Topic: Official Legend of Zelda Timeline Revealed

[Plugabugz]

So it's official, The Legend of Zelda is basically Fringe but with a third universe.

Prequel and interquels are always messy. Look at Star Trek Enterprise (creatively limited knowing it has to explain its setup being chronologically before everything else). If you planned the story going forward you can jump back along it, but Nintendo obviously hasn't and mishmash it in to make sense.

[Mop it up]

At this point, I think Nintendo would be better off leaving the timeline up to the imagination of the fans. After so many games, most people have built up a certain idea of what the timeline is like, and no matter what Nintendo come up with, it won't match up to what a majority of people are thinking. Since they focus on gameplay first and the story usually takes a backseat to everything else, just let people wonder instead of trying to make everything fit in some silly way that won't make sense no matter what.

It seems like Nintendo just wanted to give a reason why there's a group of games that never mention the events of Ocarina, rather than just accept that those games were made before Ocarina and leaving it at that.

Oracle of Ages and Seasons were not made before Ocarina of Time.

[ThePerm]

i think they are just going to keep fucking up the timeline for sake of discussion.

[UncleBob]

This goes back to something I've been saying for awhile (and something which annoys a lot of Zelda fanatics...)... basically, there is no time line.

I truly believe that Nintendo (i.e.: Miyamoto and Co.) have a basic idea of how the games fit together - but it would never hold up to scrutiny, as there's no way to piece the games together without issues coming up (like trying to piece the Oracle games between LttP and LA, which everyone friggin' tries to do).  Additionally, it's only the time line until the next game comes out, which could effect how the "official" time line fits and works together.

Basically, Nintendo isn't going to let the idea of a "timeline" get in the way of making a good game - and the story told in that game is always going to play a second fiddle to the game play.  If someone comes up with a great idea, but it doesn't fit into the story line, they're going to shoe-horn it in.

i.e.: the timeline only exists until it's changed again.

[NintendoFanboy]

proving there is no real time line, if he beats ganon, then.... if not then.... as a child... as an etc.
come on folks, its a bunch of loosely connected stand alone games except for,
OoT and MM , and wind waker, phantom hour glass.
Now can we get off the time line crap and enjoy the games.

[NWR_pap64]

Haha oh man.... Every time I think how gloriously messy the timeline for Kingdom Hearts is, I look back and realize that it isn't as awful as Zelda's own timeline.


I have said before that I think this is the product of poor writing and the fact that they likely never expected the first game to be as monumental as it is today. Really, the basic story of the first one was that you were Link, Ganon took over Hyrule, and you needed to destroy him and save Zelda.


That's it. But it is clear that after Zelda II they felt the need to justify certain things, like why Link, Zelda and Ganon are in the games despite the clearly different settings and time periods.


And this is what we have today: a messy timeline theory that has a very loose connection due to a lack of plans and poor writing.

[Chozo Ghost]

It's even easier to do things the way Nintendo likes to and do whatever they feel like, continuity be damned.

This is the same logic which killed Star Trek.

[MegaByte]

Some franchises that deal with this kind of stuff have internal wikis to keep it all straight, and they still end up messing up.

[Shaymin]

My reaction to this thread:



Carry on.

[lolmonade]

I can't speak for the timelines of the games beyond Ocarina of Time (Haven't played the oracle games, and couldn't bring myself to finish the DS games), but this image I found is an interesting interpretation of the timeline listed below.



So, based on this timeline/theory, every time Link has to go "back in time", he really abandons one timeline and exists in the following one.  The first timeline isn't technically Link "dying" or "failing", as much as it's him abandoning his post as "hero of time" in that timeline.

Again, just something I found that's interesting to think about.  Reading all this news/info about Zelda makes me want to track down the ones I haven't finished/played.

[JRokujuushi]

Nintendo should do like Capcom did with the RE Chronicles games and create a game that summarizes the plots of all the Zelda games in the order that they happened and shows some of the time between games to connect them better.

Making it an on-rails shooter is both optional and discouraged.

[joshnickerson]

It's even easier to do things the way Nintendo likes to and do whatever they feel like, continuity be damned.

This is the same logic which killed Star Trek.

Star Trek is a series of television shows, where the focus is on the story.
Zelda is a series of video games, where the focus is on the gameplay and the story is merely an after thought.

I agree with Insanolord, it's not something to take too terribly seriously, though it is fun to see how people with too much free time on their hands over-react to it.

[Enner]

It's even easier to do things the way Nintendo likes to and do whatever they feel like, continuity be damned.

This is the same logic which killed Star Trek.

Never got the feeling that some Star Trek TV series were damning continuity. If anything, the series (i.e. Voyager and Enterprise) were trying to do something new while simultaneously being told to retread the old and suffered because of the two pulls.

You want to see someone damn a series continuity, look at Macross. Only there will you find a TV series and a pair of TV-series-adapting movies that have wildly different endings because the series director doesn't care if they are different as long as they are good story.

[NeoStar9X]

Interesting reveal. The split timeline as a result of OoT was a given but a third is one I haven't counted on. Should be interesting going forward to see how they fill in some gaps as there are some more questions that result from this with the new timeline.

[Adrock]

The series doesn't need a timeline. I'm not really sure why people are so passionate about it. Before Nintendo started planning loose story connections, they were just making games. The worst thing they did was try to put it all together. If Nintendo really cares about the plots of these games, they should just reboot the series or boot some games from the canon.

I'm okay aknowledging that an official timeline exist but ignoring that it does for my own sanity. If the 3-way timeline split is to be believed, A Link to the Past has to be at the end of one of them due to the whole "The Master Sword Sleeps Again... Forever" line. This supposed timeline doesn't reflect that at all. Does Link even use The Master Sword to defeat Ganon in the original? I don't think he does (it's the "Magical Sword" or something) which supposedly can't happen so there's that. Nothing gained. There are too many issues and no discernable payoff with any timeline in a series that didn't adhere to one until several installments in.

[Ceric]

We all like to talk about the Zelda timeline the same reason we like talking specs for the next system.  We have enough clues and information to make educated guesses and make debates but, we have nothing that can give a definitive ruling.

[Ian Sane]

I like to talk about the timeline because I like the Zelda series a lot.  It is my favourite videogame series by far.  The screwed up nature of the timeline is annoying because it gives the impression that Nintendo doesn't care.  To them Zelda is just some product to sell to us.

With creative works, though I know money is almost always a factor, I like it best when it feels like the artist cares about and has passion for his work.  This new album or new movie is a product they are trying to sell to me but within that it seems like the artist wanted to make something he could be really proud of.  Even if there is no real artistic intention, I like it when at least the illusion of that is there.  Who here just sees the songs, books, movies, TV shows, or videogames they love as just mindless entertainment?  There are always the ones that we form some emotional attachment to.

So Zelda having a **** timeline hurts the series for me because it's a big marker saying "this is just some product we make to sell you.  We don't give a **** as long as you give us your money."  In a similar way I hate stuff like Link's Crossbow Training because Zelda didn't used to have spin-offs and spin-offs are sheer product.  Zelda is less "special" with spin-offs or sloppy execution of the timeline.  If Nintendo cared as much about Zelda as the fans do, they wouldn't have any problems with the timeline.

[ShyGuy]

How does Link have a green cap in Skyward Sword if Minish Cap comes afterwards?

Also, Link's shield bears a cross in Legend of Zelda, so sometime after Link's Awakening Christian Missionaries arrive in Hyrule.

[Ceric]

How does Link have a green cap in Skyward Sword if Minish Cap comes afterwards?

Also, Link's shield bears a cross in Legend of Zelda, so sometime after Link's Awakening Christian Missionaries arrive in Hyrule.

Green just happened to be the Knight's graduating color his year of graduate.  Notice some people are in Yellow and Purple.

Legend of Zelda is the second to Last game. (Links Adventures being the last game.)

[ShyGuy]

Besides the CD-I blasphemy, Nintendo left out a few games out of the timeline, but they should be easy to fit in.

Tetra's Trackers
Link's Crossbow Training
Tingle's Rosie Rupee Land.

[NWR_insanolord]

I like to talk about the timeline because I like the Zelda series a lot.  It is my favourite videogame series by far.  The screwed up nature of the timeline is annoying because it gives the impression that Nintendo doesn't care.  To them Zelda is just some product to sell to us.

With creative works, though I know money is almost always a factor, I like it best when it feels like the artist cares about and has passion for his work.  This new album or new movie is a product they are trying to sell to me but within that it seems like the artist wanted to make something he could be really proud of.  Even if there is no real artistic intention, I like it when at least the illusion of that is there.  Who here just sees the songs, books, movies, TV shows, or videogames they love as just mindless entertainment?  There are always the ones that we form some emotional attachment to.

So Zelda having a **** timeline hurts the series for me because it's a big marker saying "this is just some product we make to sell you.  We don't give a **** as long as you give us your money."  In a similar way I hate stuff like Link's Crossbow Training because Zelda didn't used to have spin-offs and spin-offs are sheer product.  Zelda is less "special" with spin-offs or sloppy execution of the timeline.  If Nintendo cared as much about Zelda as the fans do, they wouldn't have any problems with the timeline.

What you should take from this isn't that they don't care, but that they care more about making each game work and not being too limited in what they can do by having to stick to an established strict timeline. I'm very happy that they have this attitude, that if they come up with what they think is a great idea for a Zelda game they're not going to let the timeline talk them out of it.

[Adrock]

+1 insanolord (again)

I always got the impression that there was no timeline until fans demanded that the games be fit into one. Nintendo is choosing to care more about the game they're currently making instead of how it fits into those that came before. I feel like that gives them a certain amount of freedom not afforded with strictly adhering to chronology. The games can be understood independently of a timeline. It only gets muddled when one tries to package the series as a whole. I never questioned why people liked talking about the timeline. Obviously, people like to talk about things they enjoy. I don't understand why fans get so mad about it.

The individual plots of the games bother me more than overall arc of the series. None of those stories are especially strong. I'm more lenient on the early games due to tehnological limitations. In 2011, there's no reason Nintendo should be having this much trouble telling an engaging story. I'd even go back to 2003 with The Wind Waker (or 2002 for those of you who like to use the Japanese release dates). This is just my personal opinion. The games can exist outside of a timeline. Zelda wouldn't be the first or only franchise to do this. However, the plots within the each game moving foward need to be better. That affects the experience more than fitting the games into a timeline.

[Lithium]

just pretend that its just oral history screwing up the same legend and then you don't have to think about it.

[chaosmasterzero]

this makes a bit more sense if you have ever read marvel comics and heard the theory behind dr dooms time machine every time someone time travels and changes history the old history doesn't stop existing instead it creates a new universe with the changes in other words if link went back in time from OoT and stopped ganon from being born he it wouldn't stop the one who took over hyrule in OoT he would just make a new hyrule without ganon this makes perfect sense for nintendo because they can explain the games that don't fit together and fit in any new games they make later down the road into any of these timelines that they want or make a new one if they really need to  i don't think it jumps the shark but comes pretty close to it though

[ShyGuy]

What if.... Zelda Wii U united the timelines?

Is such a thing even possible?