Enemy Evolution in Timelines

I was going to make this thread a little while ago, but I’m REALLY lazy, and Xth made a thread about this before me. Sorry Xth, I’m not trying to steal your ideas.

I'm just warning you, this is a fairly long thread, so be patient and read it to the end before you start debating.

Anyways, the enemies fought in Zelda are mainly there for gameplay purposes. If there were no Stalfos to kill in a dungeon, then the game would not be as fun. However, since over the years, many of the enemies in Zelda follow certain patterns in how they look and fight. Sometimes enemies change, or in some games, the same enemies can look completely different. So I think that there is actually evolution in the Zelda series, enemies changing over the course of a timeline.

I think PH has confirmed this. Many of the enemies in Zelda evolve, so I'm going to tell you which ones I think do, and I'm going to analyze how evolution works in a couple of timelines (including a MC first timeline).

Feel free to skip the enemy descriptions and scroll right down to the timelines if you want.

First for the enemies that I think evolve:

Zoras:
This is one of the more important bits of evolution in the series. In most of the 2D games, Zoras are depicted as monsters. In the 3D Zeldas, however, Zoras are peaceful creatures. The only game to show both is OoA, and PH acknowledges the peaceful Zoras with the Ruto Crown.
Bad Zora games: LoZ, ALttP, LA, OoX, FSA, PH, Spirit Tracks
Good Zora games: OoT, MM, WW, TP.

Octorok:
This is one of the more important ones. Octoroks, as many of you know, come in two varieties; the aquatic ones and the ones on land. OoT, WW, MM, and PH all have aquatic Octoroks. All the other games, including PH, have land-walking Octoroks. So apparently, according to PH, at some point Octoroks begin evolving to dwell on land instead of water.
Water Octoroks games: OoT, MM, WW, PH
Land Octorok games: LoZ, AoL, ALttP, LA, OoX, FSA, MC, PH, Spirit Tracks

Armos:
This is important is well. As usual, there are two kinds of Armos seen throughout the series: the hopping ones and the walking ones. There are also special Armos Knights in some games. Since Armos are, well, statues, their cause of evolution may not be as important as Octoroks, but the fact that there are two varieties that have consistently appeared throughout the series has some pull.
Hoppy Armos Games: ALttP, OoT, MM, WW, TP, PH
Walking Armos Games: LoZ, LA, OoX, MC
Armos Knight Games: ALttP, LA, WW

Stalfos:
Not as significant a case of evolution as Zoras and Octoroks, but still something I want to point out. There are two main kinds of Stalfos in the series: the unarmed stalfos that jump/throw bones, and the Stalfos with weapons, which I'll call Stalfos Knights.
Normal Stalfos games: ALttP, LA, OoX, PH
Stalfos Knight games: LoZ, AoL, ALttP, LA, OoX, OoT, MM, WW, TP, PH
I want to specifically point out the TP and ALttP Stalfos Knights (and the big Stalfos in LA) because they are killed in a very similar way (sword followed bombs).

Lizalfos:
Not much of an evolution, but Lizalfos can help a bit in timeline placement, as not only do they appear in OoT/MM, but also in TP. Since Lizalfos are nowhere to be seen in WW, the presence of Lizalfos in AoL may help support CT LoZ-AoL placements. I’m counting Dinolfos as Lizalfos in this.
Lizalfos games: AoL, OoT, MM, TP

ChuChus:
Not very important at all. All I can observe is that there are rock-covered ChuChus in MC that also appear in PH. The TP ChuChus look nothing like the ones in the other games, so maybe they’re a primitive kind?
ChuChu Games: MM, WW, MC, TP, PH

Gleeok:
I threw this in just for fun. Gleeok in PH is aquatic, but Gleeoks in LoZ and OoS are land creatures. If creatures after the Great Flood are somehow evolving to live on land, then this evolution makes sense. There is also a single-headed, lava-dwelling Gleerok in MC. Maybe a further evolution of Gleeoks, maybe a transitional phase, I’m not sure.

As you might have noticed, PH ties the series together evolution-wise, as it connects the 2D enemies to the 3D enemies.

So now I am going to determine how correct a timeline is only in regards to enemy evolution. I'm not going to use any other evidence to judge the accuracy of a timeline.

My Evolution Rules:
1) Enemies can evolve from one type to the other during the space between one game.
2) Once an enemy has evolved from one type to another, it is possible for it to change back to the original type of monster, but definitely not as probable.

The "Awesome" Timeline:

OoT--WW--PH--LoZ--AoL--OoX--MC--FS/FSA--ALttP--LA
OoT--MM--TP
Actually pretty great, evolution-wise. Zoras, Octoroks, and Stalfos are good. The Gleeok evolution is accounted for. There is the problem of ALttP's Armos and the Lizalfos in AoL, but that is fairly small. I want to bring up that using just evolution, LA fits more properly right after OoX, due to the similar game engines.

Ollathir's Timeline:

OoT--WW--PH--OoX--MC--FS/FSA--ALttP--LA--LoZ--AoL
OoT--MM--TP
Very good evolution-wise. Like the Awesome timeline, there's the problem of the ALttP Armos, and the Lizalfos's appearance at the very end of the timeline is a definite problem. All other parts of evolution work pretty well, though.

Smertios's Timeline:

OoT--WW--PH--MC--FS/FSA--ALttP--LA--(OoX)--LoZ--AoL--(OoX)
OoT--MM--TP
Almost flawless evolution-wise, except for the Armos. The Rock ChuChus also appear very close to each other in this timeline, if that's a genuine evolution.

A WW--ALttP Timeline:

OoT--WW--PH--ALttP--LA--OoX--MC--FS/FSA--LoZ--AoL
OoT--MM--TP
No Armos problem (the only timeline free of that). However, there is a Zora problem. Stalfos flop back and forth between evolutions, too.

My old, abandoned timeline, with MC first just for effect:

MC--OoT--WW--PH--LoZ--AoL
------OoT--MM--TP--OoX--FS/FSA--ALttP--LA
The main problem with MC being first, evolution-wise, is the difference in Octoroks and Armos than those that show up in OoT. In this timeline, Lizalfos appear pretty randomly throughout the games. Zoras apparently mutate in both sides of the timeline, which I can’t adequately explain. However, the Stalfos evolution is consistent on the CT, and Helmasaurs have a more probable evolution.
(As you can tell, this wasn't a very good timeline of mine)

A more CT-oriented timeline:
OoT--WW--PH
OoT--MM--TP--LoZ--AoL--OoX--MC--FS/FSA--ALttP--LA
An almost perfect timeline using only evolution. There is almost no Stalfos problem, no Lizalfos problem, and Octoroks and Zoras can work. However, without PH on the CT, there is no explanation for the evolution of Zoras and Octoroks.

So how much importance do you think enemy evolution has? Is it like geography, good enough to support a timeline but not fully prove it? Is it very important, and crucial to all timelines? Or is evolution simply the game designers being lazy? Discuss.

Is there a timeline I missed? Post it here and let's look at enemy evolution.

Very good, but since the Armos (Armoses? Armi?) are artificial, I don't think their evolution counts. You can vary between styles in construction. Also let me point out that I don't think Evolution is a valid point in timelining, as it is all gameplay. But this is still very good. One thought I had is that the chuchus evolved differently on different timelines. If you are like most people, and your CT is almost empty, then it could be like this:
----------------/WW chuchus
MM chuchus
----------------\TP chuchus

See what I'm saying?

Originally Posted by Ashanark

Is there a timeline I missed? Post it here and let's look at enemy evolution.

Yes you missed mine. It is a little different than most. Mostly for CAT.

AT: OoT-WW-PH-ALTTP-LA-MC-FS-FSA-LoZ-AoL
CAT: TRR-OoT
CT: OoT-MM-TP-LCT-OoX

I and I agree with your Chu Chu thing Nittles. As for the enemy evolution it is possible that it happened. Such as the Redeads.

In OoT they were all unarmed and in TP they had a whole new look and a weapon. (Really it's a coffin.) Or it could just be a whole coincedence and we should all just forget about it. But I am gonna wait for new posts before I confirm if I beleive if it's evolution or coincedence.

Oh my... the developers look at the Zelda's bestiary and choose the ones who fits in the game, or change something, but it doesn't means nothing.

Hmm, how could you forget about the most important enemies in the series: moblins? There are pig-moblins and bulldog moblins. And if you notice well, my timeline is the only one that has a nice evolution continuity for those:

Only Pig moblins (created/freed by Ganon from the SR in OoT):
OoT-TWW/PH-TMC-FS/FSA-LttP

Pig and Bulldog moblins (this is a transition period)
LA-OoX

Only Bulldog moblins (after "evolution" was complete):
LoZ/AoL

Also, except for Armos, I have everything else fitting. I don't really think armos matter much though. They are just statues...

^^Alright. But it is interesting to think about why they pick the monster types they do.

Take a look at MC. Almost all the enemies in MC look a whole bunch like WW's enemies (moblins, ChuChus, Darknuts), yet the Armos in MC walk while WW's hop. Are walking Armos then a new, advanced version that begin to show up later on in a timeline? Because it seems strange that the developers would make a different type of Armos show up in a game that is a lot like WW style-wise.

@Nittles:
Yes I do see what you're saying. The TP ChuChus are basically blobs, they don't look a thing like MM's. As for Armos, there are two styles, and since they're statues, it's not really evolution.

@Link367:

AT: OoT-WW-PH-ALTTP-LA-MC-FS-FSA-LoZ-AoL
CAT: TRR-OoT
CT: OoT-MM-TP-LCT-OoX

Okay, let's see...

Octoroks: OK
Zoras: OoX's position shows that Fierce Zoras evolved on both sides of the timeline, but it works, I guess
Armos: Perfect
Lizalfos: AoL is a problem
Stalfos: No major problem

Thanks for pointing out the Moblins, Smertios. I forgot about the bulldog moblins. And then there are bublins too...

yup, bulblins exist in the CT to substitute moblins because moblins were never created in the CT...

So, if evolution is taken seriously, either Moblins must evolve from Bublins, or no games with Moblins can come on the CT.

So everythings ok except for AoL palcement. What if I did a AoL prequel before LoZ. Like AoL begin happens and than LoZ than AoL fin. Oh and the Fierce Zora thing of OoX. I'd get fierce against anyone who came near after being frozen for no apparent reason. Lol!

Well maybe Lizalfos survived the Flood. But having AoL at the very end of the timeline is an awful long time for them to be in hiding without an appearance. It all depends on how much importance you think evolution has.

As for AoL before LoZ, I dunno. To all the ZU veterans out there: Does the AoL Link have to be the LoZ Link? Or can it be ALttP's, for instance?

Originally Posted by Link367

So everythings ok except for AoL palcement. What if I did a AoL prequel before LoZ. Like AoL begin happens and than LoZ than AoL fin. Oh and the Fierce Zora thing of OoX. I'd get fierce against anyone who came near after being frozen for no apparent reason. Lol!

Hmm, what's the big problem with AoL?

No real problem, the Lizalfos only show up in 4 games and aren't that important. But if they survived the Flood and didn't appear to help Ganon for thousands of years...that's the problem. An early LoZ-AoL placement means they survived the Flood and were wiped out by Link. Very simple.

Their race coud've been revived. I mean if I have to change my timeline one more time. I'm leaving the theorist forums. I've spent months researching my timeline. I mean if I change my timeline again. The only logical reason I'd change my timeline without quitting is if I add ST to it but it ends up changing my timeline. I actually finnally got to a timeline that makes since to some people. Oh and I'm a new theorist. But I've been thinking on my timeline for a long time.

ChuChus could also be comparable to those TWW lookalikes in ALttP/LA/OoX/FSA. There's also the Zols from LoZ/LA/OoX and the Bits/Bots from AoL.

Also I'm pretty sure Bad Zoras appeared in AoL too.

Zoras in AoL? I don't think so. There's that black creature that you need the Flute to bypass, but it doesn't seem like a Zora. There are also these blue monsters that run on all fours, but can stand on two legs and shoot fireballs. Those might be Zoras, probably not though.

Since enemies and appearances and the like are 99% driven by either gameplay or art style, I think it would be unwise to take them as an indication of intent of the completely different people who write the story. I mean, they do what suits the game, and the story is determined later - the timeline placement is something that gets decided fairly late, according to Aonuma.

I do find the lack of any Zoras at all in TMC a bit bizarre and interesting, though, and it seems a bit more deliberate than just talking about "evolution". The question is, why aren't there Zoras, when every other 2D Zelda has them? I mean, FSA has evil Zoras. If they were removed from the game to indicate that Zoras are still in their good OoT forms, and hence that it wouldn't make sense to have evil Zoras, it might be important... Obviously, we don't see the Zoras at all, but looking at the argument for a pre-OoT placement, this is pretty logical and solid. Zoras keep to themselves - we can only get in during OoT because we have royal permission, and that's only AFTER the recent alliance of the races.

As for AoL before LoZ, I dunno. To all the ZU veterans out there: Does the AoL Link have to be the LoZ Link? Or can it be ALttP's, for instance?

AoL absolutely must be a direct sequel to LoZ. And this is one of many reasons not to blow enemy appearances out of proportion.

Bad Zoras are in AoL.

http://zeldawiki.org/Zola There's an image of it too.

And they were apparently land based.

Do you have any ideas regarding dodongo evolution? They seem to have died out late in the series, but still pop up as bosses occasionally. Also, Dimitri = water Dodongo?

AoL absolutely must be a direct sequel to LoZ. And this is one of many reasons not to blow enemy appearances out of proportion.

So there's your answer, Link367.

Bad Zoras are in AoL.

http://zeldawiki.org/Zola There's an image of it too.

And they were apparently land based.

The fact that they walked on four legs made me think they were lizards or something. My bad.

Do you have any ideas regarding dodongo evolution? They seem to have died out late in the series, but still pop up as bosses occasionally. Also, Dimitri = water Dodongo?

Dodongos remain pretty consistent throughout the Zelda series. They appear in both sides of the timeline, breath fire every time Link faces them and can always be killed by bombs. There's no radical changes in the Dodongos throughout the series; I don't think they evolved very much (except maybe growing legs after OoT/MM). Even Dimitri isn't really a new species, he looks like a regular fire-breathing Dodongo.

LoZ Dodongos did not breath fire though.

And Dimitri cannot breath fire. He can only swim and eat enemies whole.