Zelda Timeline

[DaWrestla]

I'm curious to know what peoples' opinion/theories/takes are on the Zelda timeline.

One timeline? Two seperate timelines? Etc, etc.

Anyone?

[DragonmasterDan]

I believe that there are a handful of different Links and each is an descendant of the Link in the Ocarina of Time. In Wind Waker it's explained that children who start to grow up on a certain birthday are given the green clothing and hat of the Hero of Time (TOOT Link) as tradition.

[Shiva Indis]

I have yet to see an overarching timeline theory that doesn't depend on assumptions, so I don't buy any of them. I tend to lean towards lots of unrelated timelines. The NES Zeldas have an obvious temporal relation. So do Oracles of Ages/Seasons. A Link to the Past and Link's Awakening are probably related. Games past Ocarina of Time could share a timeline, and Nintendo seems to be pushing for that, but it seems unlikely that they've planed for it since Ocarina. Majora's Mask and Wind Waker seem pretty alternate universe, IMO.

[GhaleonOne]

Even Nintendo has like 2-3 different "official" timelines.

[Alunissage]

Well, both MM and WW have clear, unmistakable links to Ocarina. The big question among the fans, I think, is whether they're both in a single timeline (so that WW would also be a sequel to MM) or whether there's a split in Ocarina, so that Young Link -> Termina (MM) and the Adult Link events never happen, and Adult Link's post-Ganon time leads eventually to WW.

I generally don't get involved. I pretty much figure that Zeldas 1, 3, and 5 were all intended to be the same story retold, and NOA decided to paste together a story for their guides, but the first actual continuity was with MM following Ocarina and the rest has been backformed from that. WW's treatment of the story and history is one of many things that make me consider it the weakest Zelda (it was promising, but then there's the hack job of the different races and Hyrule itself, ugh), so when it comes to trying to reconcile it all I just don't have much taste for it.

As I understand it, a lot of people use Ganon, as the constant in the majority of the games, to try to put them in order, since there are many Links and Zeldas but only one Ganon. (Many Impas and presumably Tingles too, and other characters, but I suppose that's not so important). He's all monster in Zelda 1, and is vanquished in Zelda 2, while he's some degree of human in the rest, so that's the reasoning for putting those two at the end. Ocarina has to come before MM and WW, whether or not those two are in the same timeline. I don't remember the logic behind the placement of LttP, perhaps after Ocarina because of the Dark World being Ganon's domain...? I vaguely recall that Ocarina has been placed at the beginning of the line by fans. Link's Awakening could probably go about anywhere, but seems to go with LttP, though I had fun once suggesting that it was during the storm in WW (doesn't work, of course, because he doesn't know Zelda in that one yet). I think the Oracles could go pretty much anywhere, or at after any game with Link and Zelda in them if you want to assume the same Link and Zelda that are actually in other games. The presence of Gorons and Zoras would make them before WW (stupid game screwing everything up).

Seems to me Minish Cap (and Four Swords GBA if you want to call it a separate game) go before all the rest, since Ganon isn't in them. Hyrule Adventure would have to be after, of course; while I've compared it to a Second Quest for LttP it does have some differences, of course, like Vaati again.

Whatever. I love seeing what's in each game that relates to other games, like Beedle in Minish Cap, but I don't find a pressing need to put them in order, any more than TSS has to come before SSSC or Dragon Song has to be on a separate timeline because of the 1000 years thing.

[Shiva Indis]

I pretty much figure that Zeldas 1, 3, and 5 were all intended to be the same story retold, and NOA decided to paste together a story for their guides, but the first actual continuity was with MM following Ocarina and the rest has been backformed from that.

Agreed. When I think about the Zelda timeline issue I always think back to the first time I played the Japanese version of the SNES Zelda, and read the title screen: 'Super Famicom Legend of Zelda: Triforce of the Gods'. There's an implication that this is simply the Super Famicom version of Zelda. That's quite a different implication than The 'Legend of Zelda: A Link to the Past'.

WW's treatment of the story and history is one of many things that make me consider it the weakest Zelda (it was promising, but then there's the hack job of the different races and Hyrule itself, ugh), so when it comes to trying to reconcile it all I just don't have much taste for it.

It is these radical dissimilarities that leads me to think it's alternate universe. But I suspect that you are a greater authority on whether or not this is plausible - I didn't have occasion to finish Wind Waker.

At any rate, I can understand why fans like to theorize about timelines. It can be a fun exercise. Not something to fight over or profess loyalty to.

[Alunissage]

Well, it has some very nice homages to Ocarina -- stained-glass windows of the Sages and Ganondorf in the room under Hyrule Castle, and at the end Ganondorf fights with the two-sword whirling technique the Gerudos use, a subtle touch I loved. But the story was that Hyrule had been covered by oceans the last time something bad happened, and at the end it was flooded permanently, basically destroying it. Grr. And the Gorons were down to three huge Gurus, and the Kokiri were rather boring mini-trees. The Zoras at least had been converted to an interesting group, the Rito, but it made no sense.

I don't think anything's shown signs of following specifically from WW, so it could be an offshoot dead-end timeline, I guess.

[DaWrestla]

I honestly think Twilight Princess will address a lot of the discrepencies.

[localflick]

I honestly think Twilight Princess will address a lot of the discrepencies.

I really hope so because there really a lot of confusion about the timeline. Even down to the way Link looks. I remember thinking "is he a child in this one?" about nearly every new Zelda title.

The Castlevania series' timeline is almost as bad where even the games that are related don't make total sense. "The castle appears once every 100 years" But Simon Belmont is in the first, second (with no castle) and Super Castlevania (with a Castle). Since Symphony Konami seems to be putting more thought (and plot) into the games.

[DaWrestla]

Wikipedia has a good entry on the Castlevania timeline. You should check it out.

[localflick]

whoa.

That is pretty cool.