What could Nintendo have done besides the downfall timeline?

[Bowsette Plus-Ultra]

I mean, TWW takes place in a world where the world was flooded and the Spirit of the Hero never returned to thwart Ganon upon his return, which makes sense considering his spirit left the AT. The events of OoT are also mentioned repeatedly throughout the game.

Events of previous games don't have to be mentioned all the time, anyway. It's not like it would make sense for anyone in ALBW to say, ''Hey, did you ever hear about the heroes who sealed the Wind Demon Vaati with the Four Sword?'' out of nowhere despite the fact that it is something that canonically happened in the past, because that is something that has no relevance in regards to ALBW.

I mean, I think it would make sense for that sort of thing to be mentioned. The Legend of Zelda is a world that seems to be dictated by a perpetual cycle of destruction centered around the same three individuals coming back again and again to fight it out. That there is no in universe record keeping around these events suggests that Hyrule isn't just technologically backwards, but that every historian to ever live there is an idiot.

Actual connections between games make the world seem like a world. At this point, Hyrule still just feels like a fish bowl with nothing else around it and no history.

 

[Moblinking5000]

I mean, I think it would make sense for that sort of thing to be mentioned.

Why, though? As I said, the conflicts with Vaati are not relevant to ALBW. Some character saying out of the blue, ''By the way, did you know this completely unrelated event happened long in the past?'' wouldn't make sense. Maybe having a library or something that mentions it would be cool, but it's not strictly NECCESSARY imo.

The Legend of Zelda is a world that seems to be dictated by a perpetual cycle of destruction centered around the same three individuals coming back again and again to fight it out. That there is no in universe record keeping around these events suggests that Hyrule isn't just technologically backwards, but that every historian to ever live there is an idiot.

Who is to say that these kind of events AREN'T being written down? The OoT sages aren't mentioned in ALttP, LA, the Oracles, ALBW, TFH, etc. but they are mentioned in Zelda 2 and BotW, proving that they are remembered in the DT even if they aren't mentioned in every game; the events of FS are not mentioned in OoT, MM, or TP, but they are in FSA which is after those three games. Just because we, the players, don't see historical characters and events being mentioned every five seconds or even in every game doesn't mean that Hyrule doesn't have have any memory of those events or that they aren't written down in the history books; on the contrary, the fact that they can be mentioned in games long after other games that have no references to those events suggests otherwise, in fact.

Actual connections between games make the world seem like a world. At this point, Hyrule still just feels like a fish bowl with nothing else around it and no history.

There ARE connections between games, though; TWW directly references the events of OoT throughout the game, TP has references not to the events of OoT(since those events were prevented from happening like they did on the AT and DT), but to the Era of the Hero of Time(such as the Temple of Time, the Fisherman's picture, etc.), SS features the origin of the Master Sword and the ending sets the stage for the Surface to become the Kingdom of Hyrule, TMC features the origin of the Four Sword and Vaati, ALttP says on the back of the box that it is set long before the NES games, with the JP manual saying that ALttP and its backstory ''sets the stage of The Legend of Zelda''(which since it was made before SS, TMC, FS or OoT made sense at the time), the fact that ST mentions characters from TWW/PH, OoT featuring the origin of Ganon, not to mention all the games that are obvious direct sequels featuring the same Link like OoT/MM, TWW/PH, etc.

How are those NOT connections?

 

[Mikey the Moblin]

Bowsette just hates the concept of history fading into Legend

 

[Bowsette Plus-Ultra]

Why, though? As I said, the conflicts with Vaati are not relevant to ALBW. Some character saying out of the blue, ''By the way, did you know this completely unrelated event happened long in the past?'' wouldn't make sense. Maybe having a library or something that mentions it would be cool, but it's not strictly NECCESSARY imo.

Who is to say that these kind of events AREN'T being written down? The OoT sages aren't mentioned in ALttP, LA, the Oracles, ALBW, TFH, etc. but they are mentioned in Zelda 2 and BotW, proving that they are remembered in the DT even if they aren't mentioned in every game; the events of FS are not mentioned in OoT, MM, or TP, but they are in FSA which is after those three games. Just because we, the players, don't see historical characters and events being mentioned every five seconds or even in every game doesn't mean that Hyrule doesn't have have any memory of those events or that they aren't written down in the history books; on the contrary, the fact that they can be mentioned in games long after other games that have no references to those events suggests otherwise, in fact.

There ARE connections between games, though; TWW directly references the events of OoT throughout the game, TP has references not to the events of OoT(since those events were prevented from happening like they did on the AT and DT), but to the Era of the Hero of Time(such as the Temple of Time, the Fisherman's picture, etc.), SS features the origin of the Master Sword and the ending sets the stage for the Surface to become the Kingdom of Hyrule, TMC features the origin of the Four Sword and Vaati, ALttP says on the back of the box that it is set long before the NES games, with the JP manual saying that ALttP and its backstory ''sets the stage of The Legend of Zelda''(which since it was made before SS, TMC, FS or OoT made sense at the time), the fact that ST mentions characters from TWW/PH, OoT featuring the origin of Ganon, not to mention all the games that are obvious direct sequels featuring the same Link like OoT/MM, TWW/PH, etc.

How are those NOT connections?

Those events aren't written down, because we never see any acknowledgment of them in game. We never see any logs of Ganon's returns, research into ways of killing him, or planning around the cycle. Unless we have seen it in game, it doesn't exist. Considering how surprised the world seems whenever Ganon shows up to start killing again, it doesn't suggest any level of competent record keeping.

There are vague references that never have any weight. There are never any events or consequences from previous games that directly affect the events of another game.

To pull an example from Mass Effect again:

The first three Mass Effect games are about Reapers showing up and consuming all life in the universe like some sort of space Cthulhu monsters. The fourth game, Mass Effect: Andromeda, hinges its entire premise on the in universe reaction to the events of those games. "If the Reapers are going to consume all life here, then let's setup a bunch of arks to send survivors to a different galaxy."

The events of Mass Effect 1-3 are directly referenced, and those events continue to affect the events of Andromeda even though Andromeda takes place in an entirely different galaxy. The events of those games are used as the rationale and justification for in universe decisions made in Andromeda. There is a direct continuity, not vague references that need to be explained by a $45 Mass Effect Historia.

Bowsette just hates the concept of history fading into Legend

I do hate lazy writing, yes.

 

[mαrkαsscoρ]

one day the I'll get another post on here that pertains to the topic again

 

[Moblinking5000]

Those events aren't written down, because we never see any acknowledgment of them in game. We never see any logs of Ganon's returns, research into ways of killing him, or planning around the cycle. Unless we have seen it in game, it doesn't exist. Considering how surprised the world seems whenever Ganon shows up to start killing again, it doesn't suggest any level of competent record keeping.

So, why are the OoT sages mentioned in Zelda 2 despite the fact that there's alot of games before it that don't mention the OoT sages if there are no historians recording history?

There are vague references that never have any weight. There are never any events or consequences from previous games that directly affect the events of another game.

The fact that the Spirit of the Hero left the AT meant that Ganon was not opposed when he returned in the backstory of TWW, leading to the goddesses flooding Hyrule Kingdom. This means that Zelda's choice to send Link back in time in OoT is what eventually lead to TWW happening in the first place. That's a consequence from a previous game that affects the game after it, as an example.

Also, there doesn't NEED to always be events and consequences between games that directly affect each other for them to be in the same continuity. The only thing that a timeline means is that they are in the same chronology. SS and TFH are apart of the same history, and yet they have nothing to do with eachother. World War II and the life/career of Michael Jackson have nothing to do with eachother, but they are both apart of the same history.

Sorry markasscop. Maybe someone could split this topic off somehow?

 

[Bowsette Plus-Ultra]

So, why are the OoT sages mentioned in Zelda 2 despite the fact that there's alot of games before it that don't mention the OoT sages if there are no historians recording history?



The fact that the Spirit of the Hero left the AT meant that Ganon was not opposed when he returned in the backstory of TWW, leading to the goddesses flooding Hyrule Kingdom. This means that Zelda's choice to send Link back in time in OoT is what eventually lead to TWW happening in the first place. That's a consequence from a previous game that affects the game after it, as an example.

Also, there doesn't NEED to always be events and consequences between games that directly affect each other for them to be in the same continuity. The only thing that a timeline means is that they are in the same chronology. SS and TFH are apart of the same history, and yet they have nothing to do with eachother. World War II and the life/career of Michael Jackson have nothing to do with eachother, but they are both apart of the same history.

Sorry markasscop. Maybe someone could split this topic off somehow?

Unfortunately, that's just inferring connections between games, especially the village names that were later retconned into being old sage names. Additionally, if Zelda had a clear continuity, there wouldn't have been a need for Nintendo releasing a book that explains what the continuity is.

 

[mαrkαsscoρ]

Should Zelda games be more directly intertwined or still be self contained?

Typically when there's a new non-direct sequel Zelda game that comes out, it's a self contained story w/ a new Link so that if players start there as their first Zelda, they won't feel like they're missing another part to the story that came before. Even if they are sequels, past events are...

zeldadungeon.net

@Bowsette Plus-Ultra @Moblinking5000
maybe here?

 

[GZ Zelda]

Maybe, instead of the Downfall timeline, they could've made an alternate Skyward Sword timeline, and had the downfall be a consequence of the alternate universe present in Skyward Sword.

Another theory NBC proposed is that, if Vaati kills Zelda in MC, the FS, FSA and following DT all branch off of that split, instead of the downfall.

I will once again offer the linear timeline as an alternative to the Downfall Timeline. Streamlining everything into a single timeline (with Majora's Mask Termina coexisting in perpetuity to cover any perceived time gaps) creates significantly more interesting scenarios, and doesn't contradict any observable physics or require large leaps in logic (other than an argument as to Ganondorf's death at the end of the Wind Waker).

Even in the case of game-to-game narrative inconsistencies, the idea that the games are so separate from each other that Ganon sometimes just resurrects (as in FSA, or what seemingly happens all throughout the downfall timeline) would be much better than the current non-canonical what-if.

 

[Mikey the Moblin]

one day the I'll get another post on here that pertains to the topic again

I'm telling you, wheel timeline

 

[CrimsonFenrir]

If a newbie may, I'd like to say why the idea of the Downfall Timeline rubs me the wrong way: Multiverse theory. The idea is that for every choice we could have made, another version of us makes a different choice. There could even be a universe where I'm doing everything the same, but two inches to the north.

But that's not what happened with OoT. We have a single universe splitting into multiple universes because of time travel. We have the Child Timeline, where Link was sent back to his childhood and prevented Ganondorf's attack on the royal family by warning Zelda, and the Adult Timeline, where Ganon was sealed into the Sacred Realm, but Link was sent back to the original timeline. So how did the Downfall happen? It just seems wrong to me that a new timeline could arise without something causing an actual break in the previously established sequence of events.

If there's a universe where Link lost to Ganon, then there should also be a universe where Link stayed in the future instead of returning to the past. There could also be a universe where Link DID return to the past, but let events play out as they had before, and then decided to stay in the future at the end of it all. There could even be a version of Link stuck in a time loop because he keeps doing everything over exactly the same and then being sent back to the past by Zelda, and he's unable to break free because he just won't do anything different.

It changes the nature of the Zelda timeline from a forced-split multiverse to a natural-split multiverse. It also effectively eliminates any notion of free will in the story.

That said., I don't really have a suggestion to solve this problem. I wish I did, though.

 

[Moblinking5000]

If a newbie may, I'd like to say why the idea of the Downfall Timeline rubs me the wrong way: Multiverse theory. The idea is that for every choice we could have made, another version of us makes a different choice. There could even be a universe where I'm doing everything the same, but two inches to the north.

But that's not what happened with OoT. We have a single universe splitting into multiple universes because of time travel. We have the Child Timeline, where Link was sent back to his childhood and prevented Ganondorf's attack on the royal family by warning Zelda, and the Adult Timeline, where Ganon was sealed into the Sacred Realm, but Link was sent back to the original timeline. So how did the Downfall happen? It just seems wrong to me that a new timeline could arise without something causing an actual break in the previously established sequence of events.

If there's a universe where Link lost to Ganon, then there should also be a universe where Link stayed in the future instead of returning to the past. There could also be a universe where Link DID return to the past, but let events play out as they had before, and then decided to stay in the future at the end of it all. There could even be a version of Link stuck in a time loop because he keeps doing everything over exactly the same and then being sent back to the past by Zelda, and he's unable to break free because he just won't do anything different.

It changes the nature of the Zelda timeline from a forced-split multiverse to a natural-split multiverse. It also effectively eliminates any notion of free will in the story.

That said., I don't really have a suggestion to solve this problem. I wish I did, though.

Ever heard of the Triforce Wish Theory?

It proposes that the DT is the original timeline(which it is from a meta perspective), and that at the end of ALttP, Link's wish on the Triforce to reverse Ganon's evil was so strong that it ''echoed'' to the past, leading to a timeline where the Hero of Time was successful in defeating Ganon, creating the AT where Ganon doesn't get his hands on the complete Triforce, which then leads to the creation of the CT, where Ganon is subdued and arrested before ever coming to power in the first place.

I go with this theory, as it makes the most sense to me IMO. But, I think a more limited variation of the many worlds interpretation could be possible, too.

 

[GZ Zelda]

But that's not what happened with OoT. We have a single universe splitting into multiple universes because of time travel. We have the Child Timeline, where Link was sent back to his childhood and prevented Ganondorf's attack on the royal family by warning Zelda, and the Adult Timeline, where Ganon was sealed into the Sacred Realm, but Link was sent back to the original timeline. So how did the Downfall happen? It just seems wrong to me that a new timeline could arise without something causing an actual break in the previously established sequence of events.

Why does the act of time travel split universes? If this is possible, that there is a universe where Link did not time travel and warn Zelda, and a universe where he did, there is no inconsistency in saying there is a world where Ganon killed Link. They already don't have free will in any of these scenarios (agents are not above the natural world) and so you shouldn't have a problem with the DT.

Again, linear timeline fixes this (although it requires non-canonical game-shifting), Triforce Wish theory (which is just an alternative multiverse explanation) fixes this, Mikey's wheel timeline fixes this (although it requires an infinite time frame for events to be repeating in), and then alternative DT splits also fixes this problem (off of SS and off of MC).

But your issue with "multiverse theory" is the issue with the entire timeline and why it's essentially invalid as it currently stands. There should only be one universe in which all Zelda games occur, or there should be an infinite number of universes, negating the purpose of the timeline (instead, there are three separate universes Z-616, Z-617, Z-618).

 

[CrimsonFenrir]

Ever heard of the Triforce Wish Theory?

It proposes that the DT is the original timeline(which it is from a meta perspective), and that at the end of ALttP, Link's wish on the Triforce to reverse Ganon's evil was so strong that it ''echoed'' to the past, leading to a timeline where the Hero of Time was successful in defeating Ganon, creating the AT where Ganon doesn't get his hands on the complete Triforce, which then leads to the creation of the CT, where Ganon is subdued and arrested before ever coming to power in the first place.

I go with this theory, as it makes the most sense to me IMO. But, I think a more limited variation of the many worlds interpretation could be possible, too.

No, I've not heard of this one. It's certainly interesting, and makes sense if the power of the Triforce is capable of manipulating not just what is within the spacetime continuum, but the continuum itself. I gotta ask, though: Do we know the exact wording of Link's wish? I have a feeling that would have an impact on things. I'm sure the Triforce can sense intent, but wording can give us some insight into that intent.

Why does the act of time travel split universes? If this is possible, that there is a universe where Link did not time travel and warn Zelda, and a universe where he did, there is no inconsistency in saying there is a world where Ganon killed Link. They already don't have free will in any of these scenarios (agents are not above the natural world) and so you shouldn't have a problem with the DT.

Again, linear timeline fixes this (although it requires non-canonical game-shifting), Triforce Wish theory (which is just an alternative multiverse explanation) fixes this, Mikey's wheel timeline fixes this (although it requires an infinite time frame for events to be repeating in), and then alternative DT splits also fixes this problem (off of SS and off of MC).

But your issue with "multiverse theory" is the issue with the entire timeline and why it's essentially invalid as it currently stands. There should only be one universe in which all Zelda games occur, or there should be an infinite number of universes, negating the purpose of the timeline (instead, there are three separate universes Z-616, Z-617, Z-618).

Time travel creates alternate universes as a way of resolving paradoxes. The events of the Adult Timeline cannot have happened if Link warns the Royal Family about Ganondorf's plan and never draws the Master Sword from its pedestal. The only viable alternative when it comes to paradox resolution is a self-rewriting universe, i.e. a universe which rewrites itself to accommodate new events that would otherwise lead to contradictions and irregularities that could cause the fabric of reality to fray and self-destruct. The future after the contradiction is changed so that the past is no longer contrary. This isn't what we see in the Zeldaverse, however, at least not according to Nintendo.

What you seem to be describing is a natural-split universe with forced-splits as a natural consequence. It makes sense, but something about it rubs me the wrong way. I wish I could put my finger on it. Perhaps the lack of free will is the problem. In a singular universe with an indeterminate future, free will should be able to exist.

I don't have a problem with multiverse theory, I just don't like the idea of an infinite multiverse. A singular universe forced to split into multiples via time travel is fine. Maybe what I dislike is being railroaded into the infinite multiverse as a way of explaining the presence of the Downfall.

 

[GZ Zelda]

Time travel creates alternate universes as a way of resolving paradoxes. The events of the Adult Timeline cannot have happened if Link warns the Royal Family about Ganondorf's plan and never draws the Master Sword from its pedestal. The only viable alternative when it comes to paradox resolution is a self-rewriting universe, i.e. a universe which rewrites itself to accommodate new events that would otherwise lead to contradictions and irregularities that could cause the fabric of reality to fray and self-destruct. The future after the contradiction is changed so that the past is no longer contrary. This isn't what we see in the Zeldaverse, however, at least not according to Nintendo.

This makes sense, however the paradoxes present in Ocarina of Time (Song of Storms, time-traveling Goddess cubes) are not fixed because the CT occurs in a new universe. Frankly, the evidence that the Royal Family being warned about Ganondorf's plan changes anything is pretty flimsy, other than from a loosely and poorly translated developer quote. The time travel should also lead to the creation of two different Links if it were truly just created by a natural-split (as in Avengers: Endgame). Also, the universe rewrites itself in both Skyward Sword and Oracle of Ages; I do not see why this would not be the case in Ocarina of Time.

I'm basically saying that if you want any of these characters to have free will, you need to change physics. Because if everything is cause-and-effect, the only freedom is from the First Cause and everything is an effect from that. If everything is random, then we need the infinite multiverse to account for the infinite combinations of randomness. If some things are cause and effect and some things are random, then there would need to know exactly what is random and what is cause and effect to determine how much free will we truly have.

This is why we should treat the Zelda timeline like a single, unified timeline. One game after another after another. Otherwise, it becomes not a timeline, but a list of possible universes. And ultimately that's what we should do with the Downfall Timeline: it only works when we incorporate a multiverse where free will does not exist. And the child timeline seems self-evidently impossible. Meaning all games must occur after the sealing of Ganondorf in Ocarina of Time by Link and the sages, not in three separate universes within the Zelda multiverse.