Make your own Zelda Timeline

[MDS13]

I'm sure we all know the Zelda Timeline is the most confusing thing ever. So, I think that we should work as a team to find the order of the games. Lets start out with the facts:

AoL came after LoZ

MM after OoT

PH after WW

Also, check out this Angry Videogame Nerd video:

Gametrailers.com - ScrewAttack - Angry Video Game Nerd: Chronologically Confused About Zelda

Now, of the Four Swords games, MC most likely came first, due to the Four Sword(What a lame name)being created in the game, it is unsure which one came next because there is little storyline.

I believe TP took place after the adult timeline of OoT because the Zoras start out frozen in TP, as they were left off in OoT.

Anyone who can add on/prove me wrong is welcome to do so.

[LinkThatRemains]

Umm....Zoras weren't left frozen in OoT. They were frozen when Link was an adult and you saved them (I think haven't played in the longest time) .

[MDS13]

Originally Posted by LinkThatRemains

Umm....Zoras weren't left frozen in OoT. They were frozen when Link was an adult and you saved them (I think haven't played in the longest time) .

As far as I know, only the King and Ruto survived.

Also, since Jabu-Jabu died in this game,OoA must have been before OoT, bringing OoS with it.

[Aralith]

Originally Posted by MDS13

I'm sure we all know the Zelda Timeline is the most confusing thing ever. So, I think that we should work as a team to find the order of the games. Lets start out with the facts:

AoL came after LoZ

MM after OoT

PH after WW

Also, check out this Angry Videogame Nerd video:

Gametrailers.com - ScrewAttack - Angry Video Game Nerd: Chronologically Confused About Zelda

Now, of the Four Swords games, MC most likely came first, due to the Four Sword(What a lame name)being created in the game, it is unsure which one came next because there is little storyline.

Well, the order of the Four Swords trilogy is MC, FS, FSA.

I believe TP took place after the adult timeline of OoT because the Zoras start out frozen in TP, as they were left off in OoT.

As far as I know, only the King and Ruto survived.

Zoras Domain eventually unfroze as stated by Ruto after she awakens as the Sage of Water:

Originally Posted by Princess Ruto

Link...
I would have expected no less
from the man I chose to be my
husband.
Zora's Domain and its people
will eventually return to their
original state.

Plus, it was Zant that froze Zora's Domain over in TP. Remember what Rutela's ghost said: "He killed me in front of my own people" or something like that (can't find the text dump right now, otherwise I'd have the exact quote). Kind of hard for her people to see it (and, in fact, for Rutela or any of the other Zora to even exist if only Ruto (a sage) and King Zora lived) if they'd been frozen down there for a hundred years or so.

Also, since Jabu-Jabu died in this game,OoA must have been before OoT, bringing OoS with it.

For one, we don't know with certainty what happened to Jabu-Jabu, though I admit I am inclined to believe he is dead. Two, even if he did die, he clearly had offspring, as it is in the adult ending of OoT that he died, and WW, which is in the adult timeline, features Jabun, an obvious spawn of Jabu-Jabu. And about anything being before OoT: the only game that could possibly come before it is MC, though there is certainly evidence pointing that it is supposed to be placed post OoT. All other games absolutely have to come after OoT.

[langford]

Originally Posted by MDS13

I'm sure we all know the Zelda Timeline is the most confusing thing ever. So, I think that we should work as a team to find the order of the games. Lets start out with the facts:

AoL came after LoZ

MM after OoT

PH after WW

Also, check out this Angry Videogame Nerd video:

Gametrailers.com - ScrewAttack - Angry Video Game Nerd: Chronologically Confused About Zelda

Now, of the Four Swords games, MC most likely came first, due to the Four Sword(What a lame name)being created in the game, it is unsure which one came next because there is little storyline.

I believe TP took place after the adult timeline of OoT because the Zoras start out frozen in TP, as they were left off in OoT.

Anyone who can add on/prove me wrong is welcome to do so.

It's admirable to want to have a unified effort, but you realistically you can mostly just expect a persistent cult to pressure you to blindly agree with them. Oh well, here are my two cents:
-- AoL was made to follow LoZ.
-- LTTP was made to prequel LoZ.
-- LA was made to sequel LTTP.
-- OOX was not made by Nintendo, was made to be generic in placement, but hints at being shoe horned near LA.
-- OOT was made as a prequel of LTTP, via being the IW necessary for LTTP (adult timeline).
-- MM was made to sequel OOT's child timeline.
-- WW was made to sequel OOT's adult timline.
-- PH follows WW directly.
-- TP follows OOT and MM in the child timeline.
-- TMC is debated widely, it was made to be generic, it has many elements that suggest a prequel, but also many easter eggs from other games.
-- FS was not made by Nintendo, it's placement is debated widely, was made to be generic, but has many easter eggs from other games.
-- FSA's placement is debated widely, likely following FS, and somehow has elements stolen from other games yet uses them in a strange and different way.

If you want reasons for the stuff in that list, feel free to say so.

You suggested TP in the adult line, but I disagreed. The adult timeline ends in Ganon being sealed away in the tarnished sacred realm. Those conditions are the conditions required by both LTTP and WW. The OOT child timeline ends in Link going back to the past and tattling on Ganon, which lines up with the plot of TP which claims he was arrested for his plotting to get to the sacred realm.

[Erimgard]

This has been tried any times, and there is no way we can work on a timeline together.

Even if we use as many facts as possible, there will still be question marks. There are many games that can go in multiple places, and different theorists will place them in different places. That's the beauty of theorizing...we all have different viewpoints and ideas.

[Hombre de Mundo]

There are a few timelines that work somewhat well. Some work better than others (My Double ALttP Theory and humulos' merge aren't as likely as the Tingle Timeline or the (old) Erimgard Timeline, but ya.

Impossible!

[smallville boy]

The best timeline is my microchronologys timeline(separetes timelines). this chronology hasnt mistakes.

[Hombre de Mundo]

^ Not linking FSA with ALttP could be seen as a mistake though.

[langford]

Originally Posted by Hombre de Mundo

^ Not linking FSA with ALttP could be seen as a mistake though.

No, not really.

[Hombre de Mundo]

^Why not? Ignoring connections is as bad as (if not worse than) trying to make them.

[langford]

Originally Posted by Hombre de Mundo

^Why not? Ignoring connections is as bad as (if not worse than) trying to make them.

These alleged FSA-LTTP connections are unique to certain theories, not blindly using them is perfectly fine and not a mistake at all. Many see the connection as unproven if not intirely imaginary, especially in light of LTTP's older and very well established direct plot connection to OOT.

[Hombre de Mundo]

^ I've rarely seen theories where FSA is not a prequel to ALttP, and for good reasons too. The similarities are quite overwhelming, especially considering the Four Sword in GBA ALttP, but there's much more than that, including the entire Ganon situation, thieves hideout, geography, etc.

I've yet to see someone being able to not put FSA right before ALttP without yelling "cameo!" at every piece of evidence, and make it work.

[langford]

Originally Posted by Hombre de Mundo

^ I've rarely seen theories where FSA is not a prequel to ALttP, and for good reasons too. The similarities are quite overwhelming, especially considering the Four Sword in GBA ALttP, but there's much more than that, including the entire Ganon situation, thieves hideout, geography, etc.

I've yet to see someone being able to not put FSA right before ALttP without yelling "cameo!" at every piece of evidence, and make it work.

If you haven't seen it, then you haven't been looking. The only way to fit FSA in front of LTTP is if you ignore the destruction of the Hyrule in WW, the loss of the Gerudo Tribe in WW, the loss of the Master Sword in WW, the loss of the ancient ruins and desert in WW, the loss of monarchy and it's traditions, The loss of the Pedestal of Time. It also requires either ignoring that OOT is the Imprisoning War, or desperately pretending that the Imprisoning War suddenly means to tell a different story than it always did before. Ignoring these conflicts takes the form of claims that big event happen unseen between the games such as a total identical rebuilding, deserts artifacts, traditions and all. It completely ignores that there is no plot connection between the games, and it assumes that the easter eggs in the GBC version is somehow special amongst the versions and somehow more important than any other release, even though attempting to see the easter egg as canon requires a broad imaginary scenario to be invented that is completely contrary to the plot of the game it's self. All of this to support the already shaky and bizarre idea that games are placed after the destruction of Hyrule. It's a layering of many theories that become harder and harder to believe because new theories are based on other theories, while canon material is ignored or reinterpreted to conform to the stack of theories.

[Aralith]

Originally Posted by langford

If you haven't seen it, then you haven't been looking. The only way to fit FSA in front of LTTP is if you ignore the destruction of the Hyrule in WW.

Um, as far as I know, most people believe in some kind of deflooding process as a result of the Deku Tree and Koroks success and/or that the Hyrule that appears in games after WW is a new one founded by Link and Tetra sometime after WW and PH.

the loss of the Gerudo Tribe in WW

Actually, Jolene the pirate from PH looks rather like a Gerudo, and you remember all those pirate ships in WW that you never saw who they were manned by? Could have been Gerudo. I mean, thieves becoming pirates is NOT that much of a stretch of the imagination.

the loss of the Master Sword in WW

Could have been found again after the deflooding.

[quote] the loss of the ancient ruins and desert in WW[/qutoe]

Um... deflood?

the loss of monarchy and it's traditions

Oh, please. Those are human inventions. Is it so strange that the people of Hyrule would return to it after it deflooded or a new one was found even if they'd lost them? In fact, if it is a new land, it's very probably that monarchy would be returned, as it would have been established by Link and Tetra, who had known King Daphnes and knew of old Hyrule.

The loss of the Pedestal of Time.

I admit, you have me at a loss there, as the Temple of Time would have crumbled and eroded from all the water.

It also requires either ignoring that OOT is the Imprisoning War, or desperately pretending that the Imprisoning War suddenly means to tell a different story than it always did before.

Actually, it doesn't. Me, Lex, and Erimgard I know for sure (I think Hombre as well), all place WW and FSA between OoT and ALttP and believe, and have several times defended that belief, that OoT still fits just fine as the IW. This problem about putting games in between OoT and ALttP is one that is just made up by people who, for some reason or another, can't accept that games go in between those two. Even though Miyamoto himself once said, although it has since changed, that the timeline was OoT - LoZ - AoL - ALttP. He obviously felt that there was no problem with sticking games in between those two, and he created the freaking games.

Ignoring these conflicts takes the form of claims that big event happen unseen between the games such as a total identical rebuilding, deserts artifacts, traditions and all. It completely ignores that there is no plot connection between the games

And pray tell, how do FSA and ALttP have no plot connection? Some people think they have so much connection that they stick ALttP and FSA on the child timeline and call FSA the IW. Hell, I was even one of those people once. So, how do FSA and ALttP not have any plot connection?

and it assumes that the easter eggs in the GBC version is somehow special amongst the versions and somehow more important than any other release

The "easter egg" in GBA ALttP is only important because it was added in its re-release, and it can still make perfect sense. Other easter eggs, such as the MS in OoX, make absolutely no sense when trying to piece together a timeline, so of course they are discarded. However, because of the plot connections between FSA and ALttP, the Four Sword making an appearance in ALttP is completely acceptable. Which leads me right into your next point:

even though attempting to see the easter egg as canon requires a broad imaginary scenario to be invented that is completely contrary to the plot of the game it's self.

The appearance of the Four Sword in ALttP in fact adds to the theory that at least part of the IW could be in FSA. Plus, since FSA came out AFTER the GBA port of ALttP, and they added the Four Sword into that game, do you really think it was an accident that FSA does bear some resemblance to the IW? I'd say that that easter egg agrees with ALttP's plot more than contradicts it.

All of this to support the already shaky and bizarre idea that games are placed after the destruction of Hyrule.

I'm thinking of a word. Can you guess it? It's... deflood.

It's a layering of many theories that become harder and harder to believe because new theories are based on other theories, while canon material is ignored or reinterpreted to conform to the stack of theories.

According to statements from the creators, OoT is the IW of ALttP. Now, they haven't come out with any statements yet that contradict that thought, and the game itself corroborates their statements, so I think its safe to assume that they are right. We also have statements from the creators saying that the WW takes place hundreds of years after OoT on the adult side. Now, in the ALttP manual, it says that there were "several" generations between the IW and the events of ALttP. Now, a generation is usually accepted to be anywhere between 20 and 40 years, so we'll take the average of that and say that a generation is 30 years. Now, it only takes 6 generations to add up to more than 200 years, and I'm guessing that several means more than six, so its pretty clear that they meant WW to be before ALttP, but after OoT. So, that gives us the timeline of:

OoT - WW/PH - ALttP

I add PH only for completions sake. It is not of relevance to this timeline as everybody knows it is a direct sequel to WW. So, the only theory that is involved in this timeline is placing FSA between WW and ALttP, contrary to your statements about "layering theories on theories," we are in fact laying theories on mostly solid fact. Though there was a little guesswork with the "several generations" of ALttP, it is very minuscule, and about as close to fact as you can get in the Zelda timeline.

So, placing WW and FSA between OoT and ALttP isn't nearly as far fetched as you make it sound.

[langford]

Originally Posted by Aralith

Um, as far as I know, most people believe in some kind of deflooding process as a result of the Deku Tree and Koroks success and/or that the Hyrule that appears in games after WW is a new one founded by Link and Tetra sometime after WW and PH.

It's an inventive story with no plot connections or in game events or dialog to support it. A narrative such as this would not be necessary if not for the conflicts it is designed to mask.

Originally Posted by Aralith

Actually, Jolene the pirate from PH looks rather like a Gerudo, and you remember all those pirate ships in WW that you never saw who they were manned by? Could have been Gerudo. I mean, thieves becoming pirates is NOT that much of a stretch of the imagination.

This is another narrative to masks assumptions without support. If you have evidence of Gerudo pirates, that would be something, but this narrative isn't evidence.

Originally Posted by Aralith

Could have been found again after the deflooding. "the loss of the ancient ruins and desert in WW"Um... deflood?

Ignoring how absurd the idea that the ancient ruins and the desert were dried up and restored to pre-flood contions is, this is an narrative that offers no support for theories stacked on top of it.

Originally Posted by Aralith

Oh, please. Those are human inventions. Is it so strange that the people of Hyrule would return to it after it deflooded or a new one was found even if they'd lost them? In fact, if it is a new land, it's very probably that monarchy would be returned, as it would have been established by Link and Tetra, who had known King Daphnes and knew of old Hyrule.

Tetra wasn't even named Zelda, yet she is supposed to insist on recreating that tradition, even though the King insisted that the new Kingdom not be a restoration of his kingdom? Not to mention Impa, the sages, the old villages, and all the other things that would have to be recreated just for the sake of imitating the old kingdom.

Originally Posted by Aralith

Actually, it doesn't. Me, Lex, and Erimgard I know for sure (I think Hombre as well), all place WW and FSA between OoT and ALttP and believe, and have several times defended that belief, that OoT still fits just fine as the IW.

It doesn't fit, and just because a few people somehow think it's OK to rewrite it to fit their theory, it doesn't mean that others have to accept it as the gospel truth.

Originally Posted by Aralith

This problem about putting games in between OoT and ALttP is one that is just made up by people who, for some reason or another, can't accept that games go in between those two. Even though Miyamoto himself once said, although it has since changed, that the timeline was OoT - LoZ - AoL - ALttP.He obviously felt that there was no problem with sticking games in between those two, and he created the freaking games.

Pretending there is no conflict is a cracked attempt to ignore a huge flaw in a timline theory. Ganon in LTTP is the same Ganon sealed in OOT. The IW is first and foremost the backstory of LTTP. If it had been the suggested new Ganon, the story would have reflected that instead of being something else.

Originally Posted by Aralith

And pray tell, how do FSA and ALttP have no plot connection? Some people think they have so much connection that they stick ALttP and FSA on the child timeline and call FSA the IW. Hell, I was even one of those people once. So, how do FSA and ALttP not have any plot connection? The "easter egg" in GBA ALttP is only important because it was added in its re-release, and it can still make perfect sense. Other easter eggs, such as the MS in OoX, make absolutely no sense when trying to piece together a timeline, so of course they are discarded. However, because of the plot connections between FSA and ALttP, the Four Sword making an appearance in ALttP is completely acceptable. Which leads me right into your next point: The appearance of the Four Sword in ALttP in fact adds to the theory that at least part of the IW could be in FSA. Plus, since FSA came out AFTER the GBA port of ALttP, and they added the Four Sword into that game, do you really think it was an accident that FSA does bear some resemblance to the IW? I'd say that that easter egg agrees with ALttP's plot more than contradicts it.

LTTP is about Ganon's wish to break the seal on the SR so he can escape into the world and darken it. The IW is the backstory of LTTP. FSA leaves Ganon in a sword, not the SR. If the imaginary scenario of the sword being moved to the SR were involved in LTTP, then the backstory of LTTP would have been something different than the IW, it would have had the "Oops, we send the evil possessed sword to the place where we keep the most power object we know of, then he busted out and took it" story. The bonus dungeon is just bonus material, and nothing more. There is nothing special about that release of LTTP that suggests that it should be used as a rewrite of anything. Thinking it is somehow special above other versions of LTTP is a poor excuse to try to support a flaky theory.

Originally Posted by Aralith

I'm thinking of a word. Can you guess it? It's... deflood. According to statements from the creators, OoT is the IW of ALttP. Now, they haven't come out with any statements yet that contradict that thought, and the game itself corroborates their statements, so I think its safe to assume that they are right. We also have statements from the creators saying that the WW takes place hundreds of years after OoT on the adult side. Now, in the ALttP manual, it says that there were "several" generations between the IW and the events of ALttP. Now, a generation is usually accepted to be anywhere between 20 and 40 years, so we'll take the average of that and say that a generation is 30 years. Now, it only takes 6 generations to add up to more than 200 years, and I'm guessing that several means more than six, so its pretty clear that they meant WW to be before ALttP, but after OoT. So, that gives us the timeline of:OoT - WW/PH - ALttPI add PH only for completions sake. It is not of relevance to this timeline as everybody knows it is a direct sequel to WW. So, the only theory that is involved in this timeline is placing FSA between WW and ALttP, contrary to your statements about "layering theories on theories," we are in fact laying theories on mostly solid fact. Though there was a little guesswork with the "several generations" of ALttP, it is very minuscule, and about as close to fact as you can get in the Zelda timeline.

There is no plot support for that line, only excuses to try to explain away the flaws.

Originally Posted by Aralith

So, placing WW and FSA between OoT and ALttP isn't nearly as far fetched as you make it sound.

The point was never whether it was far fetched, the point was whether it would be a huge mistake to have a theory that differs (see previous posts). The fact that I consider it very far fetched is not really important other than being proof of the fact that it can be disagreed with very easily.

[bitterlime]

Originally Posted by langford

It's an inventive story with no plot connections or in game events or dialog to support it. A narrative such as this would not be necessary if not for the conflicts it is designed to mask.

No plot connection or ingame events?
-Zelda and Link searching for new lands
-Dekutree trying to create new lands
-the world turning dryer over time (tMC->FSA->ALttP)
-natural(?) deflooding inbetween OoA past and present.

This is another narrative to masks assumptions without support. If you have evidence of Gerudo pirates, that would be something, but this narrative isn't evidence.

MM, anyone?

Jolene and her sister Joanne show distinct Gerudo traits. And the fortuneteller also looks gerudoish, although she is apperantly from the cobble "race", by the way so is Zaus, who looks almost like a carbon copy of OoT Ganondorf.

Ignoring how absurd the idea that the ancient ruins and the desert were dried up and restored to pre-flood contions is, this is an narrative that offers no support for theories stacked on top of it.

We should note that tMC map is more "watery" then other maps. And that there is a swamp were most other Hyruls had a desert. Then FSA Hyrule is more dry and showed as surounded by oceans, then we see ALttP Hyrule which is almost identical to FSA Hyrule only that it is no longer showed as an island. Make out of that what you want.

Tetra wasn't even named Zelda, yet she is supposed to insist on recreating that tradition, even though the King insisted that the new Kingdom not be a restoration of his kingdom? Not to mention Impa, the sages, the old villages, and all the other things that would have to be recreated just for the sake of imitating the old kingdom.

Well I remember Daphnes callinf her Zelda as her real name. And the concept of traditional nameing is unneeded. Zelda characters seem to keep their name anyway when the are reincarnated. (reused)
Impa sprouts from a special family that protects the royals, if you look at the painting in deowned Hyrule-castle, then you'll notice that Nudge seemingly is part of the Impa-family.

It doesn't fit, and just because a few people somehow think it's OK to rewrite it to fit there theory it doesn't mean that others have to accept it as the gospel truth.

You don't have to accept it...

Pretending there is no conflict is a cracked attempt to ignore a huge flaw in a timline theory. Ganon in LTTP is the same Ganon sealed in OOT. The IW is first and foremost the backstory of LTTP. If it had been the suggested new Ganon, the story would have reflected that instead of being something else.LTTP is about Ganon's wish to break the seal on the SR so he can escape into the world and darken it. The IW is the baqckstory of LTTP. FSA leaves Ganon in a sword, not the SR. If the imaginary senario of the sword being moved to the SR were involved in LTTP, then the backstory of LTTP would have been something different than the IW, it would have had the "Oops, we send the evil possessed sword to the place where we keep the most power object we know of, then he busted out and took it" story. The bonus dungeon is just bonus material, and nothing more.

Developer quotes are not always thrustworthy. They change their mind about things. Since WW seemingly destroyed the OoT-ALttP connection, FSA was either developed as a substitute or a a reeinforcment (depending on your preferd interpretation) of that connection.
The maidens might be not aware of the Triforce or it's placement.
Another possibility is that Ganon brakes free, takes the broken foursword with him, enter the sacred realm and can't get out.

There is nothing special about that release of LTTP that suggests that it should be used as a rewrite of anything.

Except for the fact, that the translation has been cleaned up, such as removing the 4-5 generations statement.

Thinking it is somehow special above other versions of LTTP is a poor excuse to try to support a flaky theory.There is no plot support for that line, only excuses to try to explain away the flaws.The point was never whether it was far fetched, the point was whether it would be a huge mistake to have a theory that differs (see previous posts). The fact that I consider it very far fetched is not really important.

So what should we do? Exclude the FS games into a own timeline? That could work, but I see no reason to do so and ignore the connections between for example FSa and ALttP or WW/PH and tMC.