• Welcome to ZD Forums! You must create an account and log in to see and participate in the Shoutbox chat on this main index page.

The Theory of Time: Why People Are Right to Question the Timeline

May 7, 2015
I'll be honest. I was always a strict one-timeliner back in the day. However, I was extremely annoyed at others in that boat because of this weird belief that Hyrule suddenly magically re-appeared out of the ocean... a belief that IMO, negated the King's wish for the children's future in the Wind Waker. In a weird way, Wind Waker was a story about learning to let go of the past, and the idea of Hyrule somehow reappearing cheapened it.

When a certain interview after Twilight Princess canonized the split timeline, I questioned it quite heartily (even though I was internally celebrating that it finally ended the whole unsinking hyrule nonsense). Before TP was released, Miyamoto had said in an interview that TP was between OOT and WW, and I held to that. Was it possible there were internal disagreements in Nintendo?

Due to this, I came to the "no real timeline" conclusion.

So, what changed my mind?

I'll be honest. When many of these games were originally made, I seriously doubt Nintendo had any intention of split timelines. They were simply, as suggested, loosely connecting stories together to set the tone for the current one. No, it's not a Final Fantasy thing...The realm of Hyrule is always the same, whereas JRPG series tend to change planets over and over again. The only one with any real continuity is Star Ocean, which heavily parodies Star Trek, so it can get away with having a consistent universe. You can save "the world" over and over again and have it all tie together with no real issues. (Just assume other planets are involved.)

What changed it for me is that Nintendo is making a definite effort to consolidate and set the timeline in stone. Newer games are feeding off this lore, and the story is starting to feel less chaotic and more intentional. Like in Star Trek where Spock pretty much blew up time, things are different now, even if that wasn't the intention when many of these games were initially made. Whatever the case, the split is the canon *now*.

But feel free to call Nintendo on it if they try saying it was intended to be this way all along. XD


Fuzzy Pickles
Mar 27, 2015
United States
You care to some extent to disregard HH so brashly. Zelda Theorizing bothers you for the mere fact that the release of the Zelda Timeline was fanservice to a sector of the fan-base.

What? Zelda theorizing does not bother me. I disregard the timeline because it doesn't make sense, not because I care what others think. If people want to follow the timeline, that's fine. I'm not trying to convince anyone. It's not my intention. I. Don't. Care. I'm just saying, the Official Hyrule Historia Timeline doesn't make sense. The games were not developed with a timeline in mind. If you think they were, I mean, ok. Whatever. Think what you want. But they weren't.

Says the man that doesn't replay games based on the assumption that storylines don't, for the most part, relate to one another:

What? Like, I'm seriously not understand how you're getting all these strawmen. I don't replay the games because of the timelines. I replay them because they're fun. Playing a game doesn't make me want to replay another game to see how the timeline fits in. Playing a game makes me want to replay another game because they're fun.

Seriously, you're taking this way too seriously. I play the games for fun, not for the timeline. Quit putting words in my mouth, and arguing against things I never said.

Yeah, yeah, yeah. I got it the first time Mr. Anti-Canonist.

You are taking this way too seriously.

I suppose if you are content in that, your feelings shouldn't detour those wanting to try and make sense of Nintendo's official timeline from a stoic approach, or sorting their own theories out for that matter. I challenge you to back up those claims with hard evidence, clarifying developers intent within the last five years prior to HH's release.

No. Because I don't care. I love the Legend of Zelda series. It's my favorite series, period. My favorite games are all Zelda games. I play them for fun. I don't play them because I want to formulate a theory on the timeline. I never have, and I never will. I will always play them because I enjoy the games themselves. I don't care enough to "prove" anything.

All I said is that the official timeline is for the fans. And it is. And I said that Nintendo clearly did not ever intend for the games to be related into one clean, neat little timeline. And they didn't—it's obvious.

Do you really appreciate HH? Obviously, aside from the timeline, what reasons do you have?

I said that already. I want it because it's a Zelda collectible and I love Zelda. I don't care what it actually says inside. I want it because it's Zelda-related. Just like I bought Zelda Monopoly. I already own Monopoly, but Zelda Monopoly is better because it's Zelda.

But yet theorizing goes on, and your still 'butthurt' about it because of HH's existence. Apparently someone didn't get what they wanted exactly.

Again, what? What are you talking about? How can you possibly know what I wanted? Like seriously, you're the worst type of person to try to have a conversation with because you keep making things up that I never said and you keep making assumptions about what I want and think.

The only person who is butt-hurt here is you. Because I. Don't. Care. I only came in here to make a point, about how the timeline was made for the fans. And now you're trying to tell me what I think and what I like.

Clearly you care about this way more than I do, so, I will concede and let you win. Because I never intended to get this sucked into a conversation about this.
May 16, 2008
Kentucky, USA
There's one main problem I have with the "official timeline", and that's the third arc where Link dies at the end of OoT.

As I was one of those avid theorists years ago, posting multiple threads Right Here, at Zelda Dungeon! (thumbs-up, cheap pop), I felt like, even though there were points that myself and others disagreed upon, everyone had a pretty solid framework of the timeline going in two arcs after OoT ("Adult" and "Child"). Whether we agreed or disagreed how one or two games were laid out in those arcs, we could mostly agree, through developer quotes and such, that the arcs were clear enough to be fact, and no other arcs needed to be created to place any of the games because they all fit in those two.

Even though the third arc where Link dies makes sense out of ALttP's backstory, which cited there was no hero to save Hyrule at the time (if Link's dead, there's no Hero), and OoT, said to be the backstory of ALttP messed with this because there clearly WAS a hero present, I just don't feel like having Link die is a very good way to have a timeline arc. That pretty much sets up any possible timeline arc from any other game where Link may die. And, well, Link just isn't supposed to die!

The timeline could and was broken down by many fans to fit nicely into the first few games followed by those two arcs. So I didn't and still don't see a point in making the third, especially at the cost of the Hero of Time's failure.

Users who are viewing this thread

Top Bottom