So this "what if" scenario has been confirmed?

Originally Posted by Starswirl

Technically, the other two timelines are what-ifs from the perspective of any one timeline. The difference is, in playing Ocarina of Time, we explicitly saw the creation of two timelines. The fanbase since took on the assumption that timelines have to be created through the events of a game we play, not an 'if we fail' scenario, as the Downfall Timeline was.


Fact is, the Downfall Timeline happens in some alternate universe, the same way the Adult Timeline happens in an alternate universe from the Child Timeline. We just played and created the AT and the CT, so people call the Downfall Timeline a what-if scenario because we never create it, it just happens off-screen in another universe where Link failed.


Who knows, mabye in the future we'll get a DT game (unlikely) that tidies it up by saying the DT was the original timeline, and we use time travel to ensure the events of Ocarina of Time occur as they do in Ocarina of Time, thus creating the other two timelines from the third.

Actually, the only 'what if' that causes the CT to branch off from the AT is 'what if Zelda sent Link back in time' which is not the same as 'what if Link never pulled the MS'. The DT scenario is basically a quantum physics type of 'many worlds', all possibilities occur in parallel universes type of 'what if'. As far as we know, no one travelled back in time and caused Link to lose to Ganon. But someone did definitely send a Link to the past (pun, haha) with knowledge of the future that caused history to be changed and time to branch. That's basically why people can't accept the rationale behind the DT.

I just think its a shame that no information or people can ever pass between the DT and other timelines, but that we see at least one person pass from the AT to the CT (and possible evidence from the legend of the fairy that someone else may have travelled the other way as well).

Also, we have the AT, CT and DT, but no BT. Unless that's the BS (not backstory) timeline, which means it would be any of my old timelines. Ha ha.

Originally Posted by Her Grace

It isn't a "what if" scenario, per say. I think it is more simply a case of, well, being an alternate timeline. As in, it's an alternate version of Ocarina of Time in which the Hero of Time is defeated. A different universe where that story ended differently. The developers could make more alternate universes for each and every scenario if they wanted, but thankfully it only applies to Ocarina of Time's game over screen leading into the events of all the original games in the series.

What you just described is what what ifs are.

I think we should look at the context. You can't have hypothetical scenarios in a history book!

Pg. 90 of HH says:

(This is where, if the Hero of Time, Link, is defeated, another timeline will unfold. Please turn to page 92.)

If it was a what-if it should read instead: This is where, if the Hero of Time, Link, was defeated, another timeline would unfold.

In pg. 92 we have:

The Hero of Time is, of all things, defeated by Ganondorf.

So Link is defeated. It occurs in a parallel universe, akin to the many-worlds interpretation

Based on what I have read, most are not familiar with this idea and they believe that parallel timelines can occur only through time-travel.

Also, this branching point doesn't have to be unique. We can assume that there are many more that we don't see because there aren't any games on them; at least not yet.

Originally Posted by zeldafan1982

I think we should look at the context. You can't have hypothetical scenarios in a history book!

Pg. 90 of HH says:

If it was a what-if it should read instead: This is where, if the Hero of Time, Link, was defeated, another timeline would unfold.

In pg. 92 we have:


So Link is defeated. It occurs in a parallel universe, akin to the many-worlds interpretation

Based on what I have read, most are not familiar with this idea and they believe that parallel timelines can occur only through time-travel.

Also, this branching point doesn't have to be unique. We can assume that there are many more that we don't see because there aren't any games on them; at least not yet.

I've been trying to tell folks this, but it's not exactly what people have been theorizing over the years... except me, like that one time with the AoL game over screen. And yes my theory was bashed because there was no obvious time travel involved. Oh well.

The bad thing is that most fans don't really want a lot of branches in the timeline. Basically, which is the 'real' timeline? We experience only one timeline in our daily lives, and so it's obvious that this is the 'real' timeline, the one were I woke up and went to work, instead of the alternate one where I was sick and didn't go to work; we are subjective viewers unaware of any other timelines. But for Zelda we are objective viewers, aware if multiple timelines. Unaccustomed to seeing multiple outcomes played out for one conflict or desicion, we naturally want to choose the 'right' outcome and disguard the others. Seeing two equally valid world histories based on whether Link wins or loses probably is a very concept to most theorists, at lest western ones.

Edit: one single timeline would have been preferred since that is what is most common in literature, but ever since OoT opened up thepossibility of multiple endings, things have never been the same. But it's been a long time since

LoZ-AoL

was the timeline. No prequels, no time travel, just a contiuation of the story. Oh well.

Originally Posted by zeldafan1982

I think we should look at the context. You can't have hypothetical scenarios in a history book!

Pg. 90 of HH says:

If it was a what-if it should read instead: This is where, if the Hero of Time, Link, was defeated, another timeline would unfold.

In pg. 92 we have:


So Link is defeated. It occurs in a parallel universe, akin to the many-worlds interpretation

Based on what I have read, most are not familiar with this idea and they believe that parallel timelines can occur only through time-travel.

Also, this branching point doesn't have to be unique. We can assume that there are many more that we don't see because there aren't any games on them; at least not yet.

What it suggests to me is that the battle between the Hero of Time and Ganondorf is the birth of two separate legends. One leads to the AT/CT, while the othe leads to the DT.

I wouldn't be so quick to say that there are "infinite possibilities", as many have suggested, but rather that there are actually two different legends that were passed down... Hyrule Historia simply chronicles the origins of how those two legends came to be.

Edit: one single timeline would have been preferred since that is what is most common in literature, but ever since OoT opened up the possibility of multiple endings, things have never been the same. But it's been a long time since

LoZ - AoL

was the timeline. No prequels, no time travel, just a continuation of the story. Oh well.

It would certainly be more simple, but on the other hand (and I think we agree to that) a multiverse is full of possibilities and gives the developers the ability to tell more stories, so I think that this approach will be for the best of the series in the long run.

What it suggests to me is that the battle between the Hero of Time and Ganondorf is the birth of two separate legends. One leads to the AT/CT, while the other leads to the DT.

I wouldn't be so quick to say that there are "infinite possibilities", as many have suggested, but rather that there are actually two different legends that were passed down... Hyrule Historia simply chronicles the origins of how those two legends came to be.

To what extent a legend can evolve though? Because, both the AT/CT and the DT contain many events after the crucial battle, not just an alternate telling of it. Also, the epilogue sections denote the present for each branch with the future being unknown of course. It seems clear to me that it's a historical account, just not entirely accurate.

The Sorcerer Vaati was swept up in the endless reincarnation cycle of Ganondorf the thief. The question of whether or not the Light World can escape the threat of darkness remains. There may again come a time when the Four Sword is necessary.

End of The Shadow World and the Hero’s Descendants

When old kingdom was destroyed, Hyrule walked a new path in the world carried by the wind. With only a few remnants of the Lineage of the Goddess left, what will happen to the new generation? From now on, a new history will be spun.

End of The Hero of Wind & A New World

The power of the gods had been restored to Hyrule Kingdom through the courage of a young boy. Did generations pass, full of peace and the light of prosperity? Or did the curtains open to an age of darkness where people sought and contested each other for power? The future of this timeline has yet to unravel.

End of Hyrule’s Decline & The Last Hero

I doubt Aonuma and Miyamoto were studying quantum physics and many-words' theories to put the time line together... I really doubt it.

They put the time line together and leave it up to you, the player, to decide which off-split you want to see.

Like how that movie The Butterfly Effect had an alternate ending where the main character decided to kill himself in the womb when he went back rather than going back to that birthday party where he would first meet the girl and telling her to stay away from him, and then seeing her on the streets years later.

There's no scientific reasoning to Zelda, only creative reasoning. And I think people who overthink about the Zelda time line are missing the point to the entire The Legend of Zelda series.

I doubt Aonuma and Miyamoto were studying quantum physics and many-words' theories to put the time line together... I really doubt it.

I'm not a physicist student and I knew of this theory. Do you think that the creators never heard of it? And the idea is not only in physics, I have seen it used elsewhere. You don't have to be a Hawking to understand the basic idea: different outcomes coming from a single instance of the universe, which leads to a multiverse resembling a genealogical tree.

Basically a Link had to be defeated, in order for Ganon to acquire all the pieces and be sealed with the complete Triforce. Apparently, they decided for this Link to be OoT Link in a parallel reality. Everyone is familiar with the notion of parallel universes, the only thing that is different here is the mechanism that creates them.

I guess one could interpret it as an alternate timeline, but that would mean that some games didn't occur at all, and I don't see how this would be preferable. Also, from page 68:

Within these pages, the history of Hyrule which spun many entries in the Legend of Zelda series into different branches is introduced.

There's no scientific reasoning to Zelda, only creative reasoning.

Agreed! If the Zelda universe is a multiverse they certainly have much more stories to tell.

Originally Posted by zeldafan1982

I'm not a physicist student and I knew of this theory. Do you think that the creators never heard of it? And the idea is not only in physics, I have seen it used elsewhere. You don't have to be a Hawking to understand the basic idea: different outcomes coming from a single instance of the universe, which leads to a multiverse resembling a genealogical tree.

Basically a Link had to be defeated, in order for Ganon to acquire all the pieces and be sealed with the complete Triforce. Apparently, they decided for this Link to be OoT Link in a parallel reality. Everyone is familiar with the notion of parallel universes, the only thing that is different here is the mechanism that creates them.

I guess one could interpret it as an alternate timeline, but that would mean that some games didn't occur at all, and I don't see how this would be preferable. Also, from page 68:

But they also imply its up to your interpretation, and its not implied that each one exists next to one another. Its like they assume you'll choose just one path.

ここで紹介していくのは、数ある「ゼルダの伝説」シリーズを時代軸で紡いだハイラルの歴史。
Here, we introduce the fate of "The Legend of Zelda" series in which the history of Zelda is spun by the axis of time.

何ゆえ「伝説」であり、「輪廻の歴史」であるのか。
So what is the "Legend", and what is the "History of Reincarnation?"

「スカイウォードソード」が「始まりの物語」と言われるゆえんを、後の年代まで追って記す。
We explain the reason "Skyward Sword" is the opening story, and we go through through the late generations.

紡いでいるのは、あくまで歴史の流れであるため、実際の冒険については自分の手で触り、確かめてみてほしい 。
The only course of its history spins the adventure you hold in your hands.

【　歴史を読み解く前に　】
Before You Interpret the History

現時点での歴史を紡いでいる
Spinning the Present History

この年代記は、現時点で確認できる情報を紡いだにすぎず、不明瞭な部分も多くある。
This chronology that we spun is the only information that can be confirmed at this time, though it is very obscure.

そして、ハイラルの歴史は時世や語り継く者によって変化し、これからも紡がれていく。
And the history of Hyrule sure changes as its told throughout time, as we've spun its future.

大きく揺らぐことはないにしても、今後新たな伝説が生まれ、歴史が書きかえらていくかもしれな い。
Even without greatly undermining it, a new legend is born in the future, so we may rewrite history.

In short, they never created a set ending and leave the ending up to you.

Agreed! If the Zelda universe is a multiverse they certainly have much more stories to tell.

Yes, and they want you to pick with path you want to take.

That's what I like about Miyamoto's work, and what Aonuma chose to do with it. They have creative freedom themselves and they give the reader [in this case, player] creative freedom, as well; the freedom to choose which of the three endings you want to see--which you like the most.

it is not a 'what-if'..
the DT is the only way things were going to happen, until the Hero of Time succeeded.
even after he succeeded though, it still happened.
to suggest it would be a 'what-if', would be to mean it never happened if Link wins.
it did happen, whether Link wins or loses.

Originally Posted by CountOoccoo

it is not a 'what-if'..
the DT is the only way things were going to happen, until the Hero of Time succeeded.
even after he succeeded though, it still happened.
to suggest it would be a 'what-if', would be to mean it never happened if Link wins.
it did happen, whether Link wins or loses.

Link can't win and lose at the same time... so one doesn't happen while the other does, leaving the one that doesn't happen a "what if" scenario. The AT and CT works because a split is created when Zelda sends Link back. There is no such split in the other scenario. Link just wins in one and loses in another, but both can't happen.

Technically it's been a "what if" scenario since TWW came out and featured a series of events that is not LttP following from Ganon's sealing in OoT; the Hyrule Historia just came out and created another series of events as a way of differentiating the ending of OoT with the events that lead to LttP for those who didn't see this to begin with.

As stated in the preface to the timeline section, this is a result of the developers concocting "new legends" and thus adding things to the story that didn't exist before.

Originally Posted by Lex

Technically it's been a "what if" scenario since TWW came out and featured a series of events that is not LttP following from Ganon's sealing in OoT; the Hyrule Historia just came out and created another series of events as a way of differentiating the ending of OoT with the events that lead to LttP for those who didn't see this to begin with.

As stated in the preface to the timeline section, this is a result of the developers concocting "new legends" and thus adding things to the story that didn't exist before.

So what timeline, pray tell, do you believe to be the "actual" history, and which one is the "what if"?

Neither is the actual history. They're all just stories. OoT is a story based on the story told in LttP; TWW is based on the ending of OoT.

Originally Posted by eiyuu_004

Link can't win and lose at the same time...

why not?
until there is proof to the contrary, i assume he both won and lost the battle. at the same time.
I don't know exactly how.. but it makes much more sense than one happening, and another not at all.
I've seen nowhere that it says one happens, and one doesn't. Why are you so sure it's an either/or scenario?
..there's no proof of that. the only proof is that he was successful, and also defeated.
I assume he gets defeated at the moment he loses his sword. Then he succeeds right afterward with Zelda's help.

Incorrect, all three endings are subjective. As in, they all happen. OoT is actual Hyrulean History and the SW is just oral history. OoT leds into all three.

If you decide Link should fail, the DT happens andthe AT is hypothetical.
However, if you should decide Link wins in OoT, the DT is averted and the split occurs.

Saying neither is actual history is a blatant lie to oneself.

Originally Posted by Cayenne Pepper

Incorrect, all three endings are subjective. As in, they all happen. OoT is actual Hyrulean History and the SW is just oral history. OoT leds into all three.

If you decide Link should fail, the DT happens andthe AT is hypothetical.
However, if you should decide Link wins in OoT, the DT is averted and the split occurs.

Saying neither is actual history is a blatant lie to oneself.

So... what exactly is the "Seal War"? At what point does it take place?

Tat's not what I meant to say.
The SW is an actual event that takes place in between OoT and ALttP.

Originally Posted by TurkeyMcBean

So what timeline, pray tell, do you believe to be the "actual" history, and which one is the "what if"?

There is no set "actual" time line. Its up to you which one is the real history. Use your imagination, people! Not every story is built around logic! Don't waste your time trying to analyse everything and just enjoy the story, and the ending to that story that you choose!

The one I chose was the Wisdom time line {Adult Era} because I like the story line and because I believe that Link going back in time isn't as important. He went back to correct the past. I don't like the idea of "correcting" the past. The Legend of Zelda, to me, is about destiny. And the people of this era went on with their lives even though they faced great peril and lost their home land after the hero of time left traveling through time. They only kept their eyes to the future, in the hopes of something greater than they ever imagined; and the hero of winds--along with others--found a new land, a place to start over, a place to start a better life for future generations.

Originally Posted by CountOoccoo

why not?
until there is proof to the contrary, i assume he both won and lost the battle. at the same time.
I don't know exactly how.. but it makes much more sense than one happening, and another not at all.
I've seen nowhere that it says one happens, and one doesn't. Why are you so sure it's an either/or scenario?
..there's no proof of that. the only proof is that he was successful, and also defeated.
I assume he gets defeated at the moment he loses his sword. Then he succeeds right afterward with Zelda's help.

Why not? Because it's impossible. Link beat Ganon in OOT. Period. Link did NOT both lose to Ganon and win. That makes no sense.

In an alternate version of OOT Link loses to Ganon and only loses. Not both. This is the "what if" OOT that leads into the DT.

There is no proof at all that he was defeated. Only proof that he won. We see him win. Then we are told he lost prior to ALTTP. That means it's a what if.