My Series Overview / Timeline Theory

These are my feelings on how the "timeline" evolved and how each game fits into it, and whether I believe there is a single unifying theory at all.

LOZ, AOL, ALTTP and LA came from a time when continuity and storyline in video games wasn't really an issue to anyone, but I think they made an intentional effort to give it some structure with ALTTP and LA because they knew it was going to be a long-running series.

LOZ and AOL were obviously sequels to each other, but at the time of their release I don't believe Miyamoto really had an overall vision for a franchise. So, we have the core elements of the mythology presented here (Link, Zelda, Ganon, Triforce, and Hyrule), but no specific details, since plot wasn't much of an issue back then. Because of this, Hyrule is set in what is pretty much a barren wasteland in LOZ, and at the time I doubt there was ever really any reason for this other than to have a large overworld for the player to explore. However, when it was successful, they decided to make AOL.

Obviously it wouldn't be very interesting if they recycled the same areas, but in order to give players a sense of familiarity they kept with the Hyrule setting and made it a sequel set in the distant future. The game was now set in a more populated region north of the previous game's overworld, with the "old" version of Hyrule a small area in the south.

When it came time to make a 16-bit addition to the blooming franchise, they opted to go a different route: in order to again keep the Zelda series in Hyrule, they would set it in the overworld of LOZ, but in the distant past. This allowed for the creators to give players a new world to explore, but at the same time give Hyrule some substance. This, ALTTP, was really the first game in which the mythology was explored to a meaningful degree, and set the stage for later games in the series. After this they released LA, a simple spin-off and direct sequel to ALTTP, though this connection isn't all that relevant in the game or out. They most likely only did this to keep with the other most recently released game.

By 1998 the Hyrulean mythology was already fairly well-known and the franchise was a childhood favourite for most older gamers, so it's natural that Nintendo would again revisit familiar territory. However, they had to accomplish this without completely rehashing what they did before. Previous games set in Hyrule had already covered pretty much every possibility: LOZ in a barren wasteland, AOL set in the north of said barren wasteland, and ALTTP set in the past of said barren wasteland. Where would they go next? Well, even further into the past, so much that the world would be virtually unrecognisable.

I'm convinced that OOT is when the developers started taking continuity seriously. They knew that everyone was in love with Hyrule and the things associated with it, so they couldn't plop Link in a random place like Koholint Island every time. They also knew, however, that no one would want to play the games if Hyrule was the exact same every time, and it would get pretty ridiculous if they just kept expanding on it geographically like they did with AOL. It would cease to be Hyrule anymore. So, they would do what they did with ALTTP: they would use the passage of time as a way for Hyrule to change; perhaps this realisation is why time is such an important factor in this game.

The end result was that OOT was virtually a "reboot" of the franchise, but not in the traditional sense. The three previous games still had some relevance, but not in any obvious way. I think this is where the timeline's "mystique" and mystery came from, because Nintendo basically put the continuity of those games on hold, without completely stripping them of their relevance. Elements of the mythology would carry over, with things like the names of the Sages in OOT being the same as the names of the villages in AOL. This most likely isn't a sign that Nintendo had some grand scheme for the franchise's chronology, but is more obviously a product of a recton and a sign that chronology was being taken more seriously.

So, the series now had a firm beginning. The mythology was expanded upon, the geography was completely redone, and the creators behind the game were beginning to truly make sure that each game wasn't a completely random quest with similar elements. But where did the first four games take place? I'm not even sure they knew, other than in the distant future.

After OOT they continued with the spin-offs. Next was MM which, like LA, is obviously connected to the one before it but is so self-contained that it doesn't really expand on the mythology. Next were Oracle of Seasons and Ages, which I personally don't think have any bearing on the timeline at all.

Their development was chaotic. At first they began as a remake of the original LOZ by Capcom, but when that plan fell through they asked Nintendo for help and broadened their vision: to make two spin-offs of previous Zelda titles and four completely original ones. This was a difficult task however, especially since Capcom wanted to release them quickly, preferably months apart. Nintendo wasn't comfortable with the games being rushed out like this though and Miyamoto was too busy working on other projects, so the development team recruited Flagship instead. They continued to have problems however, mainly because they went against Nintendo's typical design formula: gameplay before plot. The setting and various scenarios had to be changed around as the gameplay evolved, and the plan for the new games once again changed.

Instead they would work on only three games, with each one representing a piece of the Triforce. They were originally going to be set in Hyrule, and the Power chapter had Ganon kidnapping Zelda and using the Rod of Seasons to throw Hyrule into chaos. The nature of other two games remains unknown however, as they were all later scrapped. In any case, each one was intended to connect to the other, but they could be played in any order regardless. A cell phone adapter was going to be used to transfer data to the other games, and that data would make the actions of the player in the first game they played affect the story in the other two. This ended up being overly-complicated however, and the data-transfer system was replaced with a simple password system and stripped down heavily. Also, three titles were too difficult to work with, so the Triforce theme was dropped and the games were completely reworked. Elements of the Power chapter became Oracle of Seasons, and elements of the Wisdom chapter became Oracle of Ages. The Courage chapter was dropped completely.

The fact that the games went through so many different stages of development, that they weren't even developed directly by Nintendo, and that the finished products were in no way similar to what they originally envisioned leads me to believe that they were just spin-offs, nothing more. The actual in-game plot doesn't even hint at them having any chronological relevance. In a way, you could compare them to games like LA and MM because they're Zelda games that don't take place in Hyrule. However, they have no obvious connection to games that do, so I think these are the only games in the franchise that stand alone.

Next we have TWW which, like OOT, took a significant step in the expansion of the mythology. The reason for the geographic changes in this one were more original, however: the hero failed to return, and the gods flooded the land. What we have here is basically a counterpart to OOT, but instead of starting at the beginning this one virtually takes place at what could be seen as the end. Or, in my opinion, a new beginning.

By making these "bookend" titles, Nintendo pretty much gave themselves free reign to do whatever they wish with Hyrule, while still giving it a sense of chronology and purpose. OOT and TWW essentially work together as the "skeletons" of the Hyrule mythology, and complement each other with their parallels. I'm convinced that Nintendo did this as much for fans attempting to follow the timeline as they did for themselves. I think that in future titles we'll see more obvious connections, and I think they'll be set in one of two worlds: pre-flood Hyrule and post-TWW Hyrule. PH is the first post-TWW game, though like LA and MM it is just a direct sequel to the main title before it and doesn't add much to the mythology.

Around the same time TWW was released, another interconnected Zelda series began to develop. Flagship, the team that helped Capcom with the Oracle titles, ported ALTTP to GBA. Included was Four Swords, a slightly absurd but enjoyable multiplayer minigame. A year later a heavily expanded version was released on the GC, called Four Swords Adventures. This expanded a bit on some plot elements of the previous game, but was still far from being a full-fledged Zelda adventure. That same year, however, The Minish Cap was released.

TMC once again takes place in a completely different incarnation of Hyrule from previous titles, but this time around it seems even more different than usual. Traditional series themes are almost completely done away with here, though elements from the two previous Four Swords games are heavily expanded upon: things like the Four Sword, Vaati and the Minish take centre stage. However, there isn't much else to connect it to other games in the franchise. There are, however, pretty vague hints at a connection to the Oracle games, but I already think those are standalone and they're both developed by Flagship too, so it could just be the developers referencing their own work. So, like the Oracle titles, I think the "Four Sword universe" is yet another standalone "miniseries."

The most recent console title to be released is TP and, while it has some glaringly obvious connections to other games, it's not a mythology-builder like OOT or TWW. Still, geographically it's somewhat similar to OOT, and the fact that it takes place after has already been confirmed. Overall, I think we'll see more games like this in the future. With the beginning (OOT) and the end (TWW) out of the way, Nintendo now has plenty of space in between to focus on standalone stories that take place in Hyrule, but with geographical changes and shared themes.

Before I finish though, I'd like to revisit the first three games in the series. Where do they take place? The only real thing I can say is that they take place after OOT but before TWW. But since they're fan favourites and since Nintendo have taken steps to ensure that the timeline is more organised, perhaps we'll get some hints about them in future titles. It would be interesting to see why Hyrule went from being a fairly pleasant kingdom (ALTTP) to a deserted wasteland (LOZ), for example.

In conclusion, I realise my theories are are probably unpopular, but I simply don't think every single game has to fit into a single timeline. I think that when Miyamoto and Aonuma are in charge of a game's development, there are some very obvious connections. However, when Capcom/Flagship make them, they just happen to be almost completely standalone, with the exception of a handful of names and themes.

Before I thought this out I tried to blend in with the "single timeline containing every single game" crowd, until I realised that it's just unnecessary. I've never heard any decent explanations for why the Oracle or FS/FSA/TMC games have to fit in with everything else. Also, the only excuse I've ever thought of or heard for why they have nothing to do with any of the other games is because apparently such a large amount of time passes between the more easily placed ones and them that there's nothing to really tie them together. But if that's the case, why even include them in a timeline? They're already completely self-contained, and anything regarding their placement in the timeline is complete speculation.

There is no rule or statement from Nintendo that states that every single game with the "Legend of Zelda" title takes place in a single, set timeline. We know that yes, there is a timeline, but no one has ever said "there is only one timeline" or "every single Zelda game ever made takes place in a single timeline." It is completely possible that when Flagship make their Zelda games, no one from Nintendo sits down with them to discuss chronology. There is no in-game or out-of-game information other than complete speculation that says otherwise. If a future Zelda title states that the Oracle or FS/FSA/TMC games take place at a certain point in the timeline then I will believe it, but there is zero evidence whatsoever to indicate that they do.

So, I guess my timeline(s) would breakdown something like this:

The Miyamoto/Aonuma Titles

The "Classical" Timeline
Ocarina of Time
Majora's Mask
Twilight Princess
A Link to the Past
Link's Awakening
The Legend of Zelda
The Adventure of Link
The Wind Waker
Phantom Hourglass

The Capcom/Flagship Titles*

The "Oracle" Timeline**
Oracle of Seasons
Oracle of Ages

The "Picori" Timeline
The Minish Cap
Four Swords
Four Swords Adventures

*There are some vague elements in the Oracle games and The Minish Cap that have lead me to believe that both the Oracle and Picori timelines are one and the same. User xKillswitchx touched on something I noticed as well here. Still, not enough for me to conclude that they are though.

**They can really be played in any order though, so I wouldn't really consider this a "timeline."

How come I didn't notice this thread at all? Hm.

I'd have to say it's an interesting theory, making two timelines depending on who was developing the games. However, FSA very much seems to be linked to ALttP, it makes much more sense to put the FS saga in the timeline along with the other Nintendo-developed games.

I've never heard any decent explanations for why the Oracle or FS/FSA/TMC games have to fit in with everything else.

In FSA, Ganondorf gets the Trident of Power and turns into Blue Ganon. He's sealed in the Four Sword. In an ALttP remake, there's one place where you can see a broken Four Sword. There's also the very similar geography which hints to a connection. I might have forgotten something, but that should explain it pretty well. As for the oracles, I don't really know. Havn't played them.

Oh, and split timeline.

Things Nintendo has said about each game as it pertains to the timeline:

LoZ is before AoL.
ALttP is before LA.
OoT is before LoZ/AoL and ALttP/LA.
OoT is before MM.
The Oracle titles are irrelevant to the timeline.
OoT is before TWW (which is not after MM, but after Link defeats Ganon).
FS and TMC are in the timeline, but were not meant to relate to the "Ganon" plotline.
FS is before FSA, and FSA connects the FS games to the Ganon plotline.
TMC is before FS/FSA.
TWW is before PH.

FSA features a number of minor background details from ALttP in such a way as to set the stage for ALttP, including the vacating of the Kakariko thieves' hideout and the creation of the "Lost Woods" in the northwestern forest by Ganon's powers of darkness.

TMC features a number of references to TWW, as well as a number of logical detail progressions: (1) Beedle in TWW is trying to set up a permanent shop; he has one in TMC; (2) the Gorons are traveling merchants living away from their traditional home in TWW and TMC; (3) there is a book referencing the "Triumph Forks" in the TMC library. This same library also features a book title that is the same as the title of the ALttP manual story.

^ Nintendo also said that FS was the first game in the timeline which would suggest that the FS saga was actually meant to be in the same timeline as the other games from the very beginning, even though evidence supports a post-WW placement of the three games rather than pre-OoT.

Didn't know about that last thing you said. Gotta check that out when I get my tMC back.

Originally Posted by Hombre de Mundo

^ Nintendo also said that FS was the first game in the timeline which would suggest that the FS saga was actually meant to be in the same timeline as the other games from the very beginning, even though evidence supports a post-WW placement of the three games rather than pre-OoT.

Aonuma notably admitted that he didn't work on FS or its story, and, like Miyamoto's declaration that LA can go "anywhere", we really ought to consider that, in light of this, his placement of FS really means nothing.