Zelda timeline theories, for your inner geek!

[Xbob42]

Well, the Zelda Timeline Theory from GTTV (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SF8Ve2Dk6-0)posted by Predmid in the Twilight Princess thread got me thinking, what do you think the whole timeline is, and why?

The 12 minute long featurette basically gave their idea of how the Minish Cap came first, what followed and why. Some theories since Twilight Princess on there may have been proven or disproven due to various facts about the game. And hopefully we'll have even more insight once the Phantom Hourglass comes out.

What do I believe? I'm not sure exactly, and I have yet to completely beat Link's Adventure (I'm sorry, but it never felt like Zelda to me and remains the only Nintendo Zelda I have never beaten. It's so hard to play through it when it bores you so.) but what I do believe is that the original Legend of Zelda probably doesn't fit too well anywhere in the timeline, at least from a technical standpoint. This is of course because the game came out long before anyone knew it would be a long franchise and Nintendo had probably simply planned a fun little adventure game, never suspecting it would swell into the monstrous series it is today.

That leads me to the conclusion of that, and of the lack of any REAL story behind the original, it is not really designed for the timeline.

Oh, and personally, I like to think Link's Awakening happened after Majora's Mask, but not before the original as the video implies. It seems to me that this Link is the one that never returns and is mentioned in the beginning of the Wind Waker, the Hero of Time, and that Wind Waker is not part of the "split theory," which I don't think too much of myself.

Well, let's hear some wacky theories!

P.S. If Kirby sucked up Link, Ganondorf and Zelda at the same time, would the Tri-Force grant him a wish?

[Emura]

OK, I'm just going to completely re-write this post so that people will get off my case about how wrong I am and get back to the subject at hand...

I've never played Minish Cap or the Four Swords so I can't guess where it lies in the storyline, but here is a rough guess at some sort of order:


Minish Cap
||
Four Swords Games?
||
Ocarina of Time ==> Wind Waker
Majora's Mask Phantom Hourglass
||
Twilight Princess
||
A Link to the Past
Link's Awakening
||
The Legend of Zelda
The Adventure of Link
(Philips CD-i games and the TV series might fit in here)
Oracle of Ages/Seasons

[Bahamut]

Umm, it's official that Ocarina of Time came before the others, excepting Minnish Cap.

[The Damned]

You know, this is covered quite a bit in the Twilight Princess thread.

[jupiter-x]

There are also subtle hints in the Hylian/Hyrulian letters and text used in each game. In OoT, the text (found on the signs and some buildings) is angular, like something that would be chisled into stone, whereas the writing in WW is more like script, written in ink on paper. This would stand to put OoT pre-WindWaker. What sort of writing is in the other games?

[The Instrument of GAWD]

Except for the spin offs, they're not connected. Let it go.

[Bahamut]

Nintendo has also said OoT is before WW - the whole introduction in WW demonstrates that.

[Ffej]

I don't like most of their timeline. When timelining Zelda, we have to assume as little as possible. I mean, some things need to be assumed a little tiny bit, but they make massive leaps of faith there. Here's what I think.

The Minish Cap is most likely first in the timeline. Aonuma said in a Game Informer interview that Four Swords on the GBA was first, and The Minish Cap predates this.
Ocarina of Time introduces Ganon and a new Link, so therefore predates all games except The Minish Cap and possibly Four Swords GBA.
Child Link's ending leads into Majora's Mask. I, for one, don't like assuming that Zelda and Link ratted Ganondorf out. That is a big leap of faith.
Adult Link's ending can go anywhere. We know that it connects to Wind Waker (new Link), and that Twilight Princess (with another new Link) is between the two of them. Wind Waker leads into the new DS game, The Phantom Hourglass.
Four Swords Adventures needs to be some time before A Link to the Past, as his trident is obtained here. A Link to the Past also has a new Link.
Link's Awakening, as stated in it's manual and in the Satellaview game, The Stone Tablets of Antiquity, comes right after A Link to the Past, with the same Link.
The Legend of Zelda and Zelda II: Adventure of Link are consecutive with the same Link as well, according to their manuals.
What we have are small groups of games. The problem is where to place them.
Here's what we know:

Timeline Group A: OoT, MM
Timeline Group B: WW, TPH (Phantom Hourglass)
Timeline Group C: FSA, ALttP, LA
Timeline Group D: LoZ, AoL

So as far as timeline are concerned, this is all we know for sure:

Timeline I:

The Minish Cap
(lots of time, possibly more games)
Ocarina of Time
Majora's Mask
(lots of time, possibly more games)

Timeline II:

Timeline I:

The Minish Cap
(lots of time, possibly more games)
Ocarina of Time
(lots of time, possibly more games)
Twilight Princess
(lots of time, possibly more games)
Wind Waker
Phantom Hourglass
(lots of time, possibly more games)


Other than those "These games definitely connect" groups up there, this is all we know.

We have a few corners constructed, but Uncle Eiji and Grandpa Shiggy won't give us the last few pieces we need to fill in the middle and completely connect our cute jigsaw puzzle.

[FiremanJoe]

Ok, so I'm probably the least knowledgeable about Zelda here (I've played OoT up to the Sprit Temple, played like 5 mins of ALttP and Awakening each, only one finished was WW)
Anyway.. I thought Majora's Mask was "Zelda Gaiden" in Japan or something.. and to my knowledge, a gaiden is a side-story... confirm/deny?

[TheLeviathan]

Just beat TP, and all I can say is wow. Anyway, I just a thought about the Link in "A Link to the Past" being the last Link, who also is definately the same Link in Link's Awakening afterwards and I guess Zelda 1 and 2 as people have said (I've only played parts of the 1st 2 Zeldas). I just thought of how at the end of "A Link to the Past", it says, "and the Master Sword sleeps again, FOREVER". Now unless the 1st 2 Zeldas do infact come after "A Link to the Past" and "Link's Awakening", AND have the Master Sword in them, it would make sense that this is the last Link. They probably didn't even mean it like that, because I doubt they knew what was in store for future games.

This has probably already been gone into before, but I thought I'd mention it.

[linkspast]

Except for the spin offs, they're not connected. Let it go.

QFE.........

[Smoke]

Don't forget Four Swords Adventures. It's pretty much a straight sequel to Four Swords GBA. However, it also includes Ganon and shows how he got his trident, and it shows the destruction of Vaati. We can pretty much assume that it lies between OoT and LttP from this, but takes place after Minish Cap, placing Minish Cap as the first.

The Oracle games end with Link sailing off to new lands after going through the linked games(Adding Ganon as a final boss), which could connect to the start of LA.

Zelda 1 and 2 are actually rather difficult to place in the timeline. They appear to have a 'new' Link as the main character, but Ganon's back while LttP claims he was totally destroyed. Then there's the case of the full Triforce coming under Ganon's power, while he only has the Power part in Z1. Also, OoT shows Ganon vanishing with only his Triforce part, while the others remain with Link and Zelda.

The other games are rather obviously connected though. LttP's GBA release actually has a changed plot to point out the differences that OoT brought.

[Dunnowhathuh]

Maybe all the Links are from parallel universes and will one day combine their might like in those episodes of Spider Man? All seriousness though, that Game Trailers one was thought through pretty well. I wonder if Nintendo actually has a timeline handy or if they're just making it up as they go along and telling us little lies just to keep us guessing. Kudos to them either way cuz they're keeping it under wraps pretty damn well.

[Fire in the Hole]

I concur with the "let it go." Basically, the only way a single, definite way to connect all the games could exist is through some major retconning, and Nintendo is far from likely to do that any time soon.

[Mr.Roboto]

The only timeline I know of that is the Link(har har.) between Ocarina of Time,Majora's Mask and Wind Waker.Since the evidence is quite obvious.

As for Twilight Princess I really can't find any obvious connections.

[Rainman DX]

I admit, I used to not give a second thought to the idea that each game (excepting obvious same-system follow-ups) were, in any way, Linked to each other. But after watching GameTrailers' split timeline theory, I might as well be sold out on it. Not that I'm the kind that believes the first thing he hears - but GT's arguments were so cogent and provided so much evidence for each, that I, in my limited (beat every known Zelda game at least once) experience, could not conceive of an argument to top it.

That said, I find the split timeline theory captivating, and look forward to seeing if future Zelda innovations (which ever way Nintendo decides to take the franchise) will make or break that theory.

[CE]

I concur with the "let it go." Basically, the only way a single, definite way to connect all the games could exist is through some major retconning, and Nintendo is far from likely to do that any time soon.

Ever since Ocarina of Time was made, Miyamoto has had a master document with the entire zelda timeline planned out with areas that could have more then 1 game in between them to cover unplanned developments. So there is a over-arching storyline.

[Jam Stunna]

Ever since Ocarina of Time was made, Miyamoto has had a master document with the entire zelda timeline planned out with areas that could have more then 1 game in between them to cover unplanned developments. So there is a over-arching storyline.

Even this seems like a stretch. I always thought that since it's a legend, different people have been retelling the story with their own twists on it. Like an oral tradition kind of thing.

[Upthorn]

Well, considering that Miyamoto's official line is that he has had an overarching story planned from before the first NES game was released...
LINK 1
Minish Cap
Four Swords GBA
Four Swords Adventures

LINK 2
Ocarina of Time -----> Majora's Mask (MM is a sidestory)

LINK 3
A Link to the Past

LINK 4
Twilight Princess

LINK 5
Legend of Zelda
Adventures of Link
Link's Awakening
Oracle of Ages/Seasons

(great flood)

LINK 6
Wind Waker
Phantom Hourglass

[CE]

Even this seems like a stretch. I always thought that since it's a legend, different people have been retelling the story with their own twists on it. Like an oral tradition kind of thing.

I suppose that's another take on it. But even then the "Legend telling" still has a ultimate purpose.

[Cecilff2]

I've been seeing theories of LttP being before TP, and it being after.

Before TP makes sense because well...spoilers involving the mirror, you already know if you've beaten it. But if it is after, where does the LttP mirror come into play? I mean, I guess the goddesses could have made another for some reason, plus the LttP one is able to be carried.

[TheLeviathan]

Shouldn't A Link to the Past be the last game that involves the Master Sword since at the end, it says, "and the Master Sword sleeps again, Forever!"?

[Mr.Roboto]

Shouldn't A Link to the Past be the last game that involves the Master Sword since at the end, it says, "and the Master Sword sleeps again, Forever!"?


The thing about that is,

Link has Pink/Purple hair.

[Rainman DX]

The thing about that is,

Link has Pink/Purple hair.

Y'know, he's got a point.

[Cecilff2]

There's a logical explanation for that, and it involves the bizarros.

[Decoy Octopus]

Link 1 is another obvious position. The whole reason it was titled "A Link to the Past" was because this Link was a version of Link from the past, that is, before Zelda 1.
Ehhh... no.

You're wrong. You couldn't be more wrong.

[XCloud419]

The thing about that is,

Link has Pink/Purple hair.

yeah why is that? that really got me thinkin!

[Ffej]

ALttP has to be far into Hyrule's future, simply because the Hylians are extinct and their language is long dead, thus placing it some time after Wind Waker.

Also, the Four Swords games and Minish Cap all have 3 different Links, as Link has to be introduced, for the first time at the beginning of each game, to the Four Sword and Vaati. Also, Four Swords Adventures can't be before OoT because of Ganon's inclusion in the game.

Also, concerning ALttP's ending, the SNES translation is so completely unreliable it's not even funny. Either use the direct translation from Japanese, or the GBA version.

And for the last time, Link's Awakening is OFFICIALLY a sequel to ALttP, as stated in it's manual and the Sattleview spin-off of ALttP.

[Smoke]

yeah why is that? that really got me thinkin!

Kool-Aid accident.

[atmuh]

Am I the only one who loves Zelda but doesn't give a crap about all this timeline nonsense?

[linkspast]

Nope I play the games cause there fun... none of that cannonical junk for me.

[Zero Rei Maru]

Some people do like this kind of stuff you know. Let it go and let us speculate.

[Pi_R_[]ed]

Nah, everybody watch. Nintendo's gonna hit us with some huge shocker in the next game, and either mess everything up, or make everything extremely apparant and obvious.

Or not. But this is what I like. Video games aren't just for playing. It's the discussion that goes into it that can keep fans interested in between games.

[The Damned]

Am I the only one who loves Zelda but doesn't give a crap about all this timeline nonsense?
I've been trying to think of something to say about this whole timeline crap, but everything I thought up was grounds for post deletion. Short (and much more polite) version: no. I also don't give a fuck about any supposed timeline. I never ever thought about it, it never even crossed my mind as to how each game was related to each other. They're all stand alone as far as I'm concerned.

And unless there's some incredibly important reason why you have to know exactly which games come in which order, there's no point to even trying to discuss it. It's not like the next Zelda game is going to have pop quizzes where you have to get the timeline right or else the room fills up with ReDeads.

[Emura]

Link 1 is another obvious position. The whole reason it was titled "A Link to the Past" was because this Link was a version of Link from the past, that is, before Zelda 1.
Ehhh... no.

You're wrong. You couldn't be more wrong.

http://zs.ffshrine.org/album/link-to-the-past/boxart/back.jpg

Hey, so where does the TV series and CD-i games fit into everything?

Edit: Yes, I meant CD-i, not 3D0.

[atmuh]

Hey, so where does the TV series and 3D0 games fit into everything?
you mean CD-i right?

[hamburglar]

Hey, so where does the TV series and CD-i games fit into everything?


I highly doubt Miyamoto planned for either of those abominations to exist(at least they're fun to mock).

[Ffej]

The CD-i games were not Nintendo developed or supervised, but they wouldn't have any ramifications anyway.

Also, the American SNES version of ALttP is not to be trusted, Emura. Most timeline theories place it before LoZ and AoL, but not for that reason.

[Decoy Octopus]

http://zs.ffshrine.org/album/link-to-the-past/boxart/back.jpg

I wouldn't cite the write-up from the back of the box as a source of information. Consider that the American marketing team that designed the packaging didn't have anything to do with the development of the game.

Y'know, sorta in the say way that Super Castlevania IV was professed in North America to come after the events of Castlevania and Castlevania II: Simon's Quest when, in truth, it was a reimagining of the events in the first game, not a sequel.

And, to be honest, my problem with your timeline is not so much that you place A Link to the Past before Zelda 1 & 2, it was that you made ALttP the first game in the timeline and put Ocarina of Time post almost everything else. Ocarina of Time is the first game in the series (or at least the part concerning Ganon). This should be obvious from how Ganondorf is presented in the game.

[Rainman DX]

http://zs.ffshrine.org/album/link-to-the-past/boxart/back.jpg

Hey, so where does the TV series and CD-i games fit into everything?

Edit: Yes, I meant CD-i, not 3D0.

Gaa!! Ack!! He said it, he said it!!

I was perfectly comfortable in my non-Nintendo Zelda-less world before you had to go and bring those abominations to my attention again. Curse you!

[Emura]

The CD-i games were not Nintendo developed or supervised, but they wouldn't have any ramifications anyway.

Also, the American SNES version of ALttP is not to be trusted, Emura. Most timeline theories place it before LoZ and AoL, but not for that reason.

You are the second person to allude to this mysterious, intangible "reason" without actually citing it. What is this reason?

I wouldn't cite the write-up from the back of the box as a source of information. Consider that the American marketing team that designed the packaging didn't have anything to do with the development of the game.

OK, sure. But until we hear directly from the development team, why can't we assume that the American marketing team is correct. I mean, I know marketing always screws things up. It's the second rule of marketing, right after "Do the exact opposite of what the development team wants."

But has it really come to a point where we have to assume everything a marketing team says is false until proven otherwise?

And, to be honest, my problem with your timeline is not so much that you place A Link to the Past before Zelda 1 & 2, it was that you made ALttP the first game in the timeline and put Ocarina of Time post almost everything else. Ocarina of Time is the first game in the series (or at least the part concerning Ganon). This should be obvious from how Ganondorf is presented in the game.

I have edited my original post to correct my ignorance. I also fixed the part where I said Link's Awakening followed Zelda 2. When I wrote the original post I couldn't remember whether it was Zelda 2 it followed or A Link to the Past.

[Ffej]

You are the second person to allude to this mysterious, intangible "reason" without actually citing it. What is this reason?

It was poorly translated into English.
http://www.zeldalegends.net/index.php?n=z3translation

Read up. This is well-known in the Zelda community, especially for timeliners.

[Decoy Octopus]

You are the second person to allude to this mysterious, intangible "reason" without actually citing it. What is this reason?
The reason it hasn't been cited is there is certainly an assumption that individuals posting in this thread are familiar with the basic schools of thought on the Zelda timeline.

[I-n-j-i-n]

Umm, it's official that Ocarina of Time came before the others, excepting Minnish Cap.

I would not be surprised if that's not canon even if some Nintendo developers have said that. Just switch a few around and you could reach the same conclusion as that GTTV's analysis. I realized that most theories of the time line comes close to GTTV's one regardless.

[Xbob42]

I've been trying to think of something to say about this whole timeline crap, but everything I thought up was grounds for post deletion. Short (and much more polite) version: no. I also don't give a fuck about any supposed timeline. I never ever thought about it, it never even crossed my mind as to how each game was related to each other. They're all stand alone as far as I'm concerned.

And unless there's some incredibly important reason why you have to know exactly which games come in which order, there's no point to even trying to discuss it. It's not like the next Zelda game is going to have pop quizzes where you have to get the timeline right or else the room fills up with ReDeads.

Then why bother even replying? Don't click thread you aren't interested in. Geez.

[atmuh]

Then why bother even replying? Don't click thread you aren't interested in. Geez.

I clicked this because I am tired of all this entirely useless chatter.

[Local Area Network]

Just something I want to confirm about Ganondorf's status in ALttP, regarding him against Sephiroth (versus topic on Gamefaqs, been banned from here see), after four topics over two boards, I eventually beat one very persistent Sephy fanboy by proving that Ganondorf would win at both one third of his power against AC Sephiroth respectively, and full power, which I believe would be full triforce Ganondorf in ALttP- however, because EVERYONE in the Dark Realm is said to be in a repressed, stunted form; Link as a bunny; Ganondorf would also have been in a repressed form in the final battle, which means that placed in a neutral location against 100% Jenova Sephiroth i.e. FF7 Northern Crater Sephiroth, Ganondorf's full power would be realised, which with the ENTIRE TRIFORCE and his wish for ultimate cosmic rule would basically make him a god. This is partly based on the GBA ALttP and GFaqs text dumps, I'm aware the above Zeldalegends translation says that no-one knew his wish:


Surprisingly, the Triforce
created this world to fulfill
Ganon's wish.
What is Ganon's wish,
you ask? It's to rule the
entire cosmos! Don't you think
it might be possible with the
power of the Trifore
behind you?

This world was once the
Golden Land where the Triforce
was hidden.
But because Ganon, the leader
of the thieves, wished it, this
world was transformed...
I'm sure he's intending to
conquer even our Light World
after building his power here.

The one who rediscovered
the Golden Land was
an evil thief named Ganondorf.
Luckily, he couldn't figure out
how to return to the Light
World...

If you defeat Ganon, this
world will vanish, and the
Triforce will wait
for a new master.

I will destroy you
and make my wish to conquer
both Light and Dark Worlds
come true without delay.

Ganon's wish was to conquer
the world. That wish changed
the Golden Land into
the Dark World.
After building up his power,
Ganon planned to go on to the
Light World to fulfill his wish.

[The Damned]

Then why bother even replying? Don't click threads you aren't interested in. Geez.
First, it's a thread I am interested in. Not in the same way you are, but that's how you make conversations happen.

Second, I'm countering an opinion stated by other people. You're allowed to do that now.

Third, STFU, 5 post newbie. When you learn how people around here operate, you'll see that telling someone to not post in a thread is like telling fat chicks not to eat chocolate. Lurk some more.

Just something I want to confirm about Ganondorf's status in ALttP, regarding him against Sephiroth (versus topic on Gamefaqs, been banned from here see), after four topics over two boards, I eventually beat one very persistent Sephy fanboy by proving that Ganondorf would win at both one third of his power against AC Sephiroth respectively, and full power, which I believe would be full triforce Ganondorf in ALttP- however, because EVERYONE in the Dark Realm is said to be in a repressed, stunted form; Link as a bunny; Ganondorf would also have been in a repressed form in the final battle, which means that placed in a neutral location against 100% Jenova Sephiroth i.e. FF7 Northern Crater Sephiroth, Ganondorf's full power would be realised, which with the ENTIRE TRIFORCE and his wish for ultimate cosmic rule would basically make him a god. This is partly based on the GBA ALttP and GFaqs text dumps, I'm aware the above Zeldalegends translation says that no-one knew his wish:
Well, that just solves everything, especially the original topic.

[Local Area Network]

Well, that just solves everything, especially the original topic.

Ganondorf's various incarnations are related to the original topic of the timeline, albeit not directly, but I don't think I was completely off-topic. I just wondered if anyone could confirm that the most powerful incarnation of Ganondorf to date was indeed in ALttP, due to his possession of the entire Triforce and the wish he made to transform the Sacred Realm into the Dark Realm, and that his power wasn't actually fully manifest due to the restrictions of the Dark Realm.

EDIT: Actually, it doesn't matter, this argument ended months ago, about TP's position in the timeline, it's definitely after OoT, but then how does it correlate to the Great Flood? Is there gonna be another game after TP leading up to WW?

[Syka]

I don't think they'll actually make a game about the time when the great flood happens, since the whole point of that is the fact that the hero never shows up.

I do hope they give more backstory, though.

[Local Area Network]

Yeah. WW was absolute shite anyway, if only for the backstory and Ganondorf. Glad to see Aonuma's got Zelda back on track, I'd say he just about redeemed himself with TP.

[Upthorn]

I clicked this because I am tired of all this entirely useless chatter.

If you don't like the useless chatter, don't click the threads. You knew when you read the topic that the thread would be about zelda timeline theories. So don't read it. Solves your problem of being annoyed by useless chatter (because you aren't exposing yourself to it) and solves this thread's problem of people coming in and going "DUDE THIS IS POINTLESS STOP TALKING."

First, it's a thread I am interested in. Not in the same way you are, but that's how you make conversations happen.
So being completely uninterested in all zelda timeline theories makes you interested in a thread about them? Oh of course, it makes perfect sense!

Second, I'm countering an opinion stated by other people. You're allowed to do that now.
In very much the same way that you're allowed to walk into a Nissan dealership and go "WTF ARE ALL THESE PEOPLE DOING HERE? DON'T YOU KNOW THAT NISSAN CARS ARE ALL CRAP AND WHOEVER DESIGNED THEM SHOULD BE RAPED TO DEATH?!"

Third, STFU, 5 post newbie. When you learn how people around here operate, you'll see that telling someone to not post in a thread is like telling fat chicks not to eat chocolate. Lurk some more.
Because we all know that postcount equals IQ, amirite?

Lots of retarded gamefaqs shit about how ganon could take sephiroth any day of the week.
Guy. This "my character is stronger than your character" crap is why the internet community at large thinks of the gamefaqs boards as a gay orgy of retarded.

[The Damned]

So being completely uninterested in all zelda timeline theories makes you interested in a thread about them? Oh of course, it makes perfect sense!
The topic is of interest to me, therefore I will post. My interest isn't for it, but against it. That's still an interest.

In very much the same way that you're allowed to walk into a Nissan dealership and go "WTF ARE ALL THESE PEOPLE DOING HERE? DON'T YOU KNOW THAT NISSAN CARS ARE ALL CRAP AND WHOEVER DESIGNED THEM SHOULD BE RAPED TO DEATH?!"
How did you know I did that? Are you following me around? Did the dealership send you the security tape?

Because we all know that postcount equals IQ, amirite?Apperently not, going by the fact you didn't even read the original post. I said "low postcount = not being here long = not knowing how people act here". Maybe after you learn to read and comprehend what you're quoting, you can come back and try again.

Guy. This "my character is stronger than your character" crap is why the internet community at large thinks of the gamefaqs boards as a gay orgy of retarded.
Now I can't hate you at all. You just had to say the one thing I wanted to, but didn't. You quote me out of context, but you tell the gamefaqer off. I don't know whether to hate you or applaud you.

(Also, I miss the old quoting system, where you could have little quote nexus)

[Local Area Network]

Guy. This "my character is stronger than your character" crap is why the internet community at large thinks of the gamefaqs boards as a gay orgy of retarded.

Yeah guy, I know that, it's also the only other thing Gamefaqs is good for, there's a very good capacity for versus debate on some boards, particularly with RPG/Adventure types, as my experience with Sephiroth vs. Ganondorf shows. Sure, it's the game equivalent of IMDb, but don't pidgeonhole the entire board community as beneath you.

[Infinity's End]

I've tried to weed through all the pointless, useless bickering... let's try to stay on topic, shall we?
Anyway, here's my timeline theory. If everyone just adopted this method, you'd enjoy the games a lot more for what they are, and not what they're not. That goes for all games, but trying to put a timeline to the Zelda series is like trying to find a needle in a haystack. It's pointless and it's a waste of time. Check out my LJ, all will be good.

http://infinitysend.livejournal.com/18760.html

[Fire in the Hole]

Yeah guy, I know that, it's also the only other thing Gamefaqs is good for, there's a very good capacity for versus debate on some boards, particularly with RPG/Adventure types, as my experience with Sephiroth vs. Ganondorf shows. Sure, it's the game equivalent of IMDb, but don't pidgeonhole the entire board community as beneath you.

You seem to have missed the point. That can't be something Gamefaqs is good for because that is, in no way, shape, or form, good to begin with. No one gives a shit about "versus debate," provided the select population of that statement is limited to people who actually matter.

[Ffej]

Stop bickering. Stop complaining about those of us who like to speculate on Zelda timelines. Stop making long posts about Ganon being powerful enough to beat Sephiroth.

Now, back to the topic...

Infinity's End, though I do appreciate your knowledge of the number of unique Links there are, I must correct your one point. Four Swords GBA Link is not the same as Four Swords Adventures Link, very simply because each of those Links is first introduced to the Four Sword at the beginning of their respective games.

[megadave]

I always liked to think that the first two Zeldas took place in like, ancient-ancient hyrule.

I guess it's all open to your personal interpretation. Maybe Nintendo will go through the hell of piecing it all together, but they should of really thought ahead.

I guess having a solid storyline would sacrifice new possibilities for the game play, so maybe that's Nintendo's reason - or maybe they just don't give a shit.

[Decoy Octopus]

or maybe they just don't give a shit.
I'm starting to think that they just don't give a shit.

With the way that Ocarina of Time and The Wind Waker were related, I thought we would start to see a more coherent storyline emerge. However, Twilight Princess proved to be a bit underwhelming for those of us seeking to find a greater continuity. The entire game didn't tell us anything more about The Legend. It was just another "Link kicks the shit out of Ganondorf" tale.

I think I might resign myself to the fact that some games are obviously related... others might not be. It doesn't change how much I enjoy the games.

[The Damned]

You know, Final Fantasy doesn't have a timeline. They explicitly stated that none of the games share a common world. Obviously, this excludes the direct sequels, like FFX and FFX-2, and the new FF7 spin-offs.

And yet, I don't hear anyone going on about how Midgard is actually the Ruined World from FF6, but thousands of years later. Or how the underworld in FF4 is actually the underworld in whatever game also had an underworld.

And I'm still waiting for an exact quote from anyone at Nintendo that stated there is an official timeline for Zelda.

[Mr.Roboto]

I'm starting to think that they just don't give a shit.

With the way that Ocarina of Time, Majora's Mask (Otherwise known as the heros absense in the Wind Waker) and The Wind Waker were related, I thought we would start to see a more coherent storyline emerge. However, Twilight Princess proved to be a bit underwhelming for those of us seeking to find a greater continuity. The entire game didn't tell us anything more about The Legend. It was just another "Link kicks the shit out of Ganondorf" tale.

I think I might resign myself to the fact that some games are obviously related... others might not be. It doesn't change how much I enjoy the games.

I ,too,hoped for more in TP as regarding this.."branch" of the Zelda story.

[Ffej]

And I'm still waiting for an exact quote from anyone at Nintendo that stated there is an official timeline for Zelda.
You're kidding, right? Next time a magazine says it has an interview about Zelda, try opening it. Every interview between 1998 and today with Shigeru Miyamoto or Eiji Aonuma has them reaffirming that there is an over-riding continuity and promising that it will begin to become clearer with each new game.

With the way that Ocarina of Time, Majora's Mask (Otherwise known as the heros absense in the Wind Waker) and The Wind Waker were related, I thought we would start to see a more coherent storyline emerge.

Wind Waker has been placed after the adult Link ending of OoT.

Q: Where does The Wind Waker fit into the overall Zelda series timeline?

Aonuma: You can think of this game as taking place over a hundred years after Ocarina of Time. You can tell this from the opening story, and there are references to things from Ocarina located throughout the game as well.
Miyamoto: Well, wait, which point does the hundred years start from?
Aonuma: From the end.
Miyamoto: No, I mean, as a child or as a...
Aonuma: Oh, right, let me elaborate on that. Ocarina of Time basically has two endings of sorts; one has Link as a child and the other has him as an adult. This game, The Wind Waker, takes place a hundred years after the adult Link defeats Ganon at the end of Ocarina.
Miyamoto: This is pretty confusing for us, too. (laughs) So be careful.

[Cecilff2]

If they're going for a continuity thing, there won't be a game between OoT and WW. As according to WW there wasn't another hero after the Hero of Time left, and thats why the place was flooded. Since they couldn't seal evil with a hero, they resorted to using that flood to do it. Unless for some horrible reason they make a zelda game where you don't play as Link.

[Fire in the Hole]

If they're going for a continuity thing, there won't be a game between OoT and WW. As according to WW there wasn't another hero after the Hero of Time left, and thats why the place was flooded. Since they couldn't seal evil with a hero, they resorted to using that flood to do it. Unless for some horrible reason they make a zelda game where you don't play as Link.

It would shed some light on their assertion that Twilight Princess will be the last Zelda game as we know the franchise, though.

[Upthorn]

Four Swords GBA Link is not the same as Four Swords Adventures Link, very simply because each of those Links is first introduced to the Four Sword at the beginning of their respective games.
I agree!
Also, it's obviously a different Samus in Super Metroid than in Metroid 2, because she doesn't start out Super Metroid with all the upgrades she got during Metroid 2.

(Also, a nonsarcastic explanation of my stance):
Game plotlines have to allow some leeway for things done for the benefit of the player. Otherwise you have to say it's a different Link each game, because he starts with 3 hearts instead of 20, and other stuff like that.
There is some redundancy in Minish Cap, Four Swords, and Four Swords Adventures, but I suspect that it's done for the benefit of players who haven't played the other games. Especially since Minish Cap comes before Four Swords chronologically, but was released after.
And especially in games where people say stuff like "Press L to roll", you have to assume that some of the dialogue is directed towards the player, not the character.
So rather than Link being introduced to the Four Sword at the beginning of both games, the player is. Make sense?

[Decoy Octopus]

If they're going for a continuity thing, there won't be a game between OoT and WW. As according to WW there wasn't another hero after the Hero of Time left, and thats why the place was flooded. Since they couldn't seal evil with a hero, they resorted to using that flood to do it. Unless for some horrible reason they make a zelda game where you don't play as Link.
How about a Zelda game where you get to play as Ganondorf? Huh?! Any takers?

[Local Area Network]

I was just about to say that but i'm typing from my wii, would be cool to play ganon's rise 2 power during oot's 7 years

[The Damned]

You're kidding, right? Next time a magazine says it has an interview about Zelda, try opening it. Every interview between 1998 and today with Shigeru Miyamoto or Eiji Aonuma has them reaffirming that there is an over-riding continuity and promising that it will begin to become clearer with each new game.
Who reads magazines anymore? Most of their stuff is out-of date by the time it reaches stands. Meanwhile, internet sites get the most recent info, and if there's a change, they fix it. Oh, and it's free.

But at least someone finally posted something. But it only connects a few of the games. Where are the rest supposed to fall in? There are too few specifics, and too much vagueness to do it. And then there are future titles. Where are they going to fit in? Just wherever there is enough wiggle room that they cna be crammed in and hope it works?

I think you guys are reading way too much into a video game series.

[Syka]

I have totally solved all of the timeline issues. Observe:

http://img241.imageshack.us/my.php?image=realtimelinezu2.png

[Ffej]

I agree!
Also, it's obviously a different Samus in Super Metroid than in Metroid 2, because she doesn't start out Super Metroid with all the upgrades she got during Metroid 2.

(Also, a nonsarcastic explanation of my stance):
Game plotlines have to allow some leeway for things done for the benefit of the player. Otherwise you have to say it's a different Link each game, because he starts with 3 hearts instead of 20, and other stuff like that.
There is some redundancy in Minish Cap, Four Swords, and Four Swords Adventures, but I suspect that it's done for the benefit of players who haven't played the other games. Especially since Minish Cap comes before Four Swords chronologically, but was released after.
And especially in games where people say stuff like "Press L to roll", you have to assume that some of the dialogue is directed towards the player, not the character.
So rather than Link being introduced to the Four Sword at the beginning of both games, the player is. Make sense?

The dialogue is directed towards Link, from Zelda. If it was something that WE needed to know, they would not have had it being said by a character to another character. That's an important point to be made. Also, Aonuma called Four Swords GBA the oldest Zelda story thus far, and Minish Cap must obviously precede it, but FSA can't take place until after OoT, since it includes Ganon.

Also, to The Damned, I'm not saying anything is set in stone or definite. In fact, I was the one who's timeline theory was only based on interviews (from magazines, no less ;] ), in-game text, and credible (read: post-ALttP) game manuals.

[hamburglar]

I have totally solved all of the timeline issues. Observe:

http://img241.imageshack.us/my.php?image=realtimelinezu2.png

Brilliant!

[Pi_R_[]ed]

If they're going for a continuity thing, there won't be a game between OoT and WW. As according to WW there wasn't another hero after the Hero of Time left, and thats why the place was flooded. Since they couldn't seal evil with a hero, they resorted to using that flood to do it. Unless for some horrible reason they make a zelda game where you don't play as Link.

What if Link somehow represses the evil temporarily, but fails in sealing it away, and his story is ignored by the legends? I see a very dark game there, with even more emotion than Majora's Mask. To know you only half-completed your duty...

I like the idea of thinking that a character like the Gold Wolf in Twilight Princess was of a past Link who failed as a hero, and now lives on as a spirit to ensure success of future Links. Or not. Whatever.

EDIT: Actually, that sounds bad after hearing myself read it back. It'd need fine tuning, but A Link who fails to fully complete his duties would make an interesting game, but it'd have to come way later in production, so it has a place to fit into the storyline somewhere. Forget the spirit thing, though.

[bladiator]

I don't understand why there's a reason to come into this thread to tell everyone that there's no reason to speculate and that it's a waste of time. We know it's a waste of time, and we've got a crapload of time on our hands, and this is how we're wasting it. Why am I not playing a video game right now? Cause I'm wasting my time here instead.

POINT: It's all a waste of time. You win. Some people like to watch a lot of TV and I think that's a waste of time. But I don't go in their house and say, "WTF THIS IS A WASTE OF TIME SO GET OVER IT."

OK, keep speculating. Being a guy that has only played through Link's Awakening and a 1/4 of WW, this is still pretty interesting.

[Upthorn]

The dialogue is directed towards Link, from Zelda. If it was something that WE needed to know, they would not have had it being said by a character to another character.
In Twilight Princess (GameCube) there is a named character who tells Link (among other things) "To talk to someone from a distance, hold L to target them, and press A."

Aonuma called Four Swords GBA the oldest Zelda story thus far, and Minish Cap must obviously precede it, but FSA can't take place until after OoT, since it includes Ganon.
This, however, is solid evidence of it being a different Link.

[Citris]

So far my attitude towards Zelda games is a lot like my attitude for Hawthorne's writings: There are a few that have completely captivated me and made me strive through all the complication to get to the end, while there are others I just can't seem to get into and enjoy debating their meaning and significance far more than I do reading (or playing, in case of the games) them.

[Aninymouse]

To be honest, it's enough for me that they're all games featuring a hero named Link. When they're direct sequels, sure, I have no problem with that. However, to try and connect the storyline of the NES games to the Gamecube ones and so on just makes a mess and leaves lots of GAPING HOLES.

That said, after I beat Twilight Princess I knew in my heart that there was no way all the games would ever connect in a totally logical way. If Nintendo wants to commission a manga/comic detailing the complete story, then thats one thing (since plot holes can be filled or ignored, accordingly). In fact, they'd probably make some decent money from it. Unfortunately, until they stop making Zelda games like TP and tPH, this has no chance of ever happening.

TP's ending didn't even seem to segue well into WW. Granted, it wasn't supposed to be the end of Gannon up until WW because of the whole "dude, where's my hero?" thing, but even so... if you've beaten TP, then you know what I mean. It's a more "final" ending than you'd expect for a villain that's supposed to come back shortly thereafter.

Personally, I think Nintendo linked WW and TP to OoT just so people would be more excited about them, not to expand on a central story. Personally, I think the stories of all three of those games were so good that it wouldn't have been a problem if they were all unrelated.

[Rainman DX]

So far my attitude towards Zelda games is a lot like my attitude for Hawthorne's writings: There are a few that have completely captivated me and made me strive through all the complication to get to the end, while there are others I just can't seem to get into and enjoy debating their meaning and significance far more than I do reading (or playing, in case of the games) them.

A fine comparison.

Personally, I think Nintendo linked WW and TP to OoT just so people would be more excited about them, not to expand on a central story. Personally, I think the stories of all three of those games were so good that it wouldn't have been a problem if they were all unrelated.

Also a fair point. While it doesn't seem to detract from the franchise to presume that the pieces don't absolutely have to be conjoined in some way, I would argue that one long, (forked/not forked) timeline in which the story of just one Hyrule is being told makes the franchise somehow intrinsically more valuable. So until Nintendo gives me an indisputable reason to throw out all timelining theories, I will still look for a semi-cogent story for why they could all be connected, even if one doesn't intuitively present itself.

[Effector]

Also a fair point. While it doesn't seem to detract from the franchise to presume that the pieces don't absolutely have to be conjoined in some way, I would argue that one long, (forked/not forked) timeline in which the story of just one Hyrule is being told makes the franchise somehow intrinsically more valuable. So until Nintendo gives me an indisputable reason to throw out all timelining theories, I will still look for a semi-cogent story for why they could all be connected, even if one doesn't intuitively present itself.

Perfect summation of what I've been thinking lately. I really tend to think it [the timeline] adds to the games as a whole. Part of some of the emotional impact of TP was to visit old locales and see what had happened or how they changed. But even more than the basic parallels, when trying to draw out a cohesive timeline, you end up with something that could add more impact to your game-playing. Besides, it's kind of fun to try and build a theory; modern-day detective work and that whole bag.

[I-n-j-i-n]

Sorry, but I disagree that the "forking timeline" theory makes the game any more or less enjoyable or more valuable.

Similar things have been said about other timelines in other long standing series such as Phantasy Star, Final Fantasy and others and with vague connections and very small hints of the worlds and games being connected. You even see that constantly with Megaman and Megaman X with people speculating whether Zero is Protoman and whatnot. It's well implied, but it's never official. Why? I would think that's because the game developers don't really care for any sort of hard backstory aspect of their games. Games like Shadow of the Colossus have been intentionally made to be vague and even the director of the game said he doesn't have a solid backstory plan, but left the interpretations to the gamer.

In the end, it's all about selling the game off as a spiritual sequel. It doesn't mean the storylines have to be connected nor is that ever important. Zelda is ultimately about exploring dungeons and beating bosses. Everything else, yes, even storyline is extraneous.

[The Damned]

I agree with I-n-j-i-n.

I'm actually a little scared now.

[Nick Hyral]

I agree as well.. but you still can't help but think some of them do link into each other.. Perfect example was Zelda I and Zelda II. Kill Ganon in the first, a follower puts a spell on Zelda so Link begins a journey to save her and Hyrule. All the while they waited for some of Link's blood to spill so they could spread it on Ganon's ashes to revive him.

But what gets me is I feel Ocarina of Time, Majora's Mask, and Wind Waker are the ones who follow a time line.. why you might ask? After Link defeats Ganon in OoT, he is sent back to his childhood and leaves Hyrule to search for Navi.. Enter Majora's Mask. Link leaves Hyrule.. Without Link in Hyrule at the end of the seven years where he was to wield the Master Sword against Ganon, Windwaker happens... Ganon obtains power and the people without the hero of Legend that the Royal Kingdom safeguards, the God's flood Hyrule. This is just me ofcourse...

[Ffej]

I agree as well.. but you still can't help but think some of them do link into each other.. Perfect example was Zelda I and Zelda II. Kill Ganon in the first, a follower puts a spell on Zelda so Link begins a journey to save her and Hyrule. All the while they waited for some of Link's blood to spill so they could spread it on Ganon's ashes to revive him.

But what gets me is I feel Ocarina of Time, Majora's Mask, and Wind Waker are the ones who follow a time line.. why you might ask? After Link defeats Ganon in OoT, he is sent back to his childhood and leaves Hyrule to search for Navi.. Enter Majora's Mask. Link leaves Hyrule.. Without Link in Hyrule at the end of the seven years where he was to wield the Master Sword against Ganon, Windwaker happens... Ganon obtains power and the people without the hero of Legend that the Royal Kingdom safeguards, the God's flood Hyrule. This is just me ofcourse...

Lots of people follow this theory, but frankly, it doesn't make too much sense. Ganon doesn't come to power after the child ending of OoT because Link never opens the Sacred Realm. Also, I posted early that Aonuma placed The Wind Waker 1 or more centuries after adult Link defeats Ganon. The reason there is no hero is because Zelda sent him away. The Hyrule he left behind is the one where Ganon comes back.

[Nick Hyral]

Lots of people follow this theory, but frankly, it doesn't make too much sense. Ganon doesn't come to power after the child ending of OoT because Link never opens the Sacred Realm. Also, I posted early that Aonuma placed The Wind Waker 1 or more centuries after adult Link defeats Ganon. The reason there is no hero is because Zelda sent him away. The Hyrule he left behind is the one where Ganon comes back.

Point taken.. yet if you remember Zelda threw the Ocarina to Link as she fled Hyrule Castle.. if Link was not there, is it not safe to say it's possible Ganon did get ahold of her? I mean we are assuming here that the events of Link coming to Princess Zelda never came to pass... For all we know, Ganon starved the Spirit stone of fire from the Goron, took the spirit stone from the great Deku tree and the Zora and opened it himself.. But then again as another point was well made, things like this were intended when the game was created.. to make us speculate.