Want some cheese with that whine?

              The "Link is defeated" timeline, I dont believe is trash. If one remembers the story of link to the past, Ganon was sealed away in the dark world by the seven sages. At the end of Ocarina of Time, thats what the seven sages did. Maybe during this "defeat" of Link, the seven sages still managed to do the seal anyway even though Link was killed just beforehand. Or maybe Link sacrificed himself in order for the seal to happen?
              With Kotake and Koume, I suppose an easy explanation is that they were barely defeated and ran off. Maybe this is actually the reason why Link was defeated as Kotake and Koume may have intervened with the fight between link and ganon. I suppose with this mindset, the actual difference between the timelines is whether or not Link actually killed the twins.
              I might be reaching a bit with these ideas but I figured why not try :P

I hate Nintendo for releasing that timeline at all. The whole past-time of trying to make sense of the Zelda games by connecting them through a timeline needs to die a horrible death.

Hyrule Historia states, if I'm not mistaken, that the Sages did seal Ganondorf away after Link's death on the Hero is Defeated timeline. Still this doesn't change the fact that Link's defeat was completely made up for the book and anyone that plays the games and reads the manuals would never in a million years come up with it.

Your Kotake and Koume theory still doesn't hold up though as in Ocarina of Time you see their ghosts, unwillingly, raise up to the heavens. Careful reading of the book, as stated in my editorial, states that Link lost after their defeat. Therefore I really can't see how the twins could have been in the final battle.

Not trying to be a jerk with my response. Just stating some things to help clear up any confusion. If you have a different theory you prefer, that's fine.

I haven't purchased the english version of Hyrule Historia, but in the Japanese version, Aounuma made the following statement:

“While reading over The Full History of Hyrule, it’s possible that some parts may look contradictory… I’d like to ask everyone just to enjoy the book and to be broad-minded, and to think that those parts are the way they are because of the way Zelda games are developed.” (translated by Patas and posted at Glitterberri)

Also, the argument that Aounuma has not made a game in that fork of the timeline is likely negated by the new 3DS sequel to A Link to the Past.  Assuming he is involved, does that mean he's going dumpster diving?

He may have been involved in putting the book together, but I honestly doubt they would not consider Miyamoto for the timeline as he was the one that started the series in the first place.  The timeline makes sense to me as you are looking at two worlds that are created if you succeed, and then the story of what happens when you die.  I love the fact they actually went with that because not every story has to end happily and this goes to show the consequences of that final failure. 


I just find it odd that a series that deals with everything from time travel, multiple universes, magic, etc is ok, but as soon as you put in a possible timeline people freak.  So the games are put into this line...does that go back and destroy your enjoyment of them anymore?


Heck, Zelda II can be taken the same way because if you beat the game, great, but if you die it says directly that Ganon has been revived.  It's just that in OoT you simply did not live through the final battle, but the sages were able to seal Ganon away along with the Triforce he now possessed.  This lead to the wars mentioned in the beginning of Link to the Past as well as its telling of the Sages sealing him in.  With the Triforce, he was able to bend the Darkworld to his will which is why it was so twisted and changed anyone that went there.  This actually makes perfect sense to me because while he "won", he still lost by being sealed away in another dimension.


Now as for the witch sisters, I went back and watched the fight and the conversation at the end.  The sisters don't "die" like any normal character where they burn up or explode...they simply get "halos".  They are completely aware of what they are doing and as they go up, they say they will come back and haunt you.  Being 400 year old witches (or 380 depending on which was right lol) I could see them finding a way back or just haunting new bodies later on....but honestly characters show back up in later games in a series all of the time so I wouldn't let it mess up your enjoyment. 

You know the timeline wouldn't have been made if people didn't complain about Zelda not having a timeline. Honestly it doesn't matter, a Zelda game can happen during any period of time since each incarnation of Link is a reincarnation of the original hero, except for Majora's Mask of course. Thus to be complaining about the timeline itself is just a waste of time. We play Zelda games to be entertained not to keep track of the course of time.

I knew someone was going to bring that up since Aonuma is working on A Link to the Past 2, but I actually wrote this before the new game was announced. Even then I still stick to my editorial since it focuses on the book before A Link to the Past 2 was announced.

One could argue that Miyamoto, the man who was talking about how great a 3D version of a Link to the Past would be, told Aonuma to go with it. Is Aonuma dumpster diving? I don't know, but it will be his first game on this timeline which I find interesting.

You know, I always hated the split time line theory.  Many people argued with me and said that it was official because Nintendo said so.  I said it was stupid, because, why stop at two then?  Anything you have trouble fitting in somewhere, just create a new timeline!

Funny.  Now, we have three.

At some point after I argued that the split time line was stupid and before this book came out, I simply accepted the fact that there is no real time line, and while there are some connections between some of the games, they simply aren't intended to flow together.

The biggest flaw with this time line is that Wind Waker directly references Majora's Mask.  Which, according to the Wind Waker timeline, didn't happen.

Thus, this proposed time line is bunk.

Where does wind waker directly reference majora's mask? I can't remember... I know it directly references Ocarina because it shows the sages in stained glass where you get the master sword, but I don't remember any Majora references.

I was thinking the same thing, I dont recall any MM references. In fact, I have never seen anyone  before say there was a MM reference in TWW.

Wind Waker Tingle makes references to Majora's Mask Tingle - Including the "Legend of the Fairy" side-quest with the Tingle Tuner.

I believe there was a line of dialogue that stated that the Hero of Time left the Kingdom for adventures elsewhere (and because of this, he wasn't there when Ganon invaded again), and that when he did his Triforce piece was scattered across the land. I think that's as close as Wind Waker comes to a direct reference to Majora's Mask's intro that Link left Hyrule to find someone important to him.

who cares about tingle, he probably had too much pixie dust for his own good at the time

I always thought that was a reference to Princess Zelda sending Link back in time, and thus to the Child Era timeline. Because he wasn't there he couldn't come back to face Ganondorf.

You may have been typing this as I provided my info, but this is incorrect.  In one of the Tingle Tuner side-quests, you learn the "Legend of the Fairy", which talks about a 35-year old man-who-wants-to-be-a-fairy and floats with a balloon who makes maps for the Hero of Time.

The Hero of Time is specifically Ocarina of Time Link (and thus, by extension, Majora's Mask Link).  The stuff being described is directly referencing events that happened in Majora's Mask well after the game started and Link entered Terminia.

I like the timeline because it is a somewhat official way for us to think of the progression of the series and makes the Zelda universe richer, with a unified history.  I doubt that there is any proposed timeline that would avoid any contradictions.  Screenwriters seems to have trouble writing two hours of content without plot holes.  Rather than fret over it not being completely consistent, I choose to enjoy it and the thought put into it.

The "Hero is Defeated" has taken place many times in OoT for me, especially when I was younger. It was a pretty hard game back in the day. I don't see what makes the "Hero is Defeated" timeline such a bad timeline. Just because I don't beat a game, doesn't make me any less of a gamer. And just because Link fails in his quest to defeat Ganon, doesn't make him any less of a hero. In fact, dying to save the world makes him an even greater hero. I don't see what makes this timeline trash.

I think the answer to why the "Hero is Defeated" timeline exists is a bit more practical rather than being a slight on Aonuma's part. A Link to The Past never mentions Link or the Hero of Time, just that it was Knights of Hyrule. That is a pretty big omission, and make more sense to why the "Hero is Defeated" Timeline exists.

Also three equal branches follows one of the series motifs: a trio of existing forces. The timelines in a way each reflect a separate era where a different triangle of the triforce is dominant. In the "Hero is Defeated" Timeline, the triforce of power dominates as it leads to decline of Hyrule. The "Child Era" timeline follows the triforce of wisdom as its Zelda's powers that allow Link to become a child again. Wisdom allows Hyrule to defeat Gannondorf before his rise. Finally, the "Adult Era" timeline speaks of the legacy of heroes and courage, as its the timeline where Link truly defeats Gannon with his courage.

I don't have a strong response for the second flaw, other than Twinrova maybe being some type of reincarnation/ later generations. It is never stated how far apart LTTP is from OoT, other than it beings ages. Meaning probably a long time, and enough time for later generations to be born and take up the task of reviving Ganon.

For the Tingle/ MM/ WW thing, I never played the Tingle Tuner side-quests, but from the sound of it just a legend, which means its certainity is in doubt (at least within the Adult Era). It could be an echo of a story, heard across timelines and worlds. That is how great the Legend of Tingle is!

It's a bunch of prequels. I want to see a Zelda game after The OG Legend of Zelda, when Christianity was introduced to Hyrule.

A Legend, eh?  Sorta like The Legend of Zelda? :D

The one theory that I had hoped to be true was that both of the Oracle games took place at the end of different timelines, and that the conclusion of those games resulted in the split timeline once again converging. How that might exactly be explained, I don't know, but if they could have done it with any two games, it would have been those two.

Interestingly, I also did a 3-way split when designing a line back in 2009, also involving a decline of the kingdom leading to the NES Zelda games.  However, I'd never considered "Link being defeated" as a reason for one split to exist, and I don't feel it's even necessary.  The way I see it, the 3 lines are possibilities rather than parallel events that all occur.  One is informed by the past, one is informed by the future, and the flood scenario is an alternate version of either of the first two (in effect making 4 basic paths).  I never saw any form of a timeline being some strict history book where every game had an indisputable place, but I never bought the "Literal Legend Theory*" either.  It's somewhere in between:  There's a sense of connection between titles, but the inconsistencies between stories lend themselves to the "legend" aesthetic.  I also consider Tingle to be a 4th-Wall breaker who can be wherever and do whatever he wants.

While I'm reminiscing, the line I made ended up looking like a sword and shield going down and Ganon's trident going up.  Because of this, I called it the Sword-Trident Theory.


* Literal Legend Theory:  Every game involving Hyrule/Triforce/Demise/etc. is literally a single story told in different ways.  You can see why I don't lend this idea much creedence.

I think I'm a bit confused about the "Hero is defeated timeline." This is just supposed to be the outcome if Link had happened to lose at the end of OoT? Wouldn't every single game then have an alternate timeline where the player wussed out and never beat the final boss?

What about the timeline where Link is an eight year old girl who's brother got her to clock town and she only ever played minigames? I call it the "Second File Theory"

The major problem with a line of thinking like this is that it basically boils down to "Well, this is inconvenient for my personal theory wrong, so we'll just say it doesn't count for whatever reason."

If we're going to allow that, then one could just throw anything out the window that they don't like.

You can see why I don't lend this idea much credence. :D

I'm sure Miyamoto was consulted, but I have to think that Aonuma put together the timeline because Miyamoto probably doesn't care. He's often shown blatant disdain for series continuity (e.g. Star Fox 64 rewriting the Star Fox timeline, Yoshi's Island rewriting the Mario timeline) and story itself (e.g. removal of the story from Galaxy 2).

Super Mario World 2: Yoshi's Island expanded the Mario storyline by giving us background on their past, it didn't rewrite anything.

For instance, in the original Super Mario Bros., Mario is an outsider who hears about the Mushroom People and their plight. In Yoshi's Island, he is dropped on the doorstep of a mushroom house as a baby.  There was also a TON of non-canon, but Nintendo-approved stuff (e.g. Mario is older than Luigi) that was internally consistent until Yoshi's Island came around.

YI doesnt change Mario not being older, even in twins one is technically older. And the manual for SMB says nothing about him being an outsider, just that he hears about their plight and decides to help. Within the limited canon of the games, YI does not contradict anything.

1.  I see what you did there. ;)


2.  Consider that Tingle is the only character I give this role to, as he explicitly mentions Majora's Mask in a line where that game may be skipped and the flood happens.  Sure this wasn't something Nintendo decided to go with, but again I've stated my line was a base set of lines (with a couple set games) for permutations to occur on, though I do tend to come up with similar orders for each.  However, MM is heavily hinted to occur prior to WW, so Tingle's explanation itself may be unnecessary.  Still, if any character would have that role it would be him. 


Too, given the fact that characters can be reincarnated over generations, that can explain multiple appearances like the Twinrova.  Rather than simply being the same Twinrova that were in OoT who we saw die, this could be a reincarnation of the sisters.

It's pretty well implied at the end of Donkey Kong '94 that when Mario and Pauline end up in the Mushroom Kingdom, he does not recognize the Super Mushroom power-up. You can argue lots of tiny technicalities, but it all flies in the face of what the established world was at the time.

Wouldn't that imply that DK94 is contradicting things? The Super Mushroom was first introduced in SMB, and was also in SMB:TLL, SMB3, and SMW (all of which came out before DK94). What does it have to do with SMW2:YI?

DK94 is an expansion of DK and thus takes place before all of those games in the timeline. The ending of that game links the story to the SMB series. YI came out after that.

And anyway, my main point is best summed up like this:

Actually, this is a more broad quote:

You can see this idea reappear often in Miyamoto's games... even SMB3 was designed as if it was being played out on a stage.

I always thought the Zelda explanation of the hero stories being inconsistent because they're mutated retellings of mythology to be the most satisfactory explanation in that universe.

Yes, that is a distinct possibility considering the game over screen in AoL. However, the Zelda timeline consists of only the legends that have been told so far. Also it's not the player wussing out. It's Link dying a hero's death.

The reason why a timeline exists is to create a great tapestry that the series can play off of. Although a retelling of the legend makes a lot of sense, as a series of video games, it needs to be timeline because they have to build off each other. The games have to matter in relation to each other, whether they are prequels and sequels.

I don't think of Tingle as a fourth wall breaker but just as a fun character. I mean his origin is just ridiculous. He's supposed to be this big joke in this legendary series. Don't take anything he says to seriously; people do that in the US so they absolutely hate him.

I don't understand people seriously debating on Zelda timeline and on coherency in Mario world.

If I were someone working at Nintendo, I'd look at the timeline, say "wtf is this?" and then proceed to tell the people working the Zelda IP that they should really rethink what they're doing.

Is a timeline really that necessary for Zelda to work? I believe it is not. And if it were necessary, Nintendo would be better off if they did it right from scratch than to try making the puzzle fit in a way that is based a lot on hypothetical scenarios.

But, if you ask me, the timeline should be the least thing of concern for Nintendo – or rather, the Zelda team – right now.

I don't really care about the connective tissue between the Zelda games anymore.  After TP, it became extremely evident that they didn't really care about connecting the games in a truly coherent way...outside of placing a few references in each one.  I like time-travel and time stories in fantasy/sci-fi, but it is too easily used as a cheat to resolve sloppy writing.

The thing that irritates me to the most about many of the games lately is that they keep trying to re-origin the origin story.  Originally, both Link To The Past and Ocarina of Time both did this (with respect to the games that had been released before them), and the tradition has continued with The Minish Cap, Four Swords, and Skyward Sword.  At some point, I found that I really just didn't care anymore, and that's sad because I was to be obsessed with the Legend of Zelda  throughout my childhood.  I used to buy all the comic books (both the Valiant comics and versions in Nintendo Power; I even watched the awful cartoon,

In retrospect, I have a lot of respect for the chances taken in Wind Waker because it introduced real change in the Zelda Universe.  It was also left a lot of mysteries and questions about the tragedy of Hyrule unanswered, which I think gave the game a good bit of narrative resonance.  I wish that they would continue to go that route, mostly because I feel that continuing to write stories about Hyrule's past are just a way to avoid change.

OMG you all are NOT looking to tie together the Mario games into one timeline are you? Zelda was bad enough ><


There is some serious ASD going on in this thread ;)

Too late.

Super Mario 2 (USA) was a dream
Super Mario 3 was a stage play.

Can we just do a Fringe and put it all in a parallel universe?

I thought they were all toys controlled by a sentient glove... : /

I felt the timeline, which at that point was pretty much entirely unofficial and pieced together by the fans, made sense until Wind Waker's dumb stupid flood fucked it all up.  The timeline was fine until Nintendo actually paid attention to it and then they fucked it to all hell.

I always found the OoT split to be unnecessarily complicated.  I never for a second after beating that game thought there was any other option than "fuck yeah, I saved the day".  The hero is defeated?!  Who the fuck comes up with that nonsense?!  Couldn't I come up with a "what if you lost?" option for EVERY game if I wanted?  It's just idiotic.  And then kid and adult Link have their own timeline?  Where does that come from?  At the end of OoT it seems that I'm a kid again and I've stopped Ganon so why would there be two timelines?  Why couldn't they just keep it simple?  I never thought at the time "oh I'm a kid again, so I guess the stuff I do as an adult doesn't happen so the whole problem with Ganon starts again."  Why would anyone assume that?  The obvious implication is that what I have done has stopped Ganon when I'm a kid and everything is now fine.

I think all this complication came from Nintendo, for whatever dumb reason, wanting a flooded world for WW and the huge problem that stems from fucking inserting a worldwide flood in the middle of timeline involving dry land on both sides.  And for what?  The big blue ocean of nothing SUCKS and sailing is a huge chore.  Gee, thanks for destroying the whole Zelda timeline for that.

Hasn't that already happened?

I always liked the theory that they're all slightly different retellings of the same story, like the Legend of Zelda is an oral tradition passed through the ages that changes a bit every time someone tells it.

You want to make a better timeline be my guest...

http://www.halolz.com/wp-content/uploads/2011/11/halolz-dot-com-legendofzelda-missinglink.jpg

Here is an alternate reason for the decline timeline.
When Link wins and is sent back as a child, this creates two distinct timelines, also two distinct realities. Sending Link back in time would not take him out of the adult timeline, as he would just grow up as normal, so the only other option is that it creates a rift, meaning that there are 2 new dimensions. When child Link is sealed in by the master sword, wakes as an adult, yet comes back as a child by placing the master sword back, this event creates a new third rift timeline in which adult Link doesn't defeat Ganon because he went back to his own time/dimension, and the world is left without a hero, much like the timeline where Ganon is defeated and Link is sent back. Without a hero to fight him, Ganon is victorious, he gets the other triforce pieces, I'm guessing when Link disappears, his piece remains behind, which after Ganon gets Zelda, he ultimately gets all three pieces, of course, his first wish when first touching and scattering the triforce could have been the cause of the dark world, when Link vanishes, the sages could trap him in along with the scattered pieces, meaning they aren't complete but are with him in the dark world leading to the decline timeline... When Link defeats Ganon in LTTP, he comes across the spirit of the triforce which brings the pieces together for him to touch(since they had been separated by Ganon's wish), which after his restorative wish should have scattered them again. As for Twinrova, I agree that she/they is/are resurrected. As for two more timelines since there are two oracle games, I feel this is unneeded since they both, no matter which you start with, end the same way(with Twinrova's sacrifice and Crazy Ganon defeated) besides the two differing timelines wouldn't even matter to the timeline of Hyrule as they both take place elsewhere.