Two Timelines?

[DvSag]

Alright, I know that Zelda has a split timeline at Ocarina of Time, and I understand that there is some kind of "master timeline" in the annals of Miyamoto's sock drawer, but I keep coming back to Minish Cap, Four Swords, and Four Swords Adventure, and I can't really place them with the other games.

Minish Cap is supposed to explain why Link always wears a cap, but absolutely NOTHING about Vaati or the Four Sword or much of anything about those games are ever mentioned in the other Zelda titles. It's almost as if it's trying to be the first title in the series, but at the same time it's making itself obvious that it just can't be.

This leads me to believe that there is ANOTHER Zelda timeline. One that has a completely different beginning than the Master Sword timeline, and may or may not intersect at any point. I know Ganon appears at the end of FSA, and Moblins, creatures made in Ganon's image, are prominant in MC, but trying to factor in all that on a linear timeline just throws a lot of stuff out of whack.

Is it possible that right under our noses there's actually two Legends of Zelda as opposed to just one big one? Some sort of alternate universe where Vaati is the major threat to Hyrule and can only be stopped by the Four Sword; and alternately, in the main universe Ganon is the major threat in Hyrule and can only be stopped by the Master Sword.

[sign of table]

I doubt it. FSA connects so much to LttP I think that proves the FS series canonicity in the main timeline.

[DvSag]

How so? I've never actually played FS and FSA, so I'm not entirely certain.

I know Ganon is involved as the final boss or something in FSA...

[Skull_Kid]

How so? I've never actually played FS and FSA, so I'm not entirely certain.

I know Ganon is involved as the final boss or something in FSA...

Ganon being the final boss, the map locations, the opening of the Dark World, in-game dialogue and some things shown in the Palace of the Four Sword in the GBA port of ALttP(the canon version),

The FS series is totally canon, imo

[El Bagu]

I never played FS but I guess I see your point. I guess that the story was an important aspect of FSA and it would make me more then surprised if it was not canon. What I believe is a bit strange is that Ganon can be killed without the mastersword (because that was not what was used in FSA if I remember things correctly?).

[Skull_Kid]

I never played FS but I guess I see your point. I guess that the story was an important aspect of FSA and it would make me more then surprised if it was not canon. What I believe is a bit strange is that Ganon can be killed without the mastersword (because that was not what was used in FSA if I remember things correctly?).

He is also killed without the Master Sword in the original Zelda, and in OoX.

Although OoX can be considered a special case, since his resssurrection was incomplete, we can assume that his powers were also Incomplete

[sign of table]

I'm almost positive that Ganon in FSA was sealed. Not killed.

The Silver Arrows are stated to be the only things that can kill Ganon.

[Zemen]

I'm almost positive that Ganon in FSA was sealed. Not killed.

The Silver Arrows are stated to be the only things that can kill Ganon.

he is definitely only captured in FSA, not killed. in ALTTP you can go to the shrine of the four sword and see that he has escaped because the chest is open and i think the sword is on the floor and broken or something.

[DvSag]

Ganon being the final boss, the map locations, the opening of the Dark World, in-game dialogue and some things shown in the Palace of the Four Sword in the GBA port of ALttP(the canon version),

The FS series is totally canon, imo
No no, I think you misunderstand what I'm getting at.

I'm not saying the Four Sword games aren't canon, I'm just saying that maybe they're like a different origin story.

See, now all this info you've given me helps to explain this better.

Figure that the Four Sword games (MC, FS, and FSA) tell an alternate origin to the Zelda series. Sort of like an alternate "what if" scenario, but one that ultimately fits its way seemlessly into the main canon by the way of ALttP.

It looks kinda like this:
http://i39.tinypic.com/2dhs5sw.jpg

It's a rough outline. Don't judge me.

[Liam]

No no, I think you misunderstand what I'm getting at.

I'm not saying the Four Sword games aren't canon, I'm just saying that maybe they're like a different origin story.

See, now all this info you've given me helps to explain this better.

Figure that the Four Sword games (MC, FS, and FSA) tell an alternate origin to the Zelda series. Sort of like an alternate "what if" scenario, but one that ultimately fits its way seemlessly into the main canon by the way of ALttP.

It looks kinda like this:
http://i39.tinypic.com/2dhs5sw.jpg

It's a rough outline. Don't judge me.

that is the best time line i have ever heard of. really, really good and it actually makes sense. oh, by the way, how do you get into the palace of the four sword in LttP? do you need to get the four sword in the four swords part of the double game pack, or what?

[Zemen]

in regards to timelines, i think the creators would tell us if there was a timeline other than the original split. MC, FS and FSA have been out for so long that if there was a timeline idea like that, they would have mentioned it because otherwise it would literally be totally bogus to keep that much info from theorists. besides, ALTTP talks about a war that only takes place in the AT, therefor it cant be connected to the CT at all.

[DvSag]

AT? CT? What?
Anyway, so what if Nintendo hasn't told us if there's an alternate timeline in the Zelda Universe? When have they told us anything about the Zelda timeline? The only account I can recall is that one time Miyamoto told us in an interview a relative placement of each game chronologically, and to my knowledge none of the Four Sword games were out yet, and I think he was kinda drunk or half asleep. He didn't seem too sure of himself.

@Hero_of_time:
I don't know. All I know is how annoyed I am that I actually own Four Swords in two different mediums (Minish Cap and ALttP [GBA Remake]) and to this day I havn't even been able to play one second of actual gameplay.

[Zemen]

@Hero_of_time:
I don't know. All I know is how annoyed I am that I actually own Four Swords in two different mediums (Minish Cap and ALttP [GBA Remake]) and to this day I havn't even been able to play one second of actual gameplay.

youre really not missing much. its lacking in gameplay and i feel as though that it should be uncanonical, but the fact that its connected to other games makes it canonical.

AT=Adult Timeline
CT=Child Timeline

the creators have told us plenty of things. after WW was made they told us there was a split timeline. after TP was made they told us it takes place 100 years after OoT (same with WW). after FS was made they said that its the first game in the series (before OoT) but they later changed their minds when they created FSA.

you obviously havent done any research on timelines and the games for placement...i suggest you do that or the hardcore theorists (me, SoM, Skull Kid, Smertios) will tear you apart.

[DvSag]

Even if it is bad I want to play it.

It's like if your mom plans to make sticky buns, but all she has is the dough. For sticky buns you need the cinnamon, and the cinnamony/chocolatey adhesive that holds the dough together, and that amazing frosting that tastes so good that it reminds you of every happy moment you've ever had in your life.

I mean, you could probably eat any one of those other ingredients alone and be happy, but no, all she's got is the dough and you're not going to eat dough. You never get the chance of having at least one sticky bun, but it plagues your mind every time you see the dough, and you see it all the time.

Imagine how torturous that would be? Well that's been my life since December 2002.

[Zemen]

Even if it is bad I want to play it.

It's like if your mom plans to make sticky buns, but all she has is the dough. For sticky buns you need the cinnamon, and the cinnamony/chocolatey adhesive that holds the dough together, and that amazing frosting that tastes so good that it reminds you of every happy moment you've ever had in your life.

I mean, you could probably eat any one of those other ingredients alone and be happy, but no, all she's got is the dough and you're not going to eat dough. You never get the chance of having at least one sticky bun, but it plagues your mind every time you see the dough, and you see it all the time.

Imagine how torturous that would be? Well that's been my life since December 2002.

what in Gods name does this have to do with ANYTHING?

[DvSag]

I like sticky buns.
I like Zelda.
And I can't have either.

And yea, I've done my research. Probably not as extensively as "you" or these other big names, apparently, but I've done what I can.

I've played and beaten every Zelda except FS, FSA, LA, and the Oracle games. I have read about most of them, and I've played FSA, though me and my friends never got far before they bored of it. And no, I don't have an encyclopedic knowledge of every line of dialogue ever spoken in every Zelda game to date, but I know enough, and this topic doesn't have to do with all the little details so I don't know why it's such a big deal.

And if Nintendo can change their mind about the chronology of Zelda games, then why is my idea not at least plausible?

[Zemen]

I like sticky buns.
I like Zelda.
And I can't have either.

And yea, I've done my research. Probably not as extensively as "you" or these other big names, apparently, but I've done what I can.

I've played and beaten every Zelda except FS, FSA, LA, and the Oracle games. I have read about most of them, and I've played FSA, though me and my friends never got far before they bored of it. And no, I don't have an encyclopedic knowledge of every line of dialogue ever spoken in every Zelda game to date, but I know enough, and this topic doesn't have to do with all the little details so I don't know why it's such a big deal.

And if Nintendo can change their mind about the chronology of Zelda games, then why is my idea not at least plausible?

because as of right now the only things we know for sure are that there is a split timeline (which means there are only two timeline after OoT) and that TP takes place 100 years after OoT. everything else is either semi obvious or we speculate. your timeline has like 3 timelines but only 2 have been confirmed which means as of right now we can only consider two.

[DvSag]

I've got the split after OoT.
WW takes place 100 years after OoT-AT;
and TP takes place 100 years after OoT-CT;
(and only 99 years after MM. See? Even I have knowledge you don't. :P)

I also have my theorized alternate timeline with the FS series.

The only difference is my timelines comes to a common point at ALttP. I know it isn't explained anywhere that that's how the series will end, but I'm SPECULATING.

God forbid.

[Zemen]

I've got the split after OoT.
WW takes place 100 years after OoT-AT;
and TP takes place 100 years after OoT-CT;
(and only 99 years after MM. See? Even I have knowledge you don't. :P)

I also have my theorized alternate timeline with the FS series.

The only difference is my timelines comes to a common point at ALttP. I know it isn't explained anywhere that that's how the series will end, but I'm SPECULATING.

God forbid.

you can speculate all you want im just saying that the creators have only ever confirmed a split timeline which means everything other than that is speculation and wrong until proven right.

[DvSag]

How is that the case? I'm pretty sure I'd be "possibly correct" before I'm proven wrong.
("Innocent before proven guilty." >> Do we see the correlation here?)

You need to stop thriving off every word Nintendo utters on the subject and think for yourself once.

[Mases]

you can speculate all you want im just saying that the creators have only ever confirmed a split timeline which means everything other than that is speculation and wrong until proven right.

Let's be a bit fair here. Nintendo has clearly contradicted itself a few times. A timeline split had been theorized prior to the 'confirmation' from the creator. It became a popular trend, a few quotes fit in to support this originally fan created theory, etc... That all being said, lets not assume everything that somebody says as being official. If anything, the games are the number 1 place for officialness.

In terms of quotes from Nintendo, hasn't Miyamoto stated in that past, when asked about the timeline, that he just tries to create fun/unique games for people to play. Alluding to the point that fun games are more important than a full, explicit, connected storyline from games throughout the last 20 years.

I think Zelda timeline theories in general are a fan creation, and I think they should remain that way. I would be very upset if Nintendo after released or announced an 'official timeline', since I think that would sorta ruin what has become an integral part of the online Zelda community.

So ya, rather than pin pointing and attacking every detail about a theory with contradictory quotes, or when quotes occured, we should be able to discuss with a bit more respect towards each others theories.



Also, in response to the picture that was posted. I find it a bit unnecessary for the timeline to merge at any point in time. I've commonly seen this idea where some people believe the Oracle games took place in both timelines. With each having them in opposite orders.

A--------B
..l.........l..
OOA...OOS
..l.........l..
OOS...OOA
....\... /...
...Merge

I even thought of this myself at one point in time, but I felt it just seemed unnecessary to do so. There just seems to be logical issues with the idea of a merger of timelines. Since they split because there were two possible endings. Not two simultaneous endings. Meaning, they BOTH couldn't occur, but that each could possibly occur on their own. If that makes sense.

[DvSag]

Thank you, Mases.

I also like your take on how you wouldn't like to see an official timeline. It would be more fun to speculate from here until eternity.

[Briles101]

Im sorry but i have to disagree with that time line, even though no one really knows what it actually is. I beleive that any game that mentions the four sword or vaati comes before ocarina of time because they give insight to Links hat from MC (like stated before) and then in four swords Ganon is the main enemy with vaati as just a distraction which I think this games events comes before ocarina of time since Ganon and vaati the 2 main enemies appear in the game together (while vaati is just ganons right hand man) Ganon would have grown more powerful and then ocarina of time comes in. After that I belive in the split time line theory where it splits where links is as a kid and adult.

Sorry that was a bit lengthy and sorta confused me as i typed it, so i understand if it was confusing

[DvSag]

I have a question: What is the relation of Ganon to Vaati in FSA?

@Mases:
When merging timelines, I figure that all it means is that two events in two (or in this case 3) different planes happen in the same exact way, like it was DESTINED to happen, and since destiny is a recurring theme in the Zelda titles I don't see it as that odd. Link and Zelda are destined to defeat Ganon, as well as obtain the Triforce to cleanse the tainted Dark Realm to turn it back into the Golden Land.

Why can't the Zelda series, a series that has broken so many interdimensional boundaries, have a common end after its many routes? Maybe the end of each line doesn't play out EXACTLY the same, but it's possible that that's how they are interpreted: into one all-encompassing episode. I do figure that ALttP is the final title in the saga.

I know it's not that plausible, but this is a videogame. Lol

[Zemen]

How is that the case? I'm pretty sure I'd be "possibly correct" before I'm proven wrong.
("Innocent before proven guilty." >> Do we see the correlation here?)

You need to stop thriving off every word Nintendo utters on the subject and think for yourself once.

yes, youre right. me believing the creators of the series is so terrible...

innocent until proven guilty is what im going by. they said that the timeline is split after OoT. thats the only thing we really know about the timeline in respect to how many there are. they said there are two after OoT. so they are right until proven wrong (innocent until proven guilty...see the correlation here)

[DvSag]

No. Oh my God. You may understand Hylian, but you obviously don't understand basic English nor do you have any common sense.

I would be innocent (or "potentially correct") until proven guilty (incorrect).
THEY havn't given us the whole picture yet; assuming there is a whole picture to be given. THEY are the end-all, and THEY have nothing to prove, I do. This holds no meaning to them.

Look, all I'm trying to do is fill in the holes of the Zelda timeline structure.
Am I wrong? Maybe, but we will not know until NINTENDO or SHIGERU MIYAMOTO tell us.
YOU cannot prove me wrong at this point in time. In fact, you've done nothing but reiterate the fact that the timeline splits after Ocarina of Time, and I have obviously taken notice of this little fact and worked it into the timeline I drew up.

Your manner of debate here is not only repetative, but absolutely moot and redundant. Stop trying to burn out my idea, because your tactics aren't even close to working. Your arrogance is clouding yourself from the fact that you havn't given any reason for doubt in part of my idea.

So if you would: Please stop saying that because Miyamoto and/or Nintendo havn't mentioned anything about this it's false. Just because it has never been mentioned by the creators doesn't it isn't a possibility. I'm sure there's a lot they havn't told us.

[Mases]

Zemen, I'm not sure if you read my post, are just dismissed the purpose. Let me point out an example. Here is a quote from Eiji Aonuma about the Four Swords Adventures titled.



Aonuma: The GBA Four Swords Zelda is what we’re thinking as the oldest tale in the Zelda timeline. With this one on the GameCube [(FSA (http://www.zeldawiki.org/The_Legend_of_Zelda:_Four_Swords_Adventures))] being a sequel to that, and taking place sometime after that.

According to your logic then, any single timeline that has four swords after Ocarina of Time can be immediately dismissed as being false. He goes on to say that he didn't have much involvement in the storyline of Four Swords, but just covered gameplay functions. There is obviously holes in this and I hope you can see the point.

[MrMosley]

Ganon being the final boss, the map locations, the opening of the Dark World, in-game dialogue and some things shown in the Palace of the Four Sword in the GBA port of ALttP(the canon version),

The FS series is totally canon, imo

I went back and played the entire game of ALttP on GBA just to get to the Palace of the Four Sword. I didn't see anything in there that had anything to do with the story of Four Swords, well, besides the fact that you collect four swords and fight four Link clones. But the Four Sword was one sword. Its split the wielder into four different versions of him/her. If Link in ALttP never picked up the Four Sword to begin with, he wouldn't have split into four. So those four at the end aren't the Link in the game.

I believe, judging by just playing through the Palace, that it was just thrown in there as an extra thing to add to the game. I remember Zemen saying something about the Shrine being in the Palace, or being able to go see the broken Four Sword in there somewhere, but that is not true. I searched every room, and checked out every detail of the dungeon. It just looks like an extra, harder dungeon to play through for replay value to me.


Zemen, I'm not sure if you read my post, are just dismissed the purpose. Let me point out an example. Here is a quote from Eiji Aonuma about the Four Swords Adventures titled.

I don't believe this quote to be of any value really. Not that FSA is probably a sequel to FS, but because at the end of FSA, Zelda tells Link (when Ganon emerges) that "he USED to be human, his name WAS Ganondorf". If that in game dialogue, which is the only in game diologue that tells some kinda of backstory to Ganon, is true, then it would mean that FSA 100% has to take place sometime after either TP or WW. Those were the last two games in the series that we see Ganondorf as a human. If Aonuma is to say that FS is the first in the timeline, he would have to have lied about FSA being a sequel, unless he meant that it takes place way, way after that, many games after that in fact.

Every other game usually is agreed to come later on the timeline and show Ganon in his beast form, signifying that he somehow was reborn or reincarnated into a form resembling his beast form.

Or, you can take ALttP's backstory as reference, where it says that Ganondorf touched the Triforce, wished to rule the Sacred Realm, and the realm, along with everything in it, was transformed. This story also includes Ganon himself, saying he transformed into that form because it reflected his evil heart. That would leave a gap in the timeline, which may be filled with a game where Ganondorf somehow survived defeat at the end of TP, rose to power again, gained access into the Sacred Realm for a second time, and wished to rule it. That would be a game which would make a whole lot of sense out of the backstory of ALttP.

[Zemen]

Zemen, I'm not sure if you read my post, are just dismissed the purpose. Let me point out an example. Here is a quote from Eiji Aonuma about the Four Swords Adventures titled.



[/i]According to your logic then, any single timeline that has four swords after Ocarina of Time can be immediately dismissed as being false. He goes on to say that he didn't have much involvement in the storyline of Four Swords, but just covered gameplay functions. There is obviously holes in this and I hope you can see the point.

if you read the quote you posted, it said "were THINKING it to be the first"

thats not the same thing as straight up saying "there is a split timeline."

they didnt say they think there is, they said there is. totally different than what you posted.

[ormican]

i see where the timeline slits in ocarina of time. that is obvious. (kid link line and adult link line) but is the others accurate? i saw in legend of zelda a retrospective in part 6 where they give their theory in a detailed timeline.

[Zemen]

i see where the timeline slits in ocarina of time. that is obvious. (kid link line and adult link line) but is the others accurate? i saw in legend of zelda a retrospective in part 6 where they give their theory in a detailed timeline.

is that the gametrailers timeline? hahahah....no one takes that timeline seriously at all.

[Kaynil]

Alright, I know that Zelda has a split timeline at Ocarina of Time, and I understand that there is some kind of "master timeline" in the annals of Miyamoto's sock drawer, but I keep coming back to Minish Cap, Four Swords, and Four Swords Adventure, and I can't really place them with the other games.

Minish Cap is supposed to explain why Link always wears a cap, but absolutely NOTHING about Vaati or the Four Sword or much of anything about those games are ever mentioned in the other Zelda titles. It's almost as if it's trying to be the first title in the series, but at the same time it's making itself obvious that it just can't be.

This leads me to believe that there is ANOTHER Zelda timeline. One that has a completely different beginning than the Master Sword timeline, and may or may not intersect at any point. I know Ganon appears at the end of FSA, and Moblins, creatures made in Ganon's image, are prominant in MC, but trying to factor in all that on a linear timeline just throws a lot of stuff out of whack.

Is it possible that right under our noses there's actually two Legends of Zelda as opposed to just one big one? Some sort of alternate universe where Vaati is the major threat to Hyrule and can only be stopped by the Four Sword; and alternately, in the main universe Ganon is the major threat in Hyrule and can only be stopped by the Master Sword.



It looks kinda like this:http://i39.tinypic.com/2dhs5sw.jpg


It's a rough outline. Don't judge me.


I think this involved some good thinking. I like it. I don't see why it can't be.
I agree that if we don't have the whole picture we can't really discard just like that the idea.

Like Masses explained it before:

Let's be a bit fair here. Nintendo has clearly contradicted itself a few times. A timeline split had been theorized prior to the 'confirmation' from the creator. It became a popular trend, a few quotes fit in to support this originally fan created theory, etc... That all being said, lets not assume everything that somebody says as being official. If anything, the games are the number 1 place for officialness.

In terms of quotes from Nintendo, hasn't Miyamoto stated in that past, when asked about the timeline, that he just tries to create fun/unique games for people to play. Alluding to the point that fun games are more important than a full, explicit, connected storyline from games throughout the last 20 years.

I think Zelda timeline theories in general are a fan creation

That's my thinking on this actually, I am glad someone actually explained out so nicely.

[JoeGrzzly]

Well, earlier in the thread there were some saying ALttP was the last game in their timeline theories. Doesn't the fact that LoZ and AoL are like guaranteed after ALttP contradictory.

[DvSag]

Contradictory to what?
And how are they both "guaranteed" to come after ALttP?

*On a side note, I no longer believe that the timeline re-merges to ALttP. I believe it was Zemen showed me otherwise.*

[rocker_3]

this is my version of the timeline:
1.minish cap (explains why link has his cap)
2. ocarina of time
3. majora's mask
4. link to the past
5. legend of zelda (the NES one)
6. adventure of link (the towns are named after the sages in OoT)
7. twilight princess
8. wind waker (set 100 years after TP)
9. phantom hourglass
10. spitit tracks

the oracles and the 2 four swords can be placed anywhere in between OoT and TP because they dont have much of a back story, and links awakening can evn be put around phanton hourglass because of the similar storyline.

anyone still confused can go see the angry video game nerd video (called "cronologically confused about the zelda timeline" watch out for the many F-bombs!) his video really clears up alot
also, like the AVGN said, if there was supposed to be an official timeline, it would be there clear as day

[Midna666]

this is my version of the timeline:
1.minish cap (explains why link has his cap)
2. ocarina of time
3. majora's mask
4. link to the past
5. legend of zelda (the NES one)
6. adventure of link (the towns are named after the sages in OoT)
7. twilight princess
8. wind waker (set 100 years after TP)
9. phantom hourglass
10. spitit tracks

the oracles and the 2 four swords can be placed anywhere in between OoT and TP because they dont have much of a back story, and links awakening can evn be put around phanton hourglass because of the similar storyline.

anyone still confused can go see the angry video game nerd video (called "cronologically confused about the zelda timeline" watch out for the many F-bombs!) his video really clears up alot
also, like the AVGN said, if there was supposed to be an official timeline, it would be there clear as day

Just so you know the timeline is split.
There is no way Wind Waker and Twilight Princess can go on the same timeline.
And the Oracle and the Four Swords games are more important then you make them out to be.

[rocker_3]

Just so you know the timeline is split.
There is no way Wind Waker and Twilight Princess can go on the same timeline.
And the Oracle and the Four Swords games are more important then you make them out to be.

the timeline isnt split, wind waker takes place sooooooooooooooo much longer after twilight princess, nintendo explains WW as being in a different era
and i wouldnt know about four swords and the oracles since ive never played them, i just guessed based on wat i heard about them

[DvSag]

The timeline IS split. It splits at the end of OoT. It ends with Zelda sending Link back in time to relive his childhood.

Time doesn't go back with Link, time continues for Zelda and everyone else. However, Link does go back as a child, and he continues on to the events of MM. Zelda sending Link back results in there being no Link with Zelda. This results in Ganon coming back with no Link (aka: Hero of Time) to stop him. This is the WW backstory.

[rocker_3]

well i guess thats right if u look at it that way, :)

[Zemen]

well i guess thats right if u look at it that way, :)

it IS right. this is all stuff thats been confirmed by the very people who make the games.

think about the back story for WW. it says that Ganondorf was sealed away by the hero of time. that ONLY happens when Link is an adult. it also says that the hero of time disappeared and when the evil escaped he didnt return. after Link beats Ganondorf in OoT he is sent back to his childhood (aka he disappears) so when Ganondorf escapes hes not there to save the people.

the back story for TP shows Ganondorf being executed as a result of plotting against the royal family. this quite obviously takes place when Link is back in his childhood. its believed that he tells the royal family of his adventures through time so the royal family arrests Ganondorf and sentences him to death.

[Caleb, Of Asui]

I can't believe that some people are still arguing about whether or not the timeline is split. I'll admit that before Nintendo announced that the timeline was split, I was of the opinion that it was not split. I thought it would be too confusing, too. I'm going with what Nintendo says now, though. Twilight Princess makes the split work better.

Now, as for the Four Swords games (coughbackontopiccough), I consider The Minish Cap and Four Swords to be before Ocarina of Time, thus effecting both timelines, and Four Swords Adventures to be a prequel to A Link to the Past in the child timeline. Miyamoto said somewhere, prior to TMC's release, that he considers Four Swords to be first.

Since TMC and FS are able to effect both timelines, it's possible that we might see Vaati in another game in the Adult Timeline. They might do that with Spirit Tracks, though it's doubtful.

One thing I want to ask is: what in The Minish Cap, other than moblins, clearly states that it's NOT before Ocarina of Time, as the first post mentions? I don't think the moblins are another form of Ganon or whatever, so saying anything about that won't convince me.

[Zemen]

Miyamoto said somewhere, prior to TMC's release, that he considers Four Swords to be first.

Since TMC and FS are able to effect both timelines, it's possible that we might see Vaati in another game in the Adult Timeline. They might do that with Spirit Tracks, though it's doubtful.

One thing I want to ask is: what in The Minish Cap, other than moblins, clearly states that it's NOT before Ocarina of Time, as the first post mentions? I don't think the moblins are another form of Ganon or whatever, so saying anything about that won't convince me.

for starters, i want to say that i believe that MC is the first game in the timeline. i am still rocky on where i would put FS but i do believe that MC is first in the timeline. everything i am about to say isnt because i dont believe thats where it goes, but its just to answer your question and play devils advocate.

reasons as to why MC WOULDNT be before OoT.

1. you already mentioned moblins and people believe that moblins were made by Ganon or something like that (i dont like this reason).

2. the fact that when you look at the map and its the zoomed out map it shows two islands which is a sign of an ocean which COULD mean that it is right after the flood before WW or it takes place not too long after WW.

3. the mentioning of the triumph forks in the library in MC. in WW, the fish would talk about triumph forks which was a messed up way of saying triforce. in MC, there is a book in the library and im not sure what the book actually says but i know that "triumph forks" is in the book. this implies that the game comes after WW which is the only other game to mention triumph forks. (many speculate that the mentioning of the triumph forks is just an easter egg and nothing more).

4. when you get the figuring that talks about din, nayru and farore (the girls in MC that resemble the goddesses), their descriptions say that they are descendants of a line of oracles from Labrynna/Holodrum which is evidence that MC is actually supposed to take place after OoX (which CANT be before OoT). a counter argument to that is that the oracles in OoT could be descendants of the girls in MC which would then mean that MC could still be before OoT.

thats pretty much the only decent evidence for it to not be before OoT.

reasons why it could be before OoT:

1. no menioning of Ganon/dorf WHATSOEVER. its the only Hyrule based game to not have ganon/dorf in the game. this implies that no one knows about Ganon/dorf, he hasnt been born yet, etc...

2. the BS of this game does not seem to resemble any other Zelda game and also talks about a hero that seems to NOT be Link. this implies that this is the first Link to have an adventure.

3. this game seems to show the origins of the hat.

4. the hero of men captured monsters and locked them in the chest with the four sword. when Vaati opens that chest, he releases the monsters. this might explain why there are monsters in Hyrule throughout the series. kind of like a pandora's box idea. ill explain.

evil was sealed away in a box. pandora was told not to open that box. she did and she released evil onto the world, but she also released some hope, as well.

monsters were sealed away in the chest. Vaati was told not to open that chest. he did and he released monsters onto the world, but by opening the chest, he left the broken sword which was the only weapon powerful enough to stop him. so in essence, the four sword was the hope that was released with the monsters.

basically, it could explain why there are monsters in the world of Zelda.

[rocker_3]

it IS right. this is all stuff thats been confirmed by the very people who make the games.

think about the back story for WW. it says that Ganondorf was sealed away by the hero of time. that ONLY happens when Link is an adult. it also says that the hero of time disappeared and when the evil escaped he didnt return. after Link beats Ganondorf in OoT he is sent back to his childhood (aka he disappears) so when Ganondorf escapes hes not there to save the people.

the back story for TP shows Ganondorf being executed as a result of plotting against the royal family. this quite obviously takes place when Link is back in his childhood. its believed that he tells the royal family of his adventures through time so the royal family arrests Ganondorf and sentences him to death.

but if link went back in time, that makes adult link non-existant at the time. the legend of the hero of time started with the adult link in OoT, but if he never existed (or killed ganondorf and saved hyrule) how is there that legend?
nintendo HAS said that OoT started the hero of time legend that has been going on throughout the series

[DvSag]

But do you notice how they reference the Hero of Time in WW (who just so happens to be adult Link), yet there is no reference to him in TP. That's because Link as a child didn't gain that title. (However, it is strongly believed that the dead swordsman who teaches you techniques is that same Link from OoT.)

[rocker_3]

but there is a reference in TP, why else would link have a green suit! while hes gettin it, the spirit says its the clothes worn by the old hero.

also, another thing i noticed is where the master sword is in each game. in Oot, its in the temple of time, in hyrule castle town. in tp, its in the lost woods, in the ruins of the temple of time. ithought the temple of time was in hyrule castle town! in alltp, its in the lost woods, and there doesnt seem to be any ruins, but in wind waker, its in hyrule castle!!!

[Zemen]

but there is a reference in TP, why else would link have a green suit! while hes gettin it, the spirit says its the clothes worn by the old hero.

kid Link was still a hero in OoT. he still destroyed the monsters in the first three dungeons and still helped the royal family stop Ganondorf by telling his story and then he goes on to save Termina. he still becomes a hero, just not the hero of time.

[sign of table]

1. you already mentioned moblins and people believe that moblins were made by Ganon or something like that (i dont like this reason).

2. the fact that when you look at the map and its the zoomed out map it shows two islands which is a sign of an ocean which COULD mean that it is right after the flood before WW or it takes place not too long after WW.

3. the mentioning of the triumph forks in the library in MC. in WW, the fish would talk about triumph forks which was a messed up way of saying triforce. in MC, there is a book in the library and im not sure what the book actually says but i know that "triumph forks" is in the book. this implies that the game comes after WW which is the only other game to mention triumph forks. (many speculate that the mentioning of the triumph forks is just an easter egg and nothing more).

4. when you get the figuring that talks about din, nayru and farore (the girls in MC that resemble the goddesses), their descriptions say that they are descendants of a line of oracles from Labrynna/Holodrum which is evidence that MC is actually supposed to take place after OoX (which CANT be before OoT). a counter argument to that is that the oracles in OoT could be descendants of the girls in MC which would then mean that MC could still be before OoT. 1) Yeah I don't think that means much. There's no proof that the moblins were created when Ganondorf entered the SR.

2) An ocean means nothing, imo. Before TWW came out there was AoL and OoX which both featured oceans. And the beanstalk and Mount Crenel picture show that Hyrule is surrounded by rivers, forests, and mountains; much like in OoT.

3) Graphical easter egg is an easter egg.

4) Yeah all it really means is that OoX should be in the same timeline as TMC.
1. no menioning of Ganon/dorf WHATSOEVER. its the only Hyrule based game to not have ganon/dorf in the game. this implies that no one knows about Ganon/dorf, he hasnt been born yet, etc...

2. the BS of this game does not seem to resemble any other Zelda game and also talks about a hero that seems to NOT be Link. this implies that this is the first Link to have an adventure.

3. this game seems to show the origins of the hat.

4. the hero of men captured monsters and locked them in the chest with the four sword. when Vaati opens that chest, he releases the monsters. this might explain why there are monsters in Hyrule throughout the series. kind of like a pandora's box idea. ill explain.

evil was sealed away in a box. pandora was told not to open that box. she did and she released evil onto the world, but she also released some hope, as well.

monsters were sealed away in the chest. Vaati was told not to open that chest. he did and he released monsters onto the world, but by opening the chest, he left the broken sword which was the only weapon powerful enough to stop him. so in essence, the four sword was the hope that was released with the monsters.

basically, it could explain why there are monsters in the world of Zelda. 1) There's no mentioning of Vaati, either in any other games. That evidence really doesn't mean anything.

2. It could be evidence...

3. Normally I'd say that the hat means nothing. But in an interview with Bill Trinen he said that TMC goes deep into Hylian lore and that you could think of it as the origin of Link's hat. With that it makes it very strong evidence, imo.

4. Ehh the monsters were sealed by the Hero of Men, if I remember right. So that doesn't really matter.

5. The end of the Japanese version says that it's the end of the first adventure of Link. That can be interpreted in different ways but I think the obvious interpretation is that it's referring to Link as a whole. Not just one individual Link.

[Pinecove]

Sorry, I'm to lazy to read 4 pages of this: what's he arguing Som? I feel you'll be my ally in this rather then my enemy :P

[Smertios]

I can't believe i missed this entire thread completely :P


It looks kinda like this:
http://i39.tinypic.com/2dhs5sw.jpg

It's a rough outline. Don't judge me.

.........TMC-FS/FSA\
...../-TWW/PH---\...\
OoT.....................LttP
.....\MM-TP------/

It's a good theory. I'm completely against merges though.

Good read about merging like that:
http://www.zeldauniverse.net/forums/zelda-theorizing/79699-splitting-and-merging-without-reason-my-rant.html

Anyway, I agree that
1. Both OoT and TMC have indications that they can come first in the timeline
2. LttP has elements from both the AT and the YT, as well as elements from the FSS

Now, what I can't agree is with:
1. Multiple starts: i see no reason for that
2. Mergers: they just make no sense whatsoever
3. More than one split: no indications for that.

Now, if you just ignore points 1 and 2 here, your timeline is pretty good. Of curse, you are ignoring all referrences to TWW in the FSS. That is not good.

The theory works though, as all timeline theories have flaws...

[DvSag]

Yea, I don't believe in this timeline anymore. This was one of my earliest, and just a theoretical. I've learned a bit since then, and I do believe the timeline is linear, with just the universally accepted OoT split.

I also don't believe in any merging of two timelines at the moment. I don't believe it isn't possible, but I do believe that so far we have no reason to suspect the timelines remerge at any point because of any game currently in circulation.

[Zemen]

Yea, I don't believe in this timeline anymore. This was one of my earliest, and just a theoretical. I've learned a bit since then, and I do believe the timeline is linear, with just the universally accepted OoT split.


I'm a little confused here. Are you saying you believe in a linear timeline or a split timeline? You said you believe in a linear timeline with a split after OoT. That means that you believe in a split timeline because if you accept the split after OoT then it is no longer a linear timeline.

[Smertios]

I think he meant in a linear beginning to the timeline, unlike the other theory he posted, that had 2 timelines: one beginning in OoT and the other, in TMC with a merger before LttP.