The Evolution of the Timeline Debate

[Caleb, Of Asui]

I've read a few things concerning how the timeline debate started, and I gather that the way that Ocarina of Time seemed to connect to A Link to the Past when it came out got Zelda fans to start debating the timeline. I had to wonder what exactly the argument was over at this point, though. The only possible timeline I could see at that point was:

OoT--LttP/LA--LoZ/AoL

I'm sure that there was some confusion over the Miyamoto Order (and there still is), but that seemed like a weak excuse for starting the timeline debate. Then, while watching someone's timeline video on YouTube, they mentioned an old theory known as the Single Link Theory, which was disproven by The Wind Waker.

At this point, I noticed a pattern. Ocarina of Time started the argument over one Link vs. many Links. The Wind Waker ended that argument, but started a new argument concerning a single timeline vs. a split timeline. Twilight Princess and a subsequent interview solved this argument, but seemed to break this pattern because it didn't introduce a new argument. From my understanding, a lot of Zelda fans were pretty mad about that (though I wasn't particularly active on any Zelda forum at that point). This obviously doesn't mean the end of the timeline debate, since a few placements aren't perfectly clear, and the Miyamoto Order is still a lurking beast.

According to the pattern, every new 3d Zelda title solves the previous major debate and introduces a new major timeline debate topic (not counting Majora's Mask or the DS games, which have 2d gameplay). It seems that Twilight Princess didn't introduce anything, however. Is this correct, or is there a major timeline debate topic I forgot about? Also, is Zelda Wii, being the next major 3d Zelda title, likely to follow this pattern?

 

[Zeruda]

Hum... well, I didn't notice TP bringing any new argument to the table, but that kinda made me happy... It's nice to have a game and know EXACTLY where it goes, yeah? Because of its placement, there wasn't really anything needed to solve a previous argument. I think that for a while Nintendo was just throwing games out there (mainly handhelds), knowing that they'd have a place in the timeline but not being worried about it at that time.

The only real issues TP introduced was another mashup of the creation story (WTF OOCCA?!) and showing that Ganondorf somehow managed to obtain the Triforce of Power on the Child Timeline despite Link and Zelda taking a different approach to the issue than the one on the Adult Timeline. Really, it seems to me like Nintendo is getting ready for a major overhaul of the overall story- timeline and everything.

Zelda Wii... I dunno, I know the stuff on 2Chan is just rumors, but something inside me wants to believe that this new Zelda Wii games is going to go back to the Hero of Time saga. I'm thinking that they'll end up showing us how Ganondorf managed to get the Triforce of Power on the Child Side... or so I hope. Really, that one and the creation story are the only ones that are in dire need of explanations.

 

[Jesper]

Aaaah... The sweet thing; Theorizing.

Gotta love it.

We can't really know what the next Zelda game may be. It might be the first in the series, the ending, a sequel to MM or TP or whatever. There is no way to tell. Nintendo is the master of secrets.

Some time ago, I posted a post about a possibility of the next DS Zelda being a prequel to Minish Cap. It seemed as a likely idea and whatever. When thinking into it though, the next Zelda can be anything.
There is no way to really tell. You may think like "Ah, this has got to be what Miyamoto is thinking!" But fact is, Miyamoto has done a lot of crazy things.

Think of a moustached italian plumber that runs around in space and jumping on things? Eating mushrooms to get extra powers?

There is no end to creativity. People will think of new ideas all the time. Miyamoto is a perfect example of that. He might have thought of what we are thinking, and probably even started working on it a little bit. But then he stops up and is like "That idea is way better! This idea is on hold for now"

Any rumors saying that it is a sequel to MM, is not sure, not sure at all. As I have said, we don't know anything. It can be whatever.

Sure, it's nice to theorize, but the only thing that will happen is that you will just waste braincells and time on it. There is really no point in theorizing about future Zelda games, other than saying what you would like, what you would think will be in them.

Your theory is interesting and has a nice thought behind it, but the next Zelda can be anything.

 

[Pinecove]

I've read a few things concerning how the timeline debate started, and I gather that the way that Ocarina of Time seemed to connect to A Link to the Past when it came out got Zelda fans to start debating the timeline. I had to wonder what exactly the argument was over at this point, though. The only possible timeline I could see at that point was:

OoT--LttP/LA--LoZ/AoL

I disagree.

I'm sure that there was some confusion over the Miyamoto Order (and there still is), but that seemed like a weak excuse for starting the timeline debate.

More like disagreement.

Then, while watching someone's timeline video on YouTube, they mentioned an old theory known as the Single Link Theory, which was disproven by The Wind Waker.

At this point, I noticed a pattern. Ocarina of Time started the argument over one Link vs. many Links. The Wind Waker ended that argument, but started a new argument concerning a single timeline vs. a split timeline. Twilight Princess and a subsequent interview solved this argument, but seemed to break this pattern because it didn't introduce a new argument. From my understanding, a lot of Zelda fans were pretty mad about that (though I wasn't particularly active on any Zelda forum at that point). This obviously doesn't mean the end of the timeline debate, since a few placements aren't perfectly clear, and the Miyamoto Order is still a lurking beast.

According to the pattern, every new 3d Zelda title solves the previous major debate and introduces a new major timeline debate topic (not counting Majora's Mask or the DS games, which have 2d gameplay). It seems that Twilight Princess didn't introduce anything, however. Is this correct, or is there a major timeline debate topic I forgot about? Also, is Zelda Wii, being the next major 3d Zelda title, likely to follow this pattern?

Not every 3rd Zelda game.

LoZ
AoL
ALttP
LA
OoT
MM
OoS
OoA
FS
TWW
FSA
TMC
TP
PH
ST

I DO however agree that games coming out have solved a major debate.

 

[Caleb, Of Asui]

Pinecove, I think you should elaborate on how you disagree instead of just leaving it at a disagreement. And I said 3d, as in three-dimensional, not 3rd.

It is true that Nintendo (and especially Miyamoto!) can throw anything they want at us in Zelda Wii, though I think it's unlikely that they'll do something other than a direct sequel to Twilight Princess or Majora's Mask. Aside from that, considering my observations with timeline placement, I really don't feel like they're going to make anything that will start a major debate or be hard to place. Since Twilight Princess, all the games have had a clear, set place in the timeline that can't really be debated at all. Unless Zelda Wii features the Link of Ocarina of Time, they're likely to continue adding games to each timeline (i.e. Adult and Child) in chronological order. In that case, the timeline debates will cool down a bit and cover more detailed elements, rather than broad things like multiple Links or the split. If Nintendo is using that kind of trend, I'm sure that's what they want to happen. They expect the debate to cool down and more and more people to agree until, maybe, they won't have to release an official timeline.

 

[sign of table]

Pinecove, I think you should elaborate on how you disagree instead of just leaving it at a disagreement.

I think he's not elaborating because he knows that if he does, he'll derail this whole damn thread with ANOTHER redundant original intent debate that won't accomplish anything...

Oh and TWW introduced another debate topic... the friggin SW debates......

 

[Pinecove]

Since Twilight Princess, all the games have had a clear, set place in the timeline that can't really be debated at all.

No they haven't. the FSS can coem on the AT or the CT or even before OoT, so nothing is set in the timeline besides OoT MM TP TWW PH and ST thankyouverymuch.

I think he's not elaborating because he knows that if he does, he'll derail this whole damn thread with ANOTHER redundant original intent debate that won't accomplish anything...

This is my stance on the original intent.

OoT-ALttP/LA-LoZ/AoL
and
OoT-LoZ/AoL-ALttP/LA

were both possible timelines. One timeline may have required more imagination then the other etc, but they both worked.

Miyamoto came in and said the OoT-LoZ-ALttP order was more correct however.

Miyamoto is the word of god.

The timeline was OoT-LoZ/AoL-ALttP/LA

 

[Caleb, Of Asui]

Thanks for misinterpreting what I said. All the games since Twilight Princess includes the former, Phantom Hourglass, and Spirit Tracks. Those all have a set, non-debatable place in the timeline. The Four Swords games all came out before Twilight Princess, so, according to my statement, yes, they are debatable.

And you seem to be turning this into a thread about the Miyamoto Order. >_> I guess I made the mistake of posting a thread that doesn't lead to much discussion other than noobs criticizing my statements for no good reason. XP

I honestly don't think anyone thought of putting A Link to the Past after The Legend of Zelda until we got the Miyamoto Order. Most good timeline theorists ignore the Miyamoto Order, and while this may appear to be pure ignorance at first glance, it's not. There are many legitimate reasons (and examples :p) that explain why Miyamoto was wrong.

First of all, I think most of the message he was trying to get across was that Ocarina of Time was NOT the Seal War, which was further supported through The Wind Waker and the split timeline. He might have been slightly mistranslated as well, but we don't really know that without the original text (if anyone can provide the original Japanese text and possibly a retranslation/explanation, it would be a big help!). We also know from an Aonuma quote, about Four Swords and Four Swords Adventures being at the beginning of the timeline, that creator quotes aren't always "the word of god," particularly when we can figure out where they made their mistake. Aonuma stated in the same interview that he wasn't absolutely sure about those details because he wasn't involved in the story for Four Swords Adventures. (On that note, it would probably also help to access the entire interview containing the Miyamoto Order.) Honestly, though, if you were to ask Miyamoto about that order, I doubt he would know what you were talking about. He's never mentioned it since, and (according to Zelda Legends) Nintendo of Japan later stated in a video called "Zelda no Video" that A Link to the Past was a prequel to the original (I watched the video with English subs and never noticed that statement, but a part of the video was missing during the segment about A Link to the Past, so the statement might have been there).

I think that's sufficient ranting to disprove the Miyamoto Order. Sorry it's so unorganized. XD

 

[Zemen]

I think that's sufficient ranting to disprove the Miyamoto Order. Sorry it's so unorganized. XD

I think what Pinecove was trying to say is that back in 1991, Miyamoto was right. Piney isn't necessarily saying that this order is correct now, he's saying that at one point in time, it was absolutely correct because the creator said so. Since then we have not had any interviews of Miyamoto confirming his infamous order, but new games and new evidence (like the evidence you presented) suggests that the Miyamoto Order has been retconned.

 

[Pinecove]

Exactly.

At any rate, I'm going to leave this conversation now as I seem to be misinterpreting everything said here.

 

[Caleb, Of Asui]

Wow. You said it in such a harsh way, too. XD I did find an interesting article once about how the Miyamoto Order could have worked at the time, but it has been retconned by previous statements and the following games, so there we have it.

 

[Scythe-of-Chaos]

i think they will make a game where ganon comes through your tv and destroys every other game forcing a restart

 

[Smertios]

Recent discoveries might indicate that the interview in which Miyamoto confirmed the OoT-LoZ/AoL-LttP order might have been mistranslated. So, basically, I'd say the Word of God is not that valid anymore

 

[sign of table]

^I'm so glad that the Miyamoto order as we know it may have never, ever even been stated. Now I can live without thinking that Miyamoto was insane lol.

 

[Smertios]

Pretty much what I thought of. Now we have four arcs confirmed:

OoT---LttP/(LA)-OoX/(LA)---LoZ/AoL

OoT-TWW/PH-ST

OoT/MM-TP

TMC---FS/FSA

Now we just have to figure how they fit in the overall puzzle...