The greatest debate: timeline theories!

for those who have waited!

everyone has there own theories and Nitendo won't get into the whole ordeal, but to those dedicated fans of zelda.....i will explain my theory, how it is probably a good one (not the best) and why it could be wrong and how to help create one......i will begin just by saying that there are 3 catagories that belong to theorizing about a timeline....

1. informational: this is where most theories come from and talks about info, of orgins and main characters, plus the bad guy and simple sqeual ideas from Nintendo

2.Physical: few theories come from this but if you take maps and link them together with games in the order they were realsed, some of it fits, while others have no place to go.....and also involves lands such as lake hylia, death mountain and lost woods. and the castle

3. characteristical: this is one i was intorduced to recently...it talks of characters such as Ganon, the wind fish, Vavvti (or whatever his name is) and bosses and enimes...this is one most people hate because you have to know a lot about this.....it's too much work....

my theory is very radom because some games dont give any info, or are just so cut-off....so this is mine:

The Minish Cap, Ocarina, Majora, oracle of Ages/Seasons(later explain
why they're 1) link's awakening, wind waker, phantom hourglass, spirt tracks, 4 swords, 4 Swords adventures, a link to the past, twilight, and zelda 1 and zelda 2 (adventure of link)

or...simple by number of realese: 11,5,6,7,4,9,13,14,8,10,3,12,1,2...

some of these reason are so because of origins of information, and physical....such as Majora, oracle, and link's awakening takes place no where in hyrule, but when looking at the maps....the ocean is to the left in termina, and then the islands where link's awekning, wind waker, phantom hourglass....and so on and so forth take place...

i made the oracles one because they both when linked are techically one game...so..... please write in on ur theories and explain.....and i will explain mine in further detail...thank you....let the debate begin!!!!

So... TMC-OoT/MM-OoX/LA-TWW/PH-ST-FS/FSA-LttP-TP-LoZ/AoL?

That is quite possibly the worst timeline I have EVER seen.

okay why? a look at it from taking the games that came first and give them there own place, but i no theres a few holes in it but still wats the matter?

If you don't think your theory is the best, then don't state it. State the one you think is most likely and how it is the best

On Topic: Wind Waker and Twilight are on opposite times of the time line. All in all this just looks like another linear time line, and uses some random event that really makes no sense to make your timeline more linear. Ugh, why is Minish Cap first? Why is the four sword just randomly.

And you just said there is a few holes in it? That means it isn't right which means it has No validity. Case Closed.

I'll save you the lengthy explanation and simply suggest that you lurk for a week or so. Read through some other threads before posting your own, as a general rule.

okay...well in tmc....its the first one where links hat origin is explained....sorta...and it tells of 4 swords origin.....i put them all over the place because orginanly the master sword was in the temple....in oot....so then the temple became ruins...thats why they're spread out.....and i'm just saying its not the best.......u dont have to go after me about that.....

Originally Posted by zeldahis101

okay...well in tmc....its the first one where links hat origin is explained....sorta...and it tells of 4 swords origin.....i put them all over the place because orginanly the master sword was in the temple....in oot....so then the temple became ruins...thats why they're spread out.....and i'm just saying its not the best.......u dont have to go after me about that.....

BECAUSE IT EXPLAINS LINK'S HAT???

Well, OoT explains the tunic, he got it from kokiri ahahahahaha it must be first, right? NO. The hat does not explain anything.

They didn't just have two swords roaming around most likely, I find it that the FS must have been made after the flood, or it would have been lost, assuming a AT placement (something you need to read up on, the split time line). Go around the threads and spec, see what your doing wrong and fix that up.

Originally Posted by Watties

BECAUSE IT EXPLAINS LINK'S HAT???

Well, OoT explains the tunic, he got it from kokiri ahahahahaha it must be first, right? NO. The hat does not explain anything.

um, actually it does and I don't understand the fixation on undermining such evidence. It's the only game that starts with the green tunic and without a hat and ends with a hat, and the hat is important to the story, so I don't see why it wouldn't mean anything.

They didn't just have two swords roaming around most likely, I find it that the FS must have been made after the flood, or it would have been lost, assuming a AT placement (something you need to read up on, the split time line). Go around the threads and spec, see what your doing wrong and fix that up.

I know you don't like me much, but just try not to throw bias into posts redirecting a new member?

dang what ur problem.......okay.....no hat.....but why should oot go at the beginning tooo.....................okay it was the first of it kind and had more back into and alttp says of that time......okay tmc can go anywhere but physically.....if you look it up, the maps genrally turn......from the lake being in the north east region , then in oot, it comes down to the southeast and through out my timeline.....and PS.....if you've notice i've been here for a couple years now since like 2007.....i havent been on recently......alright..... oh and im not here to say mines right im here to bring ideas to help make a better timeline......

so........ i've heard many diffrent theories and you no wat......im tired and i want 1 timeline....so i would like if u'd help

okay why? a look at it from taking the games that came first and give them there own place, but i no theres a few holes in it but still wats the matter?

No split, no dead Ganon prior to OoX, LA's placement is debatable but that's an acceptable spot, stuff between OoT and TWW, placing ST before it's even released, the Four Sword being lost underwater in the erased Hyrule thus screwing with FS/FSA, stuff taking place between OoT and TP, no sense for Ganon between the WHOLE thing right up to LoZ/AoL.

And those are just the ones I can think up off the top of my head.

This theory is truly terrible. There is no reasoning for ANY of it.

BECAUSE IT EXPLAINS LINK'S HAT???

Well, OoT explains the tunic, he got it from kokiri ahahahahaha it must be first, right? NO. The hat does not explain anything.

According to Bill Trinen TMC can be looked at as the origin of the hat.

I know you don't like me much, but just try not to throw bias into posts redirecting a new member?

*scoff* Someone who doesn't like Slagr?

He's like one of my favorite theorists here

Originally Posted by Slagr

um, actually it does and I don't understand the fixation on undermining such evidence. It's the only game that starts with the green tunic and without a hat and ends with a hat, and the hat is important to the story, so I don't see why it wouldn't mean anything.



I know you don't like me much, but just try not to throw bias into posts redirecting a new member?

Ugh I said assuming, so that's not bias, that's saying in one particular scenario.

And no, Nintendo needed another Navi, KoRL, so they said "hey let's make it Link's hat, cool idea for the kids". That isn't in game evidence at all, that's you taking a 8 year old's idea and dancing at it. Nothing matches with MC first.

^Apparently it's Bill Trinen's idea too...

Originally Posted by Watties

Ugh I said assuming, so that's not bias, that's saying in one particular scenario.

BECAUSE IT EXPLAINS LINK'S HAT???

And no, Nintendo needed another Navi, KoRL, so they said "hey let's make it Link's hat, cool idea for the kids". That isn't in game evidence at all, that's you taking a 8 year old's idea and dancing at it. Nothing matches with MC first.

they used another Navi in PH, so what's the problem? Also, what is your evidence for assuming it was a gameplay choice with no story bearing, and why do you feel that tMC first is a completely unsupportable argument when so many people CAN support it far better than most OoT first folks?

EDIT:

Originally Posted by Table

*scoff* Someone who doesn't like Slagr?

He's like one of my favorite theorists here

oh, thanks.

Originally Posted by Slagr

they used another Navi in PH, so what's the problem? Also, what is your evidence for assuming it was a gameplay choice with no story bearing, and why do you feel that tMC first is a completely unsupportable argument when so many people CAN support it far better than most OoT first folks?

EDIT:
oh, thanks.

1) Never said I don't like you Slagr, don't put words in my mouth.

2) I haven't seen one good MC argument on here. If you want to bring it to me right now then go.

Originally Posted by Watties

1) Never said I don't like you Slagr, don't put words in my mouth.

well, you complained about me commenting on some of your arguments, but I suppose I exaggerated a bit.

2) I haven't seen one good MC argument on here. If you want to bring it to me right now then go.

I can strongly support TP-LttP and FSA-LttP, which places tMC before OoT by applying some basic logic. I fail to understand how WW-FSA can be well supported when there is literally nothing to indicate such a placement other than the ocean in the background.

hey man, if you want some help, I recommend you to read the Newbie's Guide.

Now for some criticism:

TMC-OoT - Personally I don't agree with it, but many poeple do.
MM-OoX/LA -TWW/PH - OoX can't go in between OoT and WW. The backstory of TWW should make this obvious.
-ST-FS/FSA-LttP-TP-LoZ/AoL - this is fine except for TP which needs to go on a Child Timeline along with Majora's Mask.

^ ...mmmmmm... listen to hombre, he gets it right.

Slagr, I can back FSA - ALttP as well with ez. What does that have to do with MC first?

Listen everyone! This guy's placement of TMC is fine. TMC debates can be saved for another thread. What I'm really interested in is why he places TP after ALttP....

Originally Posted by Watties

Slagr, I can back FSA - ALttP as well with ez. What does that have to do with MC first?

FSA on CT = TMC first
FSA on AT = TMC post-WW

Originally Posted by zeldahis101

my theory is very radom because some games dont give any info, or are just so cut-off....so this is mine:

The Minish Cap, Ocarina, Majora, oracle of Ages/Seasons(later explain
why they're 1) link's awakening, wind waker, phantom hourglass, spirt tracks, 4 swords, 4 Swords adventures, a link to the past, twilight, and zelda 1 and zelda 2 (adventure of link)

One major problem with this theory is that it is linear. The split was confirmed by Eiji Anouma 3 times and Wind Waker itself proves this. Evidence:

Interviews:
2002 Gamepro interview:

Q: Where does The Wind Walker fit into the overall Zelda series timeline?
Aonuma: You can think of this game as taking place over a hundred years after Ocarina of Time. You can tell this from the opening story, and there are references to things from Ocarina located throughout the game as well.
Miyamoto: Well, wait, which point does the hundred years start from?
Aonuma: From the end.
Miyamoto: No, I mean, as a child or as a...
Aonuma: Oh, right, let me elaborate on that. Ocarina of Time basically has two endings of sorts; one has Link as a child and the other has him as an adult. This game, The Wind Waker, takes place a hundred years after the adult Link defeats Ganon at the end of Ocarina.
Miyamoto: This is pretty confusing for us, too. (laughs) So be careful.

NOA Interview:

Where does The Wind Waker fit into the overall timeline of the Legend of Zelda?

Mr. Aonuma: In terms of the storyline, we've decided that this takes place 100 years after the events in The Ocarina of Time. We think that as you play through the game, you'll notice that in the beginning the storyline explains some of the events in The Ocarina of Time. You'll also find hints of things from The Ocarina of Time that exist in The Wind Waker.

There's also a more complicated explanation. If you think back to the end of The Ocarina of Time, there were two endings to that game in different time periods. First Link defeated Ganon as an adult, and then he actually went back to being a child. You could say that The Wind Waker takes place 100 years after the ending in which Link was an adult.

Nintendo Dream Interview:

–When does Twilight Princess take place?

Aonuma: In the world of Ocarina of Time, a hundred and something years later.

–And the Wind Waker?

Aonuma: The Wind Waker is parallel. In Ocarina of Time, Link flew seven years in time, he beat Ganon and went back to being a kid, remember? Twilight Princess takes place in the world of Ocarina of Time, a hundred and something years after the peace returned to kid Link’s time. In the last scene of Ocarina of Time, kids Link and Zelda have a little talk, and as a consequence of that talk, their relationship with Ganon takes a whole new direction. In the middle of this game [Twilight Princess], there's a scene showing Ganon's execution. It was decided that Ganon be executed because he'd do something outrageous if they left him be. That scene takes place several years after Ocarina of Time. Ganon was sent to another world and now he wants to obtain the power...

WW evidence (this is translated directly from the Japanese version by Jacensolo06 from Legend Alliance (LA). Jumbie from LA offered one correction to this [what's posted here is the corrected version]):

Originally Posted by King of Red Lions

It was called the Triforce of Courage. It is said that when the Hero of Time left Hyrule travelling through time, he was separated from the source of being a hero and the Triforce of Courage turned into 8 fragments and scattered throughout the land.

This, of course, can only refer to the time when adult Link left in the end of OOT, which means that the adult timeline still exists (as many single timeline theorists reason that the adult version of events were just forgotten, and thus a single timeline can exist) and WW takes place on it, and it is obvious that the child timeline still exists considering the ending of OOT.
So there's that at least. This might be a bit much, but I thought it would be best to quote my sources. What this evidence concludes, too is this timeline so far:
Adult-/WW-PH
---OOT
Child-\MM-TP

um, actually it does and I don't understand the fixation on undermining such evidence. It's the only game that starts with the green tunic and without a hat and ends with a hat, and the hat is important to the story, so I don't see why it wouldn't mean anything.

I know this isn't a tMC thread- God knows we've had enough of those- but I always thought Ezlo's-

'I haven't seen you in a hat yet... hm... yes you really do look like hero now!'

Implies there is already the stereotype 'Hero Look' in tMC by past heroes.

But then I would argue that OoT's mentions of 'You look like the Hero of Time' is to do with prophecy, so I guess one could play the prophecy card here too- despite it being far less prescriptive 'You look like THE coming Hero OF TIME' and being more jovial 'Yes, you do look like A HERO.'