An explanation of Aonouma's actions and development of the timeline.

Reading some of the recent (negative) posts about Aonouma's development of the timeline and the vagueness of his quotes in various interviews, I think it is important to highlight and explain Aonouma's timeline strategy to those who are still confused.

First of all, it's important to understand that nearly all the Zelda games that are set in Hyrule all play parts in a definite timeline structure. LoZ and AoL are set in a period where evil is ravaging Hyrule, which Link brings to an end. ALTTP explains the origins of Ganon as we see him in ALTTP and to a degree, explain to us how the wave of evil came to Hyrule in LoZ. OoT-TWW then explains the destruction of the Hylians and their civilisation. Although LionHarted has an explanation for the FS saga, it's still hard for the rest of us to effectively connect it due to the separation of central storyline concepts based on it's multiplayer gameplay.

Secondly, it needs to be understood what details are held in high regard in the timeline and what aren't because future games will be developed on such an understanding. The Nintendo-made spin-off titles speak for themselves. They feature Link from a mainstream adventure but the events themselves don't relate back to the original games. But then there is the reliability of Capcom's games. I will admit that these reasons are personal as well as factual, but when Aonouma says the Oracles games can go anywhere, it doesn't sound like he is really using them as a basis for timeline understanding. Then again, nearly all the concepts that were introduced in Oracles were either simple tributes to the mainstream Zelda games or totally irrelevant to the mainstream Zelda games.

The same comparison can be made with TMC. A lot of TMC was basically ripped from TWW and there were many concepts that had not been hinted or touched by Nintendo such as the Minish and the Light Force (which coincidentally reflects the Triforce in it's image and it's properties). Then there are the inconsistencies:

- Vaati's (apparent) death in TMC and transformation into a Wind Mage.
- The disappearance of the Picori / Picori Festival.
- The movement of the Four Sword shrine from within Hyrule Castle to a forest due south.
- The statement in FSA that the Wind Palace was built by Vaati.
- Death Mountain is called Mount Crenel.

Was Aonouma taking TMC into account when FSA was made? Was Capcom taking FS-FSA into account when TMC was made? This is why I think asking Aonouma about TMC will be pointless; the game was not made with specific timeline considerations in place beyond that it takes place after Hyrule's flooding. We know at least that the general concepts of FS were taken into account because of their reference in FSA's intro (but then again, we know that a developer from Nintendo EAD was especially responsible for FS, it wasn't all Capcom's work).

Thirdly, I suspect that the Zelda developers are not nearly as strict with the details of the timeline as we are as theorists. One example (that was provided by LionHarted earlier in discussion, although I cannot find the source now) was one of the developers saying that the main developers did not really care as to what shape Ganon at the end of OoT should take, so he thought the Pig would be appropriate. In other words, how much of what we interpret to be important timeline details turn out to be the personal interests of individual developers?

FSA is a much broader example. When asked about why the enemies in FSA were almost identical to those in ALTTP, Aonouma (source provided by LionHarted again) said he wasn't completely aware of that but it was likely so because the FSA development team had also worked on ALTTP. This makes you wonder how much of FSA is actually connecting to ALTTP and how much is simply paying homage to ALTTP. Even the director had a hand at paying homage to past Zelda games (an interview I DID find ).

Originally Posted by http://www.zeldalegends.net/index.php?n=interviews&id=2004-Berghammer-Aonuma&m=html

EA: Actually, the individual director of this game Toshiaki Suzuki, is a big fan of the Zelda series. So one thing that he did with this game that I really want to praise him for and the work that he’s done on it, was he went back and looked at a lot of past Zelda games, and he took elements almost from each game. So if you’re playing through, and if the only Zelda game that you played was The Wind Waker, you’ll look at that and say that this is very familiar to The Wind Waker. Or for people that know Ocarina very well, might be able to pick up little hints from Ocarina.

And finally, remember the TP trailer/demo? Someone from gamefaqs spotted that the child who befriends Link makes a famous statement from the original LoZ.

Originally Posted by TP

It's a secret to everybody! Don't tell!

This can cause a lot of problems as we can't tell whether pieces of information are deliberate connections to other games or simply paying homage without being serious to the timeline. Is FSA really connecting to ALTTP or are the developers paying tribute to their favourite game? What importance does the Triforce mark really play in TP, considering that it's only known creation is by the King of Hyrule who cast a spell for it to appear on the Hero in LoZ-AoL, which obviously occurred long after ALTTP?

Finally, I want to make it clear as to why Aonouma is always so vague about answering timeline-related questions. As you know, each new Zelda game creates new ideas and reuses old ideas. However, if Aonouma makes a statement such as "Phantom Ganon can never come back after TWW", then it potentially eliminates the possibility that Phantom Ganon can be revived as a boss in games set after TWW, for consistency's sake. Likewise, as games are still being added to places within the current timeline, Aonouma cannot afford to limit what events can take place in-between previous games. Therefore, he will remain vague on that particular subject as well. To get the most out of an interview with Aonouma or any developers, you must ask for details that don't have any baring on future games; all questions must reveal storyline details that have been decided and can't be taken back.

Something that is somewhat related to the FSA/ALttP connection, and somewhat related to this article: Nintendo has not planned out the entire series beforehand. This means that a game's placement in the timeline has to actually be explainable or provable at the time of its release. For example, OoT was justified as coming before ALttP because it was a representation of the events of the ALttP Seal War. At the time, this was how the connection between OoT and ALttP was justified.

When TWW was released, this connection had to be revised. TWW ends with a clearly dead Ganon, and the Triforce has returned to the Sacred Realm. This made it pretty obvious that ALttP now had to feature a "new" Ganon, one who "rediscovered" the entrance to the Sacred Realm after the location had been lost to those chosen. This also allowed many of the other inconsistencies between OoT and the ALttP backstory to be remedied by abolishing the direct progression from OoT and ALttP completely. It is debatable whether OoT is still the Seal War spoken of in ALttP, and it is debatable that the developers simply stuck with the idea that Ganon was "unable to return to the World of Light" for some reason that requires the Maidens to remedy.

But how do we justify TWW coming before ALttP? The answer lies in the gradual decline of the Hylian race, and, from an OoT=SW perspective, the hundreds of years allotted for between the Seal War and ALttP and the coming of Agahnim. TWW fills both of these roles nicely. So, at the time of TWW's release, the OoT-TWW-ALttP order was already supported.

One of the indicators of whether a timeline placement is accurate or not is this--is this placement based simply on new information, or is it based on the already-established and already-supported orders. Obviously connections, like the OoT-ALttP connection, can be retconned, but the order should be constant throughout the series. In short, when a new game is released, try to determine the best place for it in chronology, and maintain that placement, if possible, when new releases come out. Generally initial placement does not change--new games may simply interrupt the already-existing continuity, but shouldn't disrupt the order.