tale, with the same characters, setting and overall plot, but a different story in the end.

 

[Spire]

Guys, I realized recently that ALttP Link is not the same Link from the Oracles or LA. While most evidence points to them being the same, the Link in OoX meets Zelda for the first time in the games. LA is definitely a follow-up to OoX because Miyamoto stated circa 1998 that LA can go anywhere and is not necessarily a sequel to ALttP.

So, ALttP stands alone right now, while OoX/LA now comprises an arc.

This is another possibility: There is no timeline. It's all the same story. It's the Legend of Zelda, and what do we know about legends? As they're retold many times, they change a bit. Thus, I believe that every version of the tale has a slightly different plot and window dressing but keeps the same basic elements; like the Arthurian legends of our own world. Playing each game is like listening to a different version of the tale, with the same characters, setting and overall plot, but a different story in the end.

This isn't new. We've all spoken of this, but alas, there is a timeline. Miyamoto and Aonuma have confirmed this indefinitely.

Now, the question is: which games actually fit into the timeline? Not all of the games might be included (particularly the Capcom games: Oracle of Seasons/Ages, and Minish Cap because they all seem like spin-off cameo games due to them featuring characters from other games).

As much as I'd love to include the Oracles, they seem to fit the "legend told in a different way" category, along with Minish Cap. If any games are dropped from the timeline, it's these.

 

[Scott!]

Concerning Minish Cap as the stuff of legend, I still sort of believe that it would make a great fairy tale for the parents of Hyrule to tell their children. It serves as an introduction to the ancient hero, clad in green. Plus, there are elements in the story that remind me of our fairy tales. The Picori are a race of tiny people that only children see, like fairies. (Though the OoT relation between fairies and the Kokiri also resonates with this.) Plus, Link is given a mysterious talking hat. His goal is the simple, straight-forward one of rescuing a princess and kingdom. It starts on the day of a special festival. All of these points make me think of fairy tales.

 

[Jam Stunna]

I've always thought of Zelda as not having a timeline, but instead as being the retelling of the same legend, and as the legend passes from generation to generation of Hylians, it gets changed and embellished, resulting in the various differences that really can't be reconciled.

That's just how I look at it, but either way, there is no Zelda timeline, no matter what anyone says. It literally doesn't make any sense.

 

[SkylerOcon]

I've always thought of Zelda as not having a timeline, but instead as being the retelling of the same legend, and as the legend passes from generation to generation of Hylians, it gets changed and embellished, resulting in the various differences that really can't be reconciled.

That's just how I look at it, but either way, there is no Zelda timeline, no matter what anyone says. It literally doesn't make any sense.

http://www.thehylia.com/index.php?subaction=showfull&id=1173298152&archive=&start_from=&ucat=19
http://www.miyamotoshrine.com/theman/interviews/230403.shtml

The creators of the game, Miyamoto and Aonuma, confirm the timelines existence. While I agree with you that it hardly makes sense (it's essentially a giant cluster of contradictions, assumptions, and taking even the most insignificant things as important information), it still exists. When the creators of the game have confirmed it, it exists.

 

[Jam Stunna]

No, it doesn't, it just confirms that they'll tell the fans who want to believe that there's a timeline exactly what they want to hear.

Maybe they developed games from WW forward with the assumption that they fit together, which still seems extremely doubtful; how do entire worlds like the Twilight Realm and the City in the Sky simply receive no mention in any other Zelda game ever?

But even Miyamoto himself can't convince me that they actually had a coherent timeline from the original LoZ through OoT. Once again, there are too many things that make no sense. No amount of retconning can put these games together, and the "split-timeline" theory should make that abundantly obvious: for any of this to be even remotely possible, there needs to be two Zeldas, a supposition that has no basis in fact.

 

[etecoon]

split timeline would make enough sense to me except even WHEN you divide it in two, you still can't put it all together coherently, something always contradicts, hints at being something else, and is generally incongruent.

 

[Ochobobo]

split timeline would make enough sense to me except even WHEN you divide it in two, you still can't put it all together coherently, something always contradicts, hints at being something else, and is generally incongruent.

Welcome to the Zelda Timeline lolol. Yep, the only thing we can agree on is the most obvious stuff, and things confirmed by Nintendo.

Ocarina started the split
MM came right after OoT in one timeline
Wind Waker was the next game in the other Timeline
Twilight Princess is in the first timeline, parallel to Wind Waker (because Nintendo said so)

Aand after that, things get a little hazy, lol

 

[SkylerOcon]

No, it doesn't, it just confirms that they'll tell the fans who want to believe that there's a timeline exactly what they want to hear.

Actually, NoA came out not to long ago saying that there was no timeline. This, of course, completely ignores what Miyamoto and Aonuma have been saying for years, but NoA certainly doesn't care. You can join them in ignoring the people who made the game, if you like. Assuming that they're just telling fans this just because it's what fans want to hear is silly and ridiculous. ALttP was even advertised as a prequel to the original two Zelda's! There certainly wasn't meant to be anything like OoT's split timeline, but since OoT, both Miyamoto and Aonuma have confirmed its existence.

Maybe they developed games from WW forward with the assumption that they fit together, which still seems extremely doubtful; how do entire worlds like the Twilight Realm and the City in the Sky simply receive no mention in any other Zelda game ever?

That's because the City in the Sky was lost to humans ages ago. It's very likely that Link is the only human who knows of its' existence in TP's Hyrule because he's the only human that has been there. Not to mention that the Twilight Realm had never mingled with Hyrule before TP, making it impossible for anybody from Hyrule to know about its' existence.

But even Miyamoto himself can't convince me that they actually had a coherent timeline from the original LoZ through OoT. Once again, there are too many things that make no sense. No amount of retconning can put these games together

Actually, the timeline that we have in the OP is sensible (given that the Handheld games are canon). It's not perfect, and some things could be changed around, but 'reconnecting' did put the games together, in this case.

the "split-timeline" theory should make that abundantly obvious: for any of this to be even remotely possible, there needs to be two Zeldas, a supposition that has no basis in fact.

I don't think you quite understand how it works... Zelda isn't like Ganondorf in the sense that she doesn't die. Zelda, like Link, is consistently reborn. Zelda can and does die. Two different Zelda's existing in two branching versions of the same world. The split of the timeline essentially creates two different versions (much like how some people believe if somebody was to go back in time and mess with history, the time period he came from wouldn't be altered. It would stay the same. However, there would be an alternate version of the same world, where the event that was changed was, well, changed and everything goes screwy from there. This would succesfully create two different versions of the same world.) of Hyrule. This version has its' own Links, Zeldas, and Ganondorf.

 

[Teran]

This timeline is void without Faces of Evil on CDi.

 

[SkylerOcon]

This timeline is void without Faces of Evil on CDi.

Well, I would try to explain it myself, but Spire said it best:

That's easy. They are prequels to "Put Your Sword in the Fountain" on the secret third parallel timeline that splits off after Link goes back in time on his magic train to try and stop The Hero of Time in OoT from going to Termina, but gets sucked into yet another Hyrule as two Links cannot exist in the same world. Duuhhhhh.

 

[Puddin]

Oh boy, I love discussing the timeline of Zelda, especially the timeline Nintendo doesn't think exists

Just skip to about 1:40 in the video.

Woops, sorry I ruined the discussion.

Woops, looks like Skyler already pointed that out. Looks like you guys don't care, continue about your business.

 

[SkylerOcon]

Nintendo of America said it doesn't exist. Until the people who created the game (Miyamoto and Aonuma) say it doesn't exist, it exists.

 

[Spire]

I'm not going to jump in to the "timeline exists or doesn't exist" argument because it's ****ing stupid.

I will jump into the split timeline "theory" argument though. We don't know how time travel works and what not, as it is completely theoretical, so in the fictional world of Zelda, it can work however Miyamoto and Aonuma want it to. Link is sent back to being a child and is strangely removed entirely from Hyrule as an adult, whereas everyone else remains in both timelines in their younger and older forms. Yeah, it doesn't make complete sense, but that's the official word of the creators. You cannot debunk what they say without being a fool.

After watching the new Star Trek film, would you say that, "no wait, none of that can happen because time travel doesn't work that way, blah blah blah"? Well you better not. That's how it was envisioned, executed, and explained (three E's [E3 hawhaw], remember them) in the film, so that's how it should be read.

 

[Puddin]

Nintendo of America said it doesn't exist. Until the people who created the game (Miyamoto and Aonuma) say it doesn't exist, it exists.

Seems pretty solid to me.

 

[SkylerOcon]

Um, yeah. Every Zelda game DOES have a new Link (except for direct sequels like AoL). Aonuma confirming what the games have already confirmed for us (WW has done this by a direct mention to the Hero of Time, OoT's and MM's Link. There are probably other references that I can't think of right now) doesn't invalidate the timeline.

If anything, that statement helps prove the timeline. If every game had the same Link, then the games probably would be a constant re-telling of the same story. However, since each game has different a different Link, this means a timeline can be made (since the games will actually occur at different times with different Links).

I don't get if you were trying to disprove the timeline or help prove it by posting that.

 

[Darkurai]

Plus there's been whisperings that Nintendo actually has an official timeline of the games that they adamantly refuse to release to the public. This is actually not as unlikely as it sounds; it's actually a common practice.

 

[SinkingHigher]

Whisperings?

Miyamoto said himself that there is an "enormous document" detailing the way that all the zelda games link together.

 

[Puddin]

Um, yeah. Every Zelda game DOES have a new Link (except for direct sequels like AoL). Aonuma confirming what the games have already confirmed for us (WW has done this by a direct mention to the Hero of Time, OoT's and MM's Link. There are probably other references that I can't think of right now) doesn't invalidate the timeline.

If anything, that statement helps prove the timeline. If every game had the same Link, then the games probably would be a constant re-telling of the same story. However, since each game has different a different Link, this means a timeline can be made (since the games will actually occur at different times with different Links).

I don't get if you were trying to disprove the timeline or help prove it by posting that.

I see.

I think there is no timeline, and every game is a retelling of the same story, but if there were a timeline I think Smash Bros. would have to be included.