A ZD Timeline Project

[MrMosley]

I wasn't talking about the TWW placement itself. That's clear enough. I'm talking about the fact that I didn't see any discussion about games taking place after TWW.

It's a very similar timeline to the one I used to follow (I still think it's quite likely, I just don't place LoZ/AoL-OoX(/LA) because I'm having trouble deciding CT or AT placements). It's not at all that it's a bad timeline. It's that there didn't seem to be any attempts to look at all the different possibilities (such as games on the AT).

Well I mean we could open discussion on that idea. Course that's all up to Caleb of Asui. I think it would be a good idea to keep the thread going; Explore all the possibilities and that is one that hasn't been discussed yet.

However (yes there is a however), when we take a look at some of the games your mentioning (seemingly ALttP-LoZ/AoL), the only thing that could help that argument is the quote from Aonuma about the towns in AoL. Other than that, you have many, many things that connect those games to the CT instead. For instance, the geographical changes of the area around the Master Sword (ToT in OoT...ToT ruins, covered in Lost Woods in TP...Lost Woods in ALttP), which I think is a very good point in placing those games on the CT. You also have certain other geographical features that are present from game to game, such as Kakariko Village, Death Mountain, and Zora's Domain. Then there is also the idea that Spectacle Rock in WW is the same Spectacle Rock we see in LoZ, but in order for that to be possible, Hyrule would have to be un-flooded. Considering there is a lot of water in Hyrule in LoZ/AoL, some would use that as a good argument. But then there would be many that would say Hyrule couldn't be un-flooded for various reasons.

So, the question is, would it help to explore that route? Is there enough information to hold a good argument on it? Maybe. I would like to see. So I think we should open discussion on that possibility, at least so we can look at the possibilities that are there.

 

[sign of table]

^Just to note something ahead of time. Hyrule CANNOT be unflooded. It is one of the few things I'd say is ever impossible and completely literal as Daphnes wished in the NoJ TWW to erase Hyrule.

It's a debate that should happen, though. LoZ/AoL make sense on the AT. As much sense, or more, than on the CT.

I'd say it's a very needed debate, as I've seen none of it on here.

 

[Zemen]

^Just to note something ahead of time. Hyrule CANNOT be unflooded. It is one of the few things I'd say is ever impossible and completely literal as Daphnes wished in the NoJ TWW to erase Hyrule.

It's a debate that should happen, though. LoZ/AoL make sense on the AT. As much sense, or more, than on the CT.

I'd say it's a very needed debate, as I've seen none of it on here.

Well then technically no games should go on the AT with that wish in mind. If he wished for Hyrule to be erased then there can never be another Hyrule which means any game based in Hyrule can't go on the AT and since games that aren't based in Hyrule are connected to games that are based in Hyrule, it's pretty much impossible, if you only look at what Daphnes said.

 

[sign of table]

^He wished for Hyrule to be erased. That in no way prevents a new Hyrule being made, it just prevents the land unflooding.

 

[MrMosley]

^He wished for Hyrule to be erased. That in no way prevents a new Hyrule being made, it just prevents the land unflooding.

First:
How likely is it that there would be the same exact landmarks in a "new" Hyrule as there were in the old one? Death Mountain? Zora's Domain? I mean, sure we know there are those races elsewhere, but not those same exact names for the locations. Link and Tetra knew nothing
about these locations. They knew nothing about old Hyrule. Neither did anyone above, living on the Great Sea, except for Daphnes.

Keeping that in mind, when we look to ALttP, we see many things that are similar to that of OoT. A Kakariko Village, the Lost Woods, Death Mountain, Zora's Domain, Lake Hylia... Daphnes never sat Link or Tetra down and told them the history of Hyrule. And no one above the sea knew anything about it either. So its very unlikely that most of their locations, customs, and names for areas just randomly ended up being close to exactly the same.

Second:
The Master Sword's location gives a big hint to the timleine, I believe. In ALttP, it held the MS. In TP, the MS was still where it had been back in OoT: In the ToT, but now the ToT had fallen apart over time and the "Lost Woods" had began to grow around it/within it. When you put OoT next to TP, then ALttP after, and look at the locations of the MS in each of those, you can clearly see the pattern.

Conclusion:
I don't see how it makes more sense for those games to go on the AT.

 

[Zemen]

^He wished for Hyrule to be erased. That in no way prevents a new Hyrule being made, it just prevents the land unflooding.

Actually that seems to perfectly prevent there from being a new Hyrule. If he wished for old Hyrule to be erased then it's gone. There was no Hyrule left. All of the customs, traditions, artifacts, everything would be gone. Like DL01 said, Link and Tetra know NOTHING about old Hyrule, and with it being wished away they would never know anything about old Hyrule. There is no way that everything just randomly is exactly the same as old Hyrule.

 

[Caleb, Of Asui]

New Discussion 1:
Do Any More Games Fit on the Adult Timeline?
- Current Discussion -
Premises: During the timeline project, only The Wind Waker, Phantom Hourglass, and Spirit Tracks were placed on the Adult Timeline, even though all the later games in the timeline have never been specified to exist in the same continuities by an official source. Perhaps we can divulge some effects of certain timeline aspects (such as The Minish Cap being before the split, thus being able to affect both timelines).

----------------------------------------------------------------------------

There, are you all happy now? Even though this discussion has kind of already started on its own. XP Oh, well... Other discussions like this to keep the thread going actually aren't such a bad idea. I can't guarantee the conjecture of a timeline will change at all, but it can't hurt to analyze some aspects of the timeline.

 

[angelkid]

Well, like DL01 and Zemen are saying, I don't think that there can be ANY games that feature Hyrule on the AT as Hyrule was flooded and none of the remaining occupants of the Great Sea knew enough about Hyrule to be able to model it With the same Land Marks. HOWEVER, there are games that could come after PH. For example, MC. I know that lots of people will argue it comes first on the timeline, and personally I agree with this, it's what I think too. It does make sense though. The only places in MC that were in the original Hyrule was Lake Hylia, Hyrule castle and Hyrule field. Lake Hylia could have just been remembered by an old scholar or someone, and Hyrule castle and Hyrule field, are, I think exactly what you would name your new castle and field in new Hyrule. There are also all the Landmarks such as Castor Wilds, Veil Falls and Mt. Crenel. I have difficulty believing that these could have just disappeared. The geography of MC seriously suggests that it is set in a different land to OoT, TP, ALttP etc.

Other games that could come on the AT would be things such as OoX and LA (though only if it is seperate from ALttP and not considered a direct sequel.) All three of these games feature Link on a boat, and though this isn't really very strong evidence I believe the only time that Link appears in Hyrule in any of these games is at the beginning of OoA I think where Link leaves Hyrule. This could again be the new Hyrule though as it is barely featured at all.

Though I think these are all relatively strong arguments, I still think MC comes first and OoX and LA come on the CT.

 

[Zemen]

Well, like DL01 and Zemen are saying, I don't think that there can be ANY games that feature Hyrule on the AT as Hyrule was flooded and none of the remaining occupants of the Great Sea knew enough about Hyrule to be able to model it With the same Land Marks. HOWEVER, there are games that could come after PH. For example, MC. I know that lots of people will argue it comes first on the timeline, and personally I agree with this, it's what I think too. It does make sense though. The only places in MC that were in the original Hyrule was Lake Hylia, Hyrule castle and Hyrule field. Lake Hylia could have just been remembered by an old scholar or someone, and Hyrule castle and Hyrule field, are, I think exactly what you would name your new castle and field in new Hyrule. There are also all the Landmarks such as Castor Wilds, Veil Falls and Mt. Crenel. I have difficulty believing that these could have just disappeared. The geography of MC seriously suggests that it is set in a different land to OoT, TP, ALttP etc.

Other games that could come on the AT would be things such as OoX and LA (though only if it is seperate from ALttP and not considered a direct sequel.) All three of these games feature Link on a boat, and though this isn't really very strong evidence I believe the only time that Link appears in Hyrule in any of these games is at the beginning of OoA I think where Link leaves Hyrule. This could again be the new Hyrule though as it is barely featured at all.

Though I think these are all relatively strong arguments, I still think MC comes first and OoX and LA come on the CT.

If you were to put MC on the AT then you would also have to put FS, FSA and ALTTP which, with the addition of ALTTP, would be impossible because ALTTP gives a lot history of Hyrule (which we all pretty much agreed that the history of Hyrule is lost on the AT).

 

[angelkid]

Yeah, I didn't really think of that. You're right though. ALttP cannot go on the AT unless Hyrule is magically unflooded which due to Daphnes's wish is not possible.

 

[sign of table]

First:
How likely is it that there would be the same exact landmarks in a "new" Hyrule as there were in the old one? Death Mountain? Zora's Domain? I mean, sure we know there are those races elsewhere, but not those same exact names for the locations. Link and Tetra knew nothing
about these locations. They knew nothing about old Hyrule. Neither did anyone above, living on the Great Sea, except for Daphnes.

Keeping that in mind, when we look to ALttP, we see many things that are similar to that of OoT. A Kakariko Village, the Lost Woods, Death Mountain, Zora's Domain, Lake Hylia... Daphnes never sat Link or Tetra down and told them the history of Hyrule. And no one above the sea knew anything about it either. So its very unlikely that most of their locations, customs, and names for areas just randomly ended up being close to exactly the same.

Second:
The Master Sword's location gives a big hint to the timleine, I believe. In ALttP, it held the MS. In TP, the MS was still where it had been back in OoT: In the ToT, but now the ToT had fallen apart over time and the "Lost Woods" had began to grow around it/within it. When you put OoT next to TP, then ALttP after, and look at the locations of the MS in each of those, you can clearly see the pattern.

Conclusion: I don't see how it makes more sense for those games to go on the AT.

Actually I don't place LttP on the AT for a few of those reasons (and a few more). However games like LoZ/AoL (maybe even OoX) are not affected by those points.

The AoL BS can work on the AT. The towns are named after the sages, according to Aonuma. AoL takes place "after the events of OoT" according to that Aonuma interview last year. Looking at the AoL map (lolgeography... but still) it's clearly very water based.

There really isn't anything hinting towards a CT placement of LoZ/AoL... except a 1991 box, which people from Nintendo have already said was wrong.

Just so you know my kinda stance on the timeline (it's not set at all, but this is what I think to have the most evidence/logic):
----TWW/PH-LoZ/AoL
OoT
----MM-TP-FS/FSA-LttP

With TMC either going before OoT, or after TP. LA going after LttP or OoX. And OoX going after LoZ/AoL or LttP. Mostly leaning towards OoX being after LoZ/AoL (just contemplating how important Twinrova might be). But pretty much completely neutral on LAs and TMCs placement.

 

[MrMosley]

The AoL BS can work on the AT. The towns are named after the sages, according to Aonuma. AoL takes place "after the events of OoT" according to that Aonuma interview last year. Looking at the AoL map (lolgeography... but still) it's clearly very water based.

I pretty much agree with this.

There really isn't anything hinting towards a CT placement of LoZ/AoL... except a 1991 box, which people from Nintendo have already said was wrong.

Well, we already addressed that issue. ALttP works very well as a prequel. Better, in my opinion, than anywhere else. Because it gives Ganon, Hyrule, and the Triforce an origin. Which is what I believe the game was obviously aiming to do.

Anyway, I can understand your logic. I see how LoZ/AoL could work on the AT. But the problem is that LoZ and AoL have very little information to them. They have very little, and confusing, backstories. AoL's in particular basically states two important things: The King of Hyrule ruled with the Triforce, and the original Zelda was put in a sleeping spell, thus every Zelda after her would be named Zelda. And we know, or at least can obviously see, how this wouldn't work taking place before the other games.

But just as much as the AoL BS an fit on the AT, it could fit on the CT just as well. No one knows of this "first-gen Zelda".

~Our Reasonings~

*You, Sign, speculate that she could be the first Zelda of a new Hyrule. I could say that she is a Zelda that was born sometime after OoX. It fits both ways.

*You have Aonuma's quote to go by, where the towns in AoL were named after Sages that ONLY existed on the AT.

*My question for that is, what about the other towns? There was Darunia, Ruto, Rauru, and Nabooru that were relative to the Sages (I don't think I left any out there). First, they completely left out Impa. Then, you had Mido and Kasuto. First, Mido was a small annoying Kokiri kid in OoT who had little to no importance, especially like that of a Sages. And Kasuto has never been mentioned as a character in Zelda before, or anyone else for that matter. So, I'm not saying that these locations were necessarily unimportant altogether, but I think they could have been named after important people from Hyrule's past. That does go against Aonuma's quote, but its an idea at least. Darunia was the leader of the Gorons. Ruto was the princess of the Zora tribe. I don't recall if Nabooru had any major importance of leadership amongst the Gerudo or not. Then Mido was a Kokiri kid. He was, or felt like, he was a leader of sorts amongst that group. Kasuto is out there for me. And Rauru, well I don't know what he did before he was a Sage, but he was the Sage of the Temple of Light, relative to the Temple of Time.

*I have the fact that OoX sets up the BS of AoL better. The Triforce is in Hyrule during and after OoX, as we can see from the intro. That gives us some information to at least know that the Triforce was there; In Hyrule Castle, in fact. That sets up the story perfectly for the king to rule with the Triforce, seeing as how its settin in a castle which he controls, in a land that he has dominion over. On your side, all this could happen sometime after WW/PH, but on my side, we actually see parts of it happening already on the CT.

*You have the fact that AoL's version of Hyrule is greatly water-based. NOT meaning that Hyrule was un-flooded, because you too believe that this cannot happen, but because it was likely that the new Hyrule was found on another island or group of islands which would, of course, be surrounded by a lot of water.

*My geographical points look to landmarks in LoZ/AoL's Hyrule, relative to landmarks present in ALttP, OoT, and TP's Hyrule. Places like Death Mountain are present, as well as Spectacle Rock, a place in Death Mountain that apparently shows up ALttP and I have heard is somewhere in OoT or TP as well. Spectacle Rock, of course, shows up in LoZ/AoL's Hyrule as well. Now I have never heard of the location in ALttP being referred to as THE Spectacle Rock, and I have never seen a location that would be Spectacle Rock in OoT or TP (I read this info on Zelda Wiki), but I do have the fact that it is very well known in LoZ.

~Then, in WW, you have Spectacle Island, which is quite obviously the tips of Spectacle Rock, which we seen in LoZ. And again, I will go back to the idea before, which was that anyone who made it to new Hyrule would have little to no information about the old Hyrule, especially the specific names of its landmarks. Thus, it is VERY unlikely that the new Hyrule would have a location called Death Mountain. It is even more unlikely that a specific spot in this location would be named Spectacle Rock in a new land. Since it is obvious that Spectacle Island is part of Spectacle Rock in old Hyrule, which is now flooded and gone, it makes it very difficult to believe the same location could show up and be named the same in a new Hyrule.

 

[sign of table]

Well, we already addressed that issue. ALttP works very well as a prequel. Better, in my opinion, than anywhere else. Because it gives Ganon, Hyrule, and the Triforce an origin. Which is what I believe the game was obviously aiming to do.

Ganon is killed. The Hyrule thing is a point. Might need to wait for STs release to be positive on that one (I'm not saying that ST has any REAL place in this argument. Just noting that it shows that Nintendo isn't against the idea of a new Hyrule)

But there isn't anything preventing a new Hyrule. And the Triforce is given an origin by OoT anyway.

But just as much as the AoL BS an fit on the AT, it could fit on the CT just as well. No one knows of this "first-gen Zelda".

You're saying royalty is wrong on who the Zelda is, and why everyone else is called Zelda?

There actually IS an explanation that works on the CT. It just requires a certain interpretation on the texts that I find unlikely. I wanna see if you can figure it out on your own

First, they completely left out Impa.

It'd be pretty wierd if there was an Impa town and an alive Impa (remember, the old lady who tells you the story is called Impa).

*My question for that is, what about the other towns? There was Darunia, Ruto, Rauru, and Nabooru that were relative to the Sages (I don't think I left any out there). First, they completely left out Impa. Then, you had Mido and Kasuto. First, Mido was a small annoying Kokiri kid in OoT who had little to no importance, especially like that of a Sages. And Kasuto has never been mentioned as a character in Zelda before, or anyone else for that matter. So, I'm not saying that these locations were necessarily unimportant altogether, but I think they could have been named after important people from Hyrule's past. That does go against Aonuma's quote, but its an idea at least. Darunia was the leader of the Gorons. Ruto was the princess of the Zora tribe. I don't recall if Nabooru had any major importance of leadership amongst the Gerudo or not. Then Mido was a Kokiri kid. He was, or felt like, he was a leader of sorts amongst that group. Kasuto is out there for me. And Rauru, well I don't know what he did before he was a Sage, but he was the Sage of the Temple of Light, relative to the Temple of Time.

2 things: 1) I can understand taking what Miyamoto says with a grain of salt, I used to. But you're saying that the Aonuma quote from less than a year ago (like 10 months ago) is wrong. Trying to come up with in-game evidence against his 10 months old quote is just pointless, imo. It'd be like trying to disprove the split timeline (which, funnily enough, is only supported by developer quotes. There's actually a quote in TWW which is evidence AGAINST the split timeline).

*I have the fact that OoX sets up the BS of AoL better. The Triforce is in Hyrule during and after OoX, as we can see from the intro. That gives us some information to at least know that the Triforce was there; In Hyrule Castle, in fact. That sets up the story perfectly for the king to rule with the Triforce, seeing as how its settin in a castle which he controls, in a land that he has dominion over. On your side, all this could happen sometime after WW/PH, but on my side, we actually see parts of it happening already on the CT.

The Triforce is seen flying away from Hyrule at the end of OoX, by the way. I'm actually unsure what your timeline is, so I can't really follow up on this until I know

*My geographical points look to landmarks in LoZ/AoL's Hyrule, relative to landmarks present in ALttP, OoT, and TP's Hyrule. Places like Death Mountain are present, as well as Spectacle Rock, a place in Death Mountain that apparently shows up ALttP and I have heard is somewhere in OoT or TP as well. Spectacle Rock, of course, shows up in LoZ/AoL's Hyrule as well. Now I have never heard of the location in ALttP being referred to as THE Spectacle Rock, and I have never seen a location that would be Spectacle Rock in OoT or TP (I read this info on Zelda Wiki), but I do have the fact that it is very well known in LoZ.

It's Hebra mountain in the Japanese version. Death Mountain in the Japanese version of LttP is ONLY in the Dark World.

Meh one rock that looks similar. I could argue OoT-LttP based purely off of geography (since the maps look damn near identical). Or even OoX/LA (Holodrum is scarily similar to Koholint). I really, really dislike geography. Anyone from ZU who knows me knows I hate geography used as evidence. It's so literal, and so based off of original intent.

~Then, in WW, you have Spectacle Island, which is quite obviously the tips of Spectacle Rock, which we seen in LoZ. And again, I will go back to the idea before, which was that anyone who made it to new Hyrule would have little to no information about the old Hyrule, especially the specific names of its landmarks. Thus, it is VERY unlikely that the new Hyrule would have a location called Death Mountain. It is even more unlikely that a specific spot in this location would be named Spectacle Rock in a new land. Since it is obvious that Spectacle Island is part of Spectacle Rock in old Hyrule, which is now flooded and gone, it makes it very difficult to believe the same location could show up and be named the same in a new Hyrule.

Death Mountain was only in the Dark World of LttP (and OoT, but you think it went OoT-LttP-LoZ originally. Which would've made just as little sense (Death Mountain > Hebra Mountain > Death Mountain again for utterly no reason). Geography is pointless, imo. It's one of my few opinions that has never changed.

So it's:

Spectacle Rock (lolgeography)
vs
Oceany land (lolgeography)
The AoL BS working in full
A quote from Aonuma saying that the town names are named after the sages
And in that same interview saying that AoL takes place "after the events of OoT". The only events that really happened in OoT was the AT version.

 

[MrMosley]

But you are completely ignoring the name deal, Sign. I'm not necessarily talking about Spectacle Rock or Death Mountain in ALttP; I'm talking about it in LoZ.

When you look at WW, Spectacle Island was obviously based off of Spectacle Rock, which is in LoZ. This was located in Death Mountain, in LoZ. The island's look, and the fact that WW's islands were said to be the "mountain" tops of the places in Hyrule, without a doubt mean that this island was the tip of that location. I personally don't like using geography either, as far as saying "well this lake is here in this game and now its here and that's impossible so...". But when your talking about two places with similar names and a reason for them being the same exact location, then you have something to go on.

So obviously, if Hyrule was flooded in WW (which it was), the top of Spectacle Rock would now be Spectacle Island (which it is). This is not necessarily a "small" thing, because Nintendo themselves named it that for a reason, an obvious one. These locations are one in the same, and LoZ cannot come after WW in a new place when you have a location that virtually couldn't exist twice, with the same name, in a new land, AND because Hyrule is flooded. Them naming that island was basically saying "Okay, lets show that this familiar location is now where this island is." And that is just as good of a piece of evidence showing Hyrule in LoZ is gone in WW as a quote from Aonuma saying that the towns were named after a few Sages, in my opinion. Because whether we actually heard Aonuma say that they named Spectacle Island after Spectacle Rock or not, we obviously know that's why it was done.

 

[sign of table]

^Then would you say that TWW referencing things that happened in MM is evidence enough to disprove the split timeline?

Also, I don't recall the quote in TWW saying that the islands are Hyrule's mountaintops. Can you show me the quote?

Frankly, though, I don't give a damn about geography. It's so literal, it just doesn't work. And it changes so often it's impossible to make a good geographic comparison. And it has NOTHING at all to do with the story of the game.

Also, if names of islands and such are oh-so very important, what about the Maze Island in PH? Remember, there's a maze island in AoL.