Legend of Zelda Timeline Discussion

[MattV1]

Yeah, I've seen a lot of people who don't think most of the 2D games don't really fit anywhere.

 

[lanky_gunner]

Because, really, there have been little to no confirmations of where they fit anywhere in the timeline.

 

[Deleted member]

Here is how I think The Legend of Zelda timeline is.

The Legend of Zelda: Ocarina of Time
The Legend of Zelda: A Link to the Past
The Legend of Zelda: Link's Awakening
The Legend of Zelda: Oracles of Seasons and Ages
The Legend of Zelda
Zelda II: The Adventure of Link
The Legend of Zelda: Twlight Princess.

But on a split timeline:
The Legend of Zelda: Ocarina of Time
The Legend of Zelda: Majora's Mask
The Legend of Zelda: The Wind Waker
The Legend of Zelda: Phantom Hourglass
The Legend of Zelda: The Minish Cap
The Legend of Zelda: Spirit Track
The Legend of Zelda: Four Swords
The Legend of Zelda: Four Swords Adventures

 

[Spire]

The Legend of Zelda: Ocarina of Time
The Legend of Zelda: A Link to the Past
The Legend of Zelda: Link's Awakening
The Legend of Zelda: Oracles of Seasons and Ages
The Legend of Zelda
Zelda II: The Adventure of Link
The Legend of Zelda: Twlight Princess.

But on a split timeline:
The Legend of Zelda: Ocarina of Time
The Legend of Zelda: Majora's Mask
The Legend of Zelda: The Wind Waker
The Legend of Zelda: Phantom Hourglass
The Legend of Zelda: The Minish Cap
The Legend of Zelda: Spirit Track
The Legend of Zelda: Four Swords
The Legend of Zelda: Four Swords Adventures

So you have it set up:

------ALttP/LA - OoX - LoZ/AoL - TP
OoT{
------MM - WW/PH - TMC - ST - FS/FSA

Mind explaining why?

 

[Phantom7]

Because, really, there have been little to no confirmations of where they fit anywhere in the timeline.

Yeah, Miyamoto (I think it was Miyamoto) even said that LA could fit basically anywhere.

Super Smash Bros. Fan's timeline already doesn't make sense to me. How in the world does TMC come between PH and ST?

 

[Deleted member]

So you have it set up:

------ALttP/LA - OoX - LoZ/AoL - TP
OoT{
------MM - WW/PH - TMC - ST - FS/FSA

Mind explaining why?

The Legend of Zelda: Ocarina of Time is a prequel to The Legend of Zelda: A Link to the Past, which is a prequel to The Legend of Zelda. Zelda II: The Adventure of Link is the sequel to The Legend of Zelda. Then we go in when the next installment of the original canon with The Legend of Zelda: Twlight Princess.

However, at the end of The Legend of Zelda: Ocarina of Time, Link is given the oppertunity to explore his seven years that he missed due to saving the world and he does, thus giving us The Legend of Zelda: Majora's Mask. The Minish Cap is in between The Legend of Zelda: Wind Waker, Phantom Hourglass, and Spirit Track because there was no train during The Minish Cap.

Yeah, Miyamoto (I think it was Miyamoto) even said that LA could fit basically anywhere.

Super Smash Bros. Fan's timeline already doesn't make sense to me. How in the world does TMC come between PH and ST?

The reason why I put Link's Awakening in it's place is because Shigeru Miyamoto also said that Link's Awakening was after A Link in the Past.

Also, why I put The Minish Cap in it's place is because Spirit Track uses train but not Minish Cap, leading me to the conclusion that the game takes place between those two games.

 

[Kingdom Come]

The Minish Cap is said to be the oldest of all the tales...

I feel as though I give the least insight yet know the most, which is kinda sad cause of most of you dudes don't have lives.

 

[Spire]

The Legend of Zelda: Ocarina of Time is a prequel to The Legend of Zelda: A Link to the Past, which is a prequel to The Legend of Zelda. Zelda II: The Adventure of Link is the sequel to The Legend of Zelda. Then we go in when the next installment of the original canon with The Legend of Zelda: Twlight Princess.

However, at the end of The Legend of Zelda: Ocarina of Time, Link is given the oppertunity to explore his seven years that he missed due to saving the world and he does, thus giving us The Legend of Zelda: Majora's Mask. The Minish Cap is in between The Legend of Zelda: Wind Waker, Phantom Hourglass, and Spirit Track because there was no train during The Minish Cap.



The reason why I put Link's Awakening in it's place is because Shigeru Miyamoto also said that Link's Awakening was after A Link in the Past.

Also, why I put The Minish Cap in it's place is because Spirit Track uses train but not Minish Cap, leading me to the conclusion that the game takes place between those two games.

Well... I'll be brief:

1. MM comes before TP, not WW. WW takes place in the Adult Timeline, after Ganon is defeated in OoT. MM and TP take place in the Child Timeline after Link is sent back to being a kid.
2. Miyamoto said that LA can take place anywhere.
3. TMC features locations like Lake Hylia and does not resemble ST Hyrule at all, nor does its story support ST's backstory at all. Surely Vaati would have been mentioned and the Four Sword present and available in ST if TMC preceded it. Also, missing characters like Link, Zelda, Niko, and crew from PH? ST takes place 100 years after PH, so surely none of them would be dead yet, especially Niko who is alive in ST. Not to mention that TMC was created as a prequel to FS/FSA which was created as an indirect prequel to ALttP (during FSA's early development, Aonuma even said that TMC and FS take place before OoT and that FSA most likely would too).
4. How can TP follow ALttP/LA, OoX, and LoZ/AoL? Ganon is deliberately killed three times in ALttP, OoX, and LoZ and is not resurrected in AoL. Plus, the Ganon in ALttP, OoX, and LoZ is a different Ganon (Trident Ganon, not Triforce Ganon), one who was permanently transformed into his blue pig form due to stealing the Trident in FSA. Triforce Ganon has the power to transform into his beast form at will, and he is featured in TP, which you've placed after almost all of Trident Ganon's games.

A lot of inconsistencies dude.

The Minish Cap is said to be the oldest of all the tales...

I feel as though I give the least insight yet know the most, which is kinda sad cause of most of you dudes don't have lives.

Well you've quite the ego don't you? Take it elsewhere. Do you call: a job, college, working on personal projects, and hanging out with friends on almost a daily basis a lack of a life?

 

[zaneebaslave]

The Minish Cap is said to be the oldest of all the tales...

I feel as though I give the least insight yet know the most, which is kinda sad cause of most of you dudes don't have lives.

Dude, dont be a ***hole. I'm the only ***hole allowed on this forum, and even then, I at least give some good Zelda insight on the topics. And we at least have lives, compared to you who are obviously trolling this forum.

... I dont think I believe that Minish Cap is the first Zelda game in the Timeline. I've never really played it, but it doesnt seem to point out any reasons that it would be the precursor to any Zelda games.

Edit: Sorry. Ignore my up above paragraph. I didnt Know Aonuma put TMC as the prequal to OoT. But still... Kingdom Come, dont be an ***hole.

 

[MattV1]

I think it's important to note in TMC's backstory, the Hero is depicted without a cap. Don't see why the tradition would have changed from cap to no cap if TMC wasn't first. TMC shows where the cap tradition started, which coupled with quotes and other stuff, is more than enough evidence for me.

 

[Ganonsburg]

I think it's important to note in TMC's backstory, the Hero is depicted without a cap. Don't see why the tradition would have changed from cap to no cap if TMC wasn't first. TMC shows where the cap tradition started, which coupled with quotes and other stuff, is more than enough evidence for me.

It's always possible that the backstory to TMC came before other games, but it simply wasn't relevant to the other games. ie TMC backstory, OoT, MC (not saying that's how it happened, but it's an example). The hat as evidence is shaky at best, IMO. Interesting if true though.

 

[MattV1]

I doubt Nintendo would blatantly do that though. It just doesn't make any sense not to.

 

[Grim Tuesday]

Just wondering, having not read through this thread at all but being a huge Zelda fan, I have two questions.
a) What is generally agreed upon by the community as the correct timeline?
b) From what I can see, every timeline has some error in it. Is there truly a flaw-proof timeline? Or is Ninty just screwing with us?

 

[Spire]

Just wondering, having not read through this thread at all but being a huge Zelda fan, I have two questions.
a) What is generally agreed upon by the community as the correct timeline?
b) From what I can see, every timeline has some error in it. Is there truly a flaw-proof timeline? Or is Ninty just screwing with us?

a) the only generally agreed upon timeline is:
------MM - TP
OoT{
------------WW/PH - ST

And that's because Nintendo has pretty much confirmed those six's placements. The rest of the games are the debated bunch.

b) Every timeline has error. There is no flaw-proof timeline. And perhaps, but I doubt it. I think Nintendo is trying to figure out the timeline just as we are, so they keep making games to branch the older ones together.

 

[Grim Tuesday]

a) the only generally agreed upon timeline is:
------MM - TP
OoT{
------------WW/PH - ST

And that's because Nintendo has pretty much confirmed those six's placements. The rest of the games are the debated bunch.

b) Every timeline has error. There is no flaw-proof timeline. And perhaps, but I doubt it. I think Nintendo is trying to figure out the timeline just as we are, so they keep making games to branch the older ones together.

So what is the point of making timelines if they're all wrong?
Day after day it will just be one person posting a theory and another debunking it continuously until Ninty clears up the timeline for us.

Too add to what you said on question A, isn't LA stated in the instruction manual or something to take place straight after ALttP? Maybe I just made that up... And Zelda 2 after Zelda 1 as well.

EDIT: In response to the poll, I said yes. Because most of the evidence in it points to it being before OoT.

 

[Spire]

So what is the point of making timelines if they're all wrong?
Day after day it will just be one person posting a theory and another debunking it continuously until Ninty clears up the timeline for us.

Too add to what you said on question A, isn't LA stated in the instruction manual or something to take place straight after ALttP? Maybe I just made that up... And Zelda 2 after Zelda 1 as well.

The point is.. there are the more logical, and the less logical timelines. I think the main drive for me is that formulating timelines gets me thinking about certain aspects in the games that: a) I might not ever have really recognized, or b) have never thought of in a certain context. For me, "timeline theorizing" is a platform - a medium, if you will - that gives people a motive to analyze and discuss the series with one another, learning about many design concepts behind the series, and thus, improving the perceptive sense. If you look at it in a positive light, it can be a healthy trade.

Or you could look at it negatively and say, "there's no point, you're wasting your time". Since there is no official, complete timeline right now, it is best to form one based on your current perceptions of the series. A person's timeline is kind of like their entitlement to the series: it represents how they view The Legend of Zelda, and thus, what kind of thinker they are. It's not a matter of prestige, really - as I've said already - of perception.

LA was originally created as a sequel to ALttP, but Miyamoto hardly had anything to do with the game. Ca. 1998 when OoT came out, he was interviewed about the timeline and said that OoT precedes LoZ/AoL, which precedes ALttP and that LA could go anywhere. Since then, so many more games have come out to potentially retcon those statements. Plus, LoZ/AoL coming before ALttP is just odd on so many levels; it's possible that he said this offhandedly, not having thought about the timeline much, etc, etc. There will never be a way to prove what he thought unless the statement is brought up in a future interview.

But the point remains: there are 15 Zelda legends now and building a timeline around them is simply enjoyable.

 

[theunabletable]

I feel as though I give the least insight yet know the most, which is kinda sad cause of most of you dudes don't have lives.

The statement that someone "has no life" is completely ridiculous and subjective. And what difference does it make if I currently enjoy my life and wouldn't change anything about it?

Does having a hobby mean I have no life? By that logic those people who play sports "have no life" (considering the really good ones probably practice their sport more than I even theorize about Zelda...).

And what does saying I have no life actually accomplish? I enjoy my life and prefer it when moron downers stay out of it and stop trying to bring me down.

And if I were to say anybody "didn't have a life" (as I assume the term means waste time on useless things, or something to that effect), it'd be the people taking time out of their day to attempt to insult people who are very happy with their life on the internet.

Too add to what you said on question A, isn't LA stated in the instruction manual or something to take place straight after ALttP? Maybe I just made that up... And Zelda 2 after Zelda 1 as well.

No. The Japanese LA manual is really, really ambiguous and, honestly, the only requirement to be a potential LA prequel is pretty much that Ganon is slain (although TWW/PH don't apply, as Link destroyed Hyrule, not returned peace to it).

LA was originally created as a sequel to ALttP, but Miyamoto hardly had anything to do with the game. Ca. 1998 when OoT came out, he was interviewed about the timeline and said that OoT precedes LoZ/AoL, which precedes ALttP and that LA could go anywhere. Since then, so many more games have come out to potentially retcon those statements. Plus, LoZ/AoL coming before ALttP is just odd on so many levels; it's possible that he said this offhandedly, not having thought about the timeline much, etc, etc. There will never be a way to prove what he thought unless the statement is brought up in a future interview.

I disagree with this statement very, very much.

You're saying that just because he didn't work on LA that he doesn't have the right to state where it can go (which, and he was NOT wrong on this, is pretty much anywhere (atleast in 1998, there are a few non-Ganon games out now, so LA can't be a sequel to everything)).

I can't imagine denying the OFFICIAL timeline. It maaay not make as much sense as the alternatives (the split timeline is similar, in a way. Some in-game text clearly disagrees with it, but that doesn't stop it from being a timeline fact), but it's not impossible by any means, and it's pretty much the only time in the series that we've had the official, released by the creators and Nintendo of Japan timeline.

And I also disagree with the statement that no timeline is flawless. Every timeline may require a bit of a stretch, or may rely on a retcon, but there are a few timelines who, depending on your interpretation of the text and your opinions on creator quotes and retcons, don't really have a lot of flaws.

 

[Spire]

I disagree with this statement very, very much.

You're saying that just because he didn't work on LA that he doesn't have the right to state where it can go (which, and he was NOT wrong on this, is pretty much anywhere (atleast in 1998, there are a few non-Ganon games out now, so LA can't be a sequel to everything)).

I can't imagine denying the OFFICIAL timeline. It maaay not make as much sense as the alternatives (the split timeline is similar, in a way. Some in-game text clearly disagrees with it, but that doesn't stop it from being a timeline fact), but it's not impossible by any means, and it's pretty much the only time in the series that we've had the official, released by the creators and Nintendo of Japan timeline.

What OFFICIAL timeline? There's Miyamoto's and there's Aonuma's:

Miyamoto's:
OoT [LA] → LoZ/AoL [LA] → ALttP [LA]

Aonuma's:
------MM → TP
OoT{
-------------WW/PH → ST

Now if we merge the two, it would either play out as:

Miyaonumato A:
------MM [LA] → TP [LA] → LoZ/AoL [LA] → ALttP [LA]
OoT{
------------------WW/PH [LA] → ST [LA]

Miyaonumato B:
------MM [LA] → TP [LA]
OoT{
------------------WW/PH [LA] → ST [LA] → LoZ/AoL [LA] → ALttP [LA]

Now, we can also include the Four Sword arc, which in the only known timeline mention of the games by Aonuma, places them before OoT (though given Miyamoto inflation, meaning his alteration of FSA's storyline, may place place it before ALttP):

Four Sword Miyamoto's:
TMC [LA] → FS [LA] → [FSA → (LA →)] OoT [LA] → LoZ/AoL [LA] → [FSA →] ALttP [LA]

Four Sword Aonuma's:
-------------------------------MM → TP [→ FSA]
TMC → FS → [FSA →] OoT{
--------------------------------------WW/PH → ST [→ FSA]

Four Sword Miyaonumato A:
--------------------------------------------------MM [LA] → TP [LA] → LoZ/AoL [LA] → [FSA → (LA →)] ALttP [LA]
TMC [LA] → FS [LA] → [FSA → (LA →)] OoT{
--------------------------------------------------------------WW/PH [LA] → ST [LA]

Four Sword Miyaonumato B:
--------------------------------------------------MM [LA] → TP [LA]
TMC [LA] → FS [LA] → [FSA → (LA →)] OoT{
--------------------------------------------------------------WW/PH [LA] → ST [LA] → LoZ/AoL [LA] → [FSA → (LA →)] ALttP [LA]

And that's about as official as it gets, which really only leaves out the Oracle games. Though deciding which of the above is canon is the question at hand.

And I also disagree with the statement that no timeline is flawless. Every timeline may require a bit of a stretch, or may rely on a retcon, but there are a few timelines who, depending on your interpretation of the text and your opinions on creator quotes and retcons, don't really have a lot of flaws.

You did not argue that any timeline is flawless. A flawless timeline = no matter what your interpretation of the text and no matter your opinion on creator quotes and retcons, the flawless timeline is still flawless and makes perfect sense. Every timeline is flawed because they're all based on interpretation, and it's beautiful that way. If there was a perfect timeline, then there would cease to be such deep timeline discussion and formulating. Like I said, a Zelda timeline is the individual's interpretation of the series, and it's great that way.

 

[Grim Tuesday]

I sparked a discussion! *doododoododoo!*

 

[Spire]

I sparked a discussion! *doododoododoo!*

Would you like to contribute to it?

 

[Grim Tuesday]

Would you like to contribute to it?

I have no contributions as of yet.

 

[theunabletable]

What OFFICIAL timeline? There's Miyamoto's and there's Aonuma's:

Sorry, I used the wrong wording, I meant I can't imagine denying the official timeline of the time.

I don't think that Miyamoto's quote is valid anymore after the released of TWW. I think it was probably retconned.

In 1998, though, I can't see any denying that Miyamoto's timeline was correct.

I think nowadays (like if we're not discussing 1998 intent) Miyamoto's quote means nothing, really, as we have too much that has come out after 1998 that seems to have retconned it.

 

[Spire]

Yet since 1998, Miyamoto has shown little care for the timeline. In numerous interviews, he states that gameplay comes before story, and that's what he's interested in most. Aonuma is the real advocate of the timeline - he even said so in an interview once (sorry, I can't find it now), that he'd like to eventually connect ALL of the games.

 

[theunabletable]

Yet since 1998, Miyamoto has shown little care for the timeline.

It was still the official timeline of 1998, and all releases from 1998 to TWWs release seemed to further imply the Miyamoto timeline.

Aonuma is the real advocate of the timeline - he even said so in an interview once (sorry, I can't find it now), that he'd like to eventually connect ALL of the games.

I know exactly the one you're talking about

 

[Grim Tuesday]

So. Anouma knows all this stuff, let's find his address and hold him at Master Sword-point until he tells us the correct timeline.
.
.
.
Duh.

 

[theunabletable]

So, guys...

There's a chance that LttP/OoX/LA is actually confirmed to be true from the same source that gave us the most recent split confirmation (the one where Aonuma talks specifically about TWW and TP being parallel (which destroyed all of the linear timeline theories that were left)).

I'm just going to wait until the sources are checked a little more thoroughly and we get a good translation of the text just to be sure before I start stating it as fact.

 

[Spire]

And you're going to link us to everything you find including where you got that info right now, right?

 

[MattV1]

I can see ALttP/Oracles/LA, but the thing is, only if Oracles isn't a direct sequel to ALttP. It's impossible, really. But that can't work to me, since it seems clear LA is intended to be a direct sequel to ALttP.

 

[Spire]

I can see ALttP/Oracles/LA, but the thing is, only if Oracles isn't a direct sequel to ALttP. It's impossible, really. But that can't work to me, since it seems clear LA is intended to be a direct sequel to ALttP.

LA was intended to be a direct sequel, but Miyamoto confirmed that it isn't necessarily in that 1998 interview. With the released games thus far, LA seems to follow either ALttP or OoX (or AoL by quite a stretch). No others seem applicable.

 

[theunabletable]

And you're going to link us to everything you find including where you got that info right now, right?

If it checks out and the sources seem legit. If not, just forget about it.

If it checks out I'll DEFINITELY link to the sources and such, but right now the source may not be legitimate.

 

[MattV1]

Well like I said Spire, I'm not totally opposed to ALttP - Oracles/LA, but as I said in my first post in this topic, I believe Oracles are meant to be at the end. Besides, considering there's no other real concrete information as to where LA fits, why argue with the one thing we do know? It was developed and intended as a sequel to ALttP. Unless they come outright and say that this isn't the case, why argue with it?

 

[theunabletable]

^Because there are as, or more, evidenced alternatives now than there were then.

 

[MattV1]

The only "evidenced" alternative is Oracles/LA.

With exception to Miyamoto's quote, and not only has the Miyamoto Timeline been debated forever, but the guy had little to nothing to do with LA.

 

[theunabletable]

^And? OoX/LA still has more evidence than LttP/LA. Regardless of if Miyamoto worked on it or not.

And Miyamoto didn't say anything that was wrong. In 1998 LA COULD go anywhere considering how vague it's backstory is. I mean at the time it was clearly implied to go after LttP, but Miyamoto was not wrong in saying it could go anywhere.

 

[Spire]

Miyamoto had the final word ca. 1998. Even though he had little to do with LA's development, whatever he says is canon. After passing Zelda off to Aonuma, it kind of split 60/40.

 

[MattV1]

Yes, and the only evidence going for Oracles/LA is a boat at the end of one of the games.


ALttP has a manual, the official website, what it was developed as, and even Ancient Stone Tablets. Not to mention all the shadow forms of Nightmare that Link fights (with exception to the final form), were enemies from ALttP (A Giant Bot [he saw plain gels in ALttP, more or less the same thing], Agahnim, Moldorm, Ganon, and Lamnola).

 

[theunabletable]

Yes, and the only evidence going for Oracles/LA is a boat at the end of one of the games.

Untrue.

ALttP has a manual

That manual fits fine with OoX.

the official website

Official websites have been wrong many times in the past. @Spire: I'm going to link to a thread that has a ton of information on the subject, I really don't think it's advertising as it's relevant to the discussion and very important, but if you REALLY think it's advertising, just delete the link, but don't infract (I don't mean to advertise, just trying to add more proof to this discussion): http://www.zeldauniverse.net/forums/zelda-theorizing/82770-zelda-com-failures.html

The websites are an awful source for canon information.

what it was developed as,

Original intent =/= current intent.

AST came out in 1998, OoX came out in 2000.

For instance, OoT was developed as the SW, but to believe it still is is bordering on fanfic and is completely ridiculous.

ot to mention all the shadow forms of Nightmare that Link fights (with exception to the final form), were enemies from ALttP (A Giant Bot [he saw plain gels in ALttP, more or less the same thing], Agahnim, Moldorm, Ganon, and Lamnola).

And? Ganon appears in OoX, and so does Agahnim arguably.

There are 14 exclusive enemies (including bosses) shared between OoX and LA, and even more if we don't count exclusives.

There are only 5 exclusive enemies for LttP/LA (if you don't count exclusives it turns up less than OoX/LA, but I'm too **** lazy to count it all right now (I've counted it in the past and OoX/LA definitely turns up waaaaay more)).

OoX has more of the same kind of evidence that LttP has, along with an ending that leads DIRECTLY into LA.

Oh and here's the story on that LttP/OoX/LA thing I was mentioning earlier.

Someone found a Japanese wikipedia page and we had it translated and found that it said in the magazine Dream 64 (I think that's the one. It's the same one that had the split timeline confirmation) that OoX Link and LttP Link were the same Link.

But it didn't cite a source for that specific interview, so we've given up on that.

HOWEVER, that lead us to find the source for a different interview. One from 1998/1999 (not sure yet. Bringing this here IMMEDIATLY after finding it) from Miyamoto which states that the timeline actually went OoT-LttP-LoZ, NOT OoT-LoZ-LttP.

Either the original interview got mistranslated, or this is a different interview.

The Japanese text was:

宮本氏時オカ→神トラ)それから初代ときてリンクの冒険という順番になる。
(電撃64、1999 年1月号)

And an amateur translator (he's not as good as some of our other translators, but he saw it first and gave it a go. It's trustable, but not very, err, polished lol) translated it as: "Miyamoto: Oca(rina of time) is first then leads to Triforce of (the) Gods. The older then becomes Link's Adventure"

And then used Google translator and babbel and it got translated as these:

Miyamoto: (at → Oka Tiger God), which in turn links that come with the first adventure then.
(Surprise 64,1999 January issue)

Miyamoto: (The time [oka] -> God [tora]) then coming with the first generation, it becomes the order, venture of link.
(Electric shock 64, 1999 January edition)

Waiting for a better translation, but if this and the sources check out (which is definitely looking better than the LttP/OoX/LA thing), this would be HUUUUUGE.

 

[MattV1]

OoX Link and LttP Link were the same Link.

But the thing is Oracles Link meets Zelda for the first time in Oracles Linked Game. I mean... that's a pretty big 'effing deal, and really blows open the whole ALttP/Oracles/LA as one Link thing.

 

[theunabletable]

^I know that. That's why I was saying that it seems like there's no way RIGHT NOW to find the exact source for what I was saying earlier which would prove LttP/OoX/LA.

 

[Spire]

Nice findings Unable Table! No you're not advertising, you're citing a source. I linked Xonar to three Zelda sites including ZU yesterday. It's cool man.

I was planning on writing up a "why LA Link is most likely OoX Link, not ALttP Link" post, but you covered it. Namely the number of shared encountered enemies between OoX and LA far outweigh ALttP. It's interesting that Agahnim appears as he does in OoX though, simply as a midboss, playing absolutely no role in the story. Whereas Agahnim was Ganon's disguised puppet in ALttP, he becomes what may simply be a phantom version of him in OoX.

I am really excited to see how that Miyamoto quote properly translates. It would make so much more sense to have OoT → ALttP → LoZ/AoL. So much more.