Official Zelda Timeline

[Typhoid]

I just found this through being bored and thinking of old games, and found it interesting for those who were always curious about the "How the fuck is it one Universe" thing and were constantly re-ordering what they thought happened among friends; Discuss no more.

Discuss.

Edit: I also have absolutely no idea when this came out. So maybe I'm just 2 years too late, I don't know.

[BreakABone]

1)It was posted in the Zelda Skyward Sword thread, but perhaps buried with impressions and the likes
2)Its from the History of Zelda book Nintendo released in Japan this past Dec
3)The timeline confirms what I always knew... they didn't care about a timeline until Ocarina of Time, the rest is throwing darts to a board.

[Typhoid]

The timeline confirms what I always knew... they didn't care about a timeline until Ocarina of Time, the rest is throwing darts to a board.

I don't know, I think it makes 'sense'.

The universe splits into 3 possibilities after OoT. So while it's really one giant storyline, now it's like 3 smaller ones.

I thought it was cool.

Whatever, man!.

[Angrist]

I still don't really see how OoT split it in 3. I can understand 2: 1 with Ganon gaining power and turning the world around him dark; 1 with Link from that timeline travelling back in time to prevent Ganon from gaining power.
Why the 3rd timeline?

[Typhoid]

Originally Posted by Angrist

I still don't really see how OoT split it in 3. I can understand 2: 1 with Ganon gaining power and turning the world around him dark; 1 with Link from that timeline travelling back in time to prevent Ganon from gaining power.
Why the 3rd timeline?

I don't know.
The third one is one where the world just happens to have gotten flooded.
The first game in (middle timeline) is MM, where Gannondorf is executed - where at the same time in (rightside timeline) he flooded the world because the MM stuff didn't happen to him there. As it says, that era didn't have a hero - so nobody could stop him from flooding the planet. But really the third timeline only exists so they can make average DS games.

[BreakABone]

Originally Posted by Angrist

I still don't really see how OoT split it in 3. I can understand 2: 1 with Ganon gaining power and turning the world around him dark; 1 with Link from that timeline travelling back in time to prevent Ganon from gaining power.
Why the 3rd timeline?

The 3rd line.. and guess wouldn't show it in a game is when Link actually dies on his mission.

Makes sense.. not all of his tasks can be completed.

[Angrist]

That's pretty random isn't it? Then there would be 2 time lines with every game: one where Link succeeds, one where he fails.

But I guess they needed to explain the beginning of TWW, where the Hero of Time didn't appear and the land fell to darkness. When you think about it, it's a cool concept, it just doesn't make much sense.

[Vampyr]

It is totally random and made up, but I still like it for some reason.

Love how the original Zelda takes place in the "failed" story line.

[BreakABone]

Originally Posted by Angrist

That's pretty random isn't it? Then there would be 2 time lines with every game: one where Link succeeds, one where he fails.

But I guess they needed to explain the beginning of TWW, where the Hero of Time didn't appear and the land fell to darkness. When you think about it, it's a cool concept, it just doesn't make much sense.

The idea.. and could be wrong here

Is that Ocarina of Time is the first time Link takes on Ganon so it makes sense that his failure in that game would have the most ramifications.

[Ginkasa]

If I were to decide to care about the Zelda timeline I would probably say something like,

"I don't really mind the idea that there are three timelines, but I hate the justification for that third timeline. Link dies/fails? There's not really any way to play the series 'in order' with that kind of reasoning. If there were legitimate, multiple endings in OoT (as in, you get a different ending based on how you played, etc.) and the various games shot off from those different endings (including a legit ending to your game where Link failed) I wouldn't mind. That actually sounds kind of cool. But the only way to really 'play' this is to intentionally lose in OoT and say, 'Well, I'm off to ALttp.' Its dumb and random and I don't like it.

I think I better justification for a third timeline would be similar to the pre-existing 'Adult' and 'Child' timelines that were created after Zelda sent Link back in time at the end of OoT. For the uninitiated, the 'Adult' timeline shoots off from the ending with the adult Zelda where Ganon was defeated by Link in mighty battle over Ganon's crushed castle. The 'Child' timeline is created after Link was returned to his childhood where, theoretically, he somehow warned everyone about about Ganondorf and prevented him from getting the Triforce (at least, at that point in time).

This third timeline would be based off of the point prior to when Link became an adult. I.e. he picked up the Master Sword, zoomed forward 7 years, and (with the exception of returning for the Spirit Temple and going underneath a well) never came back. In this instance, Ganon did succeed because he got the Triforce and Link was no longer around to save the day. If you try to apply logic to time travel, which you should never do, you could argue that this is still the 'Adult' timeline and Link would just show up again in seven years? My response? Shut up, it makes more sense than 'Link dies.'"

Anyway, I stopped caring about the Zelda timeline a while ago so there's no way I would say that now.

[Typhoid]

I think it's more like...every game is just one possibility of an outcome inside of the same Universe - and not like "Hey, you can play them all chronologically!". It's a series built within a Universe built upon a separate series of and/or's.

It would be like if we were in a game about posting in this thread which took place at this very moment, but then there was another game released - and in that version of the game, which also takes place at this exact moment in time, you entirely understood what they were going for.

[Angrist]

How many stories are there that use the logic of "well, anything could have happened really, so our multiple storires totally make sense"?

I can understand that with time travelling, because of Back to the Future 2. But a different timeline doesn't just spawn out of nowhere. Link either succeeded or failed, not both.

[BreakABone]

Originally Posted by Angrist

How many stories are there that use the logic of "well, anything could have happened really, so our multiple storires totally make sense"?

I can understand that with time travelling, because of Back to the Future 2. But a different timeline doesn't just spawn out of nowhere. Link either succeeded or failed, not both.

Well actually with time travel there are really an infinite possibility of story lines.

[Ginkasa]

Originally Posted by Typhoid

I think it's more like...every game is just one possibility of an outcome inside of the same Universe - and not like "Hey, you can play them all chronologically!". It's a series built within a Universe built upon a separate series of and/or's.

It would be like if we were in a game about posting in this thread which took place at this very moment, but then there was another game released - and in that version of the game, which also takes place at this exact moment in time, you entirely understood what they were going for.

I don't see what the point of a timeline is if you can't play them "in order."

[Angrist]

Yeah and the same goes for what Earl said. What's the use of a time line if time travelling creates an infinite amount of time lines anyway??
The point of a time line is that you stick with 1.