Legend of zelda Timeline


Jay Harkins
Two words about the CDi games.

MAH
BOI


[Image: teh_king.jpg?1272118355]
(Nov. 07, 2011  1:56 AM)TITAN Wrote: No, he IS Link silly.

It is completely obvious that SS comes before OoT, so let's stop debating this. If Link posts, just ignore it.

OMG Ok everyone ill stop acting like im link i make that apperence beacuse i wanted o express myself online differently on im sorry
(Nov. 07, 2011  10:46 PM)TheLinkBeyblade Wrote:
(Nov. 07, 2011  1:56 AM)TITAN Wrote: No, he IS Link silly.

It is completely obvious that SS comes before OoT, so let's stop debating this. If Link posts, just ignore it.

OMG Ok everyone ill stop acting like im link i make that apperence beacuse i wanted o express myself online differently on im sorry

And besides it's a good topic to reallly disucess about ill stop being a troll by what you say if we all agree to disagree Ok Stupid
I subscribe to the Legend Of Zelda legend theory, which is every single zelda game story line is the same legend retold in different ways, as that is what happens to legends overtime.

If this ends of being true, I will feel bad for all the die hard Zelda fanatics who spent so much of thier own time sorting out what they thought was the correct timeline. Of course I will laugh too.
I have only the faintest idea of the plot, considering that Nintendo probably doesn't get it either... Tongue_out
There is no chance in hell nintendo said durring the makings of the 1st 3 zelda games "we planned this so that all of these game's timelines somehow obscurly connect with eachother and all future games, no matter what we do with it" Nintendo is trying to pass the zelda series off as one big entricit web if continuity but there is way to much conflicting canon in each game. The fact is, every single zelda game is literaly the retelling of several legends based on an original truth lost ages ago, or these are all parallel universes, or both. Nintendo has to take the easy ways out, because there are no other ways. Skyward Sword seems like it connects all the zelda games, but all it really is is just a prequel to one or two of the several legends with a few crossovers. Nothing more. The game is going to be great, but hardcore Zelda fans need to be ready to face facts that all zelda games after skyward swoed will contradict that game and its predesessors, and then those games by others, and so on and so forth. The legend will always keep changing as long as nintendo has some coin in thier pocket. Regardless, the Zelda series is definatly iconic, a game thats story is uniquely based on its gameplay, and not the normal reverse. Zelda is a great franchise and deserves to live on for generations to come. As long as we got Link and Zelda, then I will keep playing with them.
AeroRespawn
Nintendo doesn't want to reveal the timeline to it's employees for they fear that they will focus on the storyline rather than the gameplay.

TBH, IMO, gameplay is what makes a Zelda game great.
The problem with the "same legend" theory is the references to past games in the series. For example, Wind Waker. Wind Waker directly references Ocarina of Time through the opening, and through the getting of the Master Sword. Why would the re-telling of a legend mention a previous version of that same legend? Or, games like Spirit Tracks. Makes the most references to Phantom Hourglass, and the question arises again.
BillyBlast
I dug up this about a week ago and was surpised no one posted it. I highly believe in this theory. http://www.forevergeek.com/2006/11/legen...explained/ Credit to them.
Don't post your wrong PM me and I did not create this not my mine but the best I have seen so Far It's not Updated but Obviously if you know your legend of Zelda then you know Spirit tracks is after Phantom Hourglass with too many hints not to know if you know anything of wind waker or Phantom Hourglass however Wind Waker did contribute to the story but Phantom Hourglass did nothing besides That world not being a illusion and Spirit tracks just being a new hyrule I know nothing of Skyward sword.
Breaker
If you ask me I feel the LoZ time-line should NEVER be relieved but more or less hinted. I feel this way because no matter how many games they make the creator can always have the story-line shift. for example Ocarina of Time they never did flat out say that in between the seven years link had other adventures, We simply guessed that Majoras Mask was during the seven years. How do we know that Majora couldn't of came first. He did not have a fairy ( of his own) also in the starting animation they never said the horse he road was Epona but he also had the Ocarina of time which dose lead to OOC was first . so their could or can't be proven what game came first.






(Nov. 08, 2011  3:09 AM)LeonTempestXIII Wrote: There is no chance in hell nintendo said durring the makings of the 1st 3 zelda games "we planned this so that all of these game's timelines somehow obscurly connect with eachother and all future games, no matter what we do with it" Nintendo is trying to pass the zelda series off as one big entricit web if continuity but there is way to much conflicting canon in each game. The fact is, every single zelda game is literaly the retelling of several legends based on an original truth lost ages ago, or these are all parallel universes, or both. Nintendo has to take the easy ways out, because there are no other ways. Skyward Sword seems like it connects all the zelda games, but all it really is is just a prequel to one or two of the several legends with a few crossovers. Nothing more. The game is going to be great, but hardcore Zelda fans need to be ready to face facts that all zelda games after skyward swoed will contradict that game and its predesessors, and then those games by others, and so on and so forth. The legend will always keep changing as long as nintendo has some coin in thier pocket. Regardless, the Zelda series is definatly iconic, a game thats story is uniquely based on its gameplay, and not the normal reverse. Zelda is a great franchise and deserves to live on for generations to come. As long as we got Link and Zelda, then I will keep playing with them.
Serious it sounds like you've only played a few Zelda games. There's very clear links with each game, and a very clear split in times. The only exceptions are minish cap, four swords, four swords adventures, oracle of ages, and oracle of seasons. There is a definite timeline that only a select few (such as the obvious Shigeru Miyamoto and Eiji Aonuma) can see. A simple example of a connection is A Link to the Past. The beginning is clearly referencing OoT, even though OoT wasn't released at that time. There's conscious and subconscious gaps, as well as links. I honestly can't think of one valid reason as to why or how they could all be the same retold story.


(Nov. 08, 2011  4:17 AM)Breaker Wrote: If you ask me I feel the LoZ time-line should NEVER be relieved but more or less hinted. I feel this way because no matter how many games they make the creator can always have the story-line shift. for example Ocarina of Time they never did flat out say that in between the seven years link had other adventures, We simply guessed that Majoras Mask was during the seven years. How do we know that Majora couldn't of came first. He did not have a fairy ( of his own) also in the starting animation they never said the horse he road was Epona but he also had the Ocarina of time which dose lead to OOC was first . so their could or can't be proven what game came first.

Majoras Mask did not take place during the seven years. Link was sealed away so it's impossible. But you also need to know that the world link wakes up to after seven years is not the same as if he didn't pull out the master sword (as in, ending of OoT and entire Majoras Mask). Majoras Mask is not a guessed direct sequel, it's a definite sequel. Firstly, the developers said so. Secondly, it's very easy to infer from the beginning that it's after OoT and Link is searching for Navi.

There's some things you need to consider when thinking about placement:
Ganon. Where is he; sealed away, dead or what? Beast or Human form?
Princess Zelda. Where is she? How old?
Master Sword. Even exist? How and why was it sealed?
Triforce. Broken, not even there, etc.?
Sages. Referenced as seven or none or another number? What did they do?

Then from there you can link the smaller things in the games.
@Shabalabadoo: I will be the 1st to admit that I have not played every zelda game. Me being only 16, the original zelda goes before my time, so I started out with 4 swords and basicly played most of the games from that point onward. I dont dought that skyward sword, orcania of time, and twilight all connect, but thats just one legend in particular IMO. I will not deny that there do seem to be tons of epic crossovers from past games but with all the conflicting canon that ia all they can be for now.

I regret not owning Orcania of Time. I have played it and loved it though....
There is next to no conflicting, and the conflict that is there does not affect the placement.

I just don't understand how it could be one legend.
You don't even have to have played all the games to understand it. I didn't, I just do my research.

And BillyBlast, that video was before Twilight Princess. I think that's why it's kinda different from the most accepted one.
Yeah I completely agree. Smile

There's games I haven't played as well, but of course playing them definitely prevents assumptions which are quite a big factor in timelines.

It's not a "one game times to another game", it's a "These tie together, and this one supports that, that supports this, and so on". I think the first one is what many people assume, which leads to incorrect judgement, only due to not knowing the entire thing
(Nov. 08, 2011  5:04 AM)Shabalabadoo Wrote: There is next to no conflicting, and the conflict that is there does not affect the placement.

I just don't understand how it could be one legend.

Erm, let me explain the legend theory a bit more.

It isnt one legend, it is several different legends dirived from one original story. think of the legends that exist in the world today. Now i am sure all of those legends vary from across time and across the world, because of things being misinterpreted, lost in translation, etc. I am postitive this was not Nintendo's intent when they made the 1st LOZ games, but somewhere along the line the idea appealed to them.

I am not saying i am right, hell I could be dead wrong about this, but the Legend theory is a strong standing theory among the LOZ community, and just like all of the othger timeline theories, there is evidence to support for and agianst it.

According to the oh so majestic internet, TLOZ: SS (Bonus Edition) is ranked #1 on gamestops pre-order list. I am not sure if those results are skewed at all (maybe they are just for wii?) but I could see why the game is so desirable. that game will represent the last major Wii game, just as Twilight Princess ended with the gamecube and started with the Wii. i for one, pre-ordered my version a long time ago. I actualy forgot i pre-ordered it, with the intention of pre-ordering it today with my purchase of MW3, so all I did was upgrade it to the bonus edition. I cannot wait to get it. Sadly i ahve to wait for the holidays to be able to play it (atleast my parents are paying for it)
But how can ww/PH/and ST be caompared to twlight princess or any other zelda game if

The princess backgrond story is different
ww=wind waker
ph=phantom hourglass
st=spirit tracks

correrct?

i think i remember reading somewhere that according to nintendo, the handheld versions of the zelda games are something different entirly and have nothing to do with the console versions of the series, which strengthens the legend theory argument. Although at the same time one could also say it also strengthens other timeline theories for the console only, and that there could be a console timeline and a handheld timeline. Who knows? i have a feeling that SS will get us closer to the true answer.

Alll i know for a fact is that Link from MM was a total badass in his final form. =)
(Nov. 09, 2011  2:08 AM)LeonTempestXIII Wrote: i think i remember reading somewhere that according to nintendo, the handheld versions of the zelda games are something different entirly and have nothing to do with the console versions of the series, which strengthens the legend theory argument.

This is completely false. Phantom Hourglass, Spirit Tracks, Link's Awakening, Minish Cap, Four Swords, and the Oracle games are definitely part of the same timeline.
(Nov. 09, 2011  1:57 AM)LeonTempestXIII Wrote:
(Nov. 08, 2011  5:04 AM)Shabalabadoo Wrote: There is next to no conflicting, and the conflict that is there does not affect the placement.

I just don't understand how it could be one legend.

Erm, let me explain the legend theory a bit more.

[...]

The thing is, there's things that reference things that did not happen in a specific time of OoT, and those are referenced upon further. When that happens for both sides, it's not complete at all and there's ignored errors.

I've actually never heard of this theory, so mind pointing some things out in the games (if you know) that give reasons that support this.
Alot of things in the Zelda canon are open to interpretation, something that I admire. One peace of evidence would be in Skyward Sword, where Link's sword is the pre-mature version
of the master sword. Another piece of evidence is game's antagonist. (what was his name agian?) Anyway he looks fairly similar to one of the antagonists from the handheld games, agian it escapes me at the moment. But like I said before, this evidence is just as valid for proving many of the other timeline theories, so nothing is concrete.
(Nov. 09, 2011  12:58 PM)LeonTempestXIII Wrote: Alot of things in the Zelda canon are open to interpretation, something that I admire. One peace of evidence would be in Skyward Sword, where Link's sword is the pre-mature version
of the master sword. Another piece of evidence is game's antagonist. (what was his name agian?) Anyway he looks fairly similar to one of the antagonists from the handheld games, agian it escapes me at the moment. But like I said before, this evidence is just as valid for proving many of the other timeline theories, so nothing is concrete.

i think it was link leon.
(Nov. 09, 2011  2:24 AM)NoodooSoup Wrote:
(Nov. 09, 2011  2:08 AM)LeonTempestXIII Wrote: i think i remember reading somewhere that according to nintendo, the handheld versions of the zelda games are something different entirly and have nothing to do with the console versions of the series, which strengthens the legend theory argument.

This is completely false. Phantom Hourglass, Spirit Tracks, Link's Awakening, Minish Cap, Four Swords, and the Oracle games are definitely part of the same timeline.

while they are in the samn time line each game starts in a diffrent time period.as of how spirit tracks is almost 100 years after hourglass.
Wind Waker takes place 100 years or so after Ocarina of Time. What's your point?
(Nov. 09, 2011  1:09 PM)omegazero Wrote:
(Nov. 09, 2011  12:58 PM)LeonTempestXIII Wrote: Alot of things in the Zelda canon are open to interpretation, something that I admire. One peace of evidence would be in Skyward Sword, where Link's sword is the pre-mature version
of the master sword. Another piece of evidence is game's antagonist. (what was his name agian?) Anyway he looks fairly similar to one of the antagonists from the handheld games, agian it escapes me at the moment. But like I said before, this evidence is just as valid for proving many of the other timeline theories, so nothing is concrete.

i think it was link leon.
(Nov. 09, 2011  2:24 AM)NoodooSoup Wrote:
(Nov. 09, 2011  2:08 AM)LeonTempestXIII Wrote: i think i remember reading somewhere that according to nintendo, the handheld versions of the zelda games are something different entirly and have nothing to do with the console versions of the series, which strengthens the legend theory argument.

This is completely false. Phantom Hourglass, Spirit Tracks, Link's Awakening, Minish Cap, Four Swords, and the Oracle games are definitely part of the same timeline.

while they are in the samn time line each game starts in a diffrent time period.as of how spirit tracks is almost 100 years after hourglass.

You do realize that ANTAGONIST MEANS BAD GUY. LINK IS THE PROTAGONIST, AKA THE GOOD GUY. I ASKED FOR THE NAME OF THE ANTAGONIST.

Something that i said was misinterpreted; I am saying that the console versions of the zelda games and the handhelds might be 2 seperate timelines altogether. they could also be the same, or like I said, it could just be the retelling of a legend in several different ways. Some legends are told in more than one story. For example, Orcania of Time, Skyward Sword and Twilight Princess could be one timeline or one legend (to clarify, timeline and legend being 2 seperate things) while hourglass and spirit tracks could be another timeline or legend.

One of the main reasons that I believe in the legend theory is that alot of the zelda games start out with no recognition of link's past accomplishments, and considering how the game series as a whole is over the course of several hundred years, then Link is one old teenage elf (yes elves live a long time, please no one go off on a nerdy rant about it) If the series was a bunch of legends, that could explain why Link's age and current time frame doesnt always line up. With certain games it will, others it will not. Although, Nintendo seems to have done a good job at not conflicting any of the time frames signifigantly thus far.
Ga'
It's his reincarnations. Wind Waker shows that Link is 9 years old, he is the reincarnation of the Hero of Time, aka OoT Link. He didn't actually live for as long as you claim.
(Nov. 10, 2011  3:16 AM)GaHooleone Wrote: It's his reincarnations. Wind Waker shows that Link is 9 years old, he is the reincarnation of the Hero of Time, aka OoT Link. He didn't actually live for as long as you claim.

Actually he was 12, since that's when the boys of their village were given the green tunic and sword. It also says it in his SSBB trophy, although that might be innacurate Joyful_3 Memorizing the opening, for the win.