The Zelda Timeline. Confirmed and Explained. *SPOILERS*

From IGN.

http://wii.ign.com/articles/121/1215301p1.html

Image is too big to put on the page, so here is the Link to the image

http://wiimedia.ign.com/wii/image/article/121/1215301/the-legend-of-zelda-skyward-sword-20111224020001473.jpg

Nevermind, there's a small version of it :P

Whats this "Hero of Time is defeated"??? :shock:

You're a bit late to the party.

You're a bit late to the party.

meetroid8

[QUOTE="meetroid8"]

You're a bit late to the party.

bbkkristian

Ignore him, there was another topic mentionning the release of the timeline but your topic is the only one showing it.

Thanks for the article link by the way.

Whatever. The "Link died, so THIS happened" BS is still stupid, and I prefer my timeline.

Whatever. The "Link died, so THIS happened" BS is still stupid, and I prefer my timeline.

AvatarMan96

No it's not. Especially when when you contrast the timeline with the order of Zelda titles by release date. It's the only thing they could've done.

[QUOTE="AvatarMan96"]

Whatever. The "Link died, so THIS happened" BS is still stupid, and I prefer my timeline.

D4W1L4H

No it's not. Especially when when you contrast the timeline with the order of Zelda titles by release date. It's the only thing they could've done.

There are some eras/events not seenin a Zelda game yet. Will be interesting to see if future eldagames will goin depth on these events or not.

[QUOTE="D4W1L4H"]

[QUOTE="AvatarMan96"]

Whatever. The "Link died, so THIS happened" BS is still stupid, and I prefer my timeline.

AvatarMan96

No it's not. Especially when when you contrast the timeline with the order of Zelda titles by release date. It's the only thing they could've done.

Infinity Zelda games until the end of time.

I'm not sure what your problem with this is :P

[QUOTE="D4W1L4H"]

[QUOTE="AvatarMan96"]

Whatever. The "Link died, so THIS happened" BS is still stupid, and I prefer my timeline.

AvatarMan96

No it's not. Especially when when you contrast the timeline with the order of Zelda titles by release date. It's the only thing they could've done.

• Miyamoto creates the LoZ as a story where a hero must defeat an over powerful creature named Ganon
• Miyamoto decides to continue the story in a dirct sequel.
• Miyamoto decides to create a story which begins to explain the events prior to the first two games.
• He then creates a game which tells a story directly before his first game.
• He then decides that he would like Link to take on different story lines in the game, so he creates OoT, a story where Link manages to defeat Ganon, and is sen't back to the past.
• To kick of the second timeline, he creates a direct sequel to OoT, where Link follows the events of said game directly.
• He then decides to fill the gap between Links awakening and A link to the past.
• He decides to create a prequel to OoT, to show people the event prior.
• He decides to create a third timeline, in which Link defeats Ganon in OoT but does not go back to the past. (Wind Waker)
• Now he wants to bring back Vaati, but this time, in the events prior to defeating Ganon.
• He then creates another prequel to further explain the events prior to OoT.
• He then decides to show the events prior to Vaati's re-emergence.
• He decides to continue Links adult branch with Phantom hourglass, and spirit tracks.
• He then decides to show us how the Mastersword was forged, and ultimatley showing us the begining if the legend.

People actually care about Zeldas story and timeline? :?

[QUOTE="D4W1L4H"]

[QUOTE="AvatarMan96"]

Whatever. The "Link died, so THIS happened" BS is still stupid, and I prefer my timeline.

AvatarMan96

No it's not. Especially when when you contrast the timeline with the order of Zelda titles by release date. It's the only thing they could've done.

Whatever. The "Link died, so THIS happened" BS is still stupid, and I prefer my timeline.

AvatarMan96

I want to disregard everything in the leftmost timeline. Seems like a hackjob.

[QUOTE="AvatarMan96"]

Whatever. The "Link died, so THIS happened" BS is still stupid, and I prefer my timeline.

Arbiterisl33t69

"Hero of time is defeated" for me translates to "Hero of time gave up after the water temple because tedious game is tedious." So I can dig that timeline.BlackoutGunshot

[QUOTE="AvatarMan96"]

Whatever. The "Link died, so THIS happened" BS is still stupid, and I prefer my timeline.

D4W1L4H

No it's not. Especially when when you contrast the timeline with the order of Zelda titles by release date. It's the only thing they could've done.

I think it is a perfect explanation to a timeline absolutely no one could figure out. It makes complete sense now. Idk why people are so pissy about it. I mean obviously something bad would have to happen in order for the world to fall into total darkness, I really like that idea. Well done Nintendo.

So every game so far beyond the original 2 were prequels?

So every game so far beyond the original 2 were prequels?

WilliamRLBaker

These are my thoughts on the timlien.

The 3D games are connected, and may even be split. It begins with SS (obviously) then in OoT, there are two timelines. One where Link stays in Hyrule as an adult then defeats Ganondorf, causing Twilight Princess to happen. In the other timeline, Link goes to termina as a child after the events in OoT, and some new evil comes and destroys Hyrule which leads to WW, then PH and ST.

The rest of the games just contain some cool references to eachother and nothing more.

Guys, just think of the "defeated" timeline as the first time you travel to the future as adult Link. The future gets changed, but the people in that reality don't just vanish. It becomes its own timeline. Two different dimensions!

I don't know, haven't played the game in a long time and I've only played 3 of the Zelda games. That's how I'm going to view it.

These are my thoughts on the timlien.

The 3D games are connected, and may even be split. It begins with SS (obviously) then in OoT, there are two timelines. One where Link stays in Hyrule as an adult then defeats Ganondorf, causing Twilight Princess to happen. In the other timeline, Link goes to termina as a child after the events in OoT, and some new evil comes and destroys Hyrule which leads to WW, then PH and ST.

The rest of the games just contain some cool references to eachother and nothing more.

turtlethetaffer

So every game so far beyond the original 2 were prequels?

So every game so far beyond the original 2 were prequels?

imo the "link dies" timeline was made just because it was an option that no fan came up with. There is no precedent for it and it is a plot holeGunSmith1_basic

Well...not exactly.

In travelling through time in OOT, Link created alternate timelines (at least following Back to the Future's timestream logic). So surely in the original timeline (and any other adult Link section), Link failed (or travelled back through time and disappeared), allowing Ganondorf to take over the world?

[QUOTE="GunSmith1_basic"]imo the "link dies" timeline was made just because it was an option that no fan came up with. There is no precedent for it and it is a plot holePlaneforger

Well...not exactly.

In travelling through time in OOT, Link created alternate timelines (at least following Back to the Future's timestream logic). So surely in the original timeline (and any other adult Link section), Link failed (or travelled back through time and disappeared), allowing Ganondorf to take over the world?

[QUOTE="AvatarMan96"][QUOTE="D4W1L4H"]

No it's not. Especially when when you contrast the timeline with the order of Zelda titles by release date. It's the only thing they could've done.

D4W1L4H

• Miyamoto creates the LoZ as a story where a hero must defeat an over powerful creature named Ganon
• Miyamoto decides to continue the story in a dirct sequel.
• Miyamoto decides to create a story which begins to explain the events prior to the first two games.
• He then creates a game which tells a story directly before his first game.
• He then decides that he would like Link to take on different story lines in the game, so he creates OoT, a story where Link manages to defeat Ganon, and is sen't back to the past.
• To kick of the second timeline, he creates a direct sequel to OoT, where Link follows the events of said game directly.
• He then decides to fill the gap between Links awakening and A link to the past.
• He decides to create a prequel to OoT, to show people the event prior.
• He decides to create a third timeline, in which Link defeats Ganon in OoT but does not go back to the past. (Wind Waker)
• Now he wants to bring back Vaati, but this time, in the events prior to defeating Ganon.
• He then creates another prequel to further explain the events prior to OoT.
• He then decides to show the events prior to Vaati's re-emergence.
• He decides to continue Links adult branch with Phantom hourglass, and spirit tracks.
• He then decides to show us how the Mastersword was forged, and ultimatley showing us the begining if the legend.

Nah, here's how it really goes:

• Miyamoto creates the LoZ as a story where a hero must defeat an over powerful creature named Ganon
• Miyamoto decides to continue the story in a dirct sequel.
• Miyamoto decides to create a third game that has an ambiguous place in the timeline. Does it occur after LoZ? Why is Ganon still alive, does the game take place before LoZ?
• He makes a direct sequel to that game
• He then decides to make a prequel to ALttP to show the entire series' origins. Since that's the first game in the series timeline and it leads directly into ALttP, everyone then assumes that ALttP must have been a prequel to LoZ
• After the game releases there's an interview in which a guy asks Miyamoto about the logic of OoT's ending, in regards to whether or not there could be multiple timelines. Miyamoto brushes him off with "well, when you put it that way, yeah I guess you're right haha". This remark will cost him dearly in the future.
• He makes a direct sequel to that game as well. Up to this point everything is fine because every game has a clear place in the timeline.
• He makes the Oracle games. This time no one can figure out where the hell the games go in the timeline. And Twinrova is alive so it must be before OoT...but Ganondorf is imprisoned so it has to take place afterward...WTF?
• WW comes out and ****s all over everything. This is when the multiple timelines theories start to realy take hold because at this point there's no other way to explain it. Even then no one can figure out where the hell its supposed to go.
• Minish Cap comes out and it too has an ambiguous place in the series, but is eventually confirmed to be the prequel of the prequel (OoT) of the prequel (MM) of the prequel (ALttP) of the prequel (LA) of the original game.
• TP comes out and is stated to come shortly after OoT. But this makes no sense because now how do you explain the perfect lead-in OoT had to ALttP? Oh **** it...
• The DS Zelda games come out as direct sequels to WW.
• Nintendo decides they want to make YET ANOTHER prequel to the series, and put SS, the prequel of the prequel (MC) of the prequel (OoT) of the prequel (MM) of the prequel (TP) of the prequel (ALttP) of the prequel (LA) of the original game.
• Nintendo realizes they have no way to explain any of this **** and scoop it under the rug to hide the fact that this whole time the Zelda games were about as related to each other as the Mario games are related to each other.

As some have already pointed out, this is just something nintendo pulled out their ass, there really isn't a timeline, as exemplified by there having to be an alternate timeline split halfway through to make any type of sense for a third of the games.

As some have already pointed out, this is just something nintendo pulled out their ass, there really isn't a timeline, as exemplified by there having to be an alternate timeline split halfway through to make any type of sense for a third of the games.

topgunmv

Indeed, and if you look at Nintendo's past comments on the series...

ALttP is the last game in the series
Miyamoto: "Ocarina of Time is the first story, then the original Legend of Zelda, then Zelda II: The Adventure of Link, and finally A Link to the Past. It's not very clear where Link's Awakening fits in--it could be anytime after Ocarina of Time" (http://zeldalegends.net/index.php?n=interviews&id=1998-11-13-np-miya&m=html)

Actually it's the second one
Osawa: "Though in this game [OoT] Zelda is now included in the Seven Sages, the other six have the names of the town names from the Disk System edition "The Adventure of Link."...In the SNES edition game, the story "Long ago, there was a war called the Imprisoning War" was passed along. A name in the Imprisoning War era is the name of a Town later. They were like "pseudo-secrets." We wanted to throw these out through the entirety of the game. That thing from then is now this. " (http://www.angelfire.com/games5/makzelda/interviews/kiootcomments.html)

WW comes before OoT and four swords is the first game in the series
Aonuma: "The GBA Four Swords Zelda is what we're thinking as the oldest tale in the Zelda timeline. With this one on the GameCube [(FSA)] being a sequel to that, and taking place sometime after that." (game informer interview)

Actually, no wait, it's the one after
"In terms of the storyline, we've decided that this takes place 100 years after the events in The Ocarina of Time. We think that as you play through the game, you'll notice that in the beginning the storyline explains some of the events in The Ocarina of Time. You'll also find hints of things from The Ocarina of Time that exist in The Wind Waker." (Zelda homepage)

And finally:

Aonuma before SS's release: "Yes, there is a master timeline, but it is a confidential document!... The only people that have access to the document are myself, Mr. Miyamoto, and the director of the title. We can't share it with anyone else! I have already talked with Mr. Miyamoto about this so I am comfortable with releasing this information - this title takes place before Ocarina of Time." (http://i783.photobucket.com/albums/yy113/Toonness/page3.jpg)

All stolen from: http://www.zeldawiki.org/Timeline_Quotes#cite_note-0

I personally see nothing wrong with the idea of a third timeline existing where Link fails to defeat Ganondorf. Because there is already a timeline split thanks to OOT, its not that unbelievable that there would be one where Link failed. If you think about it, it does make sense and helps tie in the earlier games that were not as focused on trying together a story.

Here's an idea of how the timeline works, and I'm willing to discuss this point.

Link dies by Ganondorf's hands at some point in OOT after the Sacred Realm is opened(most likely when he was a child). With Link dead, Ganondorf sets his sights on collecting all the pieces of the triforce. Even though Link has been killed, the Triforce still splits, leaving Ganondorf with the Triforce of Power, Zelda(Who is still presumably alive) the Triforce of Wisdom, and the Triforce of Courage vanishes until someone worthy of its power appears(another Link). Ganondorf, obsessed with finding the Triforce of courage stays in the sacred realm(Because he could not simply wait for Link to show up) and slowly begins to change his appearance into the boar form that would be seen in the first three Zelda games.

Because Ganondorf is busy with his search in the sacred realm, the monarchy of Hyrule is restored. In addition, much of Hyrule escapes the horrors of OOT due to Ganondorf's search of the sacred realm. Since the hero of time was dead, the sacred realm remained open and more portals were uncovered in Hyrule by people searching for the Triforce. Over time, these people became corrupted and transformed, and many of them became followers of Ganondorf.

In the end, the Sacred Realm becomes corrupted and dark power flowed from the open portals. Realizing the danger, the King of Hyrule orders the seven sages to seal the Sacred Realm. This starts the Imprisoning War that ends with the deaths of many knights but with the success of the Sages. With Ganondorf sealed in the sacred realm, the people begin to forget about the Sacred Realm and as time passes, Ganondorf is able to create an alternate form that can enter the Light World(Hyrule)

As far as who the king is, I don't think his fate was ever depicted in OOT. So, it either would be the King of Hyrule who managed to restore himself to the throne after Ganondorf began his search in OOT or he's a descentet of OOT's Zelda.

*******

Now one thing I should note, is that I have no issue accepting the third split in the timeline. Many time travel storylines depict an alternate future where the hero fails. With that said, this is the best way to ensure the first three games stay within the series canon.

[QUOTE="bbkkristian"][QUOTE="meetroid8"]

You're a bit late to the party.

archvile_78

Ignore him, there was another topic mentionning the release of the timeline but your topic is the only one showing it.

Thanks for the article link by the way.

i didnt show the timeline?

no matter great thread OP the zelda timeline is a bit weird

i saw it comming, they wanted to connect the games in a single story and since they hardly connected they had to do something about it, plus every game that deals with time traveling ends up with some multiple outcomes story.

People speak of the timeline like it was all set in motion from the very beginning zelda game when really it was probably just put together at the last moment not to long ago. The very fact it's taken this much time to come up with a timeline means that Nintendo just didn't have a clue. It seems a load of BS if you ask me.

Not a bad timeline.