Timeline or not?

Alright

It's no news that time-line theorizing is a popular debate among us ZU users.
So much infact that debates go nuts in some cases. With each game, time-lines are disproved and have to be re-worked. Some small details are discovered and suddenly a whole new barrel of fish emerge.

Personally, I haven't been too keen on trying to figure out any time-line, because to me, it's the least important thing in Zelda. though I do admit, it's an interesting concept.

It was when I was figuring some things to do with my fan fiction, I began to ask myself, isn't all these stories just too much of a coincidence to fit snugly into a chronological time line? I'm pretty sure Nintendo weren't too fussed about a time line until they were begged for one. Their aim is just to produce a game, more or less the same as the others, but sellable. I don't think they have time-lines in mind when they make them.

Now... Call me crazy, but would it be so hard to believe that there is no time line? And that each story apart from the original 'LoZ' are just stories and tales about the original, twisted, and shaped through out time across the lands? This is considering that nearly every story in Zelda seems to be spawning that you are the next hero , able to wield the master sword that the 'original' Link held. I wouldn't be surprised.

Another thing that brought this to my attention was the fact the games are called 'The Legend of Zelda' oppose to the Legend of Link. This is something that many people get confused about, and I wouldn't be surprised either, remembering the amount of people that originally though Link was called Zelda. So how could this be? Well, this could just as easily be translated to 'The Legend as told by Zelda' so in fact the 'Legend' is Hers. - 'The Legend of Zelda'.

So, what do you believe?

The directors focus on the individual plots of the game first and foremost, and the the grand scheme secondly.

Shigeru Miyamoto never seemed to care much about timelines, but Eiji does.
There may not be a completely decided upon and set in stone timeline yet, but Eiji appears to be doing his best to string the individual games and stories into a timeline.

Originally Posted by Erimgard

The directors focus on the individual plots of the game first and foremost, and the the grand scheme secondly.

Shigeru Miyamoto never seemed to care much about timelines, but Eiji does.
There may not be a completely decided upon and set in stone timeline yet, but Eiji appears to be doing his best to string the individual games and stories into a timeline.

Oh really?
I wasn't aware of that.
But I do know, either way,
They like to mess with us.

There are some obvious things, like OoT-MM. I cant see those being the same story, since MM is a sequel Same goes for WW. So we know there is a timeline, then you can question the amount of games in it.

Originally Posted by Hombre de Mundo

There are some obvious things, like OoT-MM. I cant see those being the same story, since MM is a sequel Same goes for WW. So we know there is a timeline, then you can question the amount of games in it.

Well yes, obviously, MM is a sequel to OoT, but I'm basing on the fact the even OoT is just a story, based on an original event, Whether it be LoZ, or maybe something before that...

To put it bluntly, and you'll have to forgive, but imagine as if the games were...
'Fan fictions' .

And even more blunt example would be how the depiction of God is in religion through out the world. All are different, but are still about a single higher being that created everything. the only relevance I'm putting with this is that stories/beliefs can be weaved differently from the same source.

Originally Posted by super-fergus

Well yes, obviously, MM is a sequel to OoT, but I'm basing on the fact the even OoT is just a story, based on an original event, Whether it be LoZ, or maybe something before that...

So, basically, with OoT, it is just a variation of a certain story, and MM is completely made up by the person telling the story to expand on the other story?

What this boils down to is what's called a "Literal Legend Theory," in that each game is just a retelling of the same events with some obvious variation. However, this completely defeats the whole purpose of timeline theorists, which is to find, based on the limited amount of evidence, a workable theory and then debate about it with other theorists. It's fun to ponder, but it hardly gets anyone anywhere.

Originally Posted by Adam_148

So, basically, with OoT, it is just a variation of a certain story, and MM is completely made up by the person telling the story to expand on the other story?

Yes! Not to sound too forward with it.
I mean, with the concept of a 'fan fiction'
anything can grow off that can't it?
A sequel/prequel can grow off anything!

Though, I don't like to say fan fiction.
All the Zelda stories are great...

Initially, the creator(s) of Zelda had no real intention of creating a coherent timeline, but that changed at some point during the development of TP. Eiji Anouma confirmed that there is indeed an overall timeline for the Zelda games. As of now, though, only 5 of the existing games have been concretely placed on that official timeline: OoT, MM, TWW, TP, an PH. MM and TP are set in the world to which Link returned after Zelda sent him back to the past, while TWW and PH are set in the world which Link left behind when Zelda sent him back in time.

^
Aye, but they have been claiming the existence of a timeline much longer.
At least back to 2002, and possibly earlier.

I don't know about that. Timeline talk has been around for quite some time. Miyamoto was talking about OoT-LoZ-AoL-ALttP around the release of OoT, so obviously he had some thought of it even though it was never his main concern.

EDIT: Ninja'd by Erimgard. Though I'm more detailed in my response. That makes me better than him

Originally Posted by Hombre de Mundo

I don't know about that. Timeline talk has been around for quite some time. Miyamoto was talking about OoT-LoZ-AoL-ALttP around the release of OoT, so obviously he had some thought of it even though it was never his main concern.

EDIT: Ninja'd by Erimgard. Though I'm more detailed in my response. That makes me better than him

I thought about including the '98 Shiggy quote...but Shiggy was likely on "magic mushrooms" when he said that quote anyway so I just posted the first year that Aonuma mentioned a timeline that I could think of.
*ninja*

^ Wasn't that when he said "It (FS) seems to be oldest tale"? He was obviously also high on something

Originally Posted by Hombre de Mundo

^ Wasn't that when he said "It (FS) seems to be oldest tale"? He was obviously also high on something

That was '04.
'02 was when Aonuma [and Shigeru, they were together in this interview] stated that Wind Waker takes place after the adult ending of Ocarina of Time.

Though the famous '06 quote is considered the confirmation of the split, it was really confirmed in '02. MM is clearly a sequel to the Child side of OoT, and Shiggy/Eiji both stated in '02 that WW is a sequel to the adult side.