General Zelda The Introduction of Another Timeline

[Doc]

One of the many things that make Ocarina of Time so important to Zelda is that this is a point in the Zeldaverse where a time split occurred. While people had theorized that there were two timelines, Hyrule Historia came and introduced to the fans a third timeline, the defeated timeline. People have complained that this was a cop out and didn't like it, however it seems as though it has been accepted by now.

Now, with the information of the timelines, the question with every new Zelda title is "Which timeline?" I was just thinking what if Nintendo created another timeline split (one that doesn't necessarily split at the same time as the other, it can happen anywhere in the series). Would you be against this or for it? And where would you want it to occur?

 

[Jamie]

No more defeated timelines please. It's fitting in OoT because there are backstories where Ganon took over, and OoT is the main game where everything branches off of, but if there is another split, I don't really care where as long as there's only one defeated timeline.

 

[ihateghirahim]

I think a lot of people are sick of this mess of a timeline and want some bloody coherent story telling.

 

[JuicieJ]

"Hey, you know that timeline that has a dual split, making it have three separate branches? Yeah, let's add ANOTHER split in to make it four! MORE CONFUSION FTW!!!1!"

Satire aside, the answer is no. It's a cluster**** enough as it is.

 

[Deleted member 14134]

I could honestly care less about the timeline, I play Zelda for the gameplay, not the story. I enjoy the nod's and references to past games but I think people make too big of a deal and too much energy into the timeline. Zelda fans put more thought into the story than Nintendo does.

 

[Spiritual Mask Salesman]

Well I have learned to accept the hero fails timeline but its still a bit sketchy to me. To assume that a game has an alternate time split were the hero fails should mean that every game should have a similiar alternate time split were the hero fails. It just confused things. If anything I think they need to build off what we already have for now.

 

[Salem]

You know what? Let them add one more timeline split for every new game just for the lolz.

 

[mαrkαsscoρ]

why do i get the feeling nintendo is actually stupid enough to consider this...

 

[Évariste]

While I don't look for much coherence with Zelda, having a sense of coherence between games does add to a sense of grandeur about the franchise. So the discussion on necessary or unnecessary parts of the timeline is good. I may be rationalizing, but I have never had much issue with the existence of a "Defeated" timeline because the world left, by the hero's failure in Ocarina of Time, is real and tangible. Remnants of that world appear in subsequent games in the "Defeated" timeline (spoiler?).

Would I like another split in the timeline? Maybe. The reason I give my opinion on the "Defeated" timeline is that new changes in the timeline's structure would likely come in the same form. Otherwise, the context behind a timeline split would reek too much of Ocarina of Time's ending. So assuming that a timeline split comes similarly as the existing "Defeated" timeline, I think Oracle of Ages might be the best candidate (I haven't played all the games, so maybe a better example exists) due to the existence of a breaking world. But maybe that's a false dichotomy.

On the other hand, I think it would be better to have plots for the next Zelda games be written such that we can assume in timeline discussions that the structure does not change through a timeline split. The discussion would be focused more on how the new plot components affirm the existing ones as opposed to how they affect plots for subsequent games.

 

[Fig]

When you think about it, the Defeated Timeline could have been placed anywhere in the timeline but the reason why Nintendo decided to place this third timeline to take place after Ocarina of Time is because that game already had two perfectly established timelines prior to Hyrule Historia. It is because of the inclusion of a third timeline that make fans question if the timeline could theoretically branch out with two different endings with Link being triumphant in one ending and failed in the other. I believe in the Aonuma Timeline Theory than Hyrule Historia only because there are some flaws with the canon timeline, but that's for another post for another time. I felt that it was rushed which is why there will always be holes in the timeline no matter what the evidence is given to support the idea which game(s) goes in what order and which is the sequel, prequel, etc. of that game and the cycle continues until all the games have been placed into the timeline.

I don't think that Nintendo would implement another timeline simply because it would add more confusion to the already perplexed timeline that fans have been going on about nearly three decades. If anything, the fans are at fault for the concept of the timeline as the Zelda franchise was never meant to have a timeline in the first place. The Zelda games do, however, are meant to be somewhat connected within each game rather loosely but fans simply had the idea that the games should be in a linear/non-linear timeline at the time when Ocarina of Time was the latest installment in the series.