Loading ...
Every six hours or so over the past few days we’ve been getting updated bits and pieces of this long-awaited and much-debated piece of Zelda fandom.
Finally, with our previous post of French fan flipping through their copy of Hyrule Historia and zooming in close enough to read the Japanese, Zelda fan-translator legend Glitterberri, famous for her more-accurate re-translations of Zelda instruction manuals and in-game text and manga, has managed to fully translate the entire timeline and provide it in English for us.
Ready to see it?
So what do you think? Was it all you ever hoped for? Do you wish they’d left it a mystery? Do you still have your doubts? Let us know what you think in the comments below.
Source: GlitterBerri
Tingle’s Rosy Rupeeland was released only in Japan and Europe, never making it to the USA due to lackluster sales. Surprisingly, the game was well-received among those who did play and review the game. You play as Tingle, a 35-year-old (and single) man lost in the world. Guided by the mysterious figure Uncle Rupee, Tingle fills a mystical spring with money and gain access to the wonderful Rupeeland, a paradise where nobody has to work. Along the way, hire body guards to protect Tingle – but from what? All may not be as it seems in Tingle’s quest for monetary gain, and Rupeeland just might not be so rosy after all...
And btw, even if we theorists thinks "But now that the timeline is there, how the theorizing will continue?" Well, there is much things to theorize yet. One of my complains is about "Why there's no Din Farore and Nayru on the Goddess Hylia Era?". There's a lot of things to theorize yet
They had already left the land, even in Skyward Sword Hylia herself says that they entrusted the land to her
Plus, Hylia is the one who lifted Skyloft up. The surface has a lot to do with the Golden Goddesses, but just not elaborated upon(such as the Temple of Time).
Anyway, my point was, the people of Skyloft worship Hylia and speak of "old Gods" who don't mean much to them anymore
They created Hylia to govern the land they created and made her soul possessor of the Triforce. The flames Link also has to collect to upgrade the sword are the remnants or leftovers of the flames that surrounded them on their impact to earth.
Has it even been officially confirmed as the actual timeline or is it just "a timeline in an officially released book"?
think for a moment about what you just said.
I love you.
I don't know why people downvoted your declaration of love, but I upvoted it. <3
LOL If it's an officially released book, it's official. The book is direct from Nintendo and their partnership with a book publisher.
I speak from experience about "The Lost Encyclopedia" which is a book on the TV show Lost. It's writers apparently had the shows executive producers, the guys who write the show and know all the answers, answer questions on a few confusing aspects of the show. It's even fore-worded by them, and on the outside to any fan who just watched the the show it was very official. However to anyone who was a little more obsessed with the minor details could see glaring mistakes made by the people who wrote it, things which directly contradicted the canon of the TV show. The authors made a lot of assumptions and the shows producers obviously didn't proof read everything to make sure it was correct. Basically I consider myself in terms of the Zelda series to be just like those people who just watched Lost. I play it and love it for what each game is. Whereas the people who debate the timeline are the ones who like to know the minute details of the stories and answer the mysteries posed by them. I don't know if this timeline makes sense but I'm sure the dedicated fans would be able to find flaws if there were any.
tl;dr – Just because a book is officially published, doesn't mean everything in it is 100% fact. Why hasn't Nintendo, Miyamoto or Aonuma released a statement confirming whether or not this is the order of the games they had in that secret document?
Yea, the officially not unofficial article of unofficial timelines, unofficially re-officialited itself with great unofficialness in an official manner of being very official. Thus, this can only be an unofficial article of this official book, not.
It's an extremely valid question as many groups are questioning its canon. Unfortunately, it is official as it gets even with some contradictory and watered down areas.
I wanna know more details about the war (or something) that all the Sheikahs died in
Yeah! The Sheikah and Gerudo are so rare to see! And they're my favorite races!
When is the Interloper war taking place then?
maybe the era of chaos.
Possibly during the Hyrule Unification War…?
The Interloper War takes place after Majora's mask, in the child timeline of the "hero successful" branch. How much time between Majora's mask, the war, and Twilight Princess is unknown
Or it's the Hyrule Unification War. Either one. Their the only things that fit.
I still don't get it how Link would possibly fail in Ocarina of Time? Then Ganon would take over the world, but that's not the case in the beginning of A Link To the Past? What did I forget?
It's like Nintendo needed a solution for the games that simply didn't fit into the timeline.
Nintendo probably did just come up with a random solution, but it's a solution that works. It doesn't really bother me, just think of it as a "What If" scenario. I think it's interesting to see what would have happened if the Hero of Time failed in his quest.
It works, but then again wouldn't a "what if"- scenario exist for each and every Zelda game?
Those other what ifs maybe ended in a way that cant fit further games. For example what if Vaati won in the Minnish Cap? Would there be another Zelda after that or would just Vaati kill off everyone, meaning Link cannot be born again? What if Link failed in Skyward Sword, would there be ANYTHING in the world left to even be saved? So think of it like there is what ifs everywhere, but only one of them could be fixed somewhat.
the moment Ganondorf enters the Sacred Realm, and creates the Dark World, the '3rd Timeline' gets created.
The Hero of Time awakens seven years later, and upon defeating Ganondorf, creates the other two timelines.
Because Ganondorf used the Triforce to create the 3rd timeline, it exists parallel to the other two.
This also could mean Zelda and Link created the other two timelines at the end of OoT, with their part of the Triforce.
It makes sense to me, that Zelda, Link, and Ganon would each create a timeline.
Been years since I played ALTTP, but didn't Ganon manage to make a wish on the Triforce and create the Dark World in the back story?
Perhaps when Ganondorf beat Link and Zelda, he gained the Triforce, made the wish and created the chain of events that would lead to ALTTP, if I'm remembering right.
one minor note… about the gba version… dialogue changes blah blah blah canon blah blah blah announced blah blah blah etc. you get the picture
Ganondorf makes a wish on the Triforce in Ocarina of Time, right after Link first opens the Door of Time.
This is when i think the ALttP timeline was created. Because it was made using the Triforce, it would continue to exist parallel to the other two timelines.
the 3rd timeline doesn't get created when Ganondorf enters the sacred realm. it gets created if link fails in the final battle against Ganondorf.
I disagree. if that were true, like Oscar said, why not make a 'what-if' scenario for Link failing every game?
When Ganondorf first acquired the Triforce, he made his own timeline. When Link and Zelda start the other two timelines at the end, Ganon's timeline still continues on, because it was created with the Triforce.
If you think about it, this just makes more sense.
What would have worked better is if they had said Hero of Time disappears. Technically you only have to go back in time once – to get the silver gauntlets. You don't really need the lens of truth, you can just do a whole lot of guessing? It'd be difficult but it's possible. At least it'd make sense then. But then we think about Majora's Mask… That'd take a lot of splits, but they don't have to include that because this is the history of Hyrule, not Termina.
I take that back, saying he was defeated still works. When he went back and disappeared from that timeline – maybe people thought he had been defeated?
The question now is when exactly did ocarina of time link fail? My best guess is during the second part of the final battle. I feel this due to:
1. Link to the past has the descendants to the sages, which means ALL of them were awoken (including Zelda)
2. Ganon is never seen in his human form again on that timeline, suggesting he was left in his pig form. The only point he is that way is during the final battle.
Zelda was never in a slumber, also, Zelda as sheik could with some effort probably could have awaken the other sages if there were no link around to help her.
The only problem i see with that scenario is that then Link would have defeated twinrova by then and yet Kotake and Koume both appear later in the oracle games. i'd also like more details in regards to how the sages managed to seal ganon after he had claim the entire triforce. you'd think he'd be unstoppable with that much power. then again link still managed to beat him in ALttP even with the triforce. but if the gods saw fit to flood hyrule when the hero of time disappeared, why not when he was defeated?
Gannon was not defeated in WW, he was sealed. So the gods took precautions by flooding hyrule and sealing him. In ALttP, he was sealed as well. I think that the gods cannot defeat/destroy anyone, but they can imprison and seal people. They can grant the power to destroy people to people with the blood of the hero.
wow then they must be pretty lame god/goddess if they can't even destroy or defeat anyone or their own power they created. One word..FAIL!!!!
I don't think there were any splits in Majora's Mask. Link wasn't traveling through time in the same way he did in OoT; when he played the Song of Time in Majora's Mask, I always thought he was literally rewinding time, not traveling to new points in time.
plus if you beat MM you'll notice everything Link did in the 3 day cycles happened on the 4th day! The mask was actually proof that he did the deed!
It works perfectly. Ganon somehow manages to kill Link during their battle and take both the Triforce of Wisdom and the Triforce of Courage. As a result, it's in the hands of the Seven Sages to seal Ganon and the Triforce into the Golden Land, which becomes the Dark World. That's also why later on in the same timeline we have Adevnture of Link, which has the towns named after those same Sages.
NO NO NO… its not like GANON KILLS LINK… Its that Hyrule was left without a hero because link fails to kill Ganon, HOW? Well its like link goes to be a child IN THE GAME NOT AT THE END to get the lens of truth ETC, but when ho goes back that world he left is the one where the hero of time fails, because at that time, Link did not have the lens of truth, (thats why he had to go back in time to get it) So without the lense of truth, Link cannon free all of the sages, so Ganon wins… THIRD SPLIT ESTABLISHED… now stop whining
I think I agree, let's see if I can clarify it in my own words: Every time Link travels through time in Ocarina of Time, a new timeline is created. Link has to go back in time at least once during the quest, to get the lens of truth/silver gauntlets (If I'm not mistaken they can be obtained in one go), so that means he: Made the first (#1) split in the "Child" timeline when he first drew the Master Sword, which he was sent back to by Zelda after Gannon's defeat; made the second (#2) split when he left for the items, creating a line where the Hero of Time showed up but didn't finish the job; and the "Adult" timeline (#3) that was essentially a copy of timeline #2 up till the point that he left, which he then continued on through until Gannon was killed.
Huh. This theorizing stuff is actually pretty fun!
your only half right bro, those towns are named after the sages cuz nintendo really bad with names
I find it funny how your not saying well what about the Master Sword and Light arrows (not to mention Princess Zelda). I mean come on Link could beat Ganondorf/Ganon with his eyes closed anytime anyday. The power to repel evil and light arrows which can stun you plus the sages sealing powers and the Triforce of Courage I mean how could Link lose???
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=iC0KIrKIEYM
After watching this after a long time, it does make sense
sahashrala mentions that the hylian heroes were killed off while protecting the sages, who the hell the other ones are I haven't a clue but I believe this means that ganon defeats both link and zelda, but as he takes the triforce the sages still manage to seal him… or he takes the triforce and more heroes emerge to fight him and during their war the sages seal him… the latter seems to make sense to me.
accually it was the knights of hylia wich stood up to ganon to give the sages more time and most of them where killed link and his uncle where the last in the bloodline link himself is yet another reborn form of the goddesses chosen hero/libk in ss since no one other than link can wield or who ever you name ur hero can grab the mastersword since the master sword can tell whos trying to pick it up only the reborn forms of the hero can wieldn its might unlike the 4 sword which broke in 1 hit and could be wielded by any links also one of the few who can wield the full triforce do to his unb reakable spirit
Think about it… Have you played Ocarina of Time? Have you died atleast once? There the alternate timeline is created…
Wow, judging by the missing space in the sky era, a sequel to Skyward Sword must be in the mix!
I'd love a plot-hole-filling game…the founding of Hyrule sounds very, very good to me.
Yeah… So far, something could come after Zelda II, after Skyward Sword, after Spirit Tracks, after Majora's Mask and after 4 Swords Adventures. I'd like to see a sequel to Skyward Sword on the 3DS… and seeing as The Minish Cap comes after Skyward Sword – Does that mean the blue Ocarina is the first form of the Ocarina of Time?
you mean ANOTHER PREQUEL.
Ocarina of Time isn't "The main game"… There is no main Zelda game, so they're all just games in the series, whether they're before or after other games or not.
Yes, but Ocarina of Time is the focus of the timeline. It's the focal point where everything splits and becomes complicated.
I think it's more like an actual timeline, the larger the space, the longer the time period, not nessarily meaning there will be another sequal, ya know what i mean???
I thought a link to the past came after twilight princess? Well now i learned i was wrong. Either way does anyone know if spirit tracks officially ends the Ocarina timeline?
There will probably be many more games in store for the Zelda series xD
Spirit Tracks isn't necessarily the end… Technically, it's not really the end of "Ocarina's timeline" as all games are linked, not just Ocarina… It might have been the most successful game but doesn't make it the "main" game.
Personally I find the addition of the third "failure" split a pretty unexpected but smart move to reconcile all the games. It's a really good way to connect OoT and ALttP, all things considered.
It's really not all that unexpected actually. Beemnorv on the forums predicted this time line over a year ago.
Technically, it's not a third split, because there are still, in a way, only two actual splits.
There is one timeline where he wins and one where he loses. When he wins, it branches off into the past and the future, two different realities. That makes two splits and one past-future scenario. But that, in turn, would make four splits. That's just too confusing. Does it make any sense, or am I completely wrong about this?
I'll just agree with whatever Nintendo says regarding this, because my brain hurts!
-Mike
There's 3 splits… Even if Link from Ocarina dies – It's still a different line of games and events happening within them. You can't discredit it because it exists… So what you said makes no sense.
Here's what I said earlier, it makes sense to me. It also resonates with something that Yahtzee Croshaw of Zero Puncuation said once, about every failed game creating an alternate dimension.
Every time Link travels through time in Ocarina of Time, a new timeline is created. Link has to go back in time at least once during the quest, to get the lens of truth/silver gauntlets (If I'm not mistaken they can be obtained in one go), so that means he: Made the first (#1) split in the "Child" timeline when he first drew the Master Sword, which he was sent back to by Zelda after Gannon's defeat; made the second (#2) split when he left for the items, creating a line where the Hero of Time showed up but didn't finish the job; and the "Adult" timeline (#3) that was essentially a copy of timeline #2 up till the point that he left, which he then continued on through until Gannon was killed.
Yes the time line is now finish…. now we want, or at least i want, to know more about the story of the entire world, the Sehika, the races, they traditions, they folklore, the lore behind each one of the races, how was the world created and i mean it through a cinematic scene to be present at the moment, how is the real form of the goddesses, where it come the rest of the deities, guardians, spirits and more
here we go again…
"The Hero of Time is defeated…" That bit makes no sense. It didn't really happen in Ocarina of Time, unless the player did die during the Ganon battle. But Link dying even before that battle meant he failed. So why doesn't a split occur then? Or even when he falls in the other games? Why don't we see two or three splits coming from the other games which involve time-travel?
That's why I don't believe this is "official."
Because that's the only time were Link living or dying would put branches that drastic into other games. Sure, if Link died in Windwaker, the sequels wouldn't follow, but there wouldn't really be that much to put into the branch where he died. I think that the same goes for the other games.
Frankly, his point does make sense. Let's take your example of Windwaker to make this work. Say Link fails his duty and dies. Then Ganon ends up taking control of "New" Hyrule and thus a new branch arises as history moves forth. But that is expunged by how we are able to come back even when out of life, which further erases the Link dying in OoT's period. Only the time travel can work because it causes the dual split, as the game and everything else resolutely evidences.
you forget that new hyrule wouldn't even exist if link failed in WW because link and tetra discovered the land after the adventure was completed! if link had failed in any other game besides OoT we all know Ganon or Vatti or Malladus or The Imprisoned would of just taken over and killed everybody in the end! If link dies in any other game everybody dies! i think we all know this!
im glad i dont live in hyrule…
This is a strawman argument. Just because it would not make sense in another game does not mean it makes sense in OoT. I agree with Thareous, nothing in canon suggests the hero being defeated is possibly an option.
As my own addendum, I do not see how LttP could even follow from the "Hero of Time defeated" aspect. If Link were defeated in the battle with Ganon or even before, that's it for Hyrule. The land would be overrun and there would be no difference between the light and dark worlds we see in LttP.
The only way for LttP to work is if Ganon is banished, and only the Hero of Time/Sages would be capable of doing that. If Link were not actually an important aspect of sealing off Ganon, what was the point of OoT in the first place?
Are you sure nothing in canon suggests the hero being 'defeated' is an option? Since this is the canon timeline sanctioned by nintendo itself, there must be a reason. So how about this argument: The sacred realm, meaning the chamber of the sages exists outside of time right? So when Link entered the chamber of the sages, he exited time itself. Meaning time continued onward without him (the 'link deafeated' timeline). But when he returned to 7 years into Ganon's reign he created the split.
Your theory really makes sense to me, but why would they state Link was defeated? He would just disappear…
It's close enough. The semantics can be ignored, since this is a translation.
quite true.
By that logic, every time Link went into the Temple of Time and switched between adult and child, a new timeline would be created. Therefore there are not just three timelines by your argument, but a potentially infinite number. That too would go against the "official" listing above, and therefore does not support the argument.
Also, leaving does not mean he was defeated. Those are two VERY different terms.
Finally, simply because there is no evidence of Link not being defeated does not imply he was. Disproving a negative does not automatically imply a positive, such would be a logical fallacy.
This timeline doesn't deny that there are potentially infinite timelines. It simply state that there are only three timelines that: a.) have Zelda games that take place within them, and b.) would lend themselves to a Zelda game. For example, the world would have been destroyed if Link failed in any of the other games, but the Sages could have saved the world in Ocarina of Time (i.e. the Imprisoning War).
In this instance, "defeated" could simply mean that Link did not succeed in imprisoning Ganon (in any capacity), and would have left the Sages to their own devices.
Also, the logical problem that you're thinking of is the impossibility of proving the negative, which claims that one can never prove with absolute certainty (on a logical level) that something is false (other than logical constructs). So, if one claims that there is no evidence that Link succeeds, then it is still possible that he has failed. Thus, since the timeline doesn't foreclose this possibility, the timeline is, at the very least, logically possible.
Also, you seem to misunderstand what a Straw Man fallacy is or how it works. If anything, your posts are closer to falling into the Straw Man fallacy by claiming that the Hyrule Historia timeline is somehow logically inconsistent with the possibility of infinite timelines.
lrn2 logic
First, the straw man argument was in reference to Link possibly failing in other games. That is a straw man as it has nothing to do with OoT's possibility of failing. Regardless of whether the Hero of the Winds' death would spawn new games detracts from the point and purpose of the Hero of Time and the evidence surrounding him.
Second, if the timeline is official, then it is also complete. The timeline is a template for past, present, and future games. If cannot account for an infinite number of timelines unless this document is only a partial showing of the full timeline. If that is the case, then this portion is completely useless, because Nintendo can simply shift out of it by saying another timeline has spawned. I presume there is meaning in this document, therefore I presume it precludes whatever it does not say. It does not account for infinite timelines, therefore that is not a possibility for the official documentation provided by Nintendo. So while in basic logical constructions, the impossibility of proving a negative may not be applicable, here it is because of the presumed completeness of the "official" timeline.
Third, I reiterate again that if Link is not a necessary component to defeating Ganon, then OoT has no merit in being a game, or at least would have ended as soon as all the Sages were freed. It would not be necessary to defeat Ganon in order to win because the Sages could imprison him on their own. The point is that the Sages are NOT powerful enough to defeat Ganon without Link and the Master Sword. I do not understand how anyone could argue this. If the Sages can win on their own, then OoT need not exist.
why would people as smart as you guys waste your time on a video game timeline?
I don't believe Link was DEFEATED at all. I believe it's a miss translation. I do believe Ganon wins, but it happens due to the timeline being split that happens DURING Ocarina. NOT the end. This video proves it: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=umS4flaa-20
well he DID have to awaken the sages…
i think nintendo just did it to shut people like us up. it doesn't really matter to them unless it affects sales.
Maybe it means when he goes back to get the Silver Guantlets? maybe everyone in Hyrule thought he had been defeated?
dude no one even knew what he was doing he wasnt a legend until after he beat ganon no one knew it was him saving the world exept the sages
It's called "Game Over"….you run out of heart pieces…Link keels over…there's a timeline set aside JUST for that situation.
The way I see it, Oot took place after all of its predecessors, and your actions in Oot were preventing the events of the earlier games from taking place, thus saving hyrule (but not for long)
You're thinking of the technicalities of a game… This is based on the story, not how the game plays. If you died in a game and that's it – it's not a good game and is pointless. From a story point of view, Link would just die and that's it, he wouldn't just come back to life randomly.
The book was edited by Aonuma. so I'm guessing it's official.
lolz. aonuma is the reason the timeline has been so messed up. anything he has worked on contradicts itself within any timeline that nintendo could come up with.
thats true i mean look at mc and 4s theres no real proof they pit between ss and oot its a big mess you go from master sword to a weaker legendary sword that onlys in 3 games wish it was more back to master sword
i always thought they were parallel universes.
could be lying. you people are taking this WAY too seriously. its a video game, not real life.
Defeated doesn't nessacarily mean death. For example, Suppose the great deku tree was the one that died BEFORE sending Link on his quest? What if Link just could not get out of bed that morning? What would happen if Ganondorf had never sealed Dodongo's Cavern? With no reason to be in any distress, would the Gorons need a hero? Maybe Zelda left the Ocarina of Time on the table when she was running for her life. All these possibilities, that ,although not explored in any way, could lead to the Hero's defeat.
I agree. I think he didn't get out of bed. What we know of Link is that he likes to sleep
. Many things would be different had he not been woken by Zelda('s bird), Navi, Rauru (7 years of sleep, come on), Aryll, his uncle/Zelda (clarification, ALTtP I've never been clear if it's Link or his Uncle that hears Zelda's voice. I used to think it was Link, but I've read it was his uncle, which actually makes more sense).
maybe all the games are just a bunch of link's dreams and no-one figured it out unlil now. (except Nintendo of course…)
that would mean there's NO TIMELINE
I think that the timeline splits every time Link travels through time in Ocarina, creating three splits. I already posted it twice above this, so I won't do it again.
maybe if he died in the final battle in "real" Hyrule, Ganon would stop whatever magic that revives him in the games like how you couldn't use Navi.
I hope they answer all our questions with new zelda games every 3-6 years
Hear hear! err, Here here! Bloody-, which one is it? I've never actually seen that written before…
maybe its both….
Well, I can't exactly say that's what I had in mind, but hey, beggar's can't be choosers eh?
I'll never accept this stupid timeline. Thank you anyway for trying, Nintendo.
Would you mind explaining why?
i guess he doesnt belive it becouse there nothing shower why the games come before the ones after it i mean they did say that ss was the first game and before they said oot was first but i dont see anything about mc and 4s that makes it go before and if it did what happend to the light force zelda had
Zelda's about using imagination, nobody's forcing you to belive anything.
Please, we're trying to be intelligent and clinical here. In a place of discussion, reasons for disagreement must be given or else it all falls into name-slinging chaos.
i think it makes perfect sense the timeline of hero of time fails. i get why every one is mad and dont accept it, its kinda depressing the hero of time fails lol and they have been used to made up timelines. this time line makes sense i dont see why people are crying over it. and you read 'ganon revived' EVERYWHERE lol
the reason people are upset is because it's a cheap way out.
why excectly did the hero of time died? how come link from OoT died but not any other link?
why is there a special time line for "if the hero of time died" but not a special timeline for "if any other hero died"
I hope I managed to explain myself
Link gets yanked out of the first universe and plopped into another. Two timelines. Then he travels back and forth in time to save both timelines. Three timelines; the first, where the Sages yank Link out of Hyrule; then the second and third, where he saves the child and adult timelines from Ganon.
"The first, where the Sages yank Link out of Hyrule," is that when Link first gets a hold of the Master Sword in OoT, escaping from the first timeline?
Yeah, that's what I meant.
This is the only comment that actually makes any kind of sense of the Timeline.
My theory is, every time Link travels through time in Ocarina of Time, a new timeline is created. Link has to go back in time at least once during the quest, to get the lens of truth/silver gauntlets (If I'm not mistaken they can be obtained in one go), so that means he: Made the first (#1) split in the "Child" timeline when he first drew the Master Sword, which he was sent back to by Zelda after Gannon's defeat; made the second (#2) split when he left for the items, creating a line where the Hero of Time showed up but didn't finish the job; and the "Adult" timeline (#3) that was essentially a copy of timeline #2 up till the point that he left, which he then continued on through until Gannon was killed.
Where it says 4 Swords + Hyrule Adventure….is that 4 Swords Adventure?
Because 4 swords is already up there on the top before OOT.
And also another note.
What does canon mean?
I know what it literally means, but in the TRUE sense, what does it mean?
If for example, every single fan of Zelda simply said SCREW THIS, would the timeline still be canon?
In canon, is it the fan's perspective that matters, or what the author intends?
Because after all, The Legend of Zelda is a game about a young male saving a princess.
Why does it truly matter what LINK does?
The name of most people in their Zelda game isn't even Link, yet they still complain about the Timeline.
Here is my view on the timeline.
It is a story. Starring a young boy named Link.
Link is quiet and polite, and saves the world quickly.
Here is my view on the games.
It is an epic. Starring a young boy named rajaxar1.
Rajaxar1 is loud, obnoxious, yet nice and polite. He saves the world one step at a time, by delivering eye drops and helping people marry, and saving a demon by giving him minerals.
And that is what the Zelda series means to me.
An epic, about the player.
I read the timeline because I simply like a good story.
4 Swords Adventure and 4 Swords are two different stories, so 4SA goes later down on the timeline than the original 4S.
Typically, whoever owns the rights to the IP is master of the canon. For example, since Bethesda bought the rights to Fallout, their games have been considered canon, despite the disdain of the Black Isle Fallout fans of their games.
Of course, everything is open to interpretation. For instance, if the majority of Harry Potter fans believed that Dumbledore was an invisible pink unicorn disguised as an elderly wizard, it might as well be true, regardless of the author's intentions. If that were to happen, however, Rowling would make it clear that he is not, in fact, an invisible pink unicorn, but an actual elderly wizard. This statement would be called "Word of God", which is a term for an author making an out-of-character statement about their work. That's what this timeline is.
Following that Potter example, let's say, hypothetically, that Rowling is going to publish a new seven-book series following Dumbledore's origin and his years at Hogwarts. This would pretty much definitely confirm in-universe that Dumbledore is a real wizard. The fans would be outraged, because this contradicts their most important, albeit stupid, belief about the character. This would turn into a base breaker, with one faction of Potter fans accepting it as canon and the other disowning it as non-canon.
This example is a really silly hypothetical example, but I think it illustrates why we should generally listen to Word of God. If the author keeps working on their series, they're going to do it along their original intentions, and if that contradicts the beliefs of the fans, it just turns into a big unnecessary mess.
Of course, if Nintendo just makes the games without any regard to the cohesiveness of the series as a whole, as some fans believe, then it doesn't matter. I don't think that's true, however. I think that the first three games (LoZ, ALttP, and AOL) were made individually without regard to any timeline, but Nintendo then started tying everything together as of OoT.
As such, I'll believe Nintendo. Regardless of what we believe, this timeline is what they have decided, and all future games will be made with this in mind. There's no reason to debate about it.
Did any of thqat make sense? I hope so.
To me, it made sense. Well done and thank you for so clearly explaining that for me. (Sorry to interrupt your conversation…)
I like the idea of Dumbledore being an invisible pink unicorn. NEW CANON!!
gfdddddddd
Thank you XD.
Actually, the funny thing about your example is that I first started doubting "The Word of God" when Rowling stated Dumbledore had homoish feelings for Grindewald.
It just felt awkward applying that label to Dumbledore, so I started asking myself…What if Rowling was wrong?
But anyways, thanks for your comments.
Yeah, 4 Swords Adventures was released in Japan as Four Swords Plus. Although I don't where Hyrule Adventure comes from, or if it's like the Japanese release's subtitle or something.
respect…
i couldn't have said it better myself.
Im getting really sick of all the "it makes no sense" comments, dude if youre pretty own timelin etheory wasnt even close to what the book says GET FCKING OVER IT! Instead of making comments about how you dont think this (as far as I know) OFFICIAL timeline of an OFFICIAL nintendo book makes no sense, why dont you go to play the games you dont think they fit and see if you missed something or you can connect the dots now that you know the timeline? Or maybe you can find the parts in the games that prove that youre correct! Oh but I guess you must be right since you played a few games once or twice, you must know better than the guys that MADE THE GAMES right?
You are totally right. This makes perfect sense.
Also, the whole discussion with the third split not being logic because Link can't die in OoT or else the other two splits won't happen is just dumb. THAT'S EXACTLY THE POINT. There are two possibilities
1. Link wins – branch 1 & 2
2. Link dies – branch 3
WHY IS THIS SO HARD TO UNDERSTAND? It is just another scenario my god deal with it.
You're all right! Why on Earth would anyone opt to think for himself and speculate about errors in the book? Of course this source is completely and totally 100% verified official from Nintendo! There is no possible way this is not an official timeline! There is NO room for speculation right now at all.
Everyone needs to STOP THINKING FOR HIMSELF. Just believe it all! If you disagree, clearly you are wrong and missed something, because there is objective verifiable proof of your egregious mistake. Go with the pack! Long live sheep!
I hope everyone caught my sarcasm. Judging by the number of thumbs up between my post and the one above it, I guess not…
Can't speak for anyone else, but I thumbed you up *because* of your sarcasm (and because you made an excellent point).
if that's the case, why doesn't every game have a "link fails" branch?
cause there aren't any games that would go with the "Link Dies/ Fails" branches in the other games… Simple as that. if there was, then they would have most likely included them as well. Good day to you sir.
Because in every other game Ganon would just over the world when Link fails as there is no one else to stop him. But in Ocarina of Time you still have the seven Sages to stop Ganon, although it would be very hard for them – thus the Imprisoning War
*take over the world
What is a "timelin etheory"? Forget how to spell in your rage? XP
Yes.
Thank god someone finally said this
That's probably the first angry and abrasive comment I've read here that I've agreed with.
….ummmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmm…………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………yep………………………………………………………………………………………………………..
HAS NINTENDO SAID SOMETHING ABOUT THIS?
…Nintendo is the publisher of the book, and Eiji Aonuma is the supervisor of the book.
aunoma edited it? haha. do you know how many timeshis statements contradict the games?
true he even said there wasnt a split months ago
It looks good, and there's always the possibility of the hero dying. It doesn't happen in the games, because if it did happen, the whole timeline would be totally different for me (or anyone), because my Link died in the first temple in Skyward Sword.(and everyone dies at least once in one of the games,right)
Don't think of it in terms of "Link dies," think of it as "Link fails." How many times is it necessary to travel through time in OoT? If I'm not mistaken, once to become adult, once more to go back and get the lens of truth/silver gauntlets, and one final time where he goes back to his original time, and timeline. If each time he traveled back and forth created a new split, then as long as he (Link that is) is just plopped down into his original timeline instead of making a new one to go back to, then Link creates three separate timelines, one of which he never beat Gannondorf in.
same in ocarina of time. the chance of Link beating Ganon is 1/3rd
1. he sucessfully beats him
2. ganon manages to kill Child Link or defeat Adult link
3. link gets lost or killed in a dungeon
this is epic. it makes theorising so much more interesting!! now you got the general template, you can focus on all the smaller details, like geneology, stories of races, it'll add ALOT to fan fiction! good timing, nintendo!
this no nintendo, it work of fanboy. trust me, i japan, so do homework before assuming loser.
No need to be a jerk.
Really. He was just expressing his love for the timeline.
1) Don't be an ass
2) If you ignored #1, use the proper grammar. It gives the people you just made enemies of one less cheap shot at you.
wooHOO!!!! I wanna know why the fisherman guy in oot got bald!
Poor ZU…should've known better than posting this news that has resulted in another flame-war. Oh well. Not that this has been confirmed or anything, but it's making complete fools out of everyone. Most likely it's fallacious; Nintendo will step in and disprove its truth. Then the timeline theorists will step back in and take over whilst the skeptics turn sulkers.
people flaming each other in the comments doesn't hurt zu one bit. :]
Actually a good flame war is good for a web site. More web traffic means more advertising money.
i think you must be the only one here with a brain.
This timeline frustrates me, because it was so close to being the best timeline I've ever seen, but ended up falling on its face. Nintendo doesn't seem to understand what a split timeline is. A split is caused by someone traveling back in time and changing something to create a new future (thus there are two futures: new and old), like Link did in OoT's ending. The third branch is just confusing, because no time travel was involved. Link cannot both win and lose against Ganon. Basic logic states that one or the other has to happen. It's been long established as canon that Link succeeds in his quests, therefore Link does not lose to Ganon. The third branch is not a split, it's an alternate universe. It's showing what could have have happened BUT DIDN'T. If anything, the timeline should be represented as two separate sequences, like so:
—————————-tWW – PH – ST
SS – MC – FS – OoT <
—————————-MM – TP – FSA
SS – MC – FS – OoT – LttP – OoX – LA – LoZ – AoL
If Nintendo really wanted the timeline they put in the book, they could have very easily said that the third branch was created when Link traveled back in time via the Master Sword during OoT. Link left the future and changed the past several times, thus creating a new future each time and leaving all the previous futures with the Master Sword in its pedestal and no hero to stop Ganon from assembling the Triforce. This could have been the perfect second split, as it leads perfectly into LttP. But instead they opted for, excuse the cliche, a tacky "what-if" scenario.
Plus, Aonuma always told us about a timeline split in two branches, not three
You seem intelligent!
I don't feel like saying it to everyone, so I'll post it here. A common belief among the theorists of ZU is the Predestined Future Theory. Obviously there is a child and an adult timeline, but the Predestined Future timeline is simply what was going to happen before Zelda sent Link back in time. So, it was literally the Predestined Future. It was the adult timeline, where Link was still existent, so the events of TWW turned into the events of ALttP (because there was a hero to prevent the flooding of Hyrule). Zelda cancelled this timeline by sending Link back, though. That's what I think of for this timeline.
Are you sure Nintendo doesn't know what split timeline is? Since this is the canon timeline sanctioned by nintendo itself, there must be a reason. So the split must logically exist at some point in OoT. How about this: The sacred realm, meaning the chamber of the sages exists outside of time right? So when Link entered the chamber of the sages, he exited time itself. Meaning time continued onward without him (the 'link deafeated' timeline). But when he returned to 7 years into Ganon's reign he created the split.
He returned 7 years later to the same timeline. Link pulls the Master Sword, sleeps, and then wakes up. It's the same principle as if you were to go to sleep. You have not split a timeline; you've simply moved forward on yours. There is still only one split: the end of OoT. The only way this could work is if rather than jumping seven years ahead in his own time, Link jumps to another perfectly identical timeline and sleeps for seven years there while his own previous timeline becomes the Classics line. This just doesn't seem very logical, since there's no reason or evidence for Link jumping timelines while moving forward in time. Splits are caused by going back in time.
Which is precisely why there's a line which shoots up above the link to Ocarina of Time.
I'm very sure they know precisely what you are trying to say, and it's obvious that Link's death does not create a split timeline, but an alternate universe. That's why they have that line which goes past the link to Ocarina of Time, showing that it's a link to an alternate universe.
I do think they'll make that more clear, because after the timeline diagram, there's over twenty pages of what I assume is a detailed storyline as to why and how the timeline works. When Hyrule Hystoria is complete, I'd love to read through that section…
I actually didn't notice that. Thank you for pointing it out. I do wonder if that was Nintendo's work, though, or just the work of a clever translator. I've yet to see all the actual scans. If the former is true, then I'll acknowledge that Nintendo at least knows what it's doing, whether or not I like it.
Actually, upon further examination of the original video, there is no line which joins with the link from the OoT split.
However, there are a couple descriptions in the book which point to different pages as well as what I believe are some untranslated parts to the book (which may have brought this artist to add the extra line into the diagram). I'm not quite sure, but your theory seems to make sense, and I believe that the book also addresses it (as there is a large paragraph to the left on top of the aLTTP branch).
I guess we'll never be quite sure until the entire book is translated, but I agree with your theory.
Nintendo don't understand what a split timeline is?… Are you serious? You don't understand what a split timeline is clearly. A split Timeline IS an alternate universe. If you split a TImeline you create an alternate universe. So to say the 'third split' isn't a split it's alternate universe is a complete contradiction. And it's not a what if scenario it's an alternate universe. I'm sorry but why is it that so many of you are having trouble with this timeline?
A split timeline is absolutely not an alternate universe. A split timeline is differentiated by the fact that within it two separate futures are created via backward time travel. Take the ending of OoT for instance. Link seals Ganon, goes back in time, and then warns the king of Ganon. There are two totally separate futures here: one where Ganon is sealed and one where he is not. This new so-called 'split' in the timeline involves no time travel. By that fact alone, it cannot be a split. It is simply what would have happened if Link lost to Ganon. The problem is, Link didn't lose. He won. Or, if they want to claim that he lost, then he didn't win, so the other two lines of the timeline couldn't have happened. Link cannot both win and lose. The two possibilities contradict each other and therefore cannot both occur to cause a split.
I don't believe Link was DEFEATED at all. I believe it's a miss translation. I do believe Ganon wins, but it happens due to the timeline being split that happens DURING Ocarina. NOT the end. This video proves it: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=umS4flaa-20
This should be the first comment that people read after they question how the Hero of Time was defeated.
I've had the same idea (as I outlined in the last paragraph of my original post), and I hope that there could be some truth to it, though there are some wrinkles to this theory (such as the time travel mechanics used in the gameplay). Who knows, though. We'll just have to wait to see if this beast of a book gets translated.
I completely agree with you sir. It is, in fact, a "what if" scenario. It shouldn't be represented as a split because time travel isn't involved in it and therefore it should be represented in a separate timeline as something that could have happened but didn't. Congrats to you for figuring that out!
Not meant to sound like a threat or argument:
Ever hear of Schrondinger's cat? Its explained by physics: You don't know an outcome until you actually see it. Until you see it, how do you know that it didn't happen? "What if" isn't just a meaningless phrase, its a key to unlock a sense of knowledge and fantasy.
While you do make a very compelling argument, its okey to explain things in a seemingly childish way. After all, The Legend of Zelda is ca childish and complex game in itself.
I swear I'm only posting this one more time:
Every time Link travels through time in Ocarina of Time, a new timeline is created. Link has to go back in time at least once during the quest, to get the lens of truth/silver gauntlets (If I'm not mistaken they can be obtained in one go), so that means he: Made the first (#1) split in the "Child" timeline when he first drew the Master Sword, which he was sent back to by Zelda after Gannon's defeat; made the second (#2) split when he left for the items, creating a line where the Hero of Time showed up but didn't finish the job; and the "Adult" timeline (#3) that was essentially a copy of timeline #2 up till the point that he left, which he then continued on through until Gannon was killed.
Read the last paragraph of my original post. We haven't gotten solid translations for the timeline yet, so some stuff is still up in the air, but currently the third split is translated to be caused when Link fails against Ganon, not because of time travel.
I seriously don't think the third timeline is a "what-if." It's entirely possible that the mysterious scene of Link seeing Zelda in the castle courtyard at the tail end of Ocarina of Time is the true source of the split in timeline. Given that Link technically fails to prevent ganondorf from entering the Sacred Realm as a child, causing the events as adult Link to be necessary, it's very possible that this is exactly what he returns to tell Zelda preventing them from happening in the first place. Considering a common theory of time travel that any step back in time generates a new dimension to reflect the new actions and choices made, then the timeline where Ganondorf enters the Sacred Realm would still technically have to exist, depicting the after-effects of Ganondorf's rule once he was defeated by Link.
You are talking about "logic" in a fantasy genre? Haha way to show your severe autism.
dont make fun of autistic people, dumbass
if, like you say, he leaves the master sword, then ganon would've had no access to the Sacred Realm. He'd never have even gotten the triforce.
I really hope they make a Zelda that was about the worlds creation, a sequel to Skyward Sword and one that takes place during the war.
That's amazing! Didn't expect that the hero was defeated, though. Hmmmmmmm
I don't believe Link was DEFEATED at all. I believe it's a miss translation. I do believe Ganon wins, but it happens due to the timeline being split that happens DURING Ocarina. NOT the end. This video proves it: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=umS4flaa-20
Well, I have to ask, if what other people have suggested, that Link made a new timeline every single time he went back to get the Silver Gauntlets or Eye of Truth, then how come whenever he returns to the evil future all of the dungeons and quests completed up to that point remain conquered/completed? No. That cannot be be true. It's obvious that Link, when he time-traveled, was always strictly within the same space-time continuum. The other suggested theory was that he died while fighting Ganon, the final boss. This would be the only place he could die while maintaining the fact that Ganon was sealed by the Seven Sages. Evello (two comments above) well stated the fact that Link failing, even though that is a somewhat ridiculous and extreme possibility (that I even hate to think about), would constitute not a split timeline but rather an alternate universe, or reality. I begin to have doubts myself over the accuracy of this timeline, because honestly the Hero of Time failing, however convenient for ALttP to AOL, does not fit.
That's not how multiverse theory works. The sad reality is that the timeline had multiple splits in which Link abandoned the people of Hyrule (not intentionally but hey, he had a mission) though we only focus on two main time streams; the one created by the inclusion of Child Link and the exclusion of Adult Link in the final journey through time. The theory you propose is only valid if you hold the view that past, present and future exist simultaneously. Time travel in that scenario would be a matter of traveling through dimensions; like traveling between Subrosia and Holodrum, something that wouldn't create splits.
He went to the past and made changes to a new future that what hold those changes, leaving the original future, LINKless. It wasn't something he did on purpose. Link losing to Ganon does NOT change the space time continuum, because that would mean every Zelda game has two timelines. Nintendo said 3 exist, NOT 300.
It is illogical that Link could have died fighting Ganon at the end of OOT. it had to have been when he was a kid.
The future timeline would simply be changed by what he had done, allowing the evils he had killed before it to still be killed.
the reason why there is a defeated timeline split for the hero of time in oot but not for every other link might have to do with the fact that he is the hero of time, as such depending on the context of how he was "defeated" it could lead to another split.
What I love most about this is that it means that no one was right. XDXDXD
Umm.. I was pretty much right. My only mistake was putting FSA at the end instead of with the rest of the FSS. Oh well.
When they say that Link failed, I don't think they actually mean that Link failed. Here's what someone at Gamefaqs said. All credit goes to the original poster.
"Zelda corrupted the timeline by sending Link back using the Ocarina. But 3 timelines are created based on the three travel points used in the game, 2 created by the sword and 1 by Zelda.
Time Junction 1: This is the point where the Master Sword takes Link whenever Link returns the sword to the pedestal and emerges as a child in the past. Which is after Link has met Zelda and collected the Goron's Ruby, and Zora's Sapphire, after Zelda as fled the Palace with Impa, after Link acquires the Ocarina of Time, and after Link has pulled the sword for the first time and opened the sacred realm.
Time Junction 2: This is the point seven years later where the Master Sword takes Link whenever Link draws the sword from the pedestal and emerges in the future as an adult.
Time Junction 3: This is the point Zelda sends Link to, before Link has met Zelda, before he collects the Goron's Ruby and Zora's Sapphire, before Zelda flees the Palace with Impa and before Link acquires the Ocarina.
When there was two connected Time Junctions (1 connected directly with 2, if Link disappeared from 1 he had to emerge in 2 and vice versa, he could always get to the other Junction as well, with no hindrances) there was no time travel paradoxes or discrepancies. But when Zelda creates a third junction point (and more than that a one way junction point), it removes the connections between the two Master Sword junctions. Link disappears from Junction 2 but instead of emerging in Junction 1 like he should, he emerges from Junction 3, meaning there is no Link in Junction 1 (so the events leading to ALTTP play out), and there is no Link in Junction 2 (so the events leading to WW play out), and the Link in junction 3 stops Ganondorf and leaves for Termina (so the events leading to MM and TP play out)
Since Link has no way of returning to Junction 1, the "Link Fails" timeline must occur where Link simply vanishes after pulling the Master Sword."
-Maximum Taco of Gamefaq.
I think this is it. Sounds PERFECT to me.
brilliant
HERE’S HOW IT WORKS
Ocarina Of Time
HERE IS A TREE OF SPLIT TIME LINES..WHICH I CALL THE TRI-FORCE
ZELDA, LINK, AND GANNON REPRESENT THE TRI-FORCE IN THE GAMES SO IT MAKES SENSE…
*** AFTER DEFEATING GANNON ZELDA SENDS EVERYONE BACK IN TIME….BY DOING THIS, IT SENT ZELDA, LINK, AND GANNON THREW A WARMHOLE…. THEY ALL SPLIT IN DIFFERENT TIMES.
#### *LINK; BEFORE HELPING THE GREAT DEKU TREE
COURAGE—LINK—-
NOT KNOWING OF ANYTHING THAT HAPPENED DURING OOT, STAYS IN THE FOREST.LINK REFUSES TO HELP THE DEKU TREE… WHICH LEADS TO
Split 1:——
a) Majora’s Mask
b) Twilight Princess=======
c) Four Swords Adventures—-
### * ZELDA; FIRST TIME SEEING GANNONDORF
WISDOM—-ZELDA— ;
ZELDA NEVER MEETS LINK AND THE KING IS FORCED TO FLOOD THE LANDS OF HYRULE.;.PRINCESS ZELDA HAS TO KEEP HER IDENITY HIDDEN.WHICH LEADS TO
Split 2:
a) Wind Waker
b) Phantom Hourglass
c) Spirit Tracks
### * GANNON: STARTS THE IMPRISONING WAR
POWER—GANNON—
******WHEN LINK PULLED THE MASTER SWORD; HE WAS TRAPPED IN THE SACRED REALM.GANNON STARTS THE IMPRISONING WAR; THE SAGES SEAL GANNON. HE BREAKS THE SEAL;FINALLY CAPTURES PRINCESS ZELDA. WHICH LEADS TO
Split 3:
a) A Link To The Past
b) Oracles
c) Link’s Awakening
d) The Legend Of Zelda
e) The Legend Of Zelda II
But when the LEGEND OF ZELDA ( nes ) was made i dont think they had all this aligned…even after WW. I think it’s was more of an idea that had to be made…EVEN IF THAT NINTENDO POST IS TRUE..THERE WILL ALWAYS BE LITTLE THINGS THAT DOSENT MAKE SENSE…WHO KNOWS HOW MUCH OF TIME TRAVELING GOES INTO THIS…THERE’S ALOT OF SCIENCE IN TIME TRAVELING/SHIFTING, WORMHOLES, REALMS. So who knows how deep they went with this…
that theory you came up with might seem nice in your head but in reality it makes chicken s**t look good.
my problem is that an entire timeline comes from link failing in OOT. But if you take link failing into account there would be an alternate timeline with every game…..
There probably is an alternate timeline with every game, but it's just not something that Nintendo has explored yet with any other games.
I like this timeline, it makes sense to me, though it seems to have left everyone including me questioning, exactly where and how did the Hero of Time Fail? Ganondorf had to be sealed at some point because that's how it is in the beginning of ALttP.
The child timeline is my favorite, it has the real Hero of Time chosen by the goddess, I hope they expand on that timeline more as it seems to be lacking compared to the other 2 branches
Alright, a “what-if” scenario, kinda cool. But if it’s a “what-if” timeline (which it didn’t happen but could.) couldn’t that make all the games falling in that timeline non-canon to the child and adult timeline? This timeline I don’t believe is official. Honestly though it was pretty close to the timeline I thought of but I had that “what-if” timeline I’m the Child timeline. Just because this is in a official Nintendo book doesn’t make it law. I remember Capcom published an Official Resident Evil book detailing all the games up to 4, and there where tons of errors that messed up the canon of the games.
I don't see why there should be a problem about Link failing. After all, how else is it possible for Ganon to have the COMPLETE Triforce in ALttp?
I think the entire point of the third branch was that those games really didn’t work too well anywhere else. So they exist as what-ifs. Yes, there should be one for every time you fail, but we simply haven’t played them yet. It’s not that those branches don’t exist, it’s that those games don’t exist right now.
As far as official evnts go, what happens in a Link to the Past and onward never actually occur, since we never actually fail in OoT. There exists one split, and the third simply plays off of “if the Hero of Time failed.”
Really, the next game could conceivably branch off of anyone of the heroes failing. The branch “exists”, but ist apparent since we haven’t been told of it, and thus wouldt exist on this particular timeline.
The logic to the third split has been mentioned several times. It wouldn't make sense if they were just like "Hey the Hero died in battle," because the 'living' part of the split wouldn't take place. The most reasonable explanation is that it happened when Link left the future to get the silver gauntlets. This is why this alternative isn't included for the other games, because the Heroes in those games don't travel in time, so the Hero dying wouldn't result in a split, just in different events occuring.
So the third branch applies to every god damn zelda game? Explain that Nintendo, well done for screwing up something which had so much potential.
Read my comment above. It's the super long one. Getting a "Game Over" screen has nothing to do with the timeline.
this timeline is NOT it. it actually dosent make sense, and if nintendo actually confirmed this, they're full of twats who haven't played their own games. They combined fan theories, added in a random 3rd after confirming only 2 to shock people, where only 2 can exist at all. this time line as more holes than anything ive ever seen before.
explain the holes please.
Now the timeline makes more sense! I was wondering how FSA came after TP because I thought it was tied in with MC. This is really good, although it would've been better to do this if they stopped making games I loved reading peoples theories of the timeline.
Listen everyone: it makes perfect sense if you consider the following: The sacred realm, meaning the chamber of the sages exists outside of time right? So when Link entered the chamber of the sages, he exited time itself. Meaning time continued onward without him (the 'link deafeated' timeline). But when he returned to 7 years into Ganon's reign he created the split between A and B/C. When Zelda sends him back to live as a child it creates the split in B and C. So now we have timelines A, B, and C. It isn't that Link died and was defeated (our poor skills at a video game isn't part of the story) but that when he went into the chamber of sages it appeared to the rest of the world that he disappeared and never came back.
That actually makes a bit of sense, but there are a few controversial points that I'll go into detail in a forum post later.
I understand that they were trying to find a way out of the situation they stuck themselves in with their "Link fails" ploy. What I don't understand is why they didn't just create another split from skyward sword. It ends with Denise being defeated in two different ways and times as was Ganon in OoT. Seems like a more obvious way out.
Actually, Skyward Sword makes a stable time loop. You only defeat Demise once.
In the past, you kill Demise. This seals his consciousness in the Master Sword, and his body in the Sealed Grounds. In the present, you fight his body (The Imprisoned) and his consciousness is held separate. Then you drop Skyloft on him, killing his body. His consciousness is then useless without a body to inhabit, and just hangs out being sealed in the Master Sword.
Really, this doesn't mean much to me. I will say it's canon to the creators, if they say so, but to me, very little of how Zelda has been developed and crafted suggest anything of a continuing narrative. They're games made one at a time with story created around gameplay premises. Here and there, Nintendo makes allusions and references, but they're so vague to the point that they're practically meaningless unless the fans themselves create a whole mythology to fill the void.
I gave up on that. It drove me insane. I loved Ocarina of Time when it came out when I was ten and I was engrossed in that world. Then virtually every game after it connecting to it (sans Majora's Mask and maybe The Wind Waker) vaguely associate with it and create all sorts of aesthetic and technical questions.
So, it's nice that fans who wanted a timeline have one, but for me, it's just a neat factoid and little more.
Really, the only thing that doesn't make sense is the placement of the two Oracle games. It would have been better if they were placed in two different timelines.
Dam! Ganon is revived many times, I want to see a game where Ganondorf is Link's ally!
Try Skyward Sword. Who do you think Groose is?
dude ganondorf is spoilers demis reborn as he said at the end of the game my hatrade shall be reborn and the reborn of the goddes /zeldas and those with the spirit of the her /link reborn shall be followed forever my my reborn form
what? No
I think it would make much more sense if timelines A and C were switched. otherwise theres too much missing. Should windwaker be after the one where link fails? and if link failed, why did ganon need to be "revived" or did link do some kind of sacrfice that took down both himself and ganon?
People, I know it makes no sense in some parts while the connections are apparent in other sections. This "riddled with holes" idea is all because the time line is not finished. As quoted by Addsy, that missing space in the Sky Era could in fact mean that there is an unknown adventure. As is there are for the others that would help give more plausibility to the time line than is already available. The point is, The Legend of Zelda series is far too popular for Nintendo to end it now. With two known future titles already announced with one for the 3DS and the other for the Wii U, Zelda will be here for a long time.
Am I the only one that thinks Skyward Sword is the beginning and the end (or somewhere in the middle)?
The fact that Din, Nayru, and Farore are referred to as "the old gods" in that game supports the idea that Skyward Sword comes after the others, where those three are worshipped as goddesses–despite what Nintendo has repeatedly said about it being the 'first' in the series.
for all the complainers, the 'defeated hero' time line happens when you get the game over screen. there, you cant argue with that logic…
Apart from how every other game can have game over too, meaning there would be hundrends of time splits.
exactly! finally someone who gets it
just cuz there can be multiple time lines tho doesn't mean they have to make a game for each
I honestly don't like the timeline : it feels foreign, like others said, if ganon succeeded and like died, wouldn't he just of taken over the world and thats it?
Ehhh……
While this does does make everything fit, I don't think the concept that this is a TIME-line was fully understood. The timeline split is due to time travel, not "what if" alternate realities. The timeline should continue as if Link keeps succeeding. That's the assumption, because OoT did not show a third possibility like Link failing to defeat Ganondorf. The third split that depends on the Hero of Time "failing" is more like a completely different way things happened, or a second and separate timeline. If this is the case here, then "failure" creates possibility for a split in ANY game, therefore there are many more possibilities here. Nintendo, this was clever of you, but I just can't buy into it the way you presented it. I can't buy into "what if" scenarios.
Keep in mind, this was developers intent, but the series as a whole is still up to interpretation. It's like music. The artist intends a certain meaning in their lyrics, but often there are different ways to interpret it. Same thing here. I'm sure Nintendo got to a point where they weren't sure themselves of how their own series' timeline is supposed to be. They edited the "official" timeline as they released more games, and this how they decided to put it as of now. So relax guys, this is for fun. Put the games in an order that works for you.
Still, even if I did agree with this 3 split concept, there are still problems here:
-First being that 4S should be right before 4SA. They are obviously directly linked, the opening text of 4SA says so. Don't believe me? http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9N3p7_5VLgo
-I really don't see why OoX goes after ALttP. It fits much better after TAoL. Here's why: http://www.zeldawiki.org/Oracle_Confusion
I'd honestly just put ALttP and it's following games after 4SA, with the reincarnated Ganondorf in 4SA as the Ganon seen in ALttP.
you my friend are a heretic just like me. i have the exact same timeline as you.
The alternative that Ocarinao32 proposed is clever, but it seems pointlessly complex and doesn't make complete sense. The suggestion, essentially, is that rather than just jumping seven years ahead in his own time in OoT, Link jumps to another completely identical timeline and moves seven years ahead there. Yes, this would produce the desired split (other than the lack of sages, which could easily be explained away), but it is also totally useless. Why would forward time-travel create a new timeline? Backward time-travel does it because multiple futures are created. Forward time travel only creates one future; a person just disappears and reappears later. Heck, Link didn't even really time travel forward in OoT. He just sat around for seven years in another dimension. No alternate futures involved. It would only technically be time travel if he remained a little kid in the future.
As Rakshael (last comment on page 1) brought up, Link in OoT seems to not have created alternate futures when he time traveled via the Master Sword, but this is in itself paradoxical. It doesn't even make logical sense, and just seems more like a sacrifice for gameplay than an actual canonical time travel mechanic. For instance, if Link went back to get the Lens of Truth, he would make it so that he already had it in the future, thus robbing him of his incentive to go back and get it, thus making it so he doesn't have the Lens of Truth and so on, creating the infamous time-travel paradox. It's been obvious for a while that OoT's brand of time travel doesn't make sense, so I think OoT's ending time-travel mechanics (which are a sight more sensible) should be regarded as canonical rather than the gameplay time-travel non-logic. Furthermore, Skyward Sword's story operates under similar time travel mechanics as OoT's ending. If we follow these, then yes, every time Link travels back in time in OoT he should have to redo all the dungeons he's already completed, but it also sets up the Classics line and avoids messy paradoxes without involving any alternate universes.
You know, I'm actually starting to understand why Nintendo copped out and made an alternate universe…
I'm confused. I thought the Zelda in TAOL was the first ever Zelda? So why is that Zelda's tragedy before TLOZ? Shouldn't it be up by or before Skyward Sword?
Or am I wrong?