2 things I simply don't get about the timeline

No, I don't have any qualms about the "defeated" timeline. As much as it is a cop-out, it's honestly the only real explanation.

1. Four Swords is listed as taking place before OoT, but after MC. Isn't FSA supposed to be a DIRECT sequel to FS? Why the hell would it be so early on?

2. Oracles being between LttP and LA. Why? LA was obviously intended to be directly after LttP at the time of its release. Is there any reason it can't take place after Zelda 2? And don't give me any of that "hurr boat" crap.

Answer to both questions: Aonuma wanted it that way.

I recall Lex saying there is an interview with Miyamoto from a Japanese magazine where he says the Oracle games come after LttP. So it appears their timeline placement was original intent.

Originally Posted by Nagumo

I recall Lex saying there is an interview with Miyamoto from a Japanese magazine where he says the Oracle games come after LttP. So it appears their timeline placement was original intent.

I don't really have a PROBLEM with them being that way, it's just weird. It technically works, but still weird.

But that still leaves my first one. There is no reason FS should be placed before OoT and not before FSA, especially since FSA blatantly references that Link being the same one as in FS.

Originally Posted by BlazeHeatnix

No, I don't have any qualms about the "defeated" timeline. As much as it is a cop-out, it's honestly the only real explanation.

1. Four Swords is listed as taking place before OoT, but after MC. Isn't FSA supposed to be a DIRECT sequel to FS? Why the hell would it be so early on?

What game are you referring to when you say its "early on"?

2. Oracles being between LttP and LA. Why? LA was obviously intended to be directly after LttP at the time of its release. Is there any reason it can't take place after Zelda 2? And don't give me any of that "hurr boat" crap

They never specified how much time passed between LttP and LA. The Oracles fit perfectly between the LttP and LA, so I don't see a problem.

In regards to your second question, yes, LA could have taken place after Zelda 2. There's not much to contradict that idea, even though I think it would have better fit between Zelda 1 and Zelda 2. Unfortunately, it doesn't.

Originally Posted by AStinkToThePast

What game are you referring to when you say its "early on"?

...I told you. Before OoT and after Minish Cap.

Originally Posted by AStinkToThePast

There's not much to contradict that idea, even though I think it would have better fit between Zelda 1 and Zelda 2. Unfortunately, it doesn't.

I said ORACLES after Zelda 2, not LA.

1. Nintendo is crazy

2. Because Link doesn't defeat Ganon in AOL. Also the boat thing at the end os OOA is the prove. Link defeats Ganon in ALttP the triforcd is taken out of the scred realm. The triforce sends Link to Holodrum/Labrynna the OOX happen and at the end Link leaves in the boat we see in LA.

Originally Posted by BlazeHeatnix

No, I don't have any qualms about the "defeated" timeline. As much as it is a cop-out, it's honestly the only real explanation.

1. Four Swords is listed as taking place before OoT, but after MC. Isn't FSA supposed to be a DIRECT sequel to FS? Why the hell would it be so early on?

2. Oracles being between LttP and LA. Why? LA was obviously intended to be directly after LttP at the time of its release. Is there any reason it can't take place after Zelda 2? And don't give me any of that "hurr boat" crap.

There is no direct connection between Four Swords and Four Swords Adventures other than their individual stories. However, what I actually mean is that they could be thousands of years apart for all we know, and so many unrelated events can happen between them.

The Oracles are directly between A Link to the Past and Link's Awakening because the Triforce is in the possession of the Royal Family as the end of A Link to the Past would have it and it talks to Link as if it has done so before, as happened at the end of the latter game. Likewise, A Link to the Past's manual states that following its events, Link travels to foreign lands. In Link's Awakening, he has already done so. Holodrum and Labrynna are the said foreign lands. Ganondorf is also dead during the Oracles and was killed in A Link to the Past. When he was revived in the Oracles, he became mindless. When he returned in Zelda I, he was already mindless for reasons previously unknown.

According to the FSA prologue, the Link and Zelda in FSA resealed Vaati some time before the game. Since FS is all about a Link and Zelda resealing Vaati after he breaks out, the obvious conclusion is that FSA is a direct sequel to FS. Otherwise, Vaati had another breakout that we haven't seen. Possible, of course, as the discrepancy between the FS legend and MC shows, but unlike in that case we have no reason to assume so. *shrugs*

Originally Posted by Darth Yoshi

According to the FSA prologue, the Link and Zelda in FSA resealed Vaati some time before the game. Since FS is all about a Link and Zelda resealing Vaati after he breaks out, the obvious conclusion is that FSA is a direct sequel to FS. Otherwise, Vaati had another breakout that we haven't seen. Possible, of course, as the discrepancy between the FS legend and MC shows, but unlike in that case we have no reason to assume so. *shrugs*

Exactly. Which makes its official placement make no sense. Unless you count that comment made by Aonuma early on before it was released, when he was barely involved with the series at all and before TMC and FSA were even a thought.

I agree with the opener. FSA itself implies the Link has fought before, but HH shoots this down. The Oracle duo implies the Link is a new hero, once again HH says otherwise.

FS-FSA should be a clear connection, but the Oracles would be more difficult.
They would fit ideally after either ALttP/LA or LoZ/AoL, starring a new Link, because the key criteria are a dead Ganon, Link being unknown from Zelda aside from prophetic dreams and Hyrule possessing the Triforce.

Whoever decided the order just didn't know about the more subtle details.

Originally Posted by Magic-Tech

I agree with the opener. FSA itself implies the Link has fought before, but HH shoots this down. The Oracle duo implies the Link is a new hero, once again HH says otherwise.

Actually, HH never once says Oracles has the same Link as in LttP...at least I don't think so.

Oracles is a new Link, and that Link is the one in LA, retconning the previous canon of that Link being the one in LttP. Apparently, the LttP Link lived out his life and Oracles DOES in fact have a new Link, who DID defeat Ganon in the true ending, making LA's manual make sense. You could put forth the boat argument, but that's retarded, since if it was a real argument you could put LA after WW and it would still somehow make sense.

But the Link from the oracle series was already a hero before the begining of the game

Originally Posted by tlozbj

But the Link from the oracle series was already a hero before the begining of the game

No he wasn't. All that was said was that he had the crest. Destined hero, sure, and Zelda/Impa knew that, but he wasn't already a hero. If he was, Zelda would've recognized him and she wouldn't introduce herself.

In the Oracle of Seasons soon after A Link to the Past, Link is summoned by the Triforce to save the land of Holodrum. Line from Zelda wiki.

Impa would obvuiously would not know him because she does not appaer in ALttP. Zelda probably introduce herself to be formal

Actually, he's right. Hyrule Historia doesn't specify who the Oracle Link is. Many Links throughout the series are seen and chosen as heroes before they even do anything. So its entirely possible that Oracle Link is only LA Link. The Triforce would've chosen the one the gods see as a hero, not the one who the people see as a hero. And the gods, as we've seen thoughtout the series, can tell a hero from an ordinary soldier before he does anything heroic.

EDIT: LOOPHOLE!!

Originally Posted by tlozbj

In the Oracle of Seasons soon after A Link to the Past, Link is summoned by the Triforce to save the land of Holodrum. Line from Zelda wiki.

You do realize the Zelda wiki is fanmade and not official, right? That's just their assumption based on HH, not actual fact.

Originally Posted by tlozbj

Impa would obvuiously would not know him because she does not appaer in ALttP. Zelda probably introduce herself to be formal

Even if it's a formal greeting, you don't introduce yourself to someone you already know. "My name is Zelda. You are Link, right? I
knew it at first glance." She clearly doesn't know him.

And it's true that Impa doesn't appear in LttP, but Oracles wouldn't take place DIRECTLY AFTER. Assuming time passed, he would've met the royal family and therefore, Impa.

And how the hell are you going to explain how he goes from an adult to a child if it's the same Link? Look at official art for LttP. He's an adult. Now look at art for Oracles. He's a kid. Face it, Oracles has a different Link.

Originally Posted by BlazeHeatnix

You do realize the Zelda wiki is fanmade and not official, right? That's just their assumption based on HH, not actual fact.



Even if it's a formal greeting, you don't introduce yourself to someone you already know. "My name is Zelda. You are Link, right? I
knew it at first glance." She clearly doesn't know him.

And it's true that Impa doesn't appear in LttP, but Oracles wouldn't take place DIRECTLY AFTER. Assuming time passed, he would've met the royal family and therefore, Impa.

And how the hell are you going to explain how he goes from an adult to a child if it's the same Link? Look at official art for LttP. He's an adult. Now look at art for Oracles. He's a kid. Face it, Oracles has a different Link.

Actually the Zelda wiki uses info that are facts,and not opinions..

Originally Posted by Shira

Actually the Zelda wiki uses info that are facts,and not opinions..

No, the wiki articles are THEORIES based on all sources. It's easy to assume Oracles has the same Link as in LttP, which is why they put that there, but the HH doesn't specify which Link it is.

The Zelda wiki has NOTHING to do with Nintendo. Trusting it for every tiny thing is ridiculous. It's not official in any way. Most of the stuff on the wiki is true, but when it comes to the timeline, there's a lot of stuff they just assume and isn't 100% confirmed by Nintendo.

However, I should point out that the Historia does separate events into discrete eras, and LttP, OoS, and LA share the same era. Circumstantially, at least, that supports the idea that they share the same Hero.