82 replies to this topic

[Sir Deimos]

I apologize if this has already been stated, but, I get lost when I come in here sometimes lol... I like trying to put together the timeline in my head, but couldn't hope to defend my idea's lol...

anyway, I forget where, but I heard a theory that makes a lot of sense, and none of the timeline theories I recall seeing have seemed to come up with the same thing...

it's pretty clear now that the split timeline seems to be the easiest to argue... well, once again, I forget where I first heard this, but, doesn't it make sense that the two Oracles games happen at exactly the same time, but on the different timelines? For the most part, unless my memory is wrong, I don't think I've seen a one theory that accounts for that, they both typically seem to be grouped together in the same timeline...

Once again, sorry if I have no idea what I'm talking about...

[SOAP]

This theory has been suggested before. It's not very popular and I don't see how it makes the timeline any easier but if you want to go that route go ahead. Some believe the Oracle games themselves kinda lend themselves to the the split timeline. Also bear in mind there were originally suppose to be three Oracle games and also, how would you explain the linked ending?

[Sir Deimos]

that is why I would not be able to defend my claims, seeing as how a canned third oracles game was news to me lol...

[Fyxe]

The two Oracle games are essentially two sequels that can be played in either order. The story is unfinished unless you play both games by linking your finished save from one game to the start of the next game.

It's very cleverly designed that you can play either of them in any order and essentially get the same final ending after the second game you play.

If you play the Oracle games seperately, the story is unfinished.

The third game was canned fairly early in the development process, as far as I know, but conceptual elements for it were used in the other two games. It was too complex to link three games together in the same manner. Too many variables, too little time, even for the gaming factory that is Capcom.

Basically, the theory that people come up with for the Oracles games being in seperate timelines is obviously devised mainly by people who have never played or finished the Oracle games. Which is a big faux pas in my opinion when trying to talk about the storylines of games. It's remarkable how many people try to place games in a timeline without even playing the damn things.

FOUR SWORDS AND FOUR SWORDS ADVENTURES ANYONE?

Edited by Fyxe, 13 April 2007 - 09:11 AM.

[Arturo]

FS is difficult to play. Not everyone has friends with another GBA and another game. As for FSA, it's unforgivable how so many people missed that game. I loved it.

Edited by Arturo, 13 April 2007 - 10:07 AM.

[Fyxe]

FS is difficult to play. Not everyone has friends with another GBA and another game.

No, I'm very aware of that, and actually it doesn't have a huge amount of plot anyway, but still, my problem is when people place games in a timeline when they haven't played the game. That's just not a very logical thing to do.

[Evilsbane]

No, I'm very aware of that, and actually it doesn't have a huge amount of plot anyway, but still, my problem is when people place games in a timeline when they haven't played the game. That's just not a very logical thing to do.

Amen, sister. Anyone who's linked the two Oracles and finished the linked ending with the revival of Ganon should know that they need to be in the same timeline to make any sense. Unless Twinrova are inexplicably capable of operating outside of time itself, an unlinked ending to either game is just incomplete, what with it ending more or less with them cackling about lighting the first flame.

[MikePetersSucks]

I admit, I myself haven't been able to play most of the games (Parts of ATTP and LA, the entirety of TWW, TMC, TP, and FSA), but I browsed forums, game scripts, Youtubed cutscenes and screenshots, and plot guides (of single games, good lord.)

[Arturo]

I haven't finioshed 100% (get everything) because I just get bored. But, as for games, the only ones I haven't played through are LoZ and AoL (which I own and have played, but I am just very, very, bad at them) and FS, which I can't play.

[Hero of Slime]

I have seen arturo's timeline, I know that he knows where to place LoZ and AoL with out having played them through. It to have not played four swords yet I have heard of no one complain about my placement of it.

[Fyxe]

I admit, I myself haven't been able to play most of the games (Parts of ATTP and LA, the entirety of TWW, TMC, TP, and FSA), but I browsed forums, game scripts, Youtubed cutscenes and screenshots, and plot guides (of single games, good lord.)

That's fair enough, but I personally feel you can't get a feel of where the creators want a game placed if you haven't played a whole game and seen the entire style and the gameplay connections. Homage and back references are a seriously large part of Zelda games, well, Nintendo games as a whole. While you can pick up certain things from videos and screenshots, and even scripts, it doesn't give you a good view of the game as whole. For example, I learnt so much about Zelda II just from playing it that I never knew about beforehand.

I can only imagine this is even more acute for games like Twilight Princess that have a lot of plot and dialogue.

Zol, everyone knows where to place the NES games, to be fair. Four Swords is also easy to place anyway (before FSA) but many people place FSA without actually playing the game, for example I don't think this is hugely sensible. For instance, lots of people think FSA represents a new Imprisoning War, but when I first played the game, I didn't get that feel from it at all. I was inclined to think it followed ALttP, much like the Oracle games. It seemed to rely on lots of Zelda staples already being there.

I've played eeeevery single Zelda game, and there's only a few I haven't got 100% on. Which is why I always have so damn much to say about timeline placements. I have too much free time, essentially.

Edited by Fyxe, 13 April 2007 - 05:36 PM.

[Showsni]

I've played eeeevery single Zelda game, and there's only a few I haven't got 100% on. Which is why I always have so damn much to say about timeline placements. I have too much free time, essentially.

Even the Game Watch? And CD-i?
The only ones I haven't played (in their original form) are the BS games, the Game Watch and the Game and Watch, I think. Oh, and Four Swords.

[Chaltab]

I've played every game except Four Swords, (CD-i excluded, of course) but I've not beaten LOZ, AOL, or Link's Awakening because I only borrowed LA and I suck at LOZ and AOL. Four Swords is pretty much impossible since I don't know anybody who owns another copy of ALTTP, but from what I've heard the story isn't very detailed to begin with.

I think a strong familiarity with the games, especially the ones with the biggest influence on the timeline, is important. If you've not played Ocarina, TP, and TWW at the least, then you're going to be totally lost on this forum.

[SOAP]

The two Oracle games are essentially two sequels that can be played in either order. The story is unfinished unless you play both games by linking your finished save from one game to the start of the next game.

It's very cleverly designed that you can play either of them in any order and essentially get the same final ending after the second game you play.

If you play the Oracle games seperately, the story is unfinished.

The third game was canned fairly early in the development process, as far as I know, but conceptual elements for it were used in the other two games. It was too complex to link three games together in the same manner. Too many variables, too little time, even for the gaming factory that is Capcom.

Basically, the theory that people come up with for the Oracles games being in seperate timelines is obviously devised mainly by people who have never played or finished the Oracle games. Which is a big faux pas in my opinion when trying to talk about the storylines of games. It's remarkable how many people try to place games in a timeline without even playing the damn things.

FOUR SWORDS AND FOUR SWORDS ADVENTURES ANYONE?

I think people came up with the theory based solely on the game's beginning and nothing else. Going by the game's begining I myeslf was tempted to place it after MM. You can come up with pretty wild theories if you're not careful to play the whole game through or at least play enough of it to know better.

[Fyxe]

Even the Game Watch? And CD-i?
The only ones I haven't played (in their original form) are the BS games, the Game Watch and the Game and Watch, I think. Oh, and Four Swords.

I've played all the official NINTENDO games, meaning the Game & Watch one (completed it on the version used in the Game & Watch Gallery game it was in, albiet emulated) but not the Game Watch (although, actually, I have a feeling I played it when I was a kid for some reason, but it wasn't made by Nintendo anyway) and not the CD-i games because that's just a waste o' time.

I've also played the BS-X ones, obviously, although not as originally released (emulated again).

All the other games I've played on official releases, including both versions of LA. I never had a NES but I have the Collector's Edition.

I'll also throw in Soul Calibur II and both Smash Bros. games while I'm at it.

[MikePetersSucks]

Let it be known that Fyxe is of obsessive a Zelda Fan a I am an obsessive roleplaying fan.

That is truly a scary feat to equal. *Gives Fyxe a Level 5 Master Sword Replica with +7 Nerd Nullifying Fury.*

[saevitia]

I've been wondering lately- I haven't replayed the Oracles games lately, so I don't know if I'm missing some piece of information that should be really obvious but-

Could Labrynna and Holodrum be (or be part of) the new land that comes after TWW?


please don't eat me

Edited by saevitia, 07 May 2007 - 05:06 PM.

[Tekky]

Evidence that would lean towards Oracles being post flood is that the sea levels 400 years in the past are higher than they are in the present...

[Chaltab]

Evidence that would lean towards Oracles being post flood is that the sea levels 400 years in the past are higher than they are in the present...

Well, that's only in Labrynna. We don't know if the same is true in Hyrule itself or Holodrum.

[Arturo]

And it's just that a particular island is growing. But the seashore is in the same place.

[Chaltab]

Yeah.

Actaully, I've kind of wondered if perhaps '400 years ago' is before the Flood and "Now" is after it in the Oracle games, but given the continuity of geography, I guess it's unlikely that something as drastic as the Flood happened between eras.

[saevitia]

Thanks guys. So, as far as I can tell from the discussion, there's no direct evidence that it's not post flood, and some evidence that it could be. Cool.

As to the original thrust of the topic, yeah, I think OoA and OoS have to be in the same timeline.

[Chaltab]

The only evidence I can think of that would prove it's not Post-Flood is the idea that no games where Hyrule exists can take place after the Flood that some people hold on to.

Obviously, I don't subscribe to that, but it's the only counter-argument I could think of on short notice.

[Person]

I think that any game featuring the original Hyrule can be set post-TWW. However, games featuring a "New Hyrule" can. We can see this with PH.

[Arturo]

OoT can be set post-TWW. Riiiiight XP

Misunderstanding on purpose is fun

[Person]

Oops. That was a typo. I meant that NO game featuring old Hyrule can be set post-TWW.

[LionHarted]

Oops. That was a typo. I meant that NO game featuring old Hyrule can be set post-TWW.

OoT and TP are the only games to technically feature "old Hyrule". LoZ features a Hyrule that is no longer one kingdom, and ALttP features a Hyrule after the Hylian blood has thinned and everything has turned to ruins. The state of the land in LoZ lends itself to being post-flood more than anything.

If I had to be blunt, I'd say this idea is about as strong as the "no game featuring the Master Sword can occur after ALttP" idea.

Edited by LionHarted, 30 May 2007 - 09:20 AM.

[Person]

OoT and TP are the only games to technically feature "old Hyrule". LoZ features a Hyrule that is no longer one kingdom, and ALttP features a Hyrule after the Hylian blood has thinned and everything has turned to ruins. The state of the land in LoZ lends itself to being post-flood more than anything.

What about ALttP, FS, FSA, and TMC? You've got enough geographical similarities to say that those feature the same continent. As for LoZ, it's probably the same continent gone through a dark age, and in AoL, everybody moved northward to a different continent.

Also, TWW Hyrule is buried underneath tons and tons of water, and the King admonishes Link and Tetra to found a new kingdom. The line at the end of ALttP could be interpreted dramatically, while the sequence of events in TWW cannot.

[LionHarted]

What about ALttP, FS, FSA, and TMC?

None of these feature people who refer to themselves as "Hylian". Instead, in ALttP, the Hylians are referred to as an ancient culture, and the other games feature simply "humans."

Also, TWW Hyrule is buried underneath tons and tons of water, and the King admonishes Link and Tetra to found a new kingdom. The line at the end of ALttP could be interpreted dramatically, while the sequence of events in TWW cannot.

1) According to most deistic religions, the earth has been buried by tons and tons of water before. According to most deistic traditions, after these floods, the survivors founded a new society. TWW would be the first to defy the trend.

2) "The Master Sword sleeps forever..."
"Wash away the ancient land of Hyrule".

Both of these are metaphorical.
Swords do not sleep. Lands cannot be washed away.

The question is how far are you willing to take the metaphor? I take it as far as its influential counterparts take it. The Bible and other flood stories reference the destruction of a world that obviously still exists; until demonstrated otherwise, I will say the same of the Zelda mythos.

Edited by LionHarted, 30 May 2007 - 03:48 PM.

[MikePetersSucks]

1) According to most deistic religions, the earth has been buried by tons and tons of water before. According to most deistic traditions, after these floods, the survivors founded a new society. TWW would be the first to defy the trend.

You mean theistic. A deistic religion would be one that believed God or gods didn't do anything more than what was needed to create the universe and then became wholly transcendant.

Swords do not sleep. Lands cannot be washed away.

ORLY?