OoS, OoA shouldn't be in timeline

Hey this is my first theory so creative criticism is requested. Ok so alot of people have different views on where OoS/OoA go in the timeline. Do they happen one after the other, or at the same time in different timelines, well I say they don't happen at all. The reason being is this is a capcom game. Yes nintendo did get involved with the production some but it's mostly capcom. Putting this in the timeline is like putting the wand of gamelon in the timeline and we all know what a mess that would be.

I do have supporting reasons as well... when nintendo and capcom signed the deal, capcom was originally supposed to make THREE games, not two (evidence of of this are the characters, there a game for din and a game for nayru, wheres the game for farore?). this would have reaked havoc on the theory that the two games happen simultaneously (did i spell that right?). another small piece of evidence is how they treat the master sword, its optional... why make a main zelda game with that optional???

ok well thats all i got, please let me know what you think

The Wand of Gamelon and other CDi games aren't approved by Nintendo, like the Capcom games were. That's why it's called Wand of Gamelon, and not Legend of Zelda: Wand of Gamelon.

Any Nintendo approved Zelda game goes in the timeline, even if Aounoma says the Oracle placement isn't really important.

There is evidence that suggests the games don't go in different timelines, and that's because they're meant to be linked together. If you play the linked versions, there are characters in the second game that recognise Link. For this reason, a third game wouldn't mess up the timeline placement.

So yes, the Oracles are approved by Nintendo and go there. Though if you want to remove the Oracles and the FS saga (made by Capcom too), then no one can stop you.

As far as the Master Sword goes, there are games that have nothing to do with Zelda, Ganon, or the Master Sword and are still canon games. LA, MM, LoZ, AoL, and possibly PH.

The Linked game is also optional, but it's still part of the story.

thanks for filling me in on that

Originally Posted by tlas

thanks for filling me in on that

No problem. That's what us veterans are around for.

Capcom, Sega and Nintendo... it's called Flagship.The Minish Cap is also a flagship title.

The Oracles did happen somewhere before the Minish Cap. In the beginning of each Oracle game, Nayru and Din are on their way to Hyrule, but are captured by Veran and Onox. In the Minish Cap, they are in Hyrule looking for a place to live. Even the exerpts with the figurines aknowledge this information and state they are the same people.

Oh wait, isn't that proof that the Minish Cap can't come first? That would also kill 90% of the theories here... oh well, so much for playing through a game before deciding where to place them.

Nayru and Din are also names for two of the Goddesses in the story, so that doesn't necessarily mean MC can't come first b/c the third person traveling with Din and Nayru is named after the 3rd goddess - Edit: I just remembered her name is Farore

Besides the creators said that MC comes first

^ Miyamoto said FS is the oldest game... but that's it. Also, developer quotes can't be trusted to 100% when there isn't an official timeline. There's much more evidence of tMC coming after tWW and PH.

Also, it's hard to tell whether Din Nayru and Farore in tMC are to be counted as proof, or just cameos. The Oracles can't go before tMC if you place it

First: because the Triforce is in the Royal Family's hands, but the first Zelda to feature the Triforce (timeline-wise) should be OoT.

After PH: because... Ok, I guess you can, but then you'd have to answer this: How come the Triforce went from the Sacred Realm where it supposely went in WW, to the Royal Family in the Oracles, to be myseriously vanished from tMC?

Now you've got something to ponder

There's no possible way FS could be first, unless he's talking about the FS story arc, which seems to be growing in the Zelda Universe.

Anyway my thought is that any of the games that make it a point to show the origin of something(i.e. Ganondorf's heritage/rise to power in OOT, Vaati's Rise to Power tMC, origin of the Green Cap worn by the hero in tMC) that is a series mainstay - any game featuring said backstory, whether it be about a character or item, takes place after - I'm NOT talking about first appearances, I'm talking about the backstory(so Master Sword's 1st appearance being in AlttP, doesn't mean that OOT is after it). I hope I'm making sense.
Anyway, that's just my thought. But my thought is along the lines of trying to figure out what the Devs are trying to get across - whatever they come up with for a solid timeline(if that ever happens) will be ok with me, but I know that not everyone likes that - this thread is a good example, even though, officially, OOA/OOS are in the timeline, Somewhere(who knows where), the author of the thread doesn't want them there, but anyway I digress.

Hombre de Mundo, it was said many times that nobody knows what he exactly said, cause he couldve meant as well "newest tale", "most recent", etc.
About third game, well they just couldve changed the plot and make them too, its not that hard. Originally these games were supposed to be remakes, remember

Originally Posted by EagleDelta1

There's no possible way FS could be first, unless he's talking about the FS story arc, which seems to be growing in the Zelda Universe.

He made the statement before tMC or FSA were released.

This discussion needs to shift back to the Oracles. Please and Thank you.

I was wondering is the oracle series is actually the part (it the split time line is true) where hyrule A&B becomes one timeline again?

^ Why would it become one singular timeline again? And what should the oracles' role be? If you have a theory and some evidence, I'd be glad to hear it

Exept that nearly the same things happen in both and the sheared ending. Released on the same day and begins the same way.

I would think that if the timeline split ti would become unstable and when the oracle games play the timeline is weakening on both sides and hence they are closing in on eachother.Like magnets (this sounds stupid...) the more foce you add the easier it´s to take them away from eacother but if the force weakens they will be pulled to eachother.

Hope you got any smarter from that...

^

Originally Posted by Daphnes

There is evidence that suggests the games don't go in different timelines, and that's because they're meant to be linked together. If you play the linked versions, there are characters in the second game that recognise Link.

So the oracles follow eachother.

In theory though, even if the two timelines were to be identical at some point, the's no reason for them to merge. You'd just end up having two identical timelines, at the best.

The oracles follow each other, with OoS taking place first. That is why in the opening sequence it is dawn in OoS, and dusk in OoA (even though I prefer OoA first). Of course, thats just me looking too much into the intros.

And Nyan, whats this about timelines merging, I thought that was my theory! (under different circumstances of course) You are the second person to mention this, but it seems you have not checked out my thread yet. Behold it for my idea of a merger!

despite whatever we'd like to believe, there is no canonical order to the oracles.