Official Timeline Released

[hisak]

Yesterday, the new official art book for Zelda's 25th anniversary was released, and there was a big surprise hidden in it: the official timeline! Unfortunately the timeline doesn't all make sense, but here it is!

1. Skyward Sword. I (and probably others) still haven't finished this game, so please use spoiler tags if you discuss this.

2. The Minish Cap. This honestly feels like Nintendo listening to their fans. I think a lot of people thought this game came first in the timeline because it "explained" why Link wears a green hat, even though it really only explains that for this particular Link, and it doesn't jive very well with the explanations that Ocarina of Time and Skyward Sword give. Still, I don't see anything wrong with it being here.

3. Four Swords. Sure, why not?

4. Ocarina of Time. Duh.

After this, of course, is the split! Now at first the split seems to work with what we know.


Child Timeline: This takes place in the world that Link was sent back to at the end of Ocarina of Time.

Child-5. Majora's Mask. Already knew this.

Child-6. Twilight Princess. Already knew this.

Child-7. Four Swords Adventures. A bit confused about this. From what I understand, Ganon is present in this game, which doesn't make sense because he's very dead at the end of Twilight Princess (one of the few games to actually kill him). But then I haven't actually finished this game, so maybe there's something I'm not aware of.


Adult Timeline: This takes place in the world that Link saved and then left behind at the end of Ocarina of Time.

Adult-5. The Wind Waker.
Adult-6. Phantom Hourglass.
Adult-7. Spirit Tracks


BUT THAT'S NOT ALL! According to this book, there's a fresh third part out there, involving a timeline where Link never defeated Ganon at all! That's right, your game overs in Ocarina of Time were canonical, and if you never died, you were playing it wrong! Really this mostly seems like a dumping ground for the early games that no longer fit into the main timeline after The Wind Waker was released.

Failure-5. A Link to the Past
Failure-6. Oracles
Failure-7. Link's Awakening
Failure-8. The Legend of Zelda
Failure-9. Zelda II

So there it is! What do you think?

[JordAnime]

So by Nintendo's logic, any time I die in a Zelda game, another timeline is created?  

Whatever.  This just seems done to give multiple timelines balance.  You could really stick the ALttP timeline at the end of either branch, but somehow that might imply favoritism?  Like there's a favorite Zelda timeline? 

I dunno I think they were better off leaving it as a mystery.

[Ezlo's Apprentice]

I still prefer my timeline which gives a nice pattern to Ganondorf on both sides of the line. In brief:

Ocarina > Twilight > ALttP > Oracles
and
Ocarina + 7 > Windwaker > LoZ > AoL
This:
Ganondorf > Ganondorf freed > Ganondorf revived as Ganon > Failed attempt at Ganon revival.

Pretty much draws a line under the whole Ganondorf arc for me and lets the series move on properly.

I kind of see what they're trying to do with the Ocarina Game Over strand. Anyone who has played Zelda II will be painfully familiar with the Game Over screen of that title and its implication that Ganon is successfully revived. I'm not saying I like it, but it does help a little bit to clarify the flaws of an OoT > ALttP link up if we only consider the two obvious canonical endings. Both TWW and TP complicated matters.

The placement of the Four Swords saga is a bit bewildering. TMC and FS in between SS and OoT? I ain't buying it.

[Rew]

I'm glad that ALttP-OoS/OoA-LA is confirmed. I always thought those games went well together in that sequence.

I don't mind a third branch in the timeline opening up, but to do so based directly on Link's failure/death is a bit much to swallow. If you beat OoT, guess what--you're a better hero than the Link who paved the way for ALttP.

FSA being a sequel to TP has given me the most problems out of this confirmed timeline, but I'm warming up to it. There's some deleted text from Ganondorf's death speech in TP where he speaks of being reborn. Even without that, he explicitly tells Link, "This doesn't end here." Then there's a line in FSA that speaks of Ganondorf/Ganon as an evil reborn or something along those lines. It kind of sort of almost fits if you squint at it the right way and don't breathe on it too hard. x_X

Also, it's fairly obvious that the next Zelda game (on either 3DS or Wii U) is going to be a sequel to FSA since it's fairly open-ended. It should mean we'll reunite with out old friend Ganon(dorf) again for the first time in several games.

[JordAnime]

I've always looked at Zelda chronology as a huge afterthought in series.  It's not like Shigeru Miyamoto mapped out a huge, complex story line for the series and sprinkled a bunch of bread crumbs over the course of 25 years that all led to this, and that it makes perfect sense when it's unveiled.

Miyamoto was interested in making a new adventure game; we learned that Zelda was originally a designed as a "Mario Adventure Game", and that there were tons of Zelda games left on the cutting room floor.  That wouldn't have happened in some grand design; nor would the plot similarities of each game.  Even Miyamoto himself seems to get confused by when these Zelda games take place in interviews. 

The bottom line is Nintendo generally creates the game first, then builds a story and that's really where their priorities lie.  Game design first, story, setting and timeline placement second.  Personally, I don't dare that much about the timeline, I just figured there's some hazy either with a few games confirmed to take place at certain points.  So I didn't think I'd be upset when Nintendo set the record straight with the official document.

But somehow, this document does piss me off, it just seems to serve as a giant middle-finger to anyone who's given a little bit of time thinking about a Zelda chronology.

I can accept the fact that multiple timelines exist in Zelda chronology, because time travel is part of the plot, but alternate realities?  Nobody every said anything about alternate realities in Zelda.  It's not like Ganon ever laughed and said "You may have won the day today, but joke's on you, because when you got that Game Over in the Water Temple, I totally took over the Sacred Realm in another quantum universe! MUHAHAHA!" 

Honestly, this is the stupidest thing Nintendo's ever done.  It just sort of invalidates your play.  Like "okay, nice effort, but it turns out it didn't mean anything because there's an infinite number of alternate realities in which you died horribly and the bad guy won".   

Again, I don't care so much about the existence of a timeline, or the exact placement of games, I just care that somehow there's Zelda games that take place in a "Game Over" reality, when it's never explained how that works in the context of the story. 

It just seems like something they pulled out of their ass so that they could release a timeline that nobody would have ever guessed and make us all feel like stupid idiots for wasting out time thinking about Zelda chronology...

[Hyruleansoldier]

It's just made us realize we shouldn't be obsessing over the timeline so much.  I used to be concerned with it too.  Eventually you see that where a certain game fits in some timeline does not add all that much to the experience.

They have to be able to keep making new games, and with the current timeline system this isn't all that hard.  I'm perfectly fine with that.

There's plenty of examples of alternate worlds/ dimensions/ realms/ realities in the Zelda series, so I don't see why it should be a shock.    It's not like they're planning to make it into a genuine multiverse where almost no games are put on the same strand of timeline/ reality.


Btw Four Swords Adventures' placement makes more sense than you think.  At the end of TP Ganondorf dies, sure, but we know very well that it doesn't need that much for him to be revived.  He's much more dead at the end of TWW, with the MS stuck in his face.  In TP the MS gets put back in its pedestal, so his minions could revive him (with the blood of the hero and/ or Zelda's descendant.

[hisak]

But somehow, this document does piss me off, it just seems to serve as a giant middle-finger to anyone who's given a little bit of time thinking about a Zelda chronology.

But it's Christmas! There's a valuable lesson to be learned from this.

[Rew]

The more I think about it, the more I'm really starting to "get" this timeline--and even find it downright brilliant.

A big objection many have (and which I had at first) was the "downfall timeline" where Link is defeated by Ganondorf in OoT, leading to ALttP and the classic games. What the hell is such a "what-if" scenario doing in the Zelda timeline, many fans have justly asked? Why are the developers screwing over the foundational games and rendering them (for all intents and purposes) non-canon?

I've found that it helps to think about it in reverse:

When ALttP first came out, we knew from the backstory that the Imprisoning War was in itself a failure--the hero of that backstory and the last of the Hylian knights failed to defeat Ganon and keep him from attaining the whole Triforce. Thus, the sages had to step in and seal him away. This is what was established definitively all the way back in 1991.

When OoT came out in 1998, it was a game that took place during ALttP's Imprisoning War, except with a twist. In this game, you play the hero who canonically failed in ALttP's backstory. But now you get to see what would happen if that hero (whom we know now as the Hero of Time) had won.

So in truth, the real "what-if" scenario is the hero triumphing over Ganon in OoT, not the other way around!

It just so happens that OoT and its new system with new controls and 3D graphics were such a hit that it and the game's sequels (MM, TWW, TP, etc.) became the hallmarks of the series (more so than the classic games that preceded it), even though their progenitor on the N64 started out as a what-if scenario to a previously established protagonist failure in ALttP. One could argue that the entire split timeline is a what-if scenario to the classic timeline.

Looked at from that vantage point, this isn't a copout on Nintendo's part at all. This was the plan all along. So I don't think the concerns--that Nintendo is just going to retcon things or make game-overs in other titles canon and lead to other BS timelines--are entirely warranted at this point. ALttP and the other games on the downfall timeline are not "Anouma's dust bin" as some have called it.

Now I agree with Jord in that I doubt Nintendo had all of this planned out when they started the series in the mid-1980s. But, to borrow Tolkien's phrase, the story grew in the telling. Considering that this is a series where gameplay is given first priority, the storyline second, and timeline third, it's really quite remarkable (to me) how well the timeline has panned out. And there's still plenty of room for other games, which is the really important thing.

And even the TP-FSA connection is smoothing itself out for me as I begin to see more and more continuity between those two (as HS has inferred).

[Carl Jr.]

Child-7. Four Swords Adventures. A bit confused about this. From what I understand, Ganon is present in this game, which doesn't make sense because he's very dead at the end of Twilight Princess (one of the few games to actually kill him). But then I haven't actually finished this game, so maybe there's something I'm not aware of.

 The fact that Ganondorf was once dead is actually a major plot point of FSA, and he is reincarnated some time before the game begins (as in decades before.)

Major spoilers for FSA ahead.

(click to show/hide)

 When Link(s) arrive in the lost woods, several Ganon-Worshippers are celebrating the return of their reincarnated king. Not long after, when Link(s) venture into the desert, the Gerudo tell them about how he was born decades ago and recently betrayed them to steal the Trident of power from a pyramid up north. (Not a typo of Triforce: This is where Ganon's signature weapon comes from!!)

  Vaati is most definitely not the final villain of FSA. But you learn this halfway through anyways.

[Uber_Challenger]

I just had a thought on this...

I'm not a big fan of the game over timeline thing. It only makes sense that if OOT Link's death would create another timeline, that the death of all the other Links would as well. But that would create at least a dozen more timelines. Yes, OOT was likely the biggest milestone so far in the Zelda series, and I can see why it might be seen by many as the "center of the universe" when it comes to Zelda games, but every different incarnation of Link is just as important as all the rest, just in different ways. Yes, I know it's a fictional world where logic doesn't always apply, but having just one Link's death spawn another timeline while the rest don't just doesn't make logical sense, even by fictional standards. The only way this could make sense would be to write the storyline as though all of the other Links succeeded in their quests without failing. But since this is a game series where you can die in every single game, I don't think it can be written that way. I think they should either do this for all Links or not do it for even one of them.

I have more on which to elaborate with this subject, but I need to ask a question first...This 25th anniversary guide....it is Nintendo themselves who did this guide, right? I know it's most likely that they did (otherwise the guide wouldn't be very official, now would it?), but I need to be totally sure before I go on.

[Rew]

I just had a thought on this...

I'm not a big fan of the game over timeline thing. It only makes sense that if OOT Link's death would create another timeline, that the death of all the other Links would as well. But that would create at least a dozen more timelines. Yes, OOT was likely the biggest milestone so far in the Zelda series, and I can see why it might be seen by many as the "center of the universe" when it comes to Zelda games, but every different incarnation of Link is just as important as all the rest, just in different ways. Yes, I know it's a fictional world where logic doesn't always apply, but having just one Link's death spawn another timeline while the rest don't just doesn't make logical sense, even by fictional standards. The only way this could make sense would be to write the storyline as though all of the other Links succeeded in their quests without failing. But since this is a game series where you can die in every single game, I don't think it can be written that way. I think they should either do this for all Links or not do it for even one of them.

Read my post above. It's not a matter of the game makers just choosing a game-over ending from OoT at random. It was a previously established story element for ALttP before OoT even went into production.

I have more on which to elaborate with this subject, but I need to ask a question first...This 25th anniversary guide....it is Nintendo themselves who did this guide, right? I know it's most likely that they did (otherwise the guide wouldn't be very official, now would it?), but I need to be totally sure before I go on.

Yep, this is an official Nintendo guide, which Anouma himself has put his stamp of approval on (there's even a picture of him inside).

So this guide--including its timeline--is thoroughly and officially 100% canon.

[Hyruleansoldier]

I'm looking for that actual document.  This British kid uses a neat timeline and explains the eras and transitions pretty well.

<a href="http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=41O2prS9vNI" target="_blank">http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=41O2prS9vNI</a>

[Carl Jr.]

 You must understand that because Ocarina of Time presents multiple *RELEVENT* tangents as far as the flow of time and what Link does with it, a pure,"control" timeline must be considered. This is a timeline in which time travel plays *no* part. It just so happens that this also means Link does not succeed. (Or he doesn't care.)

It'd be better to call this timeline the "Classic" Timeline or the "Pure" Timeline.

      Genesis
            |
      Ocarina
           /|\
Pure, Child, and Adult.

[Uber_Challenger]

Read my post above. It's not a matter of the game makers just choosing a game-over ending from OoT at random. It was a previously established story element for ALttP before OoT even went into production.

Yep, this is an official Nintendo guide, which Anouma himself has put his stamp of approval on (there's even a picture of him inside).

So this guide--including its timeline--is thoroughly and officially 100% canon.

Your post does make sense. I probably should have read through it before posting my own thoughts, haha!

As for what I had to say further, I personally think that although this new timeline thing can be very confusing at even off-putting at first sight, it is likely the best way to keep the Zelda series continuing for as long as possible (i.e. each new timeline makes another extension to the story that, IMO, needs to be resolved before the series could reach any kind of conclusion).

[Carl Jr.]

http://www.glitterberri.com/hyrule-historia/


This book goes into better detail as to Nintendo's timeline, although not all of it has been translated yet. Most of it has, though.

[JordAnime]

The more I think about it, the more I'm okay with it, and as Rew stated it does make sense when you look at A Link to the Past's story, though what I don't understand is how the seven sages would have been able to seal Ganon away after he obtained the Triforce...I thought that the establishment of the Dark World was just because Ganon had obtained the Triforce and then it split into three pieces afterward...but then I'm not the hugest timeline aficionado, it just kind of made more sense to me that way.  Though it does kind of account for A Link to the Past's darker atmosphere.

I do wonder where the series will go from here...Skyward Sword was a great origin story, though presumably it could go back even further it'd be getting kidna weird at that point.  I'd like to see something that takes place post-Adventure of Link.