Post-Timeline Theorizing

Someone may have already posted this on here. I looked, but I didn't find anything like it. If someone DID already mention it, I guess this thread can just be deleted. I mean, it's common sense anyway, but I thought it was still worth mentioning.



So, the timeline came out. It’s official. It exists. And it eliminates a bunch of very cool (and some very stupid) theories. The issue is settled, finally.

This is very important to Zelda theorists because it gives us solid canonical evidence upon which we may base our theories. Specifically, the timeline serves as great evidence pertaining to any theory detailing the connections between different games in the Zelda series.

For instance, consider Majora’s Mask and Twilight Princess. There have been a bunch of theorists in support of the idea that Majora’s Mask has some connection with Twilight Princess, just as there have been a bunch of people who found that idea to be completely asinine. Well, now we have a neat little timeline which proves that the games are connected on at least some small but important level: they exist in the same timeline. And that matters.

Furthermore, not only are the games in the same timeline, but additionally, no game takes place between them in that timeline. This doesn’t necessarily mean that nothing HAPPENS in between them (obviously, SOMETHING happens between them) but it does make the games’ connection appear to be a bit stronger than it was once thought to be.

My point is that the timeline changes things – at least SOME things – and our theories ought to reflect that. Like I said, some theories (which were at least interesting before) are now stronger because of the release of the timeline. Likewise, a lot of theories which once sounded plausible became utterly impossible because of it.

For example, before the timeline came out, it would be easy for someone to argue that Link was absent from Wind Waker’s prologue was because he was busy saving Termina. That actually seemed to be a somewhat believable theory.

But now we know that CAN’T be true; Link was absent from Wind Waker’s prologue because it took place in the Adult Timeline, and Ocarina of Time’s Link went back to the Child Timeline after saving Hyrule. He couldn’t have saved Wind Waker’s Hyrule even if he wanted to. It isn’t because he was busy in Termina; it’s because he was busy being in an entirely different timeline.

I imagine there might be many more theories out there which we can now rule out as impossible due to the release of the official timeline. After all, many of us have patiently waited quite some time for the timeline to come out. Now that it’s finally out, let’s not ignore it.

If a theory somehow contradicts the official timeline, we shouldn’t take it seriously. We must adapt our theories to suit the facts. The timeline is canon, and as much as it might go against some really cool theories, it is final. We should accept that, and our theories should reflect it.

With all this in mind, keep theorizing, friends! I hope we find ourselves closer and closer to unraveling the many mysteries present in the Zelda series. Good luck to all, and of course, happy gaming!

Uh-oh. I may have to completely change this thread.

Zelda’s Boss Offers A Giant Disclaimer Over ‘Official’ Series Timeline | Kotaku Australia

It looks like those theories which contradict the "official" timeline might not be invalid, after all. I'll edit this post later to incorporate this.

No Aonuma is saying approach the book with an open mind for contradictory things such as the Mogma race disappearing.

That's what I want to think as well, but there is one line which concerns me:

"I even think that setting Skyward Sword as the “first story”, was merely a coincidence."

Really? A coincidence? Skyward Sword being the first game in the story was kind of REALLY IMPORTANT to understanding the Zelda universe. The fact that he writes that off as a coincidence is a little more than mildly disconcerting.

But you're right; I think the timeline still holds enough weight to eliminate some theories completely. I guess time will tell.

Well I think that some of those theroies will never die though. Even with the timeline, there are some things that are not explicitly ruled out......and nor should they be. Part of the fun in the series ismaking theories on what everyhting means

But yes I think you are right Alot of those wheories, like single timeline theories, will die out now.

Originally Posted by Devonfayr

That's what I want to think as well, but there is one line which concerns me:

"I even think that setting Skyward Sword as the “first story”, was merely a coincidence."

Really? A coincidence? Skyward Sword being the first game in the story was kind of REALLY IMPORTANT to understanding the Zelda universe. The fact that he writes that off as a coincidence is a little more than mildly disconcerting.

But you're right; I think the timeline still holds enough weight to eliminate some theories completely. I guess time will tell.

No, sayinf SS is FIRST was a coincidence, because they were only planing it to be an OoT prequel, not necessarily the first game in the timeline as it has come to be known. SS was ALWAYS a prequel.

Originally Posted by Cayenne Pepper

No, sayinf SS is FIRST was a coincidence, because they were only planing it to be an OoT prequel, not necessarily the first game in the timeline as it has come to be known. SS was ALWAYS a prequel.

Mmm, that's a good point. I guess I was taking the statement the wrong way. I think it still deserves some mention though, so I'll probably rewrite the original post a bit.

I'm personally very interested in the Majora's Mask / Twilight Princess connection theories now. Majora's Mask is one of my favorite games in the series, and while I certainly didn't like Twilight Princess anywhere near as much, I find it to be a very strong game (rivaling Ocarina of Time). So the fact that those two now seem to be DEFINITELY connected...it fascinates me more than any of the other game connection theories.

Originally Posted by Devonfayr

Mmm, that's a good point. I guess I was taking the statement the wrong way. I think it still deserves some mention though, so I'll probably rewrite the original post a bit.

I'm personally very interested in the Majora's Mask / Twilight Princess connection theories now. Majora's Mask is one of my favorite games in the series, and while I certainly didn't like Twilight Princess anywhere near as much, I find it to be a very strong game (rivaling Ocarina of Time). So the fact that those two now seem to be DEFINITELY connected...it fascinates me more than any of the other game connection theories.

It was a well known fact long before Hyrule Historia was released that Twilight Princess takes place hundreds of years after the events of Majora's Mask on the Child Timeline.

Originally Posted by TurkeyMcBean

It was a well known fact long before Hyrule Historia was released that Twilight Princess takes place hundreds of years after the events of Majora's Mask on the Child Timeline.

I actually didn't know that. What evidence was there for it? I'm really curious (and apparently a bit late to the party).

Originally Posted by Devonfayr

I actually didn't know that. What evidence was there for it? I'm really curious (and apparently a bit late to the party).

An interview shortly before (or after, I really don't know) Twilight Princess' release confirms this.

Nintendo Dream Interview with Twilight Princess Director Eiji Aonuma, circa 2006:

Interviewer: When does Twilight Princess take place?

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

Interviewer: 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.

Majora's Mask takes place soon after Link returned to being a kid. Therefore, Twilight Princess takes place either 100 or "hundreds" (from my understanding, the Japanese word for "a hundred" is the same word as "hundreds".) of years after the events of Majora's Mask.

Aonuma gave an interview about it around the time TP came out, or maybe while it was still in production. I've always thought it problematic, which the Historia has only confirmed, but nobody ever said that canonical meant airtight or even seaworthy. *shrugs*

EDIT: Oh, I got ninja'd.

Originally Posted by TurkeyMcBean

An interview shortly before (or after, I really don't know) Twilight Princess' release confirms this.



Majora's Mask takes place soon after Link returned to being a kid. Therefore, Twilight Princess takes place either 100 or "hundreds" (from my understanding, the Japanese word for "a hundred" is the same word as "hundreds".) of years after the events of Majora's Mask.

Neat. I never knew about that. I mean, the timeline solidifies that point anyway, but at least I know now that the connection had been established before, even if it wasn't quite as explicit as it is now.

Originally Posted by Darth Yoshi

but nobody ever said that canonical meant airtight or even seaworthy. *shrugs*

That's the main issue. Just how strong is the timeline? Obviously, we kind of WANT it to be definite, but knowing Nintendo...

Originally Posted by Devonfayr

That's the main issue. Just how strong is the timeline? Obviously, we kind of WANT it to be definite, but knowing Nintendo...

Well Nintendo said within Hyrule Historia that the timeline in that book is their theory, and that the timeline could change in the future.

They basically made sure to give themselves a LOT of room to back out of the Historia timeline in case they ever want to change it in the future (whether to a minimal or drastic amount). So it's definitely not as strong as we might like.

Originally Posted by Volvagia_slayer

Well Nintendo said within Hyrule Historia that the timeline in that book is their theory,

Quote please?

^GlitterBerri's Game Translations » Pg. 68 The Chronology of Hyrule, Land of the Gods

"History is Still Being Spun
...The history of Hyrule is known to change with the times and the person telling it, and will continue to unfold."

Still looking for the other quote. It may have been said outside of HH...

EDIT: Just saw that you only quoted half of my post. Just refer to the "Still looking..." part of my post above then.

EDIT2: Oh, I think I was remembering incorrectly. Nintendo didn't say that HH was their theory (or if they did, I still haven't found the quote). Nintendo said that the readers of HH should still try to ascertain Hyrule's history for themselves (which seems to imply that players should still theorize on their own about the order of the games; and this makes sense because one of the last things Aonuma said before HH's release was that the timeline would supposedly never be released because he didn't want to prevent people from theorizing about which games take place where).

"Because what is being spun is the flow of history right up until the end of time, we wish for you to touch true adventure with your own hands and try to ascertain it for yourself."

http://www.glitterberri.com/hyrule-historia/page-68/

From an official Nintendo Magazine interview with Eiji Aonuma:

“'Yes there is a master timeline but its confidential document!' explains Aunuma-san. 'The only people to have access to that document are myself, Mr. Miyamoto and the director of the title. We cant share it with anyone else! I have already talked to Mr. Miyamoto about this so I am comfortable in releasing this information – this title [Skyward Sword] takes place before Ocarina of Time. if I said that a certain title was ‘the first Zelda game’, then that means that we cant ever make a title that takes place before that! So for us to add titles to the series, we have to have a way of putting the titles before or after each other.'”

Here's the link: Skyward Sword Before Ocarina of Time in Zelda Timeline

Since Aonuma apparently asserted several times that an official (and thus canon) timeline existed, I feel inclined to rule out the possibility that he would allow the release a timeline which was somehow not official. The only way I can see that being even remotely possible is if Aonuma had no creative control over Hyrule Historia.

But according to a Kotaku article:

"The added translations also reveal that the book's 'supervising editor' was none other than Zelda boss Eiji Aonuma, so yes, this is as official as official gets.'"

Here's the link: The Official Zelda Timeline, Now With Added Detail

What more can be said? At present, there is simply too much evidence in support of the idea that the timeline is official (and thus should not allow for contradictory theories). I think the only "room for interpretation" is the glaringly obvious amount of empty space between each game; it's up to us to decide just how much the games relate to each other.

Additionally, Nintendo can obviously place new games anywhere they want on the timeline from here on out. I think that's the only creative freedom they're defending right now; they reserve the right to place new games anywhere in the chronology, but the "official" order of currently-existing games should (I imagine) remain unchanged and undisputed.

^But Aonuma has said for quite a long time that he likes that people theorize about the timeline and he doesn't want to take that away from the players.

Now I don't think that means that the Hyrule Historia timeline isn't official, but I also think that Nintendo's thoughts on canon aren't as strict as our own from the sound of all of these otherwise seemingly conflicting quotes.

All of the quotes would make sense if the HH timeline is Nintendo's theory, but they don't want to say that it is the end all be all and players should still feel free to try to figure out the timeline themselves. That would fit what's in HH and all of Aonuma's past quotes despite it making canon a far more slippery thing than I know we'd like.

Originally Posted by Volvagia_slayer

All of the quotes would make sense if the HH timeline is Nintendo's theory, but they don't want to say that it is the end all be all and players should still feel free to try to figure out the timeline themselves. That would fit what's in HH and all of Aonuma's past quotes despite it making canon a far more slippery thing than I know we'd like.

I might just be too eager to have a definite timeline. I still think the "figure it out for yourselves" stuff in Hyrule Historia isn't talking about the timeline as much as it's talking about the strength of the connections between the games. But I might just be hoping. At the very least, I can't prove what I want to be true, and thus, it seems my original post should be edited after all.

I'm of the opinion that Aonuma was bluffing about the confidential master document, really. Why would he say that only three people have access to it at any given time and then turn around and release it less than a year later?

Originally Posted by Volvagia_slayer

Now I don't think that means that the Hyrule Historia timeline isn't official, but I also think that Nintendo's thoughts on canon aren't as strict as our own from the sound of all of these otherwise seemingly conflicting quotes.

Originally Posted by Devonfayr

I might just be too eager to have a definite timeline. I still think the "figure it out for yourselves" stuff in Hyrule Historia isn't talking about the timeline as much as it's talking about the strength of the connections between the games. But I might just be hoping. At the very least, I can't prove what I want to be true, and thus, it seems my original post should be edited after all.

I agree with both of these statements. My belief is that Zelda games aren't designed with timeline placement in mind. I think their method is something like this:

1. start with gameplay,
2. add a story around the gameplay,
3. estimate a likely timeline placement based on how the story seems to go