Jump to content

IPBoard Styles©Fisana

Photo

Potential timeline reveal?


  • Please log in to reply
234 replies to this topic

#211 eruntalon

eruntalon

    Pilgrim

  • Members
  • 25 posts

Posted 25 December 2011 - 12:15 AM

It's not that important, but I'm curious: does the timeline say which Oracle game comes first? Also, does the text of the book clarify exactly when Link lost to Ganon in the third timeline? Was it as a child, or as an adult?

#212 MikePetersSucks

MikePetersSucks

    Actual Japanese Person

  • ZL Staff
  • 4,174 posts
  • Gender:Male

Posted 25 December 2011 - 12:45 AM

We don't know the answers to either of those questions.

#213 JRPomazon

JRPomazon

    The finest version of Myself

  • Members
  • 15,804 posts
  • Location:Massachusetts
  • Gender:Male
  • United States

Posted 25 December 2011 - 01:23 AM

I have never assumed the imprisoning war and OoT had anything in common. I'd like to think it happened separately from the events of OoT rather than the battle with Ganon at the end of that game.

I also can't say I'm a huge fan of the third timeline concept, the last thing anyone needs is a "what if" scenario.

Edited by JRPomazon, 25 December 2011 - 01:23 AM.


#214 SOAP

SOAP

    So Oo Ap Puh

  • Members
  • 7,750 posts
  • Location:Savannah, GA Hell Yeah!
  • Gender:Male
  • World

Posted 25 December 2011 - 06:16 AM

And what's wrong with what ifs? You already have a split timeline and a parallel world (Termina) so you might as well see the whole series as a multiverse of countless approximate universes, with three of them being the main ones.

It's kinda like how in the Fable series, the original Fable gave players the choice between killing their character's sister and obtaining the ultimate weapon or sparing her and throwing the weapon into a void forever. In the next game, it seemed like they made the "Good" ending canon because there's a character with the same name as the sister in the original who seems to be an immortal seer of sorts, which maent the sister was spared. But then there's all these legends of the original Hero from the first game having this ultimate weapon. There's no way the sister and the weapon could coexist until later on when the "Many Worlds Theory" gets invoked in-universe and it's revealed that Theresa, the immortal Seer, is from a parallel world where the Hero decided to spare her and she traveled to the universe the sequel takes place in in which the Hero decided to kill her for some reason, probably to do with the Spire and the new royal bloodline only existing in this timeline, not her own. There's only two branches that really seem to be canon in the Fable series but time travel never occurs, at least not in the linear sense at all. The only way both universes could be canon is if "what-if" is invoked and there exists a universe for every choice every Hero makes. In this case, what if the Hero killed his sister and what if that had something to do with the craetion of the Spire and him starting a bloodline for future monarchs of Albion? And what if his sister was able to to travel from her original universe to that universe in which she's dead?

I see the same logic being used in Zelda. They had a choice between sacrificing OoT's ties to ALttP as it's prequel in order to make it fit either after TP or ALttP and just having the SW be a separate event, or keeping OoT's prequel status and just have the SW be a distorted recollation of OoT plus TWW or TP and whatever else you throw in between OoT and ALttP. Either way, the connection between OoT and ALttP gets weakened, which is the only real bridge the Classic Games have with the 3D games. The best choice would be to make the SW it's own event but in that case you might as well make the whole Classic arc it's own continuity. So they take a third option and do something unexpected (for most people) and go with a "What if" route. Big deal. All three branches are still canon. All it means is that, due to no time travel involvement, the third branch technically isn't a split off like the other two. It's part of a approximate reality with a history that closely mirrors split timeline up until the point of Ganon's battle, in which case Link loses and this parallel world starts to deviate drastically in a totally different direction. It would be like having two lines running parallel with each other from the point of creation, except one splits into two and the other simply curves away from the other two.

In other words, it's a parallel world which have already been introduced before as Termina, so what's wrong with one that's exactly the same as the one OOt takes place, except in this one Link dies? Because it makes Game Overs canon? I guess it could. There could be a universe for every time a Link fails. But the situation with OoT and ALttP is unique in that OoT's game over scenario facilitates what occurs in ALttP. It's not perfect but it's a lot closer to any other workaround that fans have created over the yaers and it explains a lot of things. If Game Overs in other games could do the same thing they'd be canon too.

Going back to Fable, it's implied there's a universe for every decision every Hero makes but it's only the choice at the end of the first game made by the first Hero that's really canon because the continuity between the games demands it.

#215 FDL

FDL

    Famicom

  • Members
  • 1,634 posts
  • Location:Right behind you!
  • Gender:Male

Posted 25 December 2011 - 01:42 PM

You know, I was thinking, there's a very good chance that this will get the kibosh the second we actually get scans of the pages describing the Imprisoning War, but maybe on the Decline timeline Link didn't die when Ganondorf killed him. Again, seems more likely he was, but if Ganondorf merely did what he did in The Wind Waker and took the Triforce from the defeated, but living, Zelda and Link the Knights of Hyrule could've gone on to take in Link and he could've even produced the line which led to the Link of ALttP. The problems I already see in that would be the fact that the child timeline is referred to as having "the Hero's descendant/s" as if that sets it apart from the other two, as well as the whole "no one to use the Master Sword was found" thing, although that's already a load of bull if only a few years before someone was running around wielding the Master Sword. Like I said, this will probably be quickly disproved, but I do like the idea and I think it would make sense. If Zelda's still got a descendant even though she had her Triforce piece stolen, Link could have survived as well and it'd more intimately tie him into the hero's bloodline of ALttP. Meh, just thought I'd mention the idea before it's totally torpedoed.

#216 SOAP

SOAP

    So Oo Ap Puh

  • Members
  • 7,750 posts
  • Location:Savannah, GA Hell Yeah!
  • Gender:Male
  • World

Posted 25 December 2011 - 02:49 PM

You know, I was thinking, there's a very good chance that this will get the kibosh the second we actually get scans of the pages describing the Imprisoning War, but maybe on the Decline timeline Link didn't die when Ganondorf killed him. Again, seems more likely he was, but if Ganondorf merely did what he did in The Wind Waker and took the Triforce from the defeated, but living, Zelda and Link the Knights of Hyrule could've gone on to take in Link and he could've even produced the line which led to the Link of ALttP. The problems I already see in that would be the fact that the child timeline is referred to as having "the Hero's descendant/s" as if that sets it apart from the other two, as well as the whole "no one to use the Master Sword was found" thing, although that's already a load of bull if only a few years before someone was running around wielding the Master Sword. Like I said, this will probably be quickly disproved, but I do like the idea and I think it would make sense. If Zelda's still got a descendant even though she had her Triforce piece stolen, Link could have survived as well and it'd more intimately tie him into the hero's bloodline of ALttP. Meh, just thought I'd mention the idea before it's totally torpedoed.


I mentioned that same idea earlier.

Also, for those who find making a "Game Over" scenario canon hard to swallow, here's an alternative theory based on time travel:

http://allahweh.wordpress.com/2011/12/22/zelda-historia-presents-an-official-zelda-timeline/

Simmilar ideas have been mentioned before but this person puts it in a way that's pretty easy to understand.

#217 FDL

FDL

    Famicom

  • Members
  • 1,634 posts
  • Location:Right behind you!
  • Gender:Male

Posted 25 December 2011 - 02:56 PM

Ah, sorry, didn't realize you had already suggested that idea. But the sense I get is that, whether or not Link died or survived but had his Triforce taken, it definitely isn't how that website seems to suggest where one timeline is just one where Link disappeared. But I guess we'll see when someone finally scans it, I'm surprised no one has yet.

#218 joeymartin64

joeymartin64

    Optimistic Cynic

  • Members
  • 2,068 posts
  • Location:Shoreline, WA
  • Gender:Male
  • United States

Posted 25 December 2011 - 03:54 PM

Ooh ooh, Fable talk in Zelda Storyline? Happy JM.

I don't think I'd read multiverse travel into Theresa's appearance past Fable I. The MWT they brought up was really more of a joke aimed at "hey other people are playing this game and theres like mutliplayer and stuff now" than anything story-related. As for the records of the Hero of Oakvale wielding the Sword of Aeons, it's usually held that the historians fucked up (one of the books in Fable II outright says that Albion...ian [what is the demonym for Albion, anyway?] historians blatantly make shit up a lot of the time), and that he was actually rocking Avo's Tear.

#219 SOAP

SOAP

    So Oo Ap Puh

  • Members
  • 7,750 posts
  • Location:Savannah, GA Hell Yeah!
  • Gender:Male
  • World

Posted 25 December 2011 - 06:53 PM

Ooh ooh, Fable talk in Zelda Storyline? Happy JM.

I don't think I'd read multiverse travel into Theresa's appearance past Fable I. The MWT they brought up was really more of a joke aimed at "hey other people are playing this game and theres like mutliplayer and stuff now" than anything story-related. As for the records of the Hero of Oakvale wielding the Sword of Aeons, it's usually held that the historians fucked up (one of the books in Fable II outright says that Albion...ian [what is the demonym for Albion, anyway?] historians blatantly make shit up a lot of the time), and that he was actually rocking Avo's Tear.


Even better. Fable doesn't take it's own continuity too seriously and Zelda shouldn't either. In either case I just find it hilariously ironic that a lot of the fans that were so adamant about keeping theories aligned with what they believed was creator intent like it was some Holy Grail are now bashing the Eiji Aonuma for not knowing what the hell he's doing and that the theories that most resemble the official timeline were the ones that were considered the most unorthodox.

Edit: And I'm a big time Fable whore so I'm gonna talk about it whenever and whenever I want! ;d

Edit Edit: Wasn't there talk in Fable 3 about Theresa coming from a parallel world? I know in Fable 2 it talked about her eyes being to see worlds beyond what others could see despite being blind.

Edited by SOAP, 25 December 2011 - 06:57 PM.


#220 D~N

D~N

    just a humble polymath

  • Members
  • 3,200 posts
  • Gender:Male

Posted 25 December 2011 - 10:14 PM

Also, for those who find making a "Game Over" scenario canon hard to swallow, here's an alternative theory based on time travel:

http://allahweh.word...zelda-timeline/

Simmilar ideas have been mentioned before but this person puts it in a way that's pretty easy to understand.

I love his theory but he has Timeline 1 and 3 mixed up.

TIMELINE 1: Ocarina of Time -> The Wind Waker -> Phantom Hourglass -> Spirit TracksTIMELINE 2: Ocarina of Time -> Twilight Princess -> Four Swords Adventures

TIMELINE 3: Ocarina of Time -> A Link to the Past -> Oracles of Ages & Seasons -> Link’s Awakening -> The Legend of Zelda -> Adventure of Link

According to the book (or rather, early unofficial translations by fans), this split happens the moment Link draws the Master Sword in “The Legend of Zelda: Ocarina of Time.” When he takes the sword and travels into the future he vanishes from the initial timeline, creating the split towards Timeline 1 where the hero did not return to save Hyrule from Ganon. When Link defeats Ganon in the future, he is sent back to the “past” by the adult Zelda and, in the past, Link and Zelda plot to have Ganon executed (and due to that failure sealed away) by the Sage, thus resulting in Timeline 2. Finally, the timeline that leads into “A Link to the Past” is the one that Link departs from when Zelda sends him back into the past, creating Timeline 3.


Instead of this, it should say that timeline three is what happens after the first split when the sword is drawn for the first time, where the knights of hyrule are left to deal with ganon and "the Hero did not return to save Hyrule from Ganon." Timeline 2 is correct, child link goes off into the adventures of MM. But the adult timeline, as always, should lead into TWW.
Naturally, the timeline that leads into ALTTP is not the one where "Link departs from when Zelda sends him back to the past." That again is TWW. ALTTP is what happens to Hyrule after Link vanishes from it when he pulls the sword.



#221 joeymartin64

joeymartin64

    Optimistic Cynic

  • Members
  • 2,068 posts
  • Location:Shoreline, WA
  • Gender:Male
  • United States

Posted 26 December 2011 - 05:14 AM


Ooh ooh, Fable talk in Zelda Storyline? Happy JM.

I don't think I'd read multiverse travel into Theresa's appearance past Fable I. The MWT they brought up was really more of a joke aimed at "hey other people are playing this game and theres like mutliplayer and stuff now" than anything story-related. As for the records of the Hero of Oakvale wielding the Sword of Aeons, it's usually held that the historians fucked up (one of the books in Fable II outright says that Albion...ian [what is the demonym for Albion, anyway?] historians blatantly make shit up a lot of the time), and that he was actually rocking Avo's Tear.


Even better. Fable doesn't take it's own continuity too seriously and Zelda shouldn't either. In either case I just find it hilariously ironic that a lot of the fans that were so adamant about keeping theories aligned with what they believed was creator intent like it was some Holy Grail are now bashing the Eiji Aonuma for not knowing what the hell he's doing and that the theories that most resemble the official timeline were the ones that were considered the most unorthodox.

Edit: And I'm a big time Fable whore so I'm gonna talk about it whenever and whenever I want! ;d

Edit Edit: Wasn't there talk in Fable 3 about Theresa coming from a parallel world? I know in Fable 2 it talked about her eyes being to see worlds beyond what others could see despite being blind.

I'm somewhat fond of the Fable franchise, but it and Zelda are related in my mind as ongoing, not-very-dark high fantasy tales. I know, I know, they really don't have much in common, but I like to look at it that way. I've yet to play Fable III, however, so you might be right about Theresa.

Anyway, Zelda. Yeah, I've said for a few years now that the franchise's own give-a-damn for its overall storyline was moderate at best, which is a big part of the reason I decided not to really adhere to "Word of God," as the term is now. Now that the official timeline has stuff in it that a fan would be mocked for, I'll be bold enough to say that I feel more justified than ever in that decision.

#222 River Zora

River Zora

    Novice

  • Members
  • 15 posts

Posted 26 December 2011 - 02:30 PM

Now that the official timeline has stuff in it that a fan would be mocked for, I'll be bold enough to say that I feel more justified than ever in that decision.

This is the thing that gets me. It's nothing to do with 'my own fanfic' being wrong or what have you, lots of the timeline works better this way than any theorists, but the problem it's lazy, and not well thought out.

Like JM said there, if a fan had come on a site with that timeline, he'd be without a paddle as there is zero in-game or developer evidence for either a third split or that particular FSs order. Even the placements there are dev quotes for, the FS first quote was ignored by a majority, whereas the same link FS/FSA widely accepted.

As it's developer in origin, this timeline is its own evidence, and that is lazy. It does not build on piecing together the timeline as Aonuma says, it's brute fact from the mouth of God. This is the problem, when a developer can sat something and BOOM, it's correct for the simple reason that it is correct. A theorist will need evidence and backing up.

This is why, if anyone had this timline prior to the confirmation, I'd pobably call them a bad theorist, as they were basing things on little to no evidence, regardless of the eventual reveal. Classic case of right for the wrong reasons.

#223 FDL

FDL

    Famicom

  • Members
  • 1,634 posts
  • Location:Right behind you!
  • Gender:Male

Posted 26 December 2011 - 03:12 PM

To be fair, there's no way these games could be fit together perfectly based entirely on the knowledge we had before this book. That's why there's timeline theorizing in the first place, no matter how observant you are there's no way you can figure out everything speculation-free. That's not to say I 100% like this timeline, but I think it's a positive that they've explained some of the things about the story that no one could've been sure on just from the games.

#224 River Zora

River Zora

    Novice

  • Members
  • 15 posts

Posted 26 December 2011 - 04:59 PM

To be fair, there's no way these games could be fit together perfectly based entirely on the knowledge we had before this book. That's why there's timeline theorizing in the first place, no matter how observant you are there's no way you can figure out everything speculation-free. That's not to say I 100% like this timeline, but I think it's a positive that they've explained some of the things about the story that no one could've been sure on just from the games.

Oh yeah, definitely. The third branch makes everything better. The FS placements are odd, very odd, but the third branch is much better for continuity. Doesn't stop it being lazy/bad would be theorising :P

Edited by River Zora, 26 December 2011 - 07:32 PM.


#225 Person

Person

    Famicom

  • Members
  • 1,047 posts
  • Gender:Male

Posted 26 December 2011 - 10:48 PM

The FS placement could be backed up with in-game evidence and creator comments. Aonuma said that FS was the oldest tale in the timeline, i.e. pre-OoT. FSA has an origin story for Ganon that is irreconcilable with OoT Ganon, and indication that this Ganon is a reincarnation of the old one. Thus, it's after OoT. The reason people ignored Aonuma was because we believed that FS and FSA had the same Link. I was among those who thought so, but it's more an implication that an explicit statement. Considering that having FS and FSA share a Link caused us to disregard a creator statement, I don't think that it was good theorizing. The official placement makes perfect sense considering that it takes into account in-game evidence that FSA is after OoT, and creator statements that FS is before OoT.

#226 SOAP

SOAP

    So Oo Ap Puh

  • Members
  • 7,750 posts
  • Location:Savannah, GA Hell Yeah!
  • Gender:Male
  • World

Posted 26 December 2011 - 11:13 PM

I don't mind FS and FSA being seperated. Yeah, it's kinda weird but I can understand the logic. I just wonder if they're trying to make FS TMC's sequel with the same Link because the way the games are grouped together seems like that's what's they're trying to do. If so, that's something I can't wrap my head around.

Edited by SOAP, 26 December 2011 - 11:18 PM.


#227 Hobbe

Hobbe

    Beginner

  • Members
  • 4 posts

Posted 26 December 2011 - 11:52 PM

Is it totally confirmed that tMC and FS share a Link now, ie tMC/FS, rather than tMC - FS?

I don't see anything wrong with putting FSA so far after FS so long as we can agree that Vaati has to have escaped his seal shortly before FSA as well, since it really is implied that FSA has dealt with Vaati before (Thanks to Beno and someone else at ZU for making me realize this). Hell, I'm just sooo, so happy that there are no games post-Spirit Tracks. The idea of that just killed Wind Waker's ending for me, so I'm overjoyed to see the Heavy-AT gone forever.

Another question: Have we had any confirmation that the Downfall Timeline requires Link to be killed, or is 'failed' all that is really set in stone right now? I'm wondering if it could split off at some other point, ie when Link first pulls the Master Sword. Perhaps as a means of making both the prophecy of the Hero of Time and the prophecy of the Great Cataclysm both occur. I don't know how the Sages would be awakened in that case, but... well, if there's no Hero of Time sleeping in the Temple of Light in the DT then perhaps things would have gone quite differently with the Sages and Knights. What I'm saying is, could the DT simply be the CT had Link not been sent back? Am I even making sense?

#228 SOAP

SOAP

    So Oo Ap Puh

  • Members
  • 7,750 posts
  • Location:Savannah, GA Hell Yeah!
  • Gender:Male
  • World

Posted 26 December 2011 - 11:57 PM

Nothing has been confirmed other than the basic outline. That said outline does seem to closely group games that share the same Link. TMC and FS are part of the same group called the Force Era.

#229 Hobbe

Hobbe

    Beginner

  • Members
  • 4 posts

Posted 27 December 2011 - 12:06 AM

Well, either way, I don't suppose that FS having tMC Link is much of a problem. I've personally only had about ten minutes of exposure to FS via the Anniversary Edition on the 3DS, so I don't know all the specifics of the story for that particular title...

That being said, I'm much more concerned about the Downfall Timeline than I am about the FSS. I guess all I can do is add my voice to thousands of others: Scans would be great.

#230 MikePetersSucks

MikePetersSucks

    Actual Japanese Person

  • ZL Staff
  • 4,174 posts
  • Gender:Male

Posted 27 December 2011 - 01:37 AM

"Long ago, in the kingdom of Hyrule, there appeared a Wind Sorcerer named Vaati. Vaati could bend the wind to his will and used this awful power to terrorize many villages of Hyrule. In his assaults on the villages, Vaati would kidnap any beautiful girls who caught his fancy.

Many knights from the castle and other brave men set out to subdue the sorcerer and rescue the girls, but each one fell in turn to Vaati's awesome power. Just as the people had begun to lose hope, a lone young boy traveling with little but a sword at his side appeared.

When this boy heard what was happening, he said only, "I will defeat this sorcerer." He boldly entered Vaati's palace, mystically trapped the evil sorcerer inside the blade of his sword, and returned the young girls to their villages. The boy then went deep into the forest and disappeared.

The villagers asked the girls how a boy so young could have saved them all and defeated the sorcerer when no one else could. The young girls told a story of how with just a wave of his sword, the boy's body shattered into four pieces, each of which then formed a complete copy of the boy. These four young boys then worked together to defeat the sorcerer. The people did not believe the story, but they called it the Four Sword nonetheless. As rumors of the blade's power to divide a person into four entities spread, the people built a shrine to protect it.

Princess Zelda of the land of Hyrule was a beautiful young girl born with mysterious power to sense approaching forces of evil. For this reason, she was assigned with the sacred duty of protecting the shrine of the Four Sword and the blade itself. One day, Zelda was in Hyrule Castle when she sensed that something unusual was occurring at the Four Sword Shrine. She asked a boy named Link, whom she trusted above anyone else, to accompany her to investigate the happenings at the shrine..."


Yeaaa, so um, TMC and FS sharing the same Link is complete and utter bullshit.

#231 Hobbe

Hobbe

    Beginner

  • Members
  • 4 posts

Posted 27 December 2011 - 02:35 AM

Thanks for clearing that up. Four Swords is one game in the series I don't have much desire to play a lot of, so my knowledge of it is a little on the sparse side. So I agree, tMC/FS is some bad stuff, but it's certainly possible the games can take place in the same "Era" as the timeline chart lays things out, with the Era of Force lasting long enough for the events of tMC to become legend. I'm not a fan of that myself, but it's the best we can hope for, I guess. I've never been a fan of "It's a legend deal with it lol."

I suppose it's back to the waiting game, then.

#232 MikePetersSucks

MikePetersSucks

    Actual Japanese Person

  • ZL Staff
  • 4,174 posts
  • Gender:Male

Posted 27 December 2011 - 03:09 AM

There's also the option of "Whoever made this 'official' timeline is an idiot/doesn't care and can be disregarded," like with the silly-ass Miyamoto Order.

#233 SOAP

SOAP

    So Oo Ap Puh

  • Members
  • 7,750 posts
  • Location:Savannah, GA Hell Yeah!
  • Gender:Male
  • World

Posted 27 December 2011 - 03:58 AM

There's also the option of "Whoever made this 'official' timeline is an idiot/doesn't care and can be disregarded," like with the silly-ass Miyamoto Order.


There's also an option that maybe "we were all wrong about what the creators of the games intended and they do care about piecing a timeline together, they just have a different view than we do." Radical I know, considering fans are never wrong and all that. :whistle:

I think Hobbe's guess is most likely. It's possible they're grouped together simply because nothing significant happens between them.

#234 MikePetersSucks

MikePetersSucks

    Actual Japanese Person

  • ZL Staff
  • 4,174 posts
  • Gender:Male

Posted 27 December 2011 - 05:07 AM

There's also an option that maybe "we were all wrong about what the creators of the games intended and they do care about piecing a timeline together, they just have a different view than we do." Radical I know, considering fans are never wrong and all that.


There's a difference between that and contradicting the literal text of the games. I stick by the old rule that the games have to Drumpf the developers, who can and DO change their minds.

#235 Vertiboy

Vertiboy

    Crusader

  • Members
  • 405 posts

Posted 27 December 2011 - 06:22 AM

I personally like the idea of the triple timeline. I had entertained the idea before that in order for OoT to be the IW that there must have been some kind of third timeline. Can't say that I'm disappointed with TMC's or LA's placement either. Besides, think of it this way, the more timelines there are, the more continuities there are, and the less the story of a game is held back by the past.

tl;dr: I like the new timeline. It has many ideas I agree with. More timelines equals more creativity storywise.

BTW, I don't think that the text of the games overrides what the developers say. I mean, people are human and will make mistakes when writing games that will sometimes appear to contradict their intent.

Edited by Vertiboy, 27 December 2011 - 06:26 AM.


#236 Showsni

Showsni

    The Fallen

  • Members
  • 13,386 posts
  • Location:Gloucester
  • Gender:Male
  • England

Posted 27 December 2011 - 10:20 AM

There's also the option of "Whoever made this 'official' timeline is an idiot/doesn't care and can be disregarded," like with the silly-ass Miyamoto Order.


Well, it's possible. Who exactly did make this art book? Does it have the Nintendo Official Seal of Quality on? Or is it like the game guides we get, written by a third party?

Most of it makes sense, by the FS saga placement could imply it's made by someone who doesn't actually know what they're talking about.


#237 martinDTanderson

martinDTanderson

    Apprentice

  • Members
  • 126 posts
  • Location:London, UK
  • Gender:Male

Posted 27 December 2011 - 11:15 AM


There's also the option of "Whoever made this 'official' timeline is an idiot/doesn't care and can be disregarded," like with the silly-ass Miyamoto Order.


Well, it's possible. Who exactly did make this art book? Does it have the Nintendo Official Seal of Quality on? Or is it like the game guides we get, written by a third party?

Most of it makes sense, by the FS saga placement could imply it's made by someone who doesn't actually know what they're talking about.

I believe Eiji Aonuma supervised the book. And they had to be liaising with people within Nintendo to get the concept images, and the stories behind naming of characters and what other bits of information are in the book.

#238 Chaltab

Chaltab

    Bright Lord of the Sith

  • Members
  • 1,031 posts

Posted 27 December 2011 - 11:20 AM

People are overthinking this. FSA Link does seem to have done some heroic deed before, but here's an important point: the timeline is incomplete and will always be incomplete until Nintendo stops making Zelda games. (We don't want the timeline to be complete do we? Do we?) The vast majority of Zelda games have been prequels, so it makes sense that there's more stories to be told.

Also, the placement of Four Sword creates a parallel structure to the timeline by allowing the central 'classic' prong, the timeline with the most games, to be flanked by two splits with three games each. Putting FS before FSA would imbalance the 'trident' structure.

Edited by Chaltab, 27 December 2011 - 11:22 AM.


#239 Fin

Fin

    Alpha Trion

  • Members
  • 5,320 posts
  • Gender:cutie
  • Ireland

Posted 27 December 2011 - 03:35 PM

There's also the option of "Whoever made this 'official' timeline is an idiot/doesn't care and can be disregarded," like with the silly-ass Miyamoto Order.


that's pretty much my view. i disagree with this timeline placing the oracle games between lttp and la, but i can also see how that placement can be justified, so it's something i could live with. but i absolutely cannot see the logic behind some of the other placements, which are just stupid and contradict the actual games. this timeline is nothing more than an amusing curiosity to me. i'm still standing by my own interpretations.

#240 Sir Turtlelot

Sir Turtlelot

    Svartifeldr

  • Members
  • 5,193 posts
  • Location:Death Star
  • Gender:Machine
  • Antarctica

Posted 27 December 2011 - 04:37 PM

Interesting thought. I've had this thought before, but it applies more to the revealed timeline.

If you remove the Capcom games (OoX & FSS) the timeline is flawless. Before this release, what were the biggest things of debate? The placement of the classic games, FSS placement, and OoX placement. Even though not all of us like the idea of a third timeline, it does solve the issue of the classic games placement. ALttP's only official connections were with LA, the NES games, and OoT. TP and WW severed it's connection with OoT, and many tried to replace that by forcing a connection with FSA. Having a third split keeps the original OoT-ALttP connection alive.

This leaves us with OoX and FSS. Both are tricky to place, and neither play an important role to the overall timeline. OoX can arguably be placed anywhere after Ganon has died, with the exception of WW. Their only other stipulations are that Link and Zelda cannot know one another and the Triforce must be in individual pieces. So in theory, they can be placed before the NES games, prior to the sleeping Zelda event, after the NES games, or even after TP.

FSS is a bit more difficult, since FSA was the only one of those games to even be remotely connected to the rest of the series. And with the OoT-ALttP connection being renewed, it makes it even more difficult for the FSS, since FSA can no longer go before ALttP. Honestly, I think it would be easiest to simply place the FSS at the end of one of the timelines, but even that has issues. We can't really say which timeline it's to be on, since it has little to no connection to any of the games, and TMC is supposedly one of the oldest tales so that throws out that idea.



tl;dr version: If you look at the official timeline without the Capcom games, there are no issues. Everything is set in stone, and as it should be. There's pretty much no room for disagreement.




Copyright © 2021 Your Company Name