In the Event That Time Travel Mechanics Actually Matter...

Hoy, timeline theorists! Recent discussion on the GameFAQs boards has again brought into question the logical progression of the ending of OoT, and time travel within OoT. While I still maintain that time travel is not consistent enough in the Zelda-verse to be explained, I figured I might as well cook up someting feasable for the splitists to chew on. The result is the article below, which I'm fairly sure effectively works out any logical "kinks" in the progression of the single timeline.


How To Define Travel With the Master Sword and Travel With the Ocarina of Time

Time Travel With the Master Sword

The conditions under which time travel with the Master Sword occurs never change:
1) Link pulls the Master Sword from the Pedestal of Time.
2) Link is enveloped in a bright blue light that appears as rays of light shooting into the sky.
3) Link awakens in the future approximately seven years later (or, if traveling backwards, in the past, seven years before). He has aged accordingly (grown older if traveling forwards; grown younger if traveling backwards).
(**If these conditions exist, you are witnessing Master Sword time travel. This means that time travel at the end of OoT is Master Sword time travel.**)

The results, however, can vary:
1) Link appears in the future the first time with the Master Sword sheathed; every other time he appears standing over the Pedestal with it in his hands.
2) Link appears in the past the final time without his hands on the Master Sword; every other time he appears standing on top of the Pedestal, grasping the hilt.
3) Kakariko Well will be drained whether or not you played the Song of Storms in the past or not; whereas the Magic Beans, on the other hand, will only be planted if you planted them in the past.
(**#1 and #2 will be explained later in the article.**)

However, there are a few general rules, based on the plot aspects:
1) Time is immutable; no amount of time-traveling using the Master Sword into the past can change the course of the future.
2) Even given #1, the course of the future must still be fulfilled in order to play out.
3) Given #1 and #2, destiny itself is also immutable--everyone is predestined to play out the course of the past and future to contribute to the common reality.
4) If it's not important to the plot, assume it doesn't happen (eliminates the Magic Bean problem).


Time Travel With the Ocarina of Time

The conditions under which time travel with the Ocarina of Time occurs never change:
1) Link plays the Song of Time.
2) Link is literally ripped from the spacetime spectrum and sent back in time to the Dawn of the First Day. He will appear in the past in the exact state he was in when he played the Song of Time.
3) The past will be in the exact state it was when he initially left the Clock Tower.
(**The Song of Double Time speeds up time tremendously, the Inverted Song of Time slows it down. No time travel is involved in playing those songs.**)

Except With a Few Exceptions (which are, of course, negligible based on the "if it's not important to the plot, assume it doesn't happen" principle):
1) Link's wallet and ammunition will be set to 0 when he arrives at the First Day, and some bottle items and temporary items will disappear.
2) Items Link has already obtained from Treasure Chests (Hookshot, Bow, etc.) will be replaced by Rupees.

There are a few general rules, based on the plot aspects:
1) Time is mutable; anytime one travels in the past using the Ocarina of Time, his actions can change the course of the future.
2) Even given #1, the various courses of the future must still be fulfilled in order to play out.
3) Given #1 and #2, destiny itself is also mutable--predestination only extends as far as the influence of the current course of time does, and is influenced by the various courses.
4) If Link carries any of the Boss Masks back in time with him, he carries the spirits of the Giants back in time as well. It is because of this that he can call the Giants with the Oath to Order without defeating all of the bosses during a particular three-day cycle.
5) Again, if it's not important to the plot, assume it doesn't happen (eliminates the problem of the exceptions).


Avoiding the Master Sword and Ocarina Paradoxes -- Time Travel With the "Double Link Effect"

1) The Master Sword (V1) is in the pedestal. Link has not yet pulled it.
2) Link pulls Master Sword V1 from the pedestal, and moves forward seven years. During his sleep, and in the future, the Master Sword is called Master Sword V2.
3) Link replaces Master Sword V2 and returns to the past. Master Sword V1 is in the pedestal. **Link does not repeat Step 2 [as it was performed originally], but [a version of] Link must still exist in the Sacred Realm along with Master Sword V2, or else all of the things that Link did in the future after Step 2 will cease to exist.**
4) Link later pulls Master Sword V1 again, and travels to the future. (Steps 3 and 4 repeat until Ganon is defeated and Link goes back in time for the final time.)
**We shall call the phenomenon encased in asterisks the "Double Link effect"**

--The final time Link goes back in time, he returns to Step 1, just before Step 2 is set to happen. Master Sword V1 is in the pedestal. Link does not repeat Step 2 [as it was performed originally], but [a version of] Link must still exist in the Sacred Realm along with Master Sword V2, or else all of the things that Link did in the future after Step 2 will cease to exist. Link relives the seven years he lost, and the events of MM occur. Because these events happen in the vicinity of Steps 1 and 2, we will call them, collectively, Step 1b.
--Because of the Double Link effect, Step 3 will still occur, and will still be followed by Step 4. In Step 4, Link pulls Master Sword V1. Because Link pulls Master Sword V1, there will be no Master Sword in the Pedestal of Time when Link exits his seven year sleep in the future.
--Also, as a result of the Double Link effect: the Ocarina of Time paradox--that OoT Link cannot take the Ocarina of Time into the future if MM Link has it--is avoided altogether. The Link that "must still exist in the Sacred Realm along with Master Sword V2" must also exist along with an Ocarina of Time (Ocarina V2).


How Best To Explain The Ending of OoT From a Single-Timeline Perspective

At the end of the game, Zelda gives Link the following directive: "You must lay the Master Sword to rest and close the Door of Time. However, by doing this, the road between times will be closed." A simple reading of this tells us that Link must actually lay the Master Sword to rest (by returning it to the pedestal) and actually close the Door of Time (likely by removing the Spiritual Stones from the altar). She then makes the following request: "Link, give the Ocarina to me. As a Sage, I can return you to your original time with it." Most interpret this to mean that Zelda uses the Ocarina of Time to send Link back in time.

However, a closer examination of this interpretation reveals a few problems--if Zelda sends Link to the past with the Ocarina of Time:
1) Link cannot lay the Master Sword to rest if he is already in the past.
2) If Link closes the Door of Time in the past, the events of OoT cannot take place, as they require that it be open.
3) Link's trip back in time at the end of OoT behaves like Master Sword travel, not Ocarina travel.

So what exactly is Zelda's purpose in using the Ocarina of Time? Look closely at the quote. It is her role as a Sage--not the Ocarina's inherent power--that is going to be allowing him to return to his original time. Looking at the power of the Sages throughout the rest of the series, we see that it is most often used in the following context: "find the power of the other Sages and add their might to your own!" I would argue that Zelda is not using the Ocarina of Time to send Link back in time, but, rather, to "add her might to his own." Looking now at TWW, we see how exactly the Sages go about using their power to help the Hero--they infuse the Master Sword with power. So, what is the purpose of Zelda's use of the Ocarina of Time: it allows Link to use the Master Sword to "return to his original time."

Because we see the "warping light" when Zelda sends Link back in time, we can deduce that what Zelda did has a warping effect similar to what we see after the bosses. I'm guessing Link is warped to the Temple of Time to carry out Zelda's orders. I'm also guessing that Link didn't carry them out in the order that Zelda gave them to him. I'm guessing that he first closed the Door of Time (he's still in the future--the Door will be closed from this point forward), then, while he was inside it (still in the future), he replaces the Master Sword and returns to the past. Because of Zelda's power as a Sage, this time he returned to his "original time", before he ever pulled the Master Sword.

This turns out to be more purposeful in explaining why the Door had to be closed. If the Door is closed by Link at a point after Ganon is defeated, the "road between times" is now closed, and the events of OoT cannot be tampered with--period.

This actually explains the fact that we seem to see different results the first and last times that Link travels through time. When Link appears in the future for the first time, he is not standing above the Pedestal with the sword raised above his head. This is because, when Link appears in the future for the first time, he is not traveling to a point in time at which he has already replaced the Master Sword. The pose we see each subsequent time we travel to the future is the pose he would have taken just before replacing the sword--he stands with it above his head.

When he travels in the future--one of the following things occurs:
1) he is traveling to the precise moment at which he replaced the Master Sword in the future;
2) he is traveling exactly seven years into the future again

The same can be applied to the past--he travels back to either:
1) the precise moment at which he drew the Master Sword the first time
2) exactly seven years into the past.
(**Though it doesn't really matter which explanation you choose, I would actually prefer to err to #1 in both cases because it makes for cleaner time travel, even though the day/night gameplay mechanic defies this. But, again, see the "if it's not important to the plot, assume it doesn't happen" principle.**)

And, in the end, when he travels back to the past, he travels back completely, to a point just before he ever took the Master Sword, and so obviously he will not be standing over it in that same way (similar to his first trip into the future).

Very nice, very nice. Two small things, though:

1: When Link goes back for the last time (with Zelda's help), he appears at a point before he ever pulled the Master Sword from the pedestal. If this is the case, how is he able to visit Zelda in the very last scene? She should be long gone, with Impa, since Link pulled the Master Sword after she escaped. This also plays into my problem with how the scene at the ending plays exactly like the scene where Link and Zelda meet for the first time (when Link has the Kokiri Stone only).

2: For there to be two Ocarina of Times, there have to be, well, two Ocarina of Times. Link did not take the Ocarina of Time back with him during the final trip- Zelda kept it. Technically, wouldn't this mean that, at the time Link returns to the past, there is only one Ocarina, which is the one his sleeping spirit holds in the Sacred Realm?

Gah. The inducive reasoning! It BURRRNNNSSS!!!

Yeah, its a good answer because we needed a good answer. It fully supports the Canon, it cannot be contradicted the canon, it is logically plausible; its a strong inducted theory... In the same way other MM-OOT connection theroies weve concocted have been strong.

Is it intended? Doubtful. Is it useful? Doubtful. Will it shut Weed Waka up? Doubtful. But hey, we an dream...

Anyway, that got alittle bitter for my liking. The post is good, the theroy well thought out. It fits well, and it will find favour with STers. Still, its nothing grand enough to break my agnosis.

Originally Posted by Ricky of Kokiri

1: When Link goes back for the last time (with Zelda's help), he appears at a point before he ever pulled the Master Sword from the pedestal. If this is the case, how is he able to visit Zelda in the very last scene? She should be long gone, with Impa, since Link pulled the Master Sword after she escaped. This also plays into my problem with how the scene at the ending plays exactly like the scene where Link and Zelda meet for the first time (when Link has the Kokiri Stone only).

A good question for the critics is--can it be explained? I don't think I've seen a single theory that can adaquately explain it.

Originally Posted by Ricky of Kokiri

2: For there to be two Ocarina of Times, there have to be, well, two Ocarina of Times. Link did not take the Ocarina of Time back with him during the final trip- Zelda kept it. Technically, wouldn't this mean that, at the time Link returns to the past, there is only one Ocarina, which is the one his sleeping spirit holds in the Sacred Realm?

It is, I suppose, possible that Link may have actually received the Ocarina back before returning to the past. One could certainly argue that this destroys the emotional quality of the scene--Link is now done with his adventures, and so he returns the Ocarina to the Princess--but MM, of course, does this anyway, and we never see the Ocarina of Time again after OoT. I can't really make a case for it, given that there's no evidence to even remotely suggest it, but it is highly possible.

I suppose it's better than the splitist explanation, that, despite the obvious "you take with you what you have" precedent, Link will appear in the past with the Ocarina of Time.

Of course, I could kill two birds with one stone, and just say that Link goes back to a point before he ever gets the Spiritual Stones, but that wouldn't solve the problem of the Stones not ever getting to the Temple of Time--so I'll just leave it at that.

Point 1 is and has always been inexplicable. Point 2 obviously cannot be explained if Point 1 cannot be explained.

Originally Posted by mmmmm_PIE

Is it intended? Doubtful.

This is, by far, the theory I've liked best, because, for the first time, I can actually see what some of the elements of OoT's ending may have been intended for.

Never until now have I understood why "closing the door between times" could possibly be important. The only person who uses the door between times is Link. If the door between times is closed in the past, nothing is accomplished--we wind up back where we started, with a closed Door of Time, and a Ganondorf trying to open it. Eventually he will probably seize the Spiritual Stones and Ocarina, and likely destroy Link and Zelda in the process. We get no closure this way.

If the door between times is closed in the future however, everything is settled. Ganon is sealed, Link is back where he belongs, the Master Sword is returned to the Temple, and the Door is shut once again. And, most importantly, it becomes impossible for the OoT events to be further influenced by outside sources (although, obviously, they couldn't be anyway--this just fulfills it). The Door being closed in the past--a split timeline--does not give the Adult ending this closure. In fact, it leaves us without a Master Sword in the future. A split timeline fails to point the ending of the Adult future towards TP and TWW.

But if the intent was to have Link take further action in the Temple of time, rather than simply leaving the future directly from that "Sky realm:, why did they not give us any hint what soever. Why force us to deduce that Link is involved in a third event, between the two we actually witness in the outro?
Its jus a lil but crazy oin there part.

What do we see at the end of that "sky scene?" We see Link entering a portal. As in, one of those portals you encounter after beating a boss--not the portal that takes him through time (which is what we see him exiting in the Temple of Time scene). Given this disparity of images, it is hardly unreasonable to assume that something happened between these two scenes. I would think it would be obvious that in order for Link to lay the Master Sword to rest would mean to put it back anyway.

This and this are not the same.

More interesting goodies: apparently the Hero's journey away from Hyrule involved journeying "into the flows of time." Turns out that this concept--"flows of time"--exists with respect to Master Sword time travel.

Originally Posted by OoT

The Master Sword is a ship with which you can sail upstream and downstream through time's river... The port for that ship is in the Temple of Time... To restore the Desert Colossus and enter the Spirit Temple, you must travel back through time's flow...

Given that this is so, wouldn't that mean that the Hero's journey away from Hyrule would have to have involved time travel with the Master Sword?

Looking at this beta screenshot, we can see some hints towards a "shadowed reality"--perhaps indicative of things existing where they shouldn't paradoxically?

Nicely done, LionHarted! A very thorough explanation, it makes more sense than what I came up with (even though I think that this one has a hint more of speculation to it. what I mean is the Door of Time being closed in the future). But as I said it would make more sense for things to work that way.

Originally Posted by LionHarted

A good question for the critics is--can it be explained? I don't think I've seen a single theory that can adaquately explain it.

There is always the "going back even further in time after laying down the Master Sword" card to pull, but I think it's wise not to go over to that right now and leave it unexplained. No one has ever been able to explain it without too much assumption so the best we can do is leave it be and enjoy the pretty pictures. (Until the day when Miyamoto admits that nobody even knows whats going on in that cutscene.)

In my personal opinion, Lion Harted, I do not agree with your method of disproving the Split Timeline theory like this, using mathmatical common sence like you are simply doing here. I mean no disrespect to you but I have fallen adrift into this area of trying to disprove the theory in the past, like you have, but don't expect that this will totaly make Split Timeline Theorist rethink there ways.

Debating these concepts make you no better than the ones that try to back p this rotten theory on the core of simple mathmaics reasoned in a differnt (complicated) way.

I am sorry Lion Harted but I will personbaly not choose to enforce this piece as official insight to all Wise Men. I refuse to fall on the beaten track that had destroyed me and my ideals in the past.

Originally Posted by LOZ Historian

I mean no disrespect to you but I have fallen adrift into this area of trying to disprove the theory in the past, like you have, but don't expect that this will totaly make Split Timeline Theorist rethink there ways.

I've had phenomenal success so far. Or does contributing to three "conversions" mean nothing?

Originally Posted by LionHarted

I've had phenomenal success so far. Or does contributing to three "conversions" mean nothing?

I choose not to use this theory to disprove the made up mechanics of the Split Timeline Theory because I don't belive there are any mechanics/mathmatics that Nintendo ever wanted to bring into visable understanding. Linear Timeline Theroist don't believe in this stuff and that is what makes us water and or oil when we come in debate against the Split Timeline Theory. We cannot delute the Split Timeline Theory this way.

I have the experience of trying to use these methods that you are using and they won't work. I'll even give refernce to those old theories if you like. I infamously tried to destroy the Split Timeline Theory the same way you are doing with three diferent attempts and failed miserably. If you were up against more arrogant strong willed Splitters like I was you would not be making the headway you are now. With the exception of are well supported timeline theory now and days, you won't come up against much opposition.

How about I let you debate with Wielder of the Sword on your reasoning of mechanics, eh? I bet he would take you on in a hart beat and have a field day.

Proceed at your own descression if you will but it will only provoke some of those theroist to come attacking you in the long run. Proving that all the LoZ co exist on the same line is the ONLY way to disprove the Split Timeline fairly and plausibly.

This is a PM from jhurvid and my response to it. This discussion arose from some difficulties regarding a theory of mine concerning the Identity of the Skull Kid. The link to that thread is in my sig, if anyone's curious. There was a paticular difficulty in understanding the continuity from OOT to MM, and this is my attempt to overcome it. I'm eager to hear your thoughts on it. After all, it's an explanation of OOT - kind of a big deal, wouldn't you say?

Originally Posted by jhurvid

Maybe I'm misunderstanding your argument but I'll answer it to what I can make out from it.

First of all, according to the single timeline concept, when Link was sent back in time by Zelda, he was in the Temple of Time before the Door of Time was originally opened by Link's past self and forced to sleep for seven years (we know this because Link met Zelda in the garden of Hyrule Castle, which she had left when Ganondorf attacked the castle). In other words, at the point where Link returns from the future there are two Links; one is the past self completing quests for the Spiritual stone, and the other is the future self already finished defeating Ganon. Future Link left Hyrule as a child (for Termina) and Past Link then enacted the events that would lead to Ganondorf taking the Triforce of Power.

Secondly, the Triforce of Courage split into eight shards when the Hero of Time "lost the elements that made him a Hero", which we can presume occurred when Zelda sent Link back in time (since otherwise we would have two elements of the Triforce of Courage and that would be a confusing concept).

Thirdly, the two objects that Future Link takes to Termina are the Ocarina of Time and Epona. With these items in his possession and the distinct implication that the Hero of Time didn't return to Hyrule after his departure, it is impossible for Past Link to be in possession of these items. Hence, these details must be ignored for a single timeline to work.

That is unless your concept of a single timeline is different from mine, in which case I am happy to listen to your version of events.

A lot of that is similar to what my split timeline was based on. However, i never believed that there were two Links. From my point of view, this is how it goes:

• Link drew the Master Sword from the pedestal, thus setting in motion the events of OOT.
• Upon defeating Ganondorf, Zelda returned him to the past to make up for his lost time.
• Link arrived back in the past moments after Ganondorf entered the Sacred realm. By replacing the Master Sword and closing the Door of Time, Ganondorf is effectively sealed.
• The Triforce splits nonetheless, as we can see in the final scene in Zelda's courtyard. Link's left hand bears the mark of the Triforce, and the Triforce of Courage. Thus we can assume that the Triforce of Wisdom is now in Zelda's possession.

Why is Zelda in Hyrule Castle, since she fled BEFORE Ganondorf entered the Sacred Realm? Zelda is psychic to a certain degree. Her dreams reflect the events of the past, present and future. She would be able to sense that the Great Evil has left the land of Hyrule (for the time being) and she would be able to safely return. Impa would not be an obstacle - she understands well the significance of Zelda's visions. The Triforce of Wisdom is also now in her possession, and this is consistent to TWW, whereby the Triforce of Wisdom was held by the Royal Family after Ganondorf was sealed.

The difficulty now is how the legend of the Hero of Time came to be "held dearly by the Royal Family" as said in MM's intro, especially since the events of OOT never happen at this late stage. The explanation is rather simple, and even plausible. The King doubted Zelda's vision of Ganondorf's betrayal, but there could be no doubt in his mind when Ganondorf went ahead and betrayed him - storming the castle and attempting to take the Ocarina of Time by force. So when Zelda safely returns with this ragamuffin country boy and they show the King their respective pieces of the Triforce glowing on their hands, how can he disbelieve them, when every legend regarding the Triforce and the Hero of Time, which only the Royal Family and the Sheikah Tribe knew, have just come true?

Now as for TWW, going by the words of the King of Red Lions, when the Hero of Time was called to go on a journey in another land, he was separated from the elements that made him a Hero. At this time, the Triforce of Courage was split into eight shards and hidden across the land.
This can be a bit of a double entendre. Now since the journey to Termina was a "secret and personal" journey, Link was effectively abandoning Hyrule - this is certainly not an element of a hero. I think that King said "he was called" rather than "he left of his own accord" so as not to dishearten the Hero of Winds and sully his own image of the Hero of Time. Regardless, this quote is a direct reference to Majora's Mask.

Now the way i've laid this out, it doesn't matter if Epona and the Ocarina of Time are absent from the land. And while we can only assume that Link borrowed Epona from Lon Lon Ranch, we know full well that Zelda, knowing the importance of the Ocarina of Time, gave it to Link before he left on his journey, as she was certain he'd return one day.
Assuming we know nothing of TP, we can assume that he didn't return, thus he was absent when Ganondorf broke free from the Sacred Realm after however much time, resulting in the tragedy that led to the flooding of Hyrule.

TP of course, will either shed new light on the situation, or throw a giant wrench in the gears. But we'll deal with that when the time comes.

Originally Posted by MDK

A lot of that is similar to what my split timeline was based on. However, i never believed that there were two Links.

I'm of the opinion that two Links are necessary for the mechanics of OoT to function--from the moment he first draws the Master Sword to the moment he wakes up seven years later, Link should [and must] consistently exist in stasis within the Sacred Realm with all of his equipment--Master Sword, Ocarina of Time, etc. etc.--in order to emerge seven years later without his first trip into the future being interrupted by his trips into the past. Otherwise, each time Link goes into the past, he removes himself from the Sacred Realm, and his last trip into the future essentially is negated. Obviously this is not the case, as we see that each time Link goes into the past his future deeds persist, unlike in MM, where he has to redo the events.

Because of this, no trip into the past--even Link's final trip--can prevent Link from exiting the Sacred Realm in seven years, and, consequently, neither can any trip into the past prevent him from taking the subsequent trips into the past (i.e., the trip to get the Lens of Truth, explore the Spirit Temple, etc.).

However, we run into a bit of a problem here. If Link closes the Door of Time after arriving back in the past, it is not open for Adult Link (or any of his aforementioned subsequent trips into the past) to exit and do his business. Because of this, I presume that Link, in fact, does not close the Door when he returns to the past, but, in fact, before he travels back in time at the end of the game. (Read my first post in this thread for more details.)

Originally Posted by MDK

The difficulty now is how the legend of the Hero of Time came to be "held dearly by the Royal Family" as said in MM's intro, especially since the events of OOT never happen at this late stage.

MM's intro is not told as a precursor of the MM story, detailing the events that happened before. It seems more like a look at the events of MM, after the fact. Because of this, I'm guessing that the intro legend to MM didn't surface until sometime after Link saved Hyrule in OoT.

Originally Posted by MDK

The King doubted Zelda's vision of Ganondorf's betrayal, but there could be no doubt in his mind when Ganondorf went ahead and betrayed him - storming the castle and attempting to take the Ocarina of Time by force. So when Zelda safely returns with this ragamuffin country boy and they show the King their respective pieces of the Triforce glowing on their hands, how can he disbelieve them, when every legend regarding the Triforce and the Hero of Time, which only the Royal Family and the Sheikah Tribe knew, have just come true?

I think it's a little pernicious to presume so much about the King, especially since, by this time, Ganondorf has already revealed himself to be a threat. This idea did inspire another; the encounter at the end of OoT (and the time spent until his journey in MM) might explain how Zelda knows that Link possesses the Triforce of Courage when she reveals herself to him in the future.

This can be a bit of a double entendre. Now since the journey to Termina was a "secret and personal" journey, Link was effectively abandoning Hyrule - this is certainly not an element of a hero. I think that King said "he was called" rather than "he left of his own accord" so as not to dishearten the Hero of Winds and sully his own image of the Hero of Time. Regardless, this quote is a direct reference to Majora's Mask.

I would chalk it up to the "calling" being a personal one, and just leave it at that. Zelda's discourse with Link in the MM flashback scene reflects that he has a sense of conviction about his trip away from Hyrule, and also that she saw the trip coming:

Originally Posted by Zelda, MM

You are already leaving this land of Hyrule, aren't you?

Originally Posted by MDK

Now the way i've laid this out, it doesn't matter if Epona and the Ocarina of Time are absent from the land. And while we can only assume that Link borrowed Epona from Lon Lon Ranch, we know full well that Zelda, knowing the importance of the Ocarina of Time, gave it to Link before he left on his journey, as she was certain he'd return one day.

I interpret Zelda's certainty that she will see him again (and that, as is implied, he will return the Ocarina to him) as foresight of his emergence from the Sacred Realm in seven years and the fact that he gives back the Ocarina to her after defeating Ganon (see the "double Link effect" for more details as to how this happens).

Originally Posted by MDK

Assuming we know nothing of TP, we can assume that he didn't return, thus he was absent when Ganondorf broke free from the Sacred Realm after however much time, resulting in the tragedy that led to the flooding of Hyrule.

I'm guessing he might have returned for a short time (to return Epona), but didn't stay long, instead leaving Hyrule again for Toaru/Ordon village, setting up for a Hero's appearance there.