94 replies to this topic

[Erimgard]

Two things:
Isn't specifically a "demon" that left the Trident behind, and not just evil forces?
Though Aonuma may have planned it originally, FSA is likely not the Seal War now, so what/where is it in this timeline?

[Person]

Two things:
Isn't specifically a "demon" that left the Trident behind, and not just evil forces?
Though Aonuma may have planned it originally, FSA is likely not the Seal War now, so what/where is it in this timeline?

For most of us, it's after FSA.

[CID Farwin]

Two things:
Isn't specifically a "demon" that left the Trident behind, and not just evil forces?
Though Aonuma may have planned it originally, FSA is likely not the Seal War now, so what/where is it in this timeline?

Considering that Aonuma has expressed a desire to remake ALttP, I assume that it simply goes pre-ALttP and has no other bearing on the timeline.

[SOAP]

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.

Yea I noticed you don't have TP in your timeline. What's up with that, yo?

[Wolf O'Donnell]

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

It's got to, because the one constant throughout all of Hyrule should be major geographical locations. Not necessarily their positioning though, because if we use positioning as well, we'd never be able to put any game in any timeline with another.

We, of course, have to take into account storyline as well because that helps us order the timelines. But we need to group games with similar geographical locations, especially if we have TWW in the mix. TWW is a breaking point that allows for us to have a Hyrule with a new geography.

Anyway, I think we're all agreed that the early games go something like this...

OoT - MM - TP

Two of the three timelines also have FS and FSA before ALttP. It seems to be a very popular trait that keeps cropping up, so is everybody in agreement that the timeline goes vaguely like this:

OoT - MM - TP - FS - FSA - ALttP?

With the other games spread in differing locations through this timeline but with LoZ and AoL clearly somewhere after ALttP?

[SOAP]

TP Hyrule seems to be an amalgamation of OoT and ALttP Hyrules. FSA seems to be as well, though it favors ALttP Hyrule more. So I think it lines up pretty well with OoT-MM-TP-FS-FSA-ALttP. There's no storyline contridictions either. I still say LoZ can fit after TWW, but maybe I'm just partial to not having TWW all out by it's lonesome.

Oracles, we never see Hyrule but the castle looks distinctly like OoT Hyrule Castle in cutscenes. Don't know if that maens anything.

TMC, I have no clue.

[Wolf O'Donnell]

As I said before, geographical landmarks do play one part. I don't like the idea of having two Hyrules with the same geographical landmarks. The new Hyrule should have different landmarks altogether.

[MikePetersSucks]

Two things:
Isn't specifically a "demon" that left the Trident behind, and not just evil forces?
Though Aonuma may have planned it originally, FSA is likely not the Seal War now, so what/where is it in this timeline?

No one ever said that a demon specifically left the Trident. Infact, the inscription speaks in plural, so the demon would've had to use a "royal we", but since this exists even in the Japanese script, I doubt it. As for FSA's placement, probably the same general area, for the same reason OOT is still first-ish regardless of no longer being the Seal War, either.

t's got to, because the one constant throughout all of Hyrule should be major geographical locations. Not necessarily their positioning though, because if we use positioning as well, we'd never be able to put any game in any timeline with another.

We, of course, have to take into account storyline as well because that helps us order the timelines. But we need to group games with similar geographical locations, especially if we have TWW in the mix. TWW is a breaking point that allows for us to have a Hyrule with a new geography.

You're a mad man. Anyway, there's better constants to judge things by, such as the Triforce or the purity of the Hylian blood and whatever else.

Anyway, I think we're all agreed that the early games go something like this...

OoT - MM - TP

Two of the three timelines also have FS and FSA before ALttP. It seems to be a very popular trait that keeps cropping up, so is everybody in agreement that the timeline goes vaguely like this:

OoT - MM - TP - FS - FSA - ALttP?

With the other games spread in differing locations through this timeline but with LoZ and AoL clearly somewhere after ALttP?

I agree. and so right now, our current unanimous timeline is:

OOT-MM-TP-FS-FSA-LTTP
|
TWW-PH

The new Hyrule should have different landmarks altogether.

If there IS a new Hyrule. Anyway, if we take seriously that LA is supposed to be a sequel to LTTP, and that LTTP is a prequel to LOZ/AOL, then we should have LTTP-LA-LOZ-AOL, right? Does anyone have a reason for why this shouldn't work?

[Wolf O'Donnell]

I agree. and so right now, our current unanimous timeline is:

OOT-MM-TP-FS-FSA-LTTP
|
TWW-PH

The new Hyrule should have different landmarks altogether.

If there IS a new Hyrule. Anyway, if we take seriously that LA is supposed to be a sequel to LTTP, and that LTTP is a prequel to LOZ/AOL, then we should have LTTP-LA-LOZ-AOL, right? Does anyone have a reason for why this shouldn't work?

Well, you would need to resurrect Ganon for one. That's why I decided to put FS and FSA after ALttP, to give him a second origins story. Then there'd be no question as to how he ended up dead in ALttP and then alive again in LoZ. It's much easier for Ganon to be freed from a sword, than for him to have to be resurrected yet again. With FSA after LA, we'd be able to place LoZ after it, no problem.

However, having FSA in between TP and LTTP works for the exact same reason. There's a second origin story to explain how Ganon came back.

[Person]

I agree. and so right now, our current unanimous timeline is:

OOT-MM-TP-FS-FSA-LTTP
|
TWW-PH

The new Hyrule should have different landmarks altogether.

If there IS a new Hyrule. Anyway, if we take seriously that LA is supposed to be a sequel to LTTP, and that LTTP is a prequel to LOZ/AOL, then we should have LTTP-LA-LOZ-AOL, right? Does anyone have a reason for why this shouldn't work?

Well, you would need to resurrect Ganon for one. That's why I decided to put FS and FSA after ALttP, to give him a second origins story. Then there'd be no question as to how he ended up dead in ALttP and then alive again in LoZ. It's much easier for Ganon to be freed from a sword, than for him to have to be resurrected yet again. With FSA after LA, we'd be able to place LoZ after it, no problem.

However, having FSA in between TP and LTTP works for the exact same reason. There's a second origin story to explain how Ganon came back.

AST explains how Ganon came back in time for LoZ. His death in ALttP was a "not quite dead" death, unlike his death in TP which was the end of OoT Ganon for good.

[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.

Yea I noticed you don't have TP in your timeline. What's up with that, yo?

It goes in a split after OoT, on the opposite side to everything else, at the moment; a Terry Pratchett "Trousers of Time" style split, rather than being caused by any particular event.

[MikePetersSucks]

Well, you would need to resurrect Ganon for one. That's why I decided to put FS and FSA after ALttP, to give him a second origins story. Then there'd be no question as to how he ended up dead in ALttP and then alive again in LoZ. It's much easier for Ganon to be freed from a sword, than for him to have to be resurrected yet again. With FSA after LA, we'd be able to place LoZ after it, no problem.

Not really sufficient reasoning to make a placement one way or another. If an additional Ganon is needed and there's no seals to break, you can get one the same way every other character comes back: Reincarnation.

AST explains how Ganon came back in time for LoZ. His death in ALttP was a "not quite dead" death, unlike his death in TP which was the end of OoT Ganon for good.

Please, for the simplicity of this thread, which is going great so far, let's not involve AST for the time being.

[bjamez7573]

I agree. and so right now, our current unanimous timeline is:

OOT-MM-TP-FS-FSA-LTTP
|
TWW-PH

That sounds reasonable to me.

Anyway, if we take seriously that LA is supposed to be a sequel to LTTP, and that LTTP is a prequel to LOZ/AOL, then we should have LTTP-LA-LOZ-AOL, right? Does anyone have a reason for why this shouldn't work?

One reason why LOZ/AOL should be placed pre-OOT and not after ALTTP - the Sleeping Zelda theory. Of course I already made a thread for this, so I won't really get into it here.

[MikePetersSucks]

Okay, so we can safely say LA goes after LTTP, so we have:

OOT-MM-TP-FS-FSA-LTTP
|
TWW-PH

Putting aside LOZ/AOL for now due to redundancy, we're left with TMC and OOX to deal with. I think that, regardless of the overall placement, OOX would go after LOZ/AOL, so we'd have "LOZ-AOL-OOX", and I'd put TMC between TP and FS, mostly because I was never compelled by the pre-OOT arguments, and I like keeping the Four Swords trilogy together. Any problems with this?

[Jarsh]

Okay, so we can safely say LA goes after LTTP, so we have:

OOT-MM-TP-FS-FSA-LTTP
|
TWW-PH

Putting aside LOZ/AOL for now due to redundancy, we're left with TMC and OOX to deal with. I think that, regardless of the overall placement, OOX would go after LOZ/AOL, so we'd have "LOZ-AOL-OOX", and I'd put TMC between TP and FS, mostly because I was never compelled by the pre-OOT arguments, and I like keeping the Four Swords trilogy together. Any problems with this?

In this case, I agree with TMC fitting best after TP (ignoring the "first adventure" quote). To me, it seems OoX could go after ALttP, but it seems somehow better after AoL. I don't think it would make a major impact if TMC were placed before OoT (except the Vaati arc not being resolved in the Adult arc, but it's not like we're certain if he was destroyed or sealed in the Four Sword anyhow).

Also, hello to everyone here; I've been lurking in the shadows her for awhile and recently decided to create an account. Feels swell to be within the cohort of theorists.

Edited by Jarsh, 26 June 2009 - 02:25 AM.

[MikePetersSucks]

In this case, I agree with TMC fitting best after TP (ignoring the "first adventure" quote).

I agree. The "first adventure" quote felt more specific to me than "all Zelda games ever."

To me, it seems OoX could go after ALttP, but it seems somehow better after AoL.

Agreed. Note how the Triforce pieces hover as separate pieces, which is only done in LOZ/AOL?

I don't think it would make a major impact if TMC were placed before OoT (except the Vaati arc not being resolved in the Adult arc, but it's not like we're certain if he was destroyed or sealed in the Four Sword anyhow).

Admittedly, this bugged the hell out of me too, which is why I made the placement. A part of me also wants to push the TP backstory involving the Twili post-timesplit, as well, so that alternate Midna isn't denied character development.

Also, hello to everyone here; I've been lurking in the shadows her for awhile and recently decided to create an account. Feels swell to be within the cohort of theorists.

By all means, welcome. Don't be discouraged with how hot arguments can get on here, it's always nice to have more fresh voices.

[Average Gamer]

Agreed. Note how the Triforce pieces hover as separate pieces, which is only done in LOZ/AOL?

Actually, the Triforce pieces hovered separately in A Link to the Past as well. They only came together when it was time for someone to make a wish.

I don't think it would make a major impact if TMC were placed before OoT (except the Vaati arc not being resolved in the Adult arc, but it's not like we're certain if he was destroyed or sealed in the Four Sword anyhow).

If Vaati died in TMC (which I believe) then the "arc" never really picked up on the Adult Timeline, meaning that nothing would necessarily be incomplete. If Vaati was sealed, then he may have been killed by the Great Flood (depending on when he was sealed), finishing him off anyway.

Also, hello to everyone here; I've been lurking in the shadows her for awhile and recently decided to create an account.

Welcome to the boards. I hope you'll like it here.

[Fin]

The unresolved plot arcs used to bug me as well, but to be honest I don't think Nintendo is concerned with them.

As for the first adventure quote, I'd be willing to overlook that as well, but I really think all the stuff with the hat is of some significance, as silly as that sounds. The story seems to place way too much importance on the hat, right down to showing a previous hero with all the characteristics of Link but the hat, for me to ignore it.

(Welcome to the boards, Jarsh. Hope you stay.)

Edited by Fintin O'Brien, 26 June 2009 - 07:24 PM.

[Jarsh]

Thanks for the warm welcome, guys. Also, it is of minor importance, but can we agree that AST happens after ALttP/during LA?

[Fin]

May not count as 100% canon, but it doesn't hurt the timeline to be put there (besides, it strengthens the link between LttP and LA)

I have no problem with including AST.

[Erimgard]

Thanks for the warm welcome, guys. Also, it is of minor importance, but can we agree that AST happens after ALttP/during LA?

Yessir.

I'm all for AST having a status as canon.

[MikePetersSucks]

Actually, the Triforce pieces hovered separately in A Link to the Past as well. They only came together when it was time for someone to make a wish.

They were still in a triangular alignment, and given that they were also bigger and ethereal and, like, the Essence of the Triforce, apparently, instead of the physical form, that might not even count.

Thanks for the warm welcome, guys. Also, it is of minor importance, but can we agree that AST happens after ALttP/during LA?

It doesn't hurt. Doesn't help much, either. AST is sort of a non-issue, except for arguments on whether or not it's canon.

[Person]

Okay, so we can safely say LA goes after LTTP, so we have:

OOT-MM-TP-FS-FSA-LTTP
|
TWW-PH

Putting aside LOZ/AOL for now due to redundancy, we're left with TMC and OOX to deal with. I think that, regardless of the overall placement, OOX would go after LOZ/AOL, so we'd have "LOZ-AOL-OOX", and I'd put TMC between TP and FS, mostly because I was never compelled by the pre-OOT arguments, and I like keeping the Four Swords trilogy together. Any problems with this?

In this case, I agree with TMC fitting best after TP (ignoring the "first adventure" quote). To me, it seems OoX could go after ALttP, but it seems somehow better after AoL. I don't think it would make a major impact if TMC were placed before OoT (except the Vaati arc not being resolved in the Adult arc, but it's not like we're certain if he was destroyed or sealed in the Four Sword anyhow).

Also, hello to everyone here; I've been lurking in the shadows her for awhile and recently decided to create an account. Feels swell to be within the cohort of theorists.

Hey, welcome! The issue about TMC is one point of controversy here. You'll notice that I put it first, but because it has little context outside of the Four Swords trilogy, OoT is the "real" beginning to the timeline. The Vaati problem you seem to see on the adult timeline is a non-issue, because Vaati just seems to go poof at the end of TMC, and the actual FS backstory could be placed anywhere in the timeline before FS. It's not like TMC was supposed to tell the backstory specifically. The OoX placement is sort of a non-issue here, as they really have the most nebulous placement of all the games, and almost no context outside of the opening with the Triforce to place them anywhere.

[MikePetersSucks]

It's not like TMC was supposed to tell the backstory specifically.

Well, it was, but it got the FSA treatment because of FS DS.

[Person]

It's not like TMC was supposed to tell the backstory specifically.

Well, it was, but it got the FSA treatment because of FS DS.

FS DS was never in development. Aonuma said the FSA team was working on a new Zelda game for DS, which turned out to be PH. It's a nonexistent game.

[MikePetersSucks]

It was never in actual development, but it was intended at some point. Got scrapped and remade of PH of course, but if we're going with that argument, then "Triforce Seed of Courage" never existed either.

[Person]

It was never in actual development, but it was intended at some point. Got scrapped and remade of PH of course, but if we're going with that argument, then "Triforce Seed of Courage" never existed either.

I think Aonuma said something to the effect of "That game never existed, I was talking about PH." I think its only mention was a spot on the "coming soon" list in Nintendo Power.

[Raien]

Person's right. In a later interview, Aonuma said that he was mistranslated, and that he was actually talking about PH being developed by the FSA team. As far as we know, FS DS never existed, not even in the planning stages.

Edited by Raien, 30 June 2009 - 06:53 AM.

[MikePetersSucks]

Ah well. Then I'll just blame PH for the same reason. Vaati and Bellum are certainly similar enough.

[Zola Revolution]

I don't believe in the split-timeline theory. I don't know about any of you, but I am a person who likes to follow the story as I play the game. So, if there were a split timeline, then if one set of stories is to happen, that would mean that another set of stories never happen in the storyline. Why follow a story if it is never to happen. I say there can be a single timeline without conflict, in fact, less conflict than there is with a split timeline.

I have come up with a set of "points" that has helped me construct the timeline I have come up with.

The Seven Points
1) Order of hero - It is important to get the hero of each story in the order that the legends tell them. Ex. It would be wrong to put Wind Waker before Ocarina of time because Wind Waker has a legend about the hero of time in it.

2) Order of Princess - This point is similar to the previous. The royal bloodline should go in the right order as well.

3) State of Villain - It is important to have the villain and his / her state go in order. Ex. It would be wrong to put Four Swords before Minish cap for Vaati had only first transformed in the Minish Cap which resulted in his form in Four Swords.

4) Storyline - Each story must match the previous and the story that is to come next.

5) Geography of Hyrule - There is a map of each era of Hyrule available, they are to be compared and it is to be decided if it could change from one to another in the time given by the timeline. (A new hero is born every 100 years.)

6) Legends - The legends in each story must match the chronology.

7) Technilogical advances - The earlier it is in the in the chronology, the more primitive the technilogical advances. After the flood, the technilogical advances would be set back. Also, after the wars before Legend of Zelda and A Link to the Past would set it back because of the war damage and reparations.

The timeline I have made is far more detailed than the one in my signature. I have made a year system and I have explained what happens between each story, which also ties the stories together.