Oracles - Not a prequel to LA

Originally Posted by Tribunal Power

And this is more fuel for my timeline, presented above. The Oracles fit so well as the ALttP Link's next quest, in my opinion, because no other game presentes Ganon as being killed without already resolving it, to my knowledge.

The only other situation like this is LoZ, in which he is killed, and AoL in which he is not ressurected as planned. Thus, the next game in the timeline must be either a ressurection, or a rebirth/reincarnation. Since OoX are the only games in which he is ressurected and then killed, LoZ/AoL are the only other games that they could come after, and most people arrange those later on in the timeline.

I don't want to turn this whole thread into a debate on my own timeline. :'D That's my two cents on the subject, though. The OoX are a direct sequel (as far as the timeline is concerned) to ALttP, much the same way that MM is to OoT.

If you want, I can change the title to something like "OoX vs LA vs ALttP Timelines". I dunno.

And since when was puberty supposed to suddenly change your body size and height? People grow like that very, very slowly. Again I'm going with the 'size compared to horse' thing.

I grew like 5 inches in the last few months. And if you believe in LttP-LA then that means that you think Link (who is probably no more than 15 in LttP) Didn't grow at all in 7 years. Judging his age is pretty crappy evidence Imo.

Can't you read? No offense but I never said that I believed that ALttP is a prequel to LA. I said that a few people thought that it could have been the case, but not me.

But there are only 2 places where LA actually makes sense. After LttP or after OoX. Anything other than that is disregarding a LOT of evidence. And you said that a couple people believed that LA goes after OoX, not vice versa.

Originally Posted by The Goron Moron

If you want, I can change the title to something like "OoX vs LA vs ALttP Timelines". I dunno.

Haha. Well, still probably a bad idea. See, I'm working with my liear timeline. Yeh, I know, stupid, right? xD I get that a lot. If I posted my timeline here, your thread would be nothing but flames for the rest of the week.

I do have a split timeline as well. The Tribunal Timeline Theories are a bit unique, but the split timeline only differs a little from the common theory (and this subject is one of those differences). I understand that a split timeline makes more sense, but that doesn't mean I can't harbor my own preference of a linear one! ^^;

Originally Posted by Sign of Madness

But there are only 2 places where LA actually makes sense. After LttP or after OoX. Anything other than that is disregarding a LOT of evidence. And you said that a couple people believed that LA goes after OoX, not vice versa.

It does make a bit of sense to be put after LoZ/AoL, but that all depends entirely on where those are in your timeline. Still, as a stand-alone piece of information, those games slide together just fine, as far as I can see.

Originally Posted by Sign of Madness

But there are only 2 places where LA actually makes sense. After LttP or after OoX.

And you said that a couple people believed that LA goes after OoX, not vice versa.

So you say that taking place after OoX makes sense, then you say it doesn't make sense? I am not the one confusing here, you are.

And I still never said that I believed that LA was any part of ALttP's timeline. Granted that doesn't make sense when I say that I also don't believe that LA being a sequel to OoX either. Oh well. MOVING ON, PLEASE.

Edit: I see the problem. I ended up typing prequel instead of sequel in that one post. I hate typos. >_>

When did I EVER say that LA after OoX doesn't make sense?

Originally Posted by Sign of Madness

When did I EVER say that LA after OoX doesn't make sense?

My bad. It's just been a very long day today..... and here I am, spending the rest of the night debating. :/

I don't really think Link's appearence can be used as evidence, because the games were made pretty far apart from each other, and the artwork style of the Zelda series tends to change drastically. His differing appearence is probably the result of artistic choice, not timeline placement.

I personally have not developed a sure theory on when LA takes place. I believe that:

1) When LA first came out, it was meant to be a direct sequel to ALttP.
2) When OoX came out, it may have ret conned LA's original placement, putting it after OoX (I actually think the ship at the end is pretty good evidence).
3) It is possible for an ALttP-LA placement, an OoX-LA placement, or an ALttP-OoX-LA placement.
4) LA is not a sequel to LoZ-AoL.

The "OoA-LA-OoA continued theory" is a good one, but I don't think it's valid-- mainly because Link is on a raft in OoA, and a ship in LA.

At some point I'll develop a more solid theory on LA's placement.

Originally Posted by Ceallach

I don't really think Link's appearence can be used as evidence, because the games were made pretty far apart from each other, and the artwork style of the Zelda series tends to change drastically. His differing appearence is probably the result of artistic choice, not timeline placement.

I personally have not developed a sure theory on when LA takes place. I believe that:

1) When LA first came out, it was meant to be a direct sequel to ALttP.
2) When OoX came out, it may have ret conned LA's original placement, putting it after OoX (I actually think the ship at the end is pretty good evidence).
3) It is possible for an ALttP-LA placement, an OoX-LA placement, or an ALttP-OoX-LA placement.
4) LA is not a sequel to LoZ-AoL.

The "OoA-LA-OoA continued theory" is a good one, but I don't think it's valid-- mainly because Link is on a raft in OoA, and a ship in LA.

At some point I'll develop a more solid theory on LA's placement.

Caellach makes a good point about the raft. I had forgotten about that. Still, if the entire game is a dream, the type of ship doesn't really matter, and it's still perfectly logical for him to have the dream while moored on Crescent Island.

However, there's nothing to go against LA coming after OoX, either. It's just a matter of preference. As noted before, LA can go pretty much anywhere after ALttP.

Originally Posted by Ceallach

I don't really think Link's appearence can be used as evidence, because the games were made pretty far apart from each other, and the artwork style of the Zelda series tends to change drastically. His differing appearence is probably the result of artistic choice, not timeline placement.

True. But Oracles Link still has the appearance, in my opinion, of a child. It shouldn't take a lot of effort just to design a more mature-looking Link, yet Flagship went with a younger appearance.

@Tribunal: The opening scene in LA (before the title screen) showed Link fighting against the storm. You see a shot of the ship before then, and it does look like the ship Link sailed at the end of OoX, and not a raft. Just saying.

Too lazy to check and see if this has already been stated, but Link's age in OoX is completely underterminable. He looks like he's about 13, but in the linked game, you see a kid grow up from being a baby to being a young adult.

Originally Posted by Erimgard

Too lazy to check and see if this has already been stated, but Link's age in OoX is completely underterminable. He looks like he's about 13, but in the linked game, you see a kid grow up from being a baby to being a young adult.

Yet in the linked ending, Link still looks like he's 13.

Maybe the kid had major growth spurges?

I've seen an interesting timeline theory here, which thinks about Link's Awakening and Link's Awakening DX as two different stories, while the first LA is the direct sequel to A Link to the Past, like it originally was supposed to be by Nintendo (that's a fact you can't deny), and LA DX the sequel for the Oracles saga. Basically you have again two different Links here, in the theory mentioned above they are referred to as "Hero of Essences" and "Hero of Legend". Both Links went on journey after they've defeated Ganon and both Links had to face the Windfish and the Nightmares as some kind of test.

Actually this is the most weird thing in this timeline theory, the rest of it looks pretty good. But maybe it helps you to get a different view about your little problem here.


I personally go with the default AlttP-LA storyline, because that's how Nintendo originally intended it (see the nice post above by Sign of Madness). The Oracle Link is too young to be the ALttP Link and in Oracles I got the feeling, that Link and Zelda never met before, which pretty much rules out the possibility of them being the same Link.

Um.... I just don't see how the remakes can be different from each other. Ever since the ALttP remake for the GBA was released, it had changed some of its story to reflect on OoT. Therefore the remake became more canon then the original. This also means that LA DX is probably more canon than the original LA, because of its additions within the remake.

With the LA DX remake the only real changes that were made were obviously the color, the stones became owl stones and the addition of the Color Dungeon. Besides those, LA and LA DX stay pretty much exactly the same. So I don't see how those two would be considered 'different' within a timeline.

Now how Zelda doesn't know Link in Oracles, I don't know. You'd think Link prior to the Oracles games would have at least known her, as he's obviously related somehow to the Triforce. The Triforce beckoned him to come closer and accept their quest. Or maybe I'm getting manual translations wrong again. >_>

Age is the most crappy piece of evidence ever. Look at LttP and LA Link's. They don't look very much alike either. And if you think that age and pictures is true evidence then I can say that OoX Link and LA Link are the same because of the hair. Look it's shiny! Now look at LttP Link. His hair isn't shiny...I guess that means that LttP and LA Link can't be the same. There really isn't much reason for LA to be after both OoX and LttP. Well Link might have known zelda. She introduces herself. But after she says she recognized him at first glance. I think this happens because Zelda knows who he is but Link doesn't know her.

So you say that age is the most crappy piece of evidence?

Well then, I guess Child Link from OoT was not put under a sleep for seven years and 'grew up'. >_> Excuse my oh so lovely sarcasm. Oh and you say that 'artwork' was a crappy piece of evidence as well, but now you're going on that ALttP doesn't have shiny hair and you're using it as evidence for your belief. How ironic.

Again I say that I do not think that ALttP is a prequel to LA, I do not. I don't even think that OoX follows to LA either. So I guess that means that I believe LA fits in a completely different timeline. What that timeline could be, I don't know yet. That isn't the point of this thread, for now.

Well if you are going to keep saying "In my timeline" will you just post your timeline sothere isn't any confusion? Oh and OoT Link technicly DID "grow up" in the 7 years. That is confirmed though. And I'm not truly using artwork as evidence. It is kind of hard to write sarcasm over the internet without stating you are being sarcastic. I am talking about Link's hair to prove that artwork is probably the weakest and stupidest evidence there is. Him having shiny hair i one game and not in another being evidence is PURE nonsense. So is trying to judge his age.

I haven't developed my own timeline yet, otherwise I would have posted it. I used to believe that a Link in every single Zelda game was an incarnation. However since playing a few other games and coming here, that opinion of mine changed. At least wait until I finish a few other Zelda titles such as OoT, MM and more before I sit down and make my own timeline. Also I never played LOZ/AoL either.

I guess as Tribunal had put it before, this seems to be mostly a debate over preference. Maybe OoX could have been a prequel , there is always that. However I just don't believe that LA happened very soon after OoX, or at all.

And if you say that artwork is nonsense, then I can say that shiny hair is nonsense as well. Because you're basically looking at artwork and noticing that both Links have shiny hair. You won't know if they had shiny hair or not if you hadn't looked at the artwork.

Edit: Okay ignore that bit of the artwork thing or whatever. I think I read too fast.

if you need help figuring out your timeline look at this.
http://www.zeldauniverse.net/forums/...-timeline.html Except when you are looking, remember that LA could go after OoX too.