325 replies to this topic

[Raien]

With all the Zelda games fan-translated, it looks like we've reached a point where there will be very little further discussion about the timeline. So now would be a good time to evaluate where we all stand.

1) Post your preferred timeline. If you think there are any placements which don't fit the popular belief, explain what they are and why you hold to them.

2) Considering that the popular goal is to decipher Nintendo's official timeline, describe what you envision as the developers' approach to timeline development.

3) Tell us your thoughts on the re-ocurring elements of the Zelda series; the events, the characters and the items.



I'll start:

1) TMC > FS > FSA > ?
OoT > MM > TP > ALttP > LA > LoZ > AoL > Oracles
OoT > TWW > PH

My reason for placing the FS trilogy separately is that I don't believe FSA is related to ALttP, or indeed any other game in the main series. I see similar iconography, but not an actual timeline connection. Furthermore, I suspect that the entire trilogy takes place at the very beginning of the timeline because both TMC and FS have both been indicated to come first.

2) I believe that the developers start by choosing game mechanics that fit a general theme. The Four Sword was invented for the multiplayer theme, and Wolf Link was invented in part to appeal to Western players. It is from the theme and game mechanics that the story is then developed. While many games have followed the events of previous titles, they still present their own stories in order to give new players something to appreciate and enjoy. I also believe that as the timeline as progressed, the developers have become more concerned with referring back to games that have been released more recently, rather than the games which have been released more than a decade ago. This is because more players will be familiar with the newer Zelda games than the older games. That is why we have a developed OoT-verse without much relation to the 2D Zeldas before it.

3) As the main trio of characters have featured in more Zelda games, there has been more emphasis on them tied to fate. Twilight Princess went much further to suggest that the characters are destined to fight one another throughout Hyrule's history (pretty much stated if you count the removed ending dialogue) than The Wind Waker, which was kept quite ambiguous. And with the reappearance of traditional Zelda characters naturally follows the reoccurence of events. Ganondorf tries to conquer Hyrule, and Link and Zelda must join forces with other magical characters to collect items and defeat him. It's a simple matter of sticking to tradition, which has always worked for Nintendo even as their games have developed over time.

Edited by Raian, 24 September 2008 - 07:51 PM.

[DarkZero24]

http://img147.images...elineloloi9.jpg

I agree with you on everything, except in regards to the FS series. I believe they still have a place in the main timeline.

And yes, I've been keeping up with all the current stuff. I'm not dead yet!

[MikePetersSucks]

1) TMC > FS > FSA > ?
OoT > MM > TP > ALttP > LA > LoZ > AoL > Oracles
OoT > TWW > PH

My reason for placing the FS trilogy separately is that I don't believe FSA is related to ALttP, or indeed any other game in the main series. I see similar iconography, but not an actual timeline connection. Furthermore, I suspect that the entire trilogy takes place at the very beginning of the timeline because both TMC and FS have both been indicated to come first.

I absolutely agree with everything except the last sentence. Until I figure out what to do, I have the FS Trilogy float in limbo.

2) I believe that the developers start by choosing game mechanics that fit a general theme. The Four Sword was invented for the multiplayer theme, and Wolf Link was invented in part to appeal to Western players. It is from the theme and game mechanics that the story is then developed. While many games have followed the events of previous titles, they still present their own stories in order to give new players something to appreciate and enjoy. I also believe that as the timeline as progressed, the developers have become more concerned with referring back to games that have been released more recently, rather than the games which have been released more than a decade ago. This is because more players will be familiar with the newer Zelda games than the older games. That is why we have a developed OoT-verse without much relation to the 2D Zeldas before it.

I agree for the most part, except that Wolf Link was probably a reference to Ookami, such as Shiranui.

3) As the main trio of characters have featured in more Zelda games, there has been more emphasis on them tied to fate. Twilight Princess went much further to suggest that the characters are destined to fight one another throughout Hyrule's history (pretty much stated if you count the removed ending dialogue) than The Wind Waker, which was kept quite ambiguous. And with the reappearance of traditional Zelda characters naturally follows the reoccurence of events. Ganondorf tries to conquer Hyrule, and Link and Zelda must join forces with other magical characters to collect items and defeat him. It's a simple matter of sticking to tradition, which has always worked for Nintendo even as their games have developed over time.

I agree, the world seems to generally spin around the trio, except for TWW onwards. The ending, in my opinion, signified that fate was broken, and everyone was free to pursue their own destinies.

[Lexxi Aileron]

1) OoT-TWW/PH-LoZ/AoL-OoS/OoA-TMC-FS/FSA-ALttP/LA
OoT/MM-TP

Placement of LoZ/AoL after TWW/PH is done for three reasons: (1) TWW introduces a flooded world that reduces Hyrule to islands formed from its mountaintops, while LoZ/AoL features a Hyrule fragmented by water bodies not seen in any other game--these two states seem to be correlated and existing in a logical progression; (2) TWW ends with a king dictating via the Triforce a future age governed by a "ray of hope," while AoL's goal seems to be to unite the "Triforce of the future" to become the "light of hope"--the Triforce in AoL, then, seems to be positioned in order to accomplish the goals of the king in TWW; (3) there seems to be a solid reference to the naming tradition from AoL when Tetra is named Zelda purely because she is a princess

Placement of OoS/OoA after LoZ/AoL is done primarily because the game has greater consistency with LoZ/AoL than with ALttP/LA because of the mark of the hero. The lack of the Silver Arrows seems to denote that Ganon will return (seen in FSA).

Placement of the Four Sword saga is done because the atmosphere in these games all borrows so heavily from ALttP but is constructed in such a way as to appear to be a prequel. Geography starts off similar to ALttP's in TMC but with key differences with FSA more closely resembling ALttP's Hyrule.

Placement of the ALttP in the Adult timeline is done for a few reasons: (1) TP seems to be parallel to much of the Adult timeline, including OoT, TWW, FSA, and ALttP; (2) I believe OoT to tell the story of the sages' seal in ALttP


2) I believe the developers do not develop individual games from the ground up with the intent to push towards a particular timeline placement, but instead do this through "pseudo-secrets" as Toru Osawa did with OoT by naming the sages in that game after the town names in AoL. Thus, we still get games that follow the original philosophies of gameplay being the core experience with story coming second--story is in this case an afterthought, the overarching timeline being expressed through these "pseudo-secrets" which are not necessarily central to the development of the plot.


3) Cameos of characters are meaningless and never specifically establish any kind of timeline relevance; their stories, however, can shed light on these stories' place in the timeline. Example: Impaz in TP is clearly a reference to the character of the same namesake from the original game, as she appears as a frail old woman as she did in those games rather than the larger stronger woman we see elsewhere; however, Impaz is presented as the last survivor of the Sheikah village, so it seems unlikely that more members of the "Impa family" would feature in future games.

Aside from this, however, the bulk of character cameos seem to exist for no other reason than to maintain the traditional depiction of Hyrule.

[Impossible]

My timeline owes its existence in large part to DP (and I think I in turn influenced some of his timeline), and it's the same as the one in that image. I basically agree with the first post, too. I think connections should be emphasised with newer games, not older ones, until the developers suggest that they care about old games. Until then, the suggestions of recent games take priority, and Aonuma's direction for the Zelda storyline is fairly different to how things used to be.

[wring]

Child Timeline
OoT/MM-TP

Adult Timeline
OoT-WW/PH

First Timeline
MC-FS/FSA-IW-LttP/LA-OoX-LoZ/AoL

I've tried everything and its impossible to fit them all on one timeline. WW and TP directly contradict the classic games in every timeline I've seen. Plus FSA and ALttP also contradict the newer games. In Link to the Past, its implied the Triforce never left the Sacred Realm after the Imprisoning War. Which is why I have LoZ and AoL and Oracles after it. Oracles fits nicely as an explanation as to how Ganon is dead at the end of LttP and alive in LoZ, since he gets revived. With this timeline, there is no need for any explanation outside of the games, Ganon doesn't need to be revived and no big contradictions happen. You don't even have a need for Hyrule to be unflooded.

[Showsni]

IW-ALttP-KnS-LA-SZ-TMC-FS-FSA-LoZ-AoL-OoA/S-OoS/A-OoT-MM-TWW-PH
---------------------------------------------------------------------TP

Kind of like that? The Four Swords games might be wrong, but they don't have too many connections to the greater series anyway. TP is off in a split on its own messing up a nice single timeline, unless you put it pre-OoT.

The developers have made no secrets about their gameplay before story agenda in the past.

If you want to add in the non canon things like gamebooks, comics, CDI games, etc, they're normally sequels to AoL, in a future where Ganon has revived somehow. The cartoon comes in between LoZ and AoL (with revived Ganon), though. ZA is the only exception; it must have a new Zelda and Link, and can go nearly anywhere.

[CID Farwin]

My sig pretty well says it, (1st spoiler tag) but I'll rephrase here.

I look at plot arcs, not timelines.

The split timeline arc,
_____/[MM]----[TP]
[OoT]
-------\ --[TWW]--[PH]

The old game arc,
[OoT]--[ALttP]--[InS]--[LA]--[LoZ]--[AoL]

The Vaati/Four Swords arc.,
[TMC]---[FS]---[FSA]

And the oracles.
[OoS]x[OoA]

For timeline purposes: ALttP-AoL go after TP, because that looks like the most likely candidate. TMC is first. FS, FSA and the oracles are ambiguous; There's references, sure, but nothing enough to shove them into a timeline.

I'm waiting for more games before I dedicate myself to a timeline again.

[jacensolo06]

My timeline is as follows:

OoT(Child)--TP--ALttP--LA--LoZ--AoL
OoT(Adult)--WW--PH

OoS and OoA don't have a definite spot, but if I had to I would put them either after LA or after AoL.

The Four Swords games (TMC--FS--FSA) have no definite spot in the timeline.

Edited by jacensolo06, 25 September 2008 - 10:07 PM.

[wring]

The cartoon comes in between LoZ and AoL (with revived Ganon), though. ZA is the only exception; it must have a new Zelda and Link, and can go nearly anywhere.

The cartoon is an adaption of the game Legend of Zelda. It would take place at the same time the game does. Captian N would take place during Adventures of Link, sometime.

[NM87]

............./-OOT Future - WW/PH
MC-OOT-
.............\-MM - TP - ALTTP/LA - FS/FSA - LOZ/AOL - OOX

FSA Ganon is ALTTP Ganon reborn. The gap between FSA and LOZ explains how Ganon returned to Hyrule from the FS.

The only thing I personally do not like is the fact the Triforce is in Hyrule during the time of FSA according to this, in which it really isn't active. In every other game the Triforce is always active in the story. Maybe it is better to put FSA before ALTTP in this regard, but I will never accept the Demon King Ganon existing in any form before ALTTP.

[FDL]

Out of curiosity, why do you believe there is no Demon King Ganon before ALttP?

[Lexxi Aileron]

Isn't "Big Demon King" the title he has in OoT?

[NM87]

Out of curiosity, why do you believe there is no Demon King Ganon before ALttP?

ALTTP was the Zelda game. ALTTP structured the entire Zelda universe. I think of it as a “In the beginning…” kind of tale, excluding the three goddesses descending upon the land. During the events preceding the IW, Ganon was “born” of Ganondorf touching the Triforce. If any game featuring Ganon occurred before ALTTP, then it would be a game in which Ganon exists before he was born. Now, if there are multiple Ganons, then I would be ok (even though I think there is just one recurring). Except, FSA is specifically questionable because the Ganon appearing in that game is a demon resurrected, from what we are not sure. Since that demon takes the form of Ganon, common sense concludes that a former “Ganon spirit” had to be sealed within. This is all debatable mind you.

Edited by NM87, 07 October 2008 - 12:35 PM.

[MikePetersSucks]

ALTTP was the Zelda game. ALTTP structured the entire Zelda universe.

People say the same thing about LOZ, OOT, and now TP. Give us better reasoning than sophistry please.

If any game featuring Ganon occurred before ALTTP, then it would be a game in which Ganon exists before he was born.

Funny how you put OOT and TP earlier in your timeline, then. Rofl.

Except, FSA is specifically questionable because the Ganon appearing in that game is a demon resurrected, from what we are not sure. Since that demon takes the form of Ganon, common sense concludes that a former “Ganon spirit” had to be sealed within.

Or Ganon is a metaphorical rebirth; a sort of phenomological successor like "So-And-Such is the new Elvis: The King of Rock reborn!"

[jacensolo06]

Isn't "Big Demon King" the title he has in OoT?

"Great Demon King" is a better translation, but yes, he is most definitely known as the Demon King in OoT.

NM87, this means that to have no Demon King Ganon before ALttP, it has to occur before OoT. And TP now that I think about it. TP refers to Ganondorf as the "Great Demon King" during his boss introduction text thingy.

[NM87]

Maybe, but Ganon isn't in OOT during the Child timeline, and TP "Ganon" is more like a beast rather than the ALTTP/FSA/LOZ "Ganon". They could be different, so there isn't any reason ALTTP would have to occur before OOT and TP.

People say the same thing about LOZ, OOT, and now TP. Give us better reasoning than sophistry please.

None of those games really have the effect that ALTTP had on the Zelda universe. (story wise)

Or Ganon is a metaphorical rebirth; a sort of phenomological successor like "So-And-Such is the new Elvis: The King of Rock reborn!"

Elvis would still have to exist before his successor could exist.

Edited by NM87, 07 October 2008 - 01:04 PM.

[jacensolo06]

Maybe, but Ganon isn't in OOT during the Child timeline, and TP "Ganon" is more like a beast rather than the ALTTP/FSA/LOZ "Ganon". They could be different, so there isn't any reason ALTTP would have to occur before OOT and TP.

So when you said "Demon King Ganon" you were referring to pig Ganon? I still don't really agree, but now that statement makes a little more sense.

[MikePetersSucks]

Maybe, but Ganon isn't in OOT during the Child timeline, and TP "Ganon" is more like a beast rather than the ALTTP/FSA/LOZ "Ganon". They could be different, so there isn't any reason ALTTP would have to occur before OOT and TP.

You're just picking straws.

None of those games really have the effect that ALTTP had on the Zelda universe. (story wise)

A fiction-analyst would tell you that OOT had a much bigger impact on the storyline of the series.

Elvis would still have to exist before his successor could exist.

Yea, so? Ganon isn't the only Demon King, just the most well-known. For all we know, the Trident belonged to the Maou the Hero of Men slayed in TMC's backstory.

[NM87]

You're just picking straws.

That's like the seventh time you have used that response. You need new material.

A fiction-analyst would tell you that OOT had a much bigger impact on the storyline of the series.

Especially because OOT was originally playing off of ALTTP's story.

Yea, so? Ganon isn't the only Demon King, just the most well-known. For all we know, the Trident belonged to the Maou the Hero of Men slayed in TMC's backstory.

Hence my point of FSA Ganon resembling both LOZ and ALTTP Ganon.

[Raien]

Yea, so? Ganon isn't the only Demon King, just the most well-known. For all we know, the Trident belonged to the Maou the Hero of Men slayed in TMC's backstory.

The Hero of Men didn't slay a Maou (I think); he just killed monsters.

Edited by Raian, 08 October 2008 - 03:16 PM.

[FDL]

Yeah, IIRC we just see random Moblins and stuff in the opening of TMC.

[MikePetersSucks]

That's like the seventh time you have used that response. You need new material.

That's the seventh time it was a perfectly valid response. When people grasp at unnecessarily thin straws, there's no point arguing with it. It's pointless and a waste of everyone's time and the forum's bandwidth.

Especially because OOT was originally playing off of ALTTP's story.

And LTTP was playing off of LOZ's story. OH WOWWWW.

The Hero of Men didn't slay a Maou (I think); he just killed monsters.

He's slaying (as opposed to sealing) a fairly Maou-like entity that looked like it was wielding a trident.

[NM87]

And LTTP was playing off of LOZ's story. OH WOWWWW.

OOT was taking the back-story of ALTTP and making it into a full story. So ALTTP made the story in which this fiction analyst would say is the most important. LOZ and ALTTP only share the story of Ganon/Link/Zelda, nothing more. So now you are the one picking straws.

[FDL]

He's slaying (as opposed to sealing) a fairly Maou-like entity that looked like it was wielding a trident.

I'm pretty sure that's just a Moblin.

[Raien]

He's slaying (as opposed to sealing) a fairly Maou-like entity that looked like it was wielding a trident.

I'm pretty sure that's just a Moblin.

It was definitely a Moblin; the design and clothing is identical to the Moblin sprites that appear in the game. You can also see an Octorok right next to this Moblin, signifying that Link is slaying a variety of monsters.

[Lexxi Aileron]

He's slaying (as opposed to sealing) a fairly Maou-like entity that looked like it was wielding a trident.

It's a Moblin wielding a normal Moblin spear, joined by Octoroks and Keese.

[Hero of Legend]

Yes, and here are the images to prove it:



Clearly they are just a bunch of generic enemies. I don't really get how Link is supposed to be killing them, either, seeing as he's not even in this picture. The closest thing to him "slaying (as opposed to sealing) a fairly Maou-like entity" is this:



And that's just him stepping on an Octorok, which may or may not be dead (I mean, he was supposed to seal the monsters away in that chest, last I checked, but I suppose it is likely a few of them perished in the process).

Edited by Hero of Legend, 09 October 2008 - 03:07 PM.

[CID Farwin]

Yes, and here are the images to prove it:



Clearly they are just a bunch of generic enemies. I don't really get how Link is supposed to be killing them, either, seeing as he's not even in this picture. The closest thing to him "slaying (as opposed to sealing) a fairly Maou-like entity" is this:



And that's just him stepping on an Octorok, which may or may not be dead (I mean, he was supposed to seal the monsters away in that chest, last I checked, but I suppose it is likely a few of them perished in the process).

*No octorocks were harmed in the making of this post.*

Edited by CID Farwin, 09 October 2008 - 04:15 PM.

[wring]

I thought the people sealed the monsters away when they sealed away the sword.