Daily Debate: In Retrospect, Did Nintendo Do Right With the Zelda Timeline?

Nintendo recently updated the timeline to include A Link Between Worlds and Tri Force Heroes. Of course we already knew where the games went in said timeline, but now we have it fully fleshed out straight from the team in Japan. This brought to light an interesting conversation over the placement of Four Swords Adventures (*Spoiler*due to Ganondorf seemingly being killed in Twilight Princess *End Spoiler*). Over the years there has also been a lot of conversations around the existence of the downfall timeline. While we’ve had numerous conversations in regards to the timeline and we certainly can’t argue against it in terms of what the order is – we can consider if Nintendo really nailed the timeline or if there are still too many faults.

That’s right, I’m bringing the timeline debate back in full circle. In theory, the third split explanation is a bit weird. The hero fails in Ocarina of Time, thus a 3rd split occurs. Yet, if the hero fails, then the original adult timeline never happens. Beyond that, if we’re using the many worlds theory to explain it, than why is it Ocarina of Time? Link can die and/or fail in any of the games. And if that is true, then aren’t their already infinite splits all over the place, they just don’t have games on them yet? This is before we get into the placement of Four Swords Adventures.

Of course, I feel like the third split was a cop out creation because indeed, it was harder to place the classic titles cleaning in a two pronged split timeline. But the thing is, people did find places where they could go that could work. So today the real question I have is – knowing what we know today, did Nintendo do right by the timeline with how they placed games?