LinksDarkSecret's Zelda Timeline Theory

[LinksDarkSecret]

This is a theory that I spent a lot of time pondering. It is a linear timeline, but it agrees with most of what has been said as official statements.


<object width="560" height="340"><param name="movie" value="http://www.youtube.com/v/xST6E_NKT1E&hl=en&fs=1&"></param><param name="allowFullScreen" value="true"></param><param name="allowscriptaccess" value="always"></param><embed src="http://www.youtube.com/v/xST6E_NKT1E&hl=en&fs=1&" type="application/x-shockwave-flash" allowscriptaccess="always" allowfullscreen="true" width="560" height="340"></embed></object>

I know that it is unlike most timelines, but it is the best I could think of. Also, it has a space for everything except for Zelda wii 2010/2011
It would be a pain to create a picture of this. If you have a youtube account, please comment on the youtube page also!!!:triforce:

[MrMosley]

HTML code doesn't work. You have to post the direct link to the video, and it will show up.

About your timeline...

The split timeline has been confirmed, so making a linear one now doesn't work. You can't place WW and TP in the same timeline. The developers have confirmed that they are parallel to each other on different timeline.

Also, there are certain things about your timeline that don't exactly make sense, like Zelda cloning Hyrule. That can't happen, first of all because it wouldn't exactly make any sense, and second of all because the developers clearly told us that when Zelda sent Link back in time, it created two timelines. When you make a timeline, you have to go by what the developers say, combined with the evidence presented in the game. The developers, since claiming the timeline is split when WW was released, have never went back on this idea.

[LinksDarkSecret]

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xST6E_NKT1E
that is a link to the timeline. Due to two different worlds, it is a split timeline. But they are placed in a single line.
I do not think that we have to agree 100% with what the people who made the games said because there are some quotes that suggests that their official timeline changes with each game. For example, in an interview, the Shigeru Miyamoto himself said
It's not very clear where Link's Awakening fits in--it could be anytime after Ocarina of Time.(zeldawiki, "timeline quotes")
This statement suggests that he did not have a complete timeline at the time. Also, in later "official" timelines, the 2D games were avoided to give place for three 3D games(OoT, WW, TP). Thus, we do not know where the 2D games are anymore except for Phantom Hourglass.

As for the cloning of Hyrule, perhaps Zelda made a parallel Hyrule when she sent Link back in time, and that Hyrule did not have the events of OoT. This created a second timeline. When that Hyrule's time reached that for OoT, it had the similar events happen, except that when the hero took the master sword, he was already ready for it, and did not go foreward in time.

I suggest that it is my timeline ignoring the official statements. And may the (tri)froce be with you.

[MrMosley]

As for the cloning of Hyrule, perhaps Zelda made a parallel Hyrule when she sent Link back in time, and that Hyrule did not have the events of OoT. This created a second timeline. When that Hyrule's time reached that for OoT, it had the similar events happen, except that when the hero took the master sword, he was already ready for it, and did not go foreward in time.

One of the most recent quotes states, stated by Aonuma, said that WW and TP are parallel on the split after OoT. The events of the AT led to WW, and the events of the CT led to TP. They both didn't lead to the same outcome. The Hero of Time never grew up to claim the Master Sword seven years later because Ganondorf was stopped altogether on the CT. So that theory isn't possible.

[angelkid]

"It is universally accepted that Ocarina of Time comes first on the timeline."
Erm... No it isn't... There's ALOT of debate as to which game comes firsty and the most widely accepted and the most likely candidate is MC not OoT.

Also, I dont understand. You say Four Swords must come before OoT because of the 'eye' poster that resembles Vaati in the shooting gallery, but then you place FS and FSA after TP which is stated to take place 100 years after OoT.

You also place WW and TP on the same timeline, when it has been stated by Anouma himself that WW and TP are parallels set on either side of the split timeline.

AoL was originally placed very near the beginning of the timeline as it explained why all the Zelda's are called Zelda. However, this was later retconned as ALttP was intended to be a prequel to AoL and LoZ. There is absolutely no evidence at all to suggest that the prince's brother in AoL will be the antagonist in ST. TP also tells us that 'Impaz' is the last Sheikah (if she is a sheikah) but Impa is a Sheikah, this means the LoZ and AoL cannot come after TP as Impa would be a Sheikah when there should be none left.

MC is placed first because Link get's his hat and previous hero's (AKA the one shown in the stain glass windows in the elemental sanctuary) do not have hats. Anouma has stated that this game comes first and that this is the first time Link has a hat. Also, The hero spoken about in the BS of MC is arguably not a Link, he is a hero of men chosen by the Picori/Minish. Saying 'Long ago' does not mean that it is not first, the hero spoken about in the BS of MC, is not a Link, and even if it is, we have never played a Zelda where you play as a Link chosen by the Picori. Therefore this 'Long ago' means nothing.

[Hayzer]

However, this was later retconned as ALttP was intended to be a prequel to AoL and LoZ.

True, but you're forgetting that Miyamoto retconned ALttP being a prequel when he stated the order was this: OoT--LoZ/AoL--ALttP, with LA going anywhere.

What the Master says, goes, kid. You lose your argument when the Miyamoto quote is brought up. Yeah, it was supposed to be a sequel... AT THE TIME. It's a sequel to AoL now. Miyamoto said so, therefore, it's truth.