The Generally Accepted Timeline Theories

[MrMosley]

What I want to do in this thread is post three time lines which I have came up with judging by the majority of opinions I have seen. We'll call them Time line A, Time line B, and Time line C. Now I know a lot of people have their own time line that is probably different than these, but as I said, these two are what I have seen to be the more accepted of any other time line. Its been a long time since I have done a lot of posting in this section, whether it be arguing my points or posting new time lines, mainly because it has gotten a bit much for me to read and argue with. This site has gained a lot of good theorists over the past few months, ones that even I sometimes have a hard time keeping up with. So I figured I would bring it back to the basics. Lets begin.

To save room on the screen, I have posted links to the time lines instead of actually posting the pictures.

Time Line A
http://i341.photobucket.com/albums/o372/calebm_89/TimelineA.png

...../WW/PH--MC--FS/FSA
OoT
.....\MM--TP--ALttP/LA--OoX--LoZ/AoL


Time Line B
http://i341.photobucket.com/albums/o372/calebm_89/TimelineB-1.png

............/WW/PH
MC--OoT
............\MM--TP--FS/FSA--ALttP/LA--OoX--LoZ/AoL


Time Line C
http://i341.photobucket.com/albums/o372/calebm_89/TimelineC.png

............/WW/PH--FS/FSA--ALttP/LA--OoX--LoZ/AoL
MC--OoT
............\MM--TP


The biggest difference people will notice about Timeline A and B is the placement of the Four Swords Saga, as I will call it. Those are the three games associated with the story of Link and the Four Sword, which include MC, FS, and FSA. I will say that both of these time lines have pretty much equal reason to be as they are. I know a lot of people prefer Time line B based on different facts and such, but just as well I know some that will agree with Time line A, including myself.

Timeline C is quite different from the other two, having most of the games take place either in a new or drained old Hyrule on the Adult Timeline. I can't say much else about this one, because really I don't believe that version and hadn't considered it until it was brought up in this thread. But seeing as how there are some who do believe this type of Timeline, I added it to the list.

Among many reasons and facts, the biggest I can come up with, and the simplest as well, is the fact that the Four Swords Saga is so different from the other games that I believe them to take place in a time where nothing from the other games is important anymore. I understand that the design of FSA, the presence of the Dark World, and Ganon as a main antagonist in this game all are very good reason to have it before ALttP, which is seen in Time line B. These are the most basic reasons that people would believe Timeline B, in fact.

However, a major point of me believing Time line A is the importance of the Master Sword in the games. Time line B shows MC and FS first, before OoT. OoT begins the tale of Ganondorf, as well as the inclusion of the Master Sword into the series. It doesn't make sense to me, that this blade would be so important and vital to Hyrule's defense against evil, for them to completely ignore it by the time the events of FSA are happening. Why would the people Link not go looking for the Master Sword in FSA if it was well established by this time (both by the heroes of OoT and TP), and instead uses the Four Sword. Also, TP was released after the games of the Four Swords Saga were made. The Four Swords Saga clearly shows that the Shrine of the Four Sword is in Hyrule, yet it is no where to be found in TP, which seems awfully suspicious to me.

All of this gives me reason to believe Time line A, where the Four Swords Saga is placed in another Hyrule, which would be the new land discovered by Link and Tetra from WW. It is completely understandable for me to see how the people of this land would not be afraid of Ganon's return (since he is at the bottom of the ocean in old Hyrule), and completely ignore the Master Sword (since it is in Ganondorf's head, at the bottom of the ocean in old Hyrule).

So there it is. Pretty basic facts towards the three generally accepted time lines among Zelda fans. I'll even put up a poll to see who agrees with one or the other, or neither. If you don't agree with either, you don't have to post your entire time line here. Instead, just give a reason as to why one or two games may be placed elsewhere.

[Judai]

The only one I believe is my own, which I am still working on:

...............TWW - PH - TMC - FSX - ALTTP - LA - LOZ - AOL - OOS/OOA
....../
OOT
......\ MM - TP

The only reasons are for this:

- PH are similar. A dream land with a whale as the main character (Wind Fish and Ocean King).
- OOS and OOA Twinrova are trying to revive a dead Ganon, which is is possibly the one defeated by LOZ or ALTTP Link.

I can't say much but this is my idea, and eventually I will make my own theory about this. This is just gathering information of games I haven't played much (LOZ, AOL, FSX) and games that I have played.

Eh. =P

[Zemen]

Why would the people Link not go looking for the Master Sword in FSA if it was well established by this time (both by the heroes of OoT and TP), and instead uses the Four Sword.

First of all, the most general timeline ive seen is exactly like timeline B, but all of the games after TP are on the AT, not the CT, and that is the timeline I believe. I also put FS before FSA and not after MC, but i still leave MC before OoT.

Now, with that in mind, if FSA takes place on the timeline, I would put it after WW which leaves the Master Sword at the bottom of the ocean. By the time FSA rolls around, It's very possible that the Master Sword had not been rediscovered yet. By the time ALTTP comes in to play, the Master Sword could have been rediscovered and a pedestal could have been made for it. We have no idea how much time would take place between FSA and ALTTP, but based on the BS for ALTTP (which is supposed to be either OoT or FSA) the game could take place a VERY long time after FSA which would give the people plenty of time to find or stumble upon the Master Sword. That could explain why they do not bother to look for the Master Sword in FSA.

On a side note, we know 2 things for sure. Either OoT is the SW in the BS of ALTTP or FSA is the SW in the BS of ALTTP. If it is OoT, then ALTTP has to take place in the AT because Ganon/dorf doesn't get sealed in the Sacred Realm (Dark World) until the adult part of OoT. On the CT, Ganon/dorf gets sealed in the Twilight Realm which is obviously NOT the dark world.

The only way that ALTTP could go on the CT, IMO, is if FSA is the prequel to it.

Another point I would like to make is, no matter where you put FSA, the question of "why didnt he use the master sword against Ganon?" is still a valid question so i dont see how that is evidence for it not being before ALTTP.

Another point i would like to make is that the temple of the Four Sword is in ALTTP (the new version which IS canon). The temple is there with a broken Four Sword. Why is it there if we are not supposed to think that it's connected to FSA? If your timeline is correct and FSA is not connected to ALTTP at all, then this is the most useless addition to any game in history. Im pretty sure it's there for a reason.


Also, TP was released after the games of the Four Swords Saga were made. The Four Swords Saga clearly shows that the Shrine of the Four Sword is in Hyrule, yet it is no where to be found in TP, which seems awfully suspicious to me.

Once again, this is only valid IF the game goes on the CT, but there are plenty of people that put it on the AT. If the game goes on the AT it would take place after WW. This would explain why there is no Shrine to the Four Sword before FSA. There is no Hyrule before FSA on the AT for there to be a shrine, and if there was it was flooded.

Now before you say "what about FS being before OoT and not having the shrine in OoT" here is my rebuttal, I dont believe that FS goes before OoT. It seems pretty clear in the BS of FSA that FS took place not too long before it. In this case, it would take place after WW and the same explanation applies. In fact, if FS and FSA go after WW there may have never been a Four Sword shrine before those games. MC did not have a Four Sword shrine. It did have an elements shrine but that was in the tiny minish village if i remember correctly. Or it was in the Sacred Realm. Either way, there was no proper Four Sword shrine in Hyrule. Just a chest with a sword in it. Well, there ya go.


Another side not is that I am unsure of where I want to put OoX. Twinrova is in the game and for that I believe it should be on the CT because Twinrova was killed by adult Link which SHOULD mean no twinrova on the AT. But there are things that help it connect to the games I put on the AT so who knows.

[MrMosley]

On a side note, we know 2 things for sure. Either OoT is the SW in the BS of ALTTP or FSA is the SW in the BS of ALTTP. If it is OoT, then ALTTP has to take place in the AT because Ganon/dorf doesn't get sealed in the Sacred Realm (Dark World) until the adult part of OoT. On the CT, Ganon/dorf gets sealed in the Twilight Realm which is obviously NOT the dark world.

We can rule out that the BS of ALttP is talking about OoT. I have posted multiple times the prime reasons for why it cannot be talking about OoT. Those are basically:
-Ganondorf is not sealed within the Sacred Realm at the end, but rather the Evil Realm.
-The BS of ALttP talks about the sages sealing the man Ganondorf, referring to his human form, within the Sacred Realm after he touched the Triforce and wished to rule the Sacred Realm. At that point, he was transformed into Ganon. In OoT, Ganondorf does not make this wish, nor is he sealed while in the Sacred Realm. He gets back out, hence the events of the Adult portion of OoT. And when he gets out, he is still human.


The only way that ALTTP could go on the CT, IMO, is if FSA is the prequel to it.

Another point I would like to make is, no matter where you put FSA, the question of "why didnt he use the master sword against Ganon?" is still a valid question so i dont see how that is evidence for it not being before ALTTP.



Another point i would like to make is that the temple of the Four Sword is in ALTTP (the new version which IS canon). The temple is there with a broken Four Sword. Why is it there if we are not supposed to think that it's connected to FSA? If your timeline is correct and FSA is not connected to ALTTP at all, then this is the most useless addition to any game in history. Im pretty sure it's there for a reason.

The place added to the GBA version of ALttP is called the Palace of the Four Sword. It is not, nor does it contain, the Shrine of the Four Sword, which has been shown in the Four Swords Saga games. The Palace also does not have a broken Four Sword in it, unless you consider each individual sword you collect from the bosses a piece of the Four Sword. I myself, do not consider that to be the Four Sword. The Four Sword was never broken in that manner. When the sword was broke, back in MC, it was actually broken in two pieces. I see the Palace of the Four Swords nothing more than an add-on.





Once again, this is only valid IF the game goes on the CT, but there are plenty of people that put it on the AT. If the game goes on the AT it would take place after WW. This would explain why there is no Shrine to the Four Sword before FSA. There is no Hyrule before FSA on the AT for there to be a shrine, and if there was it was flooded.

Ohh, well actually Zemen, I was thinking you would have completely agreed with Timeline B. So you are thinking something more along the lines of...

............../WW-PH-FS-FSA-ALttP-LA-OoX-LoZ-AoL
...MC-OoT
..............\MM-TP

I suppose I could see why that would work. That closely resembles the one Judai posted above actually. I may end up having to add one more timeline to the list of generally accepted.

Here is my discrepancy though to that timeline. That would push me to consider the placement of the Master Sword's location in OoT, TP, and ALttP, however. I'm not usually one to consider the geography as a huge factor in making a timeline, but it is almost impossible to see the connection between these three games and the location of the Master Sword in each. Here's my view:

Game----Master Sword Location

OoT----Temple of Time
TP----Ruins of the Temple of Time. A forest has begun to grow around these ruins
ALttP----Lost Woods.

See what I am talking about? It started out in the Temple of Time, which over time, fell apart. We see the process of time taking its effect on these areas, yet the Master Sword is staying in its pedestal through it all.


Now before you say "what about FS being before OoT and not having the shrine in OoT" here is my rebuttal, I dont believe that FS goes before OoT. It seems pretty clear in the BS of FSA that FS took place not too long before it.


I would not bring up the shrine missing in OoT simply because the developers did not make that story plot yet. It would be stupid really to argue that point. I agree that FS took place not long before FSA, and I will change my Timeline B picture to adjust. I actually believe the Link in FS to be the same Link in FSA. Thanks for pointing that out.


MC did not have a Four Sword shrine. It did have an elements shrine but that was in the tiny minish village if i remember correctly. Or it was in the Sacred Realm. Either way, there was no proper Four Sword shrine in Hyrule. Just a chest with a sword in it. Well, there ya go.

Ahh, can't agree here. Your right that there was no shrine during the gameplay of MC. But it clearly says in the intro of FSA that after Link defeated Vaati, the people of Hyrule "cristened the blade the Four Sword and built a shrine" for it to be held in. So the shrine was in Hyrule apparently, and would have been there from the very beginning if MC is to take place first on the timeline.

[Zemen]

It will just be easier if I copy and paste things that you said rather than going through all that quoting trouble.

You said: "The place added to the GBA version of ALttP is called the Palace of the Four Sword. It is not, nor does it contain, the Shrine of the Four Sword, which has been shown in the Four Swords Saga games. The Palace also does not have a broken Four Sword in it, unless you consider each individual sword you collect from the bosses a piece of the Four Sword. I myself, do not consider that to be the Four Sword. The Four Sword was never broken in that manner. When the sword was broke, back in MC, it was actually broken in two pieces. I see the Palace of the Four Swords nothing more than an add-on."

This is what I believe. If you don't agree then that's on you. I think that things in a game are canon if they MUST be done in order to beat the game 100%. In order to beat ALTTP 100% you have to go to the palace of the Four Sword so I consider it canon. You mentioned that you don't believe those swords to be part of the Four Sword. Why would any sword in there NOT be the Four Sword or part of it? Also, you said that the sword was never broken in that manner. The fact of the matter is we have absolutely no idea how Ganon got released from his seal by the Four Sword so for all you know that IS how it was broken in this case. Just because it's never been done before doesn't mean it's impossible.

You said: "Ahh, can't agree here. Your right that there was no shrine during the gameplay of MC. But it clearly says in the intro of FSA that after Link defeated Vaati, the people of Hyrule "cristened the blade the Four Sword and built a shrine" for it to be held in. So the shrine was in Hyrule apparently, and would have been there from the very beginning if MC is to take place first on the timeline."

You specifically said, "they "cristened the blade the Four Sword and built a shrine" for it to be held in."

We never see this shrine. We don't know how big or small it is (and the fact that we NEVER see it in MC is a pretty good indication of it's size). And also, the shrine it's "held in" could just be the chest that it's actually stuck in.

[MrMosley]

This is what I believe. If you don't agree then that's on you. I think that things in a game are canon if they MUST be done in order to beat the game 100%. In order to beat ALTTP 100% you have to go to the palace of the Four Sword so I consider it canon. You mentioned that you don't believe those swords to be part of the Four Sword. Why would any sword in there NOT be the Four Sword or part of it? Also, you said that the sword was never broken in that manner. The fact of the matter is we have absolutely no idea how Ganon got released from his seal by the Four Sword so for all you know that IS how it was broken in this case. Just because it's never been done before doesn't mean it's impossible.

Generally I believe the same things about 100% completion. However, you can beat ALttP without beating the Palace of the Four Sword. Yes you do get an alternate ending if you beat the Palace, but technically since you can go into the Pyramid's top at any time and face Ganon, you are continually playing a game without Ganon being defeated in it. Its like OoT or any other game that you can save on. When you go back and play, you aren't playing a post-Ganon Hyrule. So you can beat the Palace and see that ending technically without Ganon being dead. To me, that makes it more of an add-on than an actual "have to do" sorta thing.


We never see this shrine. We don't know how big or small it is (and the fact that we NEVER see it in MC is a pretty good indication of it's size). And also, the shrine it's "held in" could just be the chest that it's actually stuck in.

We see the shrine at the beginning of both FS and FSA. The place where the Four Sword is held at the beginning of these games, and after MC, is this shrine. It seems as if Link is transporting to another realm at the beginning of FSA, but here is the exact quote from the intro.

"The hero used his sword to bing Vaati in a remote area of Hyrule. The people christened the blade the Four Sword and built a shrine around it. There it remained undisturbed for many years."

[Kaynil]

To be honest, I'd voted for I don't believe in timelines if I had read before posting, hahah. I just think the harder part of making a timeline is that Nintendo didn't have one in mind since begining. I always considered the creating a time line as a LoZ fan hobby.


Time line A, where the Four Swords Saga is placed in another Hyrule, which would be the new land discovered by Link and Tetra from WW. It is completely understandable for me to see how the people of this land would not be afraid of Ganon's return (since he is at the bottom of the ocean in old Hyrule), and completely ignore the Master Sword (since it is in Ganondorf's head, at the bottom of the ocean in old Hyrule).

This is what I thought of The Minish Cap too, it makes sense to me. So if I was to believe in one, I'd think I rather to have OoT at first.

Anyway I always enjoy reading your debates about it. And yeah, probably adding a third timeline would be good, since it seems to make more sense to place some games in AT instead. xD

[Caleb, Of Asui]

I don't see why people still try to put A Link to the Past and Link's Awakening before The Legend of Zelda and The Adventure of Link. Miyamoto did state clearly a long time ago that the order then was OoT, LoZ, AoL, LttP (with LA anywhere, but we generally put it after LttP.)

I know that some people haven't played all the games, in which case you shouldn't be timeline theorizing yet (bar LA, MM, and PH). A Link to the Past DOES end with Ganon dying pretty distinctively. Link defeating him doesn't just send him out of the Dark World to rampage a century or more later.

Four Swords Adventures can be stuck in the middle of the timeline so that Ganon can be alive (but trapped in the Dark World) in A Link to the Past later, even if The Legend of Zelda was before FSA. You can't put The Legend of Zelda after that because there's no legitimate reason for him to be alive again. You can put LoZ after Twilight Princess and before FSA because it starts with the Triforce split, like it is in TP, and AoL ends with the triforce being put together, like it is in LttP (and presumably in FSA, even if it isn't mentioned.)

This way, you can also say that Ganon's alive until the end of The Legend of Zelda because he's somewhat of a different being than Ganondorf, where Ganondorf can only have one death and we never see him as a Gerudo again.

[MrMosley]

I don't see why people still try to put A Link to the Past and Link's Awakening before The Legend of Zelda and The Adventure of Link. Miyamoto did state clearly a long time ago that the order then was OoT, LoZ, AoL, LttP (with LA anywhere, but we generally put it after LttP.

If Miyamoto actually said that, then he was drunk at the time. The back of the box for ALttP clearly states, and I quote:

"Venture back to Hyrule and an age of magic and heroes. The predecessors of Link and Zelda face monsters on the march...etc"

Here's a link to the boxart if you want to read the rest.

http://zs.ffshrine.org/album/link-to-the-past/boxart/back.jpg

And before anyone goes saying "Oh well, that could be talking about any Link and Zelda", remember that this was the third game produced. Different generations of Zelda and Link had not been established at this point. Therefore, it is possibly only that ALttP refers to the Link and Zelda from the first two games, thus making it a prequel to them.

--EDIT--

I posted a third Timeline and reset the polls. So for all of those who voted, feel free to vote again.

[Smertios]

The timeline options here show that your thread is biased. Mainly because there are as much people who have TMC first in the timeline as people who have the Oot in that position.

As of now, these are the most common timelines seen in the 4 major Zelda Theorizing schools right now:

ZL:
............./-TWW/PH
TMC-OoT
.............\MM-TP-FS/FSA-LttP/LA-LoZ/AoL-OoX

ZU:
...../-TWW/PH-(LoZ/AoL)-(OoX)-TMC-FS/FSA-LttP/LA-(OoX-LoZ/AoL)
OoT
.....\MM-TP

ZI:
...../-TWW/PH-LoZ/AoL-OoX-TMC-FS/FSA-LttP/LA
OoT
.....\MM-TP

ZD (i mean, the last time i checked it here, idk if things changed much :P):
............./-TWW/PH
TMC-FS-OoT
.............\MM-TP-FSA-LttP/LA-LoZ/AoL-OoX

Also, in ZU, a split variation of the old linear UWM timeline is very strong in ZU, especially among old theorists, including me. It goes as:
...../-TWW/PH-TMC-FS/FSA-LttP/LA-OoX-LoZ/AoL
OoT
.....\MM-TP

Claiming that the timelines you posted are the most common ones is a biased point of view, based solely on theorists you know. It's almost universal in the 4 major Theorizing schools to place the 2D games together (with the exception of TMC, in some of them) in the same timeline.

As of now, i'd say that the "ZL" timeline is the most accepted among serious theorists in the theorizing world.

And please, when representing a timeline, use the ZW standard notation with slashes and hyphens. It makes the understanding easier :)

[MrMosley]

The timeline options here show that your thread is biased. Mainly because there are as much people who have TMC first in the timeline as people who have the Oot in that position.

Which is why I have separate ones showing MC in the first, and one showing it later on. And about being biased, maybe, if you want to call it that. But I clearly stated "majority" of the theories I have seen. I don't go to other Zelda sites really to theorize or take note of what they believe. I'm alright with the ones here.


As of now, these are the most common timelines seen in the 4 major Zelda Theorizing schools right now:

Didn't bother quoting all those theories. The thing is, as I had said, these are the generally accepted ones from what I've seen. That is why I included a poll as well, with the "other" option there. I'm glad that you brought the other timelines to attention, but for the most part they look like they are from other Zelda sites which is not what the thread is including.



And please, when representing a timeline, use the ZW standard notation with slashes and hyphens. It makes the understanding easier :)

Its not that hard to look at the pics. I happen to think it is easier to look at a picture. I could use those hyphens and slashes and all that, and sometimes I do. But right now I'm not really worried about it. A timeline is a timeline as long as you know how to connect the dots.

[sign of table]

----TWW/PH
OoT
----MM-TP-FS/FSA-LttP-LoZ/AoL-OoX

That's the timeline I'm currently going with. LA will either go after LttP or OoX, and TMC either starts it all or is before FS. (Currently I'm leaning towards TMC being before OoT)
Claiming that the timelines you posted are the most common ones is a biased point of view, based solely on theorists you know. It's almost universal in the 4 major Theorizing schools to place the 2D games together (with the exception of TMC, in some of them) in the same timeline. Idk he nailed most common theories. Of course the differences tend to be the placement of TMC, and OoX and LoZ/AoL having slightly different placements.

I think Smertios might be confused, as well as I, about which games are direct sequels to each other. Slashes tend to represent the same Link. If you could include those in your picture it would be much simpler to read.
ZI:
...../-TWW/PH-TMC-OoX-LoZ/AoL-FS/FSA-LttP/LA
OoT
.....\MM-TP I've never seen that timeline before...

From what I've noticed The-Erim-Maninthemoon-Gard timeline is the most common one around there.
ZU:
...../-TWW/PH-TMC-(OoX)-(LoZ/AoL)-FS/FSA-LttP/LA-(OoX-LoZ/AoL)
OoT
.....\MM-TP Once again, I've never seen a TMC-OoX-LoZ/AoL timeline.

Nah the common ZU timeline is the timeline you use, Smertios, and the Erimlark Skygard timeline. With TWW/PH-LoZ/AoL-OoX-TMC
As of now, i'd say that the "ZL" timeline is the most accepted among serious theorists in the theorizing world. Ehh it really depends on where you go. Although the "ZL/LA" timeline has been creeping into ZU/ZI lately.

[Smertios]

Which is why I have separate ones showing MC in the first, and one showing it later on. And about being biased, maybe, if you want to call it that. But I clearly stated "majority" of the theories I have seen. I don't go to other Zelda sites really to theorize or take note of what they believe. I'm alright with the ones here.

Yes, sorry. I got what you meant. What I was trying to say is that, by the OP, it sounded like you were affirming that those 3 timelines are the only plausible ones, and all the others weren't good enough.

Oh, I didn't mean you should go to other forums to take notes. I just meant that the timelines you posted are not the most common ones around there.

I liked your sum up there. You wrote the differences pretty well. I just have to say that your affirmation that these are "the three generally accepted time lines among Zelda fans" is actually not a true affirmation. Sorry if it seemed like i was saying that :P


Didn't bother quoting all those theories. The thing is, as I had said, these are the generally accepted ones from what I've seen. That is why I included a poll as well, with the "other" option there.

I see, no probs there. But, even here, i hardly see those timelines. I mean, everytime i come here, I see the timelines with FS between TMC and OoT (in this order).

As for Zemen's timeline, which you dubbed as "timeline C", even though I do believe it s one of the strongest here, if not the strongest; i have never seen anyone else but him defend it :P


I'm glad that you brought the other timelines to attention, but for the most part they look like they are from other Zelda sites which is not what the thread is including.

I know that. And I'm sorry for that. But if you add those timelines to the equation, you'll find that they are all very very similar.

I mean, if you look well, since 2006, all theories (from all 4 major schools) have this as a solid arch:
...../-TWW/PH
OoT
.....\MM-TP
with vacant spots for the 2D games before OoT, after PH and after TP.

Many, many people prefer to put all 2D games together in the timeline, either after PH or after TP. And it is also a consensus among theorists that the 2D games come as TMC---FS/FSA---LttP, with OoX and LoZ/AoL floating somewhere in the middle of that.

TMC coming first, after PH or after TP is also the most common situation.

If you follow these guidelines, you can basically build all the timelines you posted, the ones i did or many others we can see around. So, all those theories are pretty much variations of the same ones, build back when all theorizing was done in small zelda forums and gamefaqs :P

The arguments used to defend one or other specific theory are, as you mentioned some, small storyline inconsistencies (a timeline theory that is 100% consistent with all storyline from all the games has yet to be developed, and that is, most probably, an impossible task), like the state of the world, the MS location, Ganon's titles, the 4S etc.

As for the other theorizing schools, I don't really think you have to go to them. Theories in the 4 of them are pretty similar, actually. i just like to promote an internationalization of theorizing, so that people from one forum can know about what's going on on other forums. I mean, if we start collaborating, we will get lots of interesting ideas from all the places. In the past, there used to be fights between people from different forums in theorizing boards. The more diversified we are, the better theories we can come up with :)


Its not that hard to look at the pics. I happen to think it is easier to look at a picture. I could use those hyphens and slashes and all that, and sometimes I do. But right now I'm not really worried about it. A timeline is a timeline as long as you know how to connect the dots.

Yes, that's true. But the problem is that people have still to find a better way to represent a timeline. It's no big deal, though, I could understand it well by the images, but I can find at least 4 reasons why the ZW standard is better:
1. They are direct text, so it is easier to make, write and modify
2. They are seen directly in this page, unlike the links to the images
3. They are smaller
4. We can represent which games feature the same hero

Anyway, it's no big deal, so let's not focus on that.



----TWW/PH
OoT
----MM-TP-FS/FSA-LttP-LoZ/AoL-OoX

That's the timeline I'm currently going with. LA will either go after LttP or OoX, and TMC either starts it all or is before FS. (Currently I'm leaning towards TMC being before OoT)

Nice, so you realized where to place LoZ/AoL and OoX? i'll send u a pm to discuss it, i'll try to keep on topic here :P


Idk he nailed most common theories. Of course the differences tend to be the placement of TMC, and OoX and LoZ/AoL having slightly different placements.

Yes, he did, but TMC, OoX and Loz/AoL are floating, so there are a lot of timelines that are slightly different than those but have more support. And, as I said, all timelines are variation of the same, basically...


I think Smertios might be confused, as well as I, about which games are direct sequels to each other. Slashes tend to represent the same Link. If you could include those in your picture it would be much simpler to read.

Yup, that's a good reason. It's not that much of a big deal though.
But whoever came up with that notation in ZW actually made us all a favor.


I've never seen that timeline before...

From what I've noticed The-Erim-Maninthemoon-Gard timeline is the most common one around there. Once again, I've never seen a TMC-OoX-LoZ/AoL timeline.

Sorry, fixed :P
IDK what i was thinking :P
lol


Nah the common ZU timeline is the timeline you use, Smertios, and the Erimlark Skygard timeline. With TWW/PH-LoZ/AoL-OoX-TMC

That's what I meant there, sorry again :P


Ehh it really depends on where you go. Although the "ZL/LA" timeline has been creeping into ZU/ZI lately.

Well, absolutely anywhere you go (even in forums that are not from the 4 major schools) you will find a lot of theorists defending timeline theories that are originally from ZL. It is just more common to find the 2D games in the CT, TMC first and LoZ/AoL-OoX after LttP/LA. All that cmes oriinally from ZL.
(Btw, that's your timeline too :P)

[MrMosley]

Ok. I see some posts that a few members are having a hard time kinda reading as far as the same Link and Zelda goes. So I will edit my first post to include a "Smertios" version of the timelines in text form. I'll also include them here for those who have already read most of the posts. I'll try to do the best job I can with this text version. Slashes will indicate the same generation of Link and Zelda.

Timeline A
...../WW/PH--MC--FS/FSA
OoT
.....\MM--TP--ALttP/LA--OoX--LoZ/AoL


Timeline B
............/WW/PH
MC--OoT
............\MM--TP--FS/FSA--ALttP/LA--OoX--LoZ/AoL


Timeline C
............/WW/PH--FS/FSA--ALttP/LA--OoX--LoZ/AoL
MC--OoT
............\MM--TP


Hope this helps.

[Midna666]

I picked timeline B since I believe that PH is the last game in the Adult Timeline.
I believe that the Child timeline is the main timeline.
It seems like you'd have to jump though a ton of hoops if you were to place most of the games in the Adult Timeline.
You'd have to explain about a new Hyrule and how the people have knowledge of everything that was lost when the old Hyrule is destroyed.
And you have to explain about the Master Sword.

[Smertios]

Hope this helps.

It does, thank you :)


Timeline C
............/WW/PH--FS/FSA--ALttP/LA--OoX--LoZ/AoL
MC--OoT
............\MM--TP

I'd say that this timeline and mine are variations of the same. The only difference I see there is TMC, which I place between TWW/PH and FS/FSA.

As I know this debate goes on and on for days everywhere, so I'll just post the reasons I believe TMC is placed in that position. But, before I post those reasons, I would like to ad a small disclaimer here:

I know I did this is the past alredy, but now I do not and will never consider cameos (the three oracles in TMC, for example), easter eggs (the hidden text reading "Triumph Forks" written in the books in TMC, for example) or non-important designs (background images, for example) as valid timeline indicators. Also, I do not consider that hypothetical intent indicators that have never been confirmed (i.e. TMC Link having to be the first because it was the first time a hero got a hat) valid unless those are proven to have been added by the developers.

Now, with that said, I have to add that, even disconsidering all those itens, there are still some (at least 2) valid storyline indicators. I'll mention the two I can think of for helping placing TMC after TWW:

1. The language:

In TMC, we see the modern hylian syllabary (http://www.omniglot.com/writing/hylian2.htm) everywhere in the game. This is a case we had only seen in TWW so far. I mean, from the three possible positions TMC is normally said to be able to take in the timeline -
.............../-TWW/PH-(TMC)
(TMC)-OoT
...............\MM-TP-(TMC)
-, we know that, if it came before OoT or after TP, the writing system used should have been the old hylian syllabary (http://www.omniglot.com/writing/hylian.htm) or the hylian alphabet (http://www.omniglot.com/writing/hylian3.htm), respectively.

I know that many people argue that this is not important, as the language is not important to the series at all, and some even argue that the script used is simply an easter egg or a cameo. But let's annalyse facts:

First, it can't be an easter egg. An easter egg is a hidden reference to another story (from another game/movie/book/etc) in the game. The syllabary was shown everywhere in the game, including in many parts you have to pass in order to finish the game. So, its presence is canon, as much as it can be.

A cameo, on the other hand, is a reference to another story that is not hidden, but actually exposed (sometimes, even in the main quest of the game, meaning you will have to see the cameo to finish the game). Arguing that the language is a cameo to TWW could be the case, of course, but only if there was no storyline related to the use of the said language, which is not the case at all. Though we don't know exactly why it was changed, we know that the language (and the writing system, obviously) was changed at some point between OoT and TWW. TWW mentions the language has died and only very few people can speak it. LttP also mentions that the ancient language of the Hylia (implied to have been used during the SW, which, in my timeline, is OoT) is no longer used (btw, the fact that only LttP and TWW have an old language dying as part of their storylines serves as evidence that LttP has always been supposed to come after TWW). So, there is too much storyline involved to the language to just disconsider it as non-important, as many people claim for it to be.

2. The lack of the word "Hylian":

As we all know, the Hylia (or the Hylians, sometimes) are a tribe of humans (hylians are humans, as proven in TP) that inhabited the plains of Hyrule, aka "Hyrule Field" (this is written i the hylian text in the introduction of TWW), in the pre-flooded Hyrule and in the CT. In OoT, members of that tribe are called hylians all the time. In TP, though Link is referred to as human several times, the word hylian is also used several times during the game. Now, an interesting fact is that TMC does not use the word "hylian" any time during the events of the game. This is a good connection to another zelda game: LttP. If you remember well, in LttP, we hear that the Hylia are an extinct people. Some characters (like Link and Zelda, for example) descend from the hylians, but it is stated as a fact that, by the time of LttP, the hylian tribe is no longer. LttP only refers to the inhabitants of Hyrule as "Hyrulians" (sometimes referred to as "Hyruleans"), or "Humans", just as the people are referred to in TMC.

So, we have TMC coming between OoT and LttP, as the hylians cease to exist as a tribe before LttP and are depicted as such in TMC. But what does that have to do with TWW? Pretty simple, TWW gives us a reason to why the Hylians are no longer a tribe: the flood. The Great Flood dispersed the hylian people. They spread all over the Great Sea and colonized several islands, maybe even breeding with other human tribes to create even new populations. So they are no longer one single tribe, though they are still ethnic hylians (they are still referred to as "Hylians" in TWW). I can give several RL examples to elp people understand what I mean here. For example, most Germans descend from Prussians, but they are not Prussians, as the Kingdom of Prussia no longer exists (not even as a part of Germany, as Prussia used to be located where Poland is now). Another good example is that, even though many Lebanese people have phoenician blood in their veins, they are not phoenician, as that people is considered extinc (again, as a tribe/nation, not as an ancestral ethnicity) now. It is the same case in LttP, some Hyrulians (like Link, Zelda etc.) have hylian ancestry, but are not hylians, as the old hylian tribe spread and merged with other human populations, as shown in TWW (I'd even go as far as saying that the new "Hyrulian" people, from LttP and TMC, are actually one of the new tribes formed by the mixture of the hylians with other native populations, like the Wind Tribe, for example). In TMC, we see that the Hylians are no longer a human tribe. Therefore it should come between TWW and LttP.

Now, with the two reasons I gave (the language and the tribe), I have to say that TMC is one of the three games (the other 2 being FS and FSA, which, together with TMC form the FS subseries or FS saga, abbreviated FSS) that serves as bridges (or as one single bridge) connecting TWW to LttP. Another interesting case for bridge games is OoX, which serves as a perfect bridge between LttP/LA and LoZ/AoL, but this is a different annalysis, so I'll leave it for another time. So, for the reasons I cited above, the timeline I follow has TMC after TWW/PH and goes as follows:
...../-TWW/PH-FSS-LttP/LA-OoX-LoZ/AoL
OoT
.....\MM-TP

[MrMosley]

I know I did this is the past alredy, but now I do not and will never consider cameos (the three oracles in TMC, for example), easter eggs (the hidden text reading "Triumph Forks" written in the books in TMC, for example) or non-important designs (background images, for example) as valid timeline indicators. Also, I do not consider that hypothetical intent indicators that have never been confirmed (i.e. TMC Link having to be the first because it was the first time a hero got a hat) valid unless those are proven to have been added by the developers.

I pretty much agree. Even though I go with Timeline A, even if I went with C I would want to put MC--FS/FSA, just because it is its own little saga amongst the rest of everything else. To me it shows that no matter which timeline you choose, the Four Swords games act as a unit. They really don't have any important plot elements to them that have to make anything come in between them.

[sign of table]

2. The lack of the word "Hylian": Just want to note here that LttP directly states that the Hyrule of LttP was the land inhabited by the Hylians. So the lack of Hylians in other games isn't really proof because the old Hylians were in Hyrule, anyway.

Also, I do not consider that hypothetical intent indicators that have never been confirmed (i.e. TMC Link having to be the first because it was the first time a hero got a hat) valid unless those are proven to have been added by the developers. Bill Trinen says "Hi"

Just because intent is partially hypothetical doesn't mean it isn't intent. Remember, this is about finding the intended timeline, not the easter egg/random evidence and loopholes timeline.


----TWW/PH
OoT
----MM-TP-FS/FSA-LttP-LoZ/AoL-OoX

That timeline is the best CT timeline I've seen. Even though it has its problems (the Triforce between TP and LttP) the AT has those problems, too (the Triforce between TWW and what ever game goes after that in an AT timeline). But it doesn't have other problems of the AT timeline (The MS drowning forever with Hyrule, Daphnes' speech saying that the new land won't be Hyrule, the absolute impossibility that the new Hyrule is identical to the old Hyrule in both names and traditions; which is something that Link and Tetra couldn't have ever found out, the hoops that have to be jumped through to make OoT as the Seal War are really unecesary (sp?) just so the timeline has 2 pieces of proof).

While having 2 of its own problems which, imo, don't mean anything (FSA being an island which was either 1) retconned by TMC, or 2) Because FSA beta was clearly meant to take place on the CT before and was an island during the beta then FSA still being an island is like that for nothing more than artistic reasons. And the type of text used in a made-up language in TMC (which appeared in OoT is a few spots, as well. So if TMC is first it really doesn't matter at all) which I think is just because it was the most recently used text so they were just being lazy.)

[Smertios]

Just want to note here that LttP directly states that the Hyrule of LttP was the land inhabited by the Hylians. So the lack of Hylians in other games isn't really proof because the old Hylians were in Hyrule, anyway.

That made no sense :S Or at least i didn't get your point.

LttP clearly states that the words 'Hyrule' and 'Hylia' have the same common root. It never says anything about Hyrule being the land inhabited by Hylians. Just that the nation name was based on the name of the hylian tribe.

And it is stated in the game that the Hylia are extinct so...


Bill Trinen says "Hi"

I'm pretty sure I said developer...


Just because intent is partially hypothetical doesn't mean it isn't intent. Remember, this is about finding the intended timeline, not the easter egg/random evidence and loopholes timeline.

There is no such thing as partially hypothetical :P
There is nothing about the hat saying that no other similar hat had been used before. And in the interviews that came after TMC no developer has ever stated that the hat was added to show that TMC is first.



----TWW/PH
OoT
----MM-TP-FS/FSA-LttP-LoZ/AoL-OoX

Where is TMC? And LA?


That timeline is the best CT timeline I've seen. Even though it has its problems (the Triforce between TP and LttP) the AT has those problems, too (the Triforce between TWW and what ever game goes after that in an AT timeline).



But it doesn't have other problems of the AT timeline (The MS drowning forever with Hyrule,

I agree there, even though I don't think the MS is important to the storyline at all. We just know that it was there for OoT-TWW and it was also there for LttP.


Daphnes' speech saying that the new land won't be Hyrule,

You are taking that out of context the same way people do with the "MS sleeps forever" quote from LttP. It was just a symbolic speech. He meant that no new land would be like the old one. My dog could die (and god forbids it happens so soon) and I could replace it with another dog. I can even get one from the very same breed and put the same name. It doesn't matter what I do, it won't be the same dog. No new land was going to be the same after Hyrule had been destroyed.




the absolute impossibility that the new Hyrule is identical to the old Hyrule in both names and traditions;

Identical? Where did you get that from?

Let's annalyse:

1.
Hyrule is a confederacy of several tribes (Hylians, Gorons, Zoras, Gerudo, Sheikah, Kokiri) in OoT
Hyrule is a centralized kingom composed of a single human nation in LttP

2.
The largest population of Hyrule in OoT are the Hylians, or the tribe that lived in the plains.
In LttP, the Hylians are long extinct and the human population of Hyrule are called just Hyruleans.

1.
In OoT, the language of Hyrule is the (old) Hylian language.
In LttP, the ancient language of the Hylia is said to be dead for a long time, and a new one have arisen.

Except for the name and geography, the two states are completely different.

And the same name means nothing. If new hyrule was, in fact, started by Tetra, it could have easily been named after the Royal Family (we know that their last name is "Hyrule" from either TMC or TWW - don't remember which of them :P)...


which is something that Link and Tetra couldn't have ever found out,

Find? They founded the new land. They didn't have to discover and colonize it...


the hoops that have to be jumped through to make OoT as the Seal War are really unecesary (sp?) just so the timeline has 2 pieces of proof).

OoT has been confirmed to be the SW. That's intent. The hat isn't :P


While having 2 of its own problems which, imo, don't mean anything (FSA being an island which was either 1) retconned by TMC, or 2) Because FSA beta was clearly meant to take place on the CT before and was an island during the beta then FSA still being an island is like that for nothing more than artistic reasons.

So, an island-based nation in a timeline that actually has the formation of an ocean as an important part of the plot of the story is not good enough to show intent but a hat that has no connections to the storyline of the game is?


And the type of text used in a made-up language in TMC (which appeared in OoT is a few spots, as well. So if TMC is first it really doesn't matter at all)

Did you read what I said? The few examples of text seen in written with that writing system in OoT and TP are an easter egg and a cameo, respectively. They should be disconsidered.


which I think is just because it was the most recently used text so they were just being lazy.)

Could be he case, if there wasn't an actual plot device connecting LttP to OoT-TWW through the language...

[sign of table]

I only have time right now to respond to one thing but I'll be back...
LttP clearly states that the words 'Hyrule' and 'Hylia' have the same common root. It never says anything about Hyrule being the land inhabited by Hylians. Just that the nation name was based on the name of the hylian tribe.

And it is stated in the game that the Hylia are extinct so... ORLY?

Long before now, a people called the Hylians prospered in this land...
There is nothing about the hat saying that no other similar hat had been used before. And in the interviews that came after TMC no developer has ever stated that the hat was added to show that TMC is first. No developer. But Bill Trinen thought it note-worthy to say. It isn't something that just fans have thought of. It's a very symbolic scene, anyway.
Where is TMC? And LA? Unplaced. Leaning towards TMC being first and LA is completely neutral.
You are taking that out of context the same way people do with the "MS sleeps forever" quote from LttP. It was just a symbolic speech. He meant that no new land would be like the old one. My dog could die (and god forbids it happens so soon) and I could replace it with another dog. I can even get one from the very same breed and put the same name. It doesn't matter what I do, it won't be the same dog. No new land was going to be the same after Hyrule had been destroyed. But in the context of telling everyone to forget and move on from Hyrule there's only one way it's supposed to be interpretated, imo, anyway...
dentical? Where did you get that from?

Let's annalyse:

1.
Hyrule is a confederacy of several tribes (Hylians, Gorons, Zoras, Gerudo, Sheikah, Kokiri) in OoT
Hyrule is a centralized kingom composed of a single human nation in LttP

2.
The largest population of Hyrule in OoT are the Hylians, or the tribe that lived in the plains.
In LttP, the Hylians are long extinct and the human population of Hyrule are called just Hyruleans.

1.
In OoT, the language of Hyrule is the (old) Hylian language.
In LttP, the ancient language of the Hylia is said to be dead for a long time, and a new one have arisen.

Except for the name and geography, the two states are completely different.

And the same name means nothing. If new hyrule was, in fact, started by Tetra, it could have easily been named after the Royal Family (we know that their last name is "Hyrule" from either TMC or TWW - don't remember which of them )... 1. Kinda, but TMC, OoX, and FSA show more races and such. LttP isn't the only one that matters.

2. LttP also says that the Hylians lived in the very same Hyrule that they are in now. And I'm pretty sure there are Hylians in OoX, but I'm not completely sure.

(I think you meant 3....) A new one have?!?!! Do you mean "has"? :P But people still know the old language and there was a book for such languages in LttP. No book existed in TWW as only deities knew the old language.

Yeah, I guess all the same names of an old land (example: Kakariko) that drowned forever in-which no one remembers makes sense.
Find? They founded the new land. They didn't have to discover and colonize it... That's even worse as they are the only ones who had any knowledge of old Hyrule.
OoT has been confirmed to be the SW. That's intent. The hat isn't 11 years ago. Before TWW and FSA came and raped it. Now believing that OoT is the SW means you have to take EVERY SINGLE QUOTE about the sages seal and the SW completely out of context and not how they were intended to be interpreted.
So, an island-based nation in a timeline that actually has the formation of an ocean as an important part of the plot of the story is not good enough to show intent but a hat that has no connections to the storyline of the game is? If FSA was on the CT in its beta (which it most likely was) then the ocean had NOTHING to do with the story. Also, the end of a game sending a symbolic message tends to have more emphasis than a random *** map. Combined with the ending quote saying it's the end of Link's first adventure it makes perfect sense. If you interpret the quotes in that way, anyway. It's just such an origin story it makes sense to be first.
Did you read what I said? The few examples of text seen in written with that writing system in OoT and TP are an easter egg and a cameo, respectively. They should be disconsidered. I think all text shouldn't be considered. It has nothing to do with the storyline, at all. The developers were just lazy.
Could be he case, if there wasn't an actual plot device connecting LttP to OoT-TWW through the language... You mean the book left by the Hylians IN THE LAND OF HYRULE WHICH IS THE SAME DAMN LAND THAT THE HYLIANS LIVED IN?

[Smertios]

I only have time right now to respond to one thing but I'll be back... ORLY?

Sorry, I meant to say that there is nothing about Hyrule being called so because it is the land inhabited by hylians. My mistake :P


No developer. But Bill Trinen thought it note-worthy to say. It isn't something that just fans have thought of. It's a very symbolic scene, anyway.

Still, that was his opinion. He didn't write the story of the game...


Unplaced. Leaning towards TMC being first and LA is completely neutral.

I see. Weren't you the one who posted a link that proved LA came after LttP?


But in the context of telling everyone to forget and move on from Hyrule there's only one way it's supposed to be interpretated, imo, anyway...

But he is telling that only to Link and Zelda -.-


1. Kinda, but TMC, OoX, and FSA show more races and such. LttP isn't the only one that matters.

Well, yes. OoX isn't in Hyrule, so it doesn't really matter :P
TMC shows gorons in extinction, and everyone else is human (the picori are an exception, of course, as they are clearly not under the jurisdiction of the kingdom of Hyrule). This leads perfectly into LttP, where there are no gorons...

FSA shows two desert tribes besides the hylians only, if i'm not mistaken, and they are both human, so it's not a big problem. Anyway, they could still be there in LttP, as I doubt the desert is only that small, like, in OoT, the desert was a lot bigger too, but we could get to see only part of it...


2. LttP also says that the Hylians lived in the very same Hyrule that they are in now.

Yes, as I said, LttP comes after TWW, and there are hylians in TWW too :P


And I'm pretty sure there are Hylians in OoX, but I'm not completely sure.

Well, I don't remember that name having been mentioned there. Also, OoX is not set in Hyrule...


(I think you meant 3....)

lol
the numbers don't really matter :P but yes, i meant 3 :P


A new one have?!?!! Do you mean "has"? :P

Too much SVB day to me, sorry :P


But people still know the old language and there was a book for such languages in LttP. No book existed in TWW as only deities knew the old language.

Who knows it in LttP?
And what proof do u have that no books survived the flood?


Yeah, I guess all the same names of an old land (example: Kakariko) that drowned forever in-which no one remembers makes sense.

Okay, remember the last Aonuma interview in which he said they recycle the names, but it doesn't mean they are the same places; it is only so old players will be more familiar with the names?

Well, it applies pretty well here :P


That's even worse as they are the only ones who had any knowledge of old Hyrule.

The name of the Royal House is Hyrule. The king was called Daphnes Nohansen Hyrule. Tetra was a descendant of him, therefore her name was also Hyrule.

It makes sense that the new country founded by them had the name of one of the founder. And, actually, the name of the Royal House that ruled over it...


11 years ago. Before TWW and FSA came and raped it. Now believing that OoT is the SW means you have to take EVERY SINGLE QUOTE about the sages seal and the SW completely out of context and not how they were intended to be interpreted.

Well, yes. But that's what I call retcon. There has never been any indication from the devs that they gave up on the idea of Oot being the SW. And no game fits it better than OoT, so I still believe OoT is the war...


If FSA was on the CT in its beta (which it most likely was)

You failed to provide proof that FSA was meant to be a CT game in beta.


then the ocean had NOTHING to do with the story.

Still, we never saw any ocean or sea present in Hyrule in the games that have been confirmed to be in the CT. Why would they make an island-based game to be on the CT if the only known ocean existed only in the AT??

I mean, if they wanted an ocean in the CT, why not add one in TP? All we could see was mountains and forests to all sides...


Also, the end of a game sending a symbolic message tends to have more emphasis than a random *** map.

Yes, but not if you take the quote out of context. He wasn't forbidding Tetra and Link to found a new kingdom and name it hyrule. He was just expressing his opinion that it wouldn't be the same...


Combined with the ending quote saying it's the end of Link's first adventure it makes perfect sense.

lol
OoT is Link's first adventure.
LoZ is Link's first adventure.
LttP is Link's first adventure.
TWW was Link's first dventure.
FS was Link's first adventure.
TP was Link's first adventure.

And of course, TMC is Link's first adventure. You are just forgetting that there are multiple Links.

They added that quote for the context of THAT specific game. If they ever wanted to make a TMC sequel, it would fit pretty well. Don't take the quote out of context :P


If you interpret the quotes in that way, anyway. It's just such an origin story it makes sense to be first.

Well, then why make it completely different than how Hyrule was before OoT?


I think all text shouldn't be considered. It has nothing to do with the storyline, at all. The developers were just lazy.

Well, if it wasn't for TWW (which is a game extremely similar to TMC) and LttP having the language as part of the storyline, I would agree with you...


You mean the book left by the Hylians IN THE LAND OF HYRULE WHICH IS THE SAME DAMN LAND THAT THE HYLIANS LIVED IN?

Yes, what's the problem with that?
i think you are misunderstanding something about my theory, but i'm not sure what it is...

[sign of table]

Sorry, I meant to say that there is nothing about Hyrule being called so because it is the land inhabited by hylians. My mistake So how did the Hylians of OoT inhabit the Hyrule of LttP if they went extinct in TWW?
Still, that was his opinion. He didn't write the story of the game... Sure, and I'm not inclined to believe what he says, or his translations say, about the timeline, anyway.
I see. Weren't you the one who posted a link that proved LA came after LttP? Actually, ironically, I found that link in Impossible's timeline document. But as The Goron Moron pointed out they never update those pages and it's likely that it was made before OoX came out.
But he is telling that only to Link and Zelda You get my point, however.
Well, yes. OoX isn't in Hyrule, so it doesn't really matter
TMC shows gorons in extinction, and everyone else is human (the picori are an exception, of course, as they are clearly not under the jurisdiction of the kingdom of Hyrule). This leads perfectly into LttP, where there are no gorons...

FSA shows two desert tribes besides the hylians only, if i'm not mistaken, and they are both human, so it's not a big problem. Anyway, they could still be there in LttP, as I doubt the desert is only that small, like, in OoT, the desert was a lot bigger too, but we could get to see only part of it... TMC would lead perfectly into LttP... if it didn't already lead into FSA which has plenty of Gorons.
Yes, as I said, LttP comes after TWW, and there are hylians in TWW too There may be people with Hylian blood. But how many people in TWW call themselves Hylians? Much-less how many people do you think will call themselves Hylians hundreds of years later in new Hyrule? The story already implies (I'm saying implies because some people (Lex) will say that because it doesn't OUT-RIGHT say it it doesn't matter. Even though there's no reason to believe anything else and no writer in their write (lolbadpun) mind would create so many implications that aren't actually implications and be intending for something else without giving any reason for anyone to think that.) that the knights of Hyrule lived in the existing Hyrule... it pretty much already says it as, you know, THERE'S ONLY ONE HYRULE IN THE ENTIRE GAME.... There's no god damn reason to think that they're referring to the old Hyrule when talking about the knights of Hyrule.
Well, I don't remember that name having been mentioned there. Also, OoX is not set in Hyrule... The existence of Hylians is all that matters.
Who knows it in LttP?
And what proof do u have that no books survived the flood? No one but a random book knows it in LttP.

Common sense. Water + paper = wet, useless, unreadable paper. Common sense > fanfic. What proof do you have that books survived the flood?
Okay, remember the last Aonuma interview in which he said they recycle the names, but it doesn't mean they are the same places; it is only so old players will be more familiar with the names?

Well, it applies pretty well here And you know that other interview that AT people tend to throw in my face as if it matters? You know the one which mentions the places in AoL as story indicators?

You know what's interesting about TMC? They don't show Death Mountain. It's clearly the same mountain as FSA, but it isn't called Death Mountain. Isn't it odd that there'd be a Death Mountain. Then a big *** flood. Then another new important mountain. Then the same mountain being renamed Death Mountain? Isn't that just a little too far'fetched for you? Oh wait, I forgot you place games after TWW/PH :P
Yes, but not if you take the quote out of context. He wasn't forbidding Tetra and Link to found a new kingdom and name it hyrule. He was just expressing his opinion that it wouldn't be the same... So you're saying that if we take the quote out of context it'll be what you said? Exactly. And looking at the context of the game it's clear that ISN'T what he was saying. The entire game and ending is all about forgetting, moving on, and living for the future. Daphnes clearly didn't want them to go make a brand new Hyrule.
You failed to provide proof that FSA was meant to be a CT game in beta. Old Hylian was clearly forgotten after TWW. If FSA was on the AT the languages would make no sense what-so-ever. (And guess what? Those languages actually have a mention and aren't contextless random text that the developers made up and reused.
Well, yes. But that's what I call retcon. There has never been any indication from the devs that they gave up on the idea of Oot being the SW. And no game fits it better than OoT, so I still believe OoT is the war... In what way does OoT actually fit? It doesn't fit at all. The developers made a really crappy Seal War. Absolutely NOTHING about the SW (especially since the GBA version) fits OoT except for the existence of 7 sages. Plus the fact that when you actually look at it the way it was meant to be looked at it's clear that it's impossible now because of TWW and FSA.
Still, we never saw any ocean or sea present in Hyrule in the games that have been confirmed to be in the CT. Why would they make an island-based game to be on the CT if the only known ocean existed only in the AT??

I mean, if they wanted an ocean in the CT, why not add one in TP? All we could see was mountains and forests to all sides... There were oceans in AoL, which, I assume you know, came out before TWW and the flood. The existence of oceans means absolutely nothing.
lol
OoT is Link's first adventure.
LoZ is Link's first adventure.
LttP is Link's first adventure.
TWW was Link's first dventure.
FS was Link's first adventure.
TP was Link's first adventure.

And of course, TMC is Link's first adventure. You are just forgetting that there are multiple Links. The quote is just as easily translated as the first adventure of Link. Now tell me, doesn't that sound more like it's referring to Link as a whole?
Well, then why make it completely different than how Hyrule was before OoT? It isn't completely different. See this is where I most likely disagree with you a lot. It's way too damn similar to OoT to take place after a flood and everything about OoT being forgotten. It's different, yes, but it the naming of Mount Crenel also only makes sense with TMC as the first game.


Well, if it wasn't for TWW (which is a game extremely similar to TMC) and LttP having the language as part of the storyline, I would agree with you... TWW doesn't really make the language as part of the story. It's just a language that old deities speak.

Now look at it this way. Which is a simpler, and therefore better, assumption: The only things we see speaking the language are old deities who lived before the flood. From this we can conclude that the language is pretty much forgotten.

Or: Even though we see that only deities who lived before the flood are speaking the language, and no one mentions the language or shows anything about it except for the old deities there are still people who know how to speak it and books which translate it into new Hylian are still made.

The former is the one that the games show. The latter makes no sense at all.
Yes, what's the problem with that?
i think you are misunderstanding something about my theory, but i'm not sure what it is... That the only advantage of your timeline about that is that the Hylians and their language were destroyed in the flood. Which couldn't have happened because the Hylians and their language existed on LttP Hyrule.

[Halo siera 117]

here is what I think alttp-mc-fs-fsa-loz-aol oot-mm-tp ww-ph-st i think there are 3 diffrent timelines

[HeroofAges]

My biggest problem is with the placement of TP in the child timeline.. Check my post on these forums for my rational why this can not be the case.
http://http://zeldadungeon.net/forum/showthread.php?t=4444