94 replies to this topic

[Wolf O'Donnell]

At one point earlier on this year, I mentioned my idea of trying to evolve a timeline. My initial idea was to take all the timelines ever thought up by all the posters here and subject them to natural selection, by selecting aginast those that had detrimental flaws in their theories and those that had great ideas matched by those in other timelines. This insight, evolved from my earlier stance that there was no timeline.

In fact, I do think the timeline keeps changing as Nintendo adds new games to the series. Eventually, they'll wreck all consistency and start invoking parallel universes and events to get round some of the big problems they're bound to create for themselves.

So, first thing's first, I'm going to start with this timeline:

LoZ - AoL - ALttP - LA - OoT - MM - TP - WW - PH - MC - FS - FSA - OoA - OoS

Now this timeline has only one thing going for it. It's grouped together all the games based on geography. All the games that feature the same geographical locations (albeit admittedly not in the same location) are bunched together. Everything post Wind Waker, should not, for example, have Death Mountain or Lake Hylia. You will, however, notice that Oracles can go anywhere because it's not set in Hyrule and that Death Mountain does feature in Four Swords. That is the timeline's fatal flaw.

The timeline also features a gradual progression of technology, which is completely wrecked by the cataclysmic event of Wind Waker. Everything then resets technology-wise. Once again, there's a flaw in this timeline's progression created by the fact that technology is actually far more advanced in WW and PH in comparison to MC.

So, it's a timeline that has some pros to it and has some cons to it. What I think we should do is pit it up against a new timeline, discuss their relevant merits and then hybridise the pros of each timeline into one another.

[Person]

Basing a timeline on geography isn't going to get you anywhere. THe developers change geography as they see fit. Case in point: TP's loose interpretation of OoT's geography.

[Erimgard]

There's also a lake Hylia in MC...
And this timeline is linear...
And Hylians are extinct in aLttP but thrive in OoT...
And Aonuma stated that AoL is after OoT just last year...

Edited by Erimgard, 20 June 2009 - 01:05 PM.

[Person]

And Aonuma stated that AoL is after OoT just last year...

While that's true and obvious, did he really state it or was it a parenthetical note by the interviewer?

[Erimgard]

Both.
Aonuma stated the Sages were named as such in OoT because they wanted to make it appear that the towns in AoL were named after the Sages in OoT. Then, in paranthesis, it's stated that in the world of Zelda the events of Ocarina of Time are before the events of Adventure of Link. Whether the paranthetical quote was by Aonuma or the interviewer, I don't know, but Aonuma's words alone are clear that OoT was meant to be pre-AoL.

[Wolf O'Donnell]

Basing a timeline on geography isn't going to get you anywhere. THe developers change geography as they see fit. Case in point: TP's loose interpretation of OoT's geography.

Yeah, I was going on a loose landmark geography basis actually. Base only on the landmarks.

As for MC, I thought we could just about get away with a lake being called Hylia. After all, if we establish Minish Cap after WW, we could say that the MC's Hyrule is the new Hyrule. Hence, with only a Lake Hylia linking the MC Hyrule to the Hyrule in other games, I thought it would be the most likely candidate for a post WW Kingdom.

So adding on your criticism and that of Erimgard's, the new timeline should now look like this:

MC - OOT - MM - LoZ - AoL - TP - WW - PH - FS - FSA - OoA - OoS
.........|
.........ALttP - LA

I've split ALttP off into a separate timeline and grouped MC with the pre-WW games. Justification for putting MC near the beginning? There isn't really one. I guess you could say that Mount Crenel is what Death Mountain was called before it got its ominous-sounding moniker, but... Well, that could change.

Edited by Wolf_ODonnell, 20 June 2009 - 01:33 PM.

[Erimgard]

Well, Wolf, specifically the split timeline is in regards to TP/WW. Aonuma and Miyamoto have both stated on multiple occasions since 2002 that Wind Waker is after the ending of Ocarina of Time where Link/Zelda are adults. In 2006, Aonuma stated that Twilight Princess takes place after the ending where kid Link and Zelda have a talk (in the game's ending after the credits). He also stated that Wind Waker is "parallel" to Twilight Princess.

[Wolf O'Donnell]

Oh you mean this interview? Sorry, I haven't been paying much attention to new timeline developments since I left the forums.

So would you say the new timeline looks like this?

MC - OoT - MM - LoZ - AoL - WW - PH - FS - FSA - OoA - OoS
	  |
	 MM - TP - ALttP - LA

That's pretty whacked out though, because now we have a technologically advanced TP right before a medieval ALttP without any cataclysmic event to explain a reversion in technological advancement.

I think we need to put another timeline in competition with this one to increase selection pressures.

Edited by Wolf_ODonnell, 20 June 2009 - 01:47 PM.

[Erimgard]

Heh, good luck trying to get a technologically sensical timeline together
And yes, that's the interview I'm referring to.

Also, your new version of this timeline has MM on both sides, it should only be on the child side in between OoT and TP.
It's also hard to justify any games in between OoT and WW on the adult timeline.

[MikePetersSucks]

Why is MM on there twice?

Also, most people tend to put most games on the timeline adjacent to TWW's, since it's pretty clear that Hyrule isn't coming back in that slice of the universe. That also solves your technology and geography problem (though no one gives a shit about geography)

Also, LOZ and AOL can't go between MM and TWW, because of the whole "Ganon breaking out of a seal" thing. Last I checked, Ganon wasn't sealed in those games. Fucker just died.

[Person]

The Ganon who shows up in OoT is dead in both TP and TWW, and FSA shows the origin of a new Ganon, so it has to go before ALttP and AoL and all those.

[Wolf O'Donnell]

Heh, good luck trying to get a technologically sensical timeline together
And yes, that's the interview I'm referring to.

Also, your new version of this timeline has MM on both sides, it should only be on the child side in between OoT and TP.
It's also hard to justify any games in between OoT and WW on the adult timeline.

Ah, but didn't I state that I was grouping together all games with the same landmarks together on the same side of Wind Waker? Though you say there's no justification to put any games in between OoT and WW, surely there's also less justification to put any game in between TP and ALttP? Which begs the question of where should LoZ and AoL go? After all, they share similar landmarks to OoT's Hyrule. A new Hyrule would not have the same landmarks. Then again, that begs the question of where does FS and FSA go?

If we put LoZ before OoT, you've got a pig-like Ganon sorcerer running amok before OoT which seems to be an explanatory story about how Ganondorf became the being he was. Not to mention that means we've got a Triforce lurking around in Hyrule when it should be in the Sacred Realm.

We can't put it after WW because then we'd have the problem of there being a Hyrule with the similar landmarks to the old Hyrule. We can't put it before TP because that would make a mockery of its plot. In fact, TP shouldn't really go before ALttP either, because in TP, Ganondorf is never sealed away. He is killed, outright killed, in Hyrule, the Light World. I've half a mind to split the timeline in three now, so that it looks like this:

MC - FS - FSA - ALttP - LA

OoT - WW - PH - OoA - OoS
 |
MM - TP

However, that's too drastic a change. Let's stick with the below timeline for now.

MC - OoT - WW - PH - FS - FSA - LoZ - AoL -OoA - OoS
	  |
	 MM - TP - ALttP - LA

So, who wants to pit their timeline against this one?

EDIT: Changed timeline to reflect previous posts. However, now we've seriously got a landmark problem. A Hyrule with Death Mountain and Lake Hylia on both sides of The Wind Waker.

Edited by Wolf_ODonnell, 20 June 2009 - 02:19 PM.

[Person]

Heh, good luck trying to get a technologically sensical timeline together
And yes, that's the interview I'm referring to.

Also, your new version of this timeline has MM on both sides, it should only be on the child side in between OoT and TP.
It's also hard to justify any games in between OoT and WW on the adult timeline.

Ah, but didn't I state that I was grouping together all games with the same landmarks together on the same side of Wind Waker? Though you say there's no justification to put any games in between OoT and WW, surely there's also less justification to put any game in between TP and ALttP? Which begs the question of where should LoZ and AoL go? After all, they share similar landmarks to OoT's Hyrule. A new Hyrule would not have the same landmarks. Then again, that begs the question of where does FS and FSA go?

If we put LoZ before OoT, you've got a pig-like Ganon sorcerer running amok before OoT which seems to be an explanatory story about how Ganondorf became the being he was. Not to mention that means we've got a Triforce lurking around in Hyrule when it should be in the Sacred Realm.

We can't put it after WW because then we'd have the problem of there being a Hyrule with the similar landmarks to the old Hyrule. We can't put it before TP because that would make a mockery of its plot. In fact, TP shouldn't really go before ALttP either, because in TP, Ganondorf is never sealed away. He is killed, outright killed, in Hyrule, the Light World. I've half a mind to split the timeline in three now, so that it looks like this:

MC - FS - FSA - ALttP - LA

OoT - WW - PH - OoA - OoS
 |
MM - TP

However, that's too drastic a change. Let's stick with the below timeline for now.

MC - OoT - WW - PH - FS - FSA - LoZ - AoL -OoA - OoS
	  |
	 MM - TP - ALttP - LA

So, who wants to pit their timeline against this one?

EDIT: Changed timeline to reflect previous posts. However, now we've seriously got a landmark problem. A Hyrule with Death Mountain and Lake Hylia on both sides of The Wind Waker.

Just move them over between TP and ALttP. Because the Imprisoning War hasn't happened as of TP, there's no requirement for a seamless connection between it and ALttP. The FS series allows for room for it to happen.

[Wolf O'Donnell]

I guess so, especially seeing as the Palace of the Four Swords is in the Dark World.

MC - OoT - WW - PH - LoZ - AoL -OoA - OoS
	  |
	 MM - TP - FS - FSA - ALttP - LA

Out of interest, does anybody hold on to the single timeline theory anymore?

[Person]

I guess so, especially seeing as the Palace of the Four Swords is in the Dark World.

MC - OoT - WW - PH - LoZ - AoL -OoA - OoS
	  |
	 MM - TP - FS - FSA - ALttP - LA

Out of interest, does anybody hold on to the single timeline theory anymore?

Nobody believes in that any more. Of course, there are a few people over at ZU who do, but even the ZU people think they're crazy.

Also, PotFS is an easter egg that meant nothing when it came out. Maybe the developers of FSA somehow wanted to use it as a link into ALttP, but it's safer to assume that the Seal War happens right after FSA and no game really covers it. FSA would only cover the first half as it is, with the birth of Ganon.

Edited by Person, 20 June 2009 - 02:44 PM.

[SOAP]

I guess so, especially seeing as the Palace of the Four Swords is in the Dark World.

MC - OoT - WW - PH - LoZ - AoL -OoA - OoS
	  |
	 MM - TP - FS - FSA - ALttP - LA

Out of interest, does anybody hold on to the single timeline theory anymore?

So, no one has any issues with separating LoZ from ALttP? I don't personally but I thought it was set in stone that ALttP proceeds LoZ in the same side of the timeline split. However, I can see LoZ/AoL Hyrule being founded after TWW.

[Person]

Yeah. I guess I didn't notice that. The NES games come after ALTTP, because the back of the box in both English and Japanese says that.

[Wolf O'Donnell]

I guess so, especially seeing as the Palace of the Four Swords is in the Dark World.

MC - OoT - WW - PH - LoZ - AoL -OoA - OoS
	  |
	 MM - TP - FS - FSA - ALttP - LA

Out of interest, does anybody hold on to the single timeline theory anymore?

So, no one has any issues with separating LoZ from ALttP? I don't personally but I thought it was set in stone that ALttP proceeds LoZ in the same side of the timeline split. However, I can see LoZ/AoL Hyrule being founded after TWW.

I guess you're right. If we're to keep games with similar landmarks grouped together, then we'd have to put LoZ and AoL together.

However, now we've got a problem here. LoZ and AoL should be on the same side as the Oracles games, due to the location of the Triforce.

What we need now is to pit one timeline against another.

[MikePetersSucks]

Why is LOZ-onward put after TWW? I don't see a single justification.

Also, Geography really doesn't matter and too much importance is being placed on it in this thread.

[Wolf O'Donnell]

There is no justificaiton. It's just there because the previous versions of my timeline had it there. After much thought, I'd probably do this:

MC - OoT - MM - TP - ALttP - LA - FS - FSA - LoZ - AoL - OoA - OoS
	  |
	 WW - PH

Personally, I thought geography did matter, but if I put all the games in similar timeline positions to yours, then you're right, it ceases to matter. Now, however, we've got three variations on the the childhood timeline:

TMC - OoT - MM - TP - ALttP - LA - FS - FSA - LoZ - AoL - OoA - OoS

TMC-OoT-MM-TP-FS-FSA-ALttP-LA-OoX-LoZ-AoL

OoT - MM - TP - TMC - FS - FSA - LTTP - LA - LOZ - AOL - Oracles

Shall we start listing the relevant merits of each one and the cons of each one?

[Person]

There is no justificaiton. It's just there because the previous versions of my timeline had it there. After much thought, I'd probably do this:

MC - OoT - MM - TP - ALttP - LA - FS - FSA - LoZ - AoL - OoA - OoS
	  |
	 WW - PH

Personally, I thought geography did matter, but if I put all the games in similar timeline positions to yours, then you're right, it ceases to matter. Now, however, we've got three variations on the the childhood timeline:

TMC - OoT - MM - TP - ALttP - LA - FS - FSA - LoZ - AoL - OoA - OoS

TMC-OoT-MM-TP-FS-FSA-ALttP-LA-OoX-LoZ-AoL

OoT - MM - TP - TMC - FS - FSA - LTTP - LA - LOZ - AOL - Oracles

Shall we start listing the relevant merits of each one and the cons of each one?

Okay, mine is the second one so I'll defend it. The main difference between it and the others is my placement of the Oracles.
1. Hyrule is at peace during OoX, so it's likely before the Age of Chaos mentioned in the LoZ manual.
2. The Triforce is in possession of the royal family, so it may be during the reign of the king mentioned in AoL.

[Wolf O'Donnell]

Unfortunately, the downside is that we have Twilight Princess placed in between OoT and ALttP. The game's state of technological advancement should place it well after all the other games. The plus side, though, is that I think TP should be placed not too long after OoT. Didn't Aonuma himself say something along those lines?

The upside of my timeline is that with FSA placed after ALttP, we have a second origin story for Ganondorf placed after his destruction in ALttP. It explains how he came back, with the Dark World of FSA being a degenerate version of the Dark World in ALttP. Unfortunately, the downside is that we now have a strange occurrence where the Gerudo disappear from Hyrule and then reappear again. This, however, is pretty much a weakness of all three timelines as TP has no visible Gerudo tribe as far as I can tell.

So, that's 2 plus points for Person's timeline and one plus point for mine, and two con points for all three timelines.

Edited by Wolf_ODonnell, 21 June 2009 - 01:21 PM.

[Person]

Unfortunately, the downside is that we have Twilight Princess placed in between OoT and ALttP. The game's state of technological advancement should place it well after all the other games. The plus side, though, is that I think TP should be placed not too long after OoT. Didn't Aonuma himself say something along those lines?

The upside of my timeline is that with FSA placed after ALttP, we have a second origin story for Ganondorf placed after his destruction in ALttP. It explains how he came back, with the Dark World of FSA being a degenerate version of the Dark World in ALttP. Unfortunately, the downside is that we now have a strange occurrence where the Gerudo disappear from Hyrule and then reappear again. This, however, is pretty much a weakness of all three timelines as TP has no visible Gerudo tribe as far as I can tell.

So, that's 2 plus points for Person's timeline and one plus point for mine, and two con points for all three timelines.

Zelda is sort of a Schizo tech world, so technology doesn't matter much. And it seems you have FSA and ALttP backwards. FSA shows the origin of a new Ganon, but it also shows the origin of Ganon's trident that he uses in ALttP.

[Wolf O'Donnell]

Unfortunately, the downside is that we have Twilight Princess placed in between OoT and ALttP. The game's state of technological advancement should place it well after all the other games. The plus side, though, is that I think TP should be placed not too long after OoT. Didn't Aonuma himself say something along those lines?

The upside of my timeline is that with FSA placed after ALttP, we have a second origin story for Ganondorf placed after his destruction in ALttP. It explains how he came back, with the Dark World of FSA being a degenerate version of the Dark World in ALttP. Unfortunately, the downside is that we now have a strange occurrence where the Gerudo disappear from Hyrule and then reappear again. This, however, is pretty much a weakness of all three timelines as TP has no visible Gerudo tribe as far as I can tell.

So, that's 2 plus points for Person's timeline and one plus point for mine, and two con points for all three timelines.

Zelda is sort of a Schizo tech world, so technology doesn't matter much. And it seems you have FSA and ALttP backwards. FSA shows the origin of a new Ganon, but it also shows the origin of Ganon's trident that he uses in ALttP.

It could do, or the trident in FSA could be the actual trident Ganon uses in ALttP, left behind after his defeat.

[Person]

Unfortunately, the downside is that we have Twilight Princess placed in between OoT and ALttP. The game's state of technological advancement should place it well after all the other games. The plus side, though, is that I think TP should be placed not too long after OoT. Didn't Aonuma himself say something along those lines?

The upside of my timeline is that with FSA placed after ALttP, we have a second origin story for Ganondorf placed after his destruction in ALttP. It explains how he came back, with the Dark World of FSA being a degenerate version of the Dark World in ALttP. Unfortunately, the downside is that we now have a strange occurrence where the Gerudo disappear from Hyrule and then reappear again. This, however, is pretty much a weakness of all three timelines as TP has no visible Gerudo tribe as far as I can tell.

So, that's 2 plus points for Person's timeline and one plus point for mine, and two con points for all three timelines.

Zelda is sort of a Schizo tech world, so technology doesn't matter much. And it seems you have FSA and ALttP backwards. FSA shows the origin of a new Ganon, but it also shows the origin of Ganon's trident that he uses in ALttP.

It could do, or the trident in FSA could be the actual trident Ganon uses in ALttP, left behind after his defeat.

Ganon is an unknown in FSA, and the OoT Ganon never took the "giant trident-wielding blue pig" form. When he did transform, it was more bestial and only a temporary form. FSA Ganon is a pig all of the time. It makes the most sense to put FSA right before ALttP on the child line, because Ganon never conquered Hyrule in OoT, and was only "the man behind the man" in TP, so his name wouldn't be infamous by the time of FSA. When one of the maidens hears the name Ganondorf, she thinks of some random desert nomad, not the King of Evil.

[Showsni]

Out of interest, does anybody hold on to the single timeline theory anymore?

I would if I could force TP to behave, but the only way to do that seems to be to put it pre-OoT.

[Wolf O'Donnell]

Ganon is an unknown in FSA, and the OoT Ganon never took the "giant trident-wielding blue pig" form. When he did transform, it was more bestial and only a temporary form. FSA Ganon is a pig all of the time. It makes the most sense to put FSA right before ALttP on the child line, because Ganon never conquered Hyrule in OoT, and was only "the man behind the man" in TP, so his name wouldn't be infamous by the time of FSA. When one of the maidens hears the name Ganondorf, she thinks of some random desert nomad, not the King of Evil.

Yes, but I do somewhat remember that the Trident makes mention of an ancient evil. Thus suggesting that the weapon is the spirit of some evil monster, possibly the old Ganon who died in ALttP. I mean, let us not forget that even during ALttP, the name of Ganon seems to kind of have been lost. Who's to say that he is not forgotten again by the time of FSA?

After all, Ganon never really escapes the Dark World, does he? As far as the citizens of Hyrule in ALttP know, it was just Agahnim that was going around messing things up.

[Person]

Ganon is an unknown in FSA, and the OoT Ganon never took the "giant trident-wielding blue pig" form. When he did transform, it was more bestial and only a temporary form. FSA Ganon is a pig all of the time. It makes the most sense to put FSA right before ALttP on the child line, because Ganon never conquered Hyrule in OoT, and was only "the man behind the man" in TP, so his name wouldn't be infamous by the time of FSA. When one of the maidens hears the name Ganondorf, she thinks of some random desert nomad, not the King of Evil.

Yes, but I do somewhat remember that the Trident makes mention of an ancient evil. Thus suggesting that the weapon is the spirit of some evil monster, possibly the old Ganon who died in ALttP. I mean, let us not forget that even during ALttP, the name of Ganon seems to kind of have been lost. Who's to say that he is not forgotten again by the time of FSA?

After all, Ganon never really escapes the Dark World, does he? As far as the citizens of Hyrule in ALttP know, it was just Agahnim that was going around messing things up.

The ancient evil is never named. The US version calls it the "ancient demon reborn" but the intent was to connect him to OoT Ganon, to suggest that he's a reincarnation.
A straight TP-ALttP placement without FSA in between creates problems, as OoT Ganon is dead in TP, and suddenly alive again in time for the seal war to happen? It's better to assume the seal war happened after FSA, because that game cleans up the "Ganon is dead in TP" problem by giving us a new Ganon, who looks exactly like the blue pig we see in the 2D games.

[Erimgard]

A timeline is not going to function properly when you put geography over storyline in importance. You have to take into account all factors.

[MikePetersSucks]

OoT - MM - TP - TMC - FS - FSA - LTTP - LA - LOZ - AOL - Oracles

This one's mine, so I'll defend it. TP is quite obviously a squel to OOT, and is called a "parallel" to TWW, so they seem to have to be "across" from each other on the timelines. As for the technology issue, this never bothered me; after all, all the high technology we see seems to be precursor technology that's out of use by normal Hylians or was never theirs, such as the Temple of Time or the Flying City. TWW had precursor technology as well: Tower of the Gods, anyone?

As for FSA coming before LTTP? The Trident technically never had to be a previous Ganon's, it's just an evil Trident left by forces of darkness. Perhaps left by the same forces of evil sealed up in TMC's backstory. I place FSA before LTTP because in the original storyline for it, LTTP was meant to be the new Imprisoning War until they kind of asspulled a new ending. With that, everything else falls into place pretty much flawlessly.