Zelda timeline theories, for your inner geek!

[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.