Pros and cons of the two main Split Timeline disciplines

[LexLionHart]

These are brief descriptions and a list of the primary pros and cons of both basic timeline disciplines. There are other strong points and weak points in each theory, but most of them are rather circumstantial. It should be noted that, in general, the strong points of one are precisely the weak points for the other, and vice-versa, and that this is true without *any* stretching or twisting of fact whatsoever.


The New Child Story Theory

Child: OoT/MM – TP
Adult: OoT – TWW/PH – TMC - FS/FSA – ALttP/LA – LoZ/AoL
(NOTE: The Oracles placement and the placement of TMC are debatable as well as rather irrelevant. For reference purposes, most theorists place the Oracles games either after ALttP/LA or after LoZ/AoL, and most place TMC before FS, and sometimes before OoT.)
Basic Description: The “New Child Timeline” proposes that all of the older (2D) titles are to be placed in the “Adult” line, along with TWW and PH, and that the “Child” timeline will hopefully eventually be treated as the start of its own distinct, new storyline series [so as to make placement less confusing in the future].
Pros: Significant similarities between TWW and the FS trilogy (including, most significantly, the presence of the same form of Hylian script used in TWW, alongside with the usage of the term "Triumph Forks", coined originally in TWW)**, documented existence of a sages’ seal on the Sacred Realm in the Adult timeline, more coherent consistency regarding the state of the Triforce between TWW and ALttP, novelty of the general TP plotline, plans to restore Hyrule in TWW, towns in AoL named after the sages**
Cons: Resting place of the Master Sword in ALttP unaccounted for in TWW, no documented existence of a bloodline related to the hero (much less the Knights) in TWW or OoT, implications of the TWW ending


The New Adult Story Theory

Child: OoT/MM – TP – TMC - FS/FSA – ALttP/LA – LoZ/AoL
Adult: OoT – TWW/PH
(NOTE: The Oracles placement and the placement of TMC are debatable as well as rather irrelevant. For reference purposes, most theorists place the Oracles games either after ALttP/LA or after LoZ/AoL, and most place TMC before FS, and sometimes before OoT.)
Basic Description: The “New Adult Story” theory proposes that all of the older (2D) titles are to be placed in the “Child” line, along with MM and TP, and that the “Adult” timeline will hopefully eventually be treated as the start of its own distinct, new storyline series [so as to make placement less confusing in the future].
Pros: Significant similarities between TP and ALttP, resting place of the Master Sword in ALttP accounted for in TP, documented existence of a bloodline related to the hero in both TP and ALttP, emphasis on history in TP that parallels the emphasis on history seen in ALttP**
Cons: No documented existence of a sages’ seal on the Sacred Realm in the Child timeline, less coherent consistency regarding the state of the Triforce between TP and ALttP

Discuss.

EDIT: A strength of the "New Child Timeline" that I overlooked... the towns in AoL are named after the sages (in reality, vice-versa, but this is how a certain interview worded it). Presumably this has storyline significance, according to the script writer for OoT.
EDIT: Added a couple interesting, yet relatively minor details to both.

[Faceless]

All the games don't have to line up perfectly on one side of the timeline or the other.
We can have the games arranged in a checkerboard of sorts across both timelines - 1 here, 1 there.
Also, I would think most (almost all) would put MC first, in any timeline.

LttP just doesn't work after WW, so I'd have to say your second version works better.
The Triforce can happily be completed at any time between TP and LttP.

Again, AoL need not follow LttP for AoL to be set in the adult timeline.

[LexLionHart]

The following are not necessarily meant to be counterpoints, shooting down the opinons of Faceless; just neutral remarks hopefully influencing more open-minded thinking among everyone.

I would think most (almost all) would put MC first, in any timeline.

It used to be done based on the "hat tradition" idea, and based on the "FS is the oldest tale" quote, but these ideas have both lost considerable steam since their inception (Nintendo has dismissed the former, I believe).

The Triforce can happily be completed at any time between TP and LttP.

In all fairness, the Master Sword can happily be replaced in the Pedestal in the Woods at any time between TWW and ALttP, presuming that Hyrule is indeed restored as the Deku Tree's plan entails.

Both placements run into a problem; a sequel could easily remedy either problem.

Again, AoL need not follow LttP for AoL to be set in the adult timeline.

Definitely agreed. LoZ/AoL don't need to be in the same timeline. That Nintendo asserted that they are upon ALttP's release without contradiction since (besides a rather erroneous statement by Miyamoto) will lead most people to believe that, though, yes?





Some additional plausible ideas:

-- TMC and FS/FSA are on different timelines, featuring parallel origins of the Four Swordi.
-- The FS saga follows one timeline; the older games follow the other.
-- With Ganon's demise occuring in both schisms, TP and TWW, it's possible that this is indicative of a third timeline, unrelated to the 3D games, occuring alongside (makes the "TMC/FS go first" enthusiasts happy, fo sho').

[Faceless]

I don't think people are as passionate about the arrangement of the games as they are about the innocence of the Sheikah. I anticipate a rather relaxed thread.

The thing is, as yet, the Pedestal in the Woods does no exist in WW's half of the timeline, and the collapse of an entire Ocean on Hyrule will have likely turned the whole thing to ruins anyway. This doesn't bode well for it having the same landmarks as the TP half of the timeline. This of course includes the Pedestal.

MC and FS /FSA being on seperate timelines really doesn't sit right with me, and certainly not as different origins of the Four Sword. The Four Sword is clearly forged in MC from the fragments of the Picori Blade, and were these games both set on opposite sides of the timeline, I find it unlikely the sword would be broken in both, and so conveniently on the day of the portal between worlds in both timelines.

Furthermore, MC too neatly explains the backstory of Hyrule for it not to be the first game, and I don't remember hearing anything about Aonuma changing his mind about MC's placement. That, combined with the unlikeliness of the above happening lead me to believe that MC occurs before the split, (if not before any other game) and thus can't be on an opposite side of the timeline to anything.

[LexLionHart]

The thing is, as yet, the Pedestal in the Woods does no exist in WW's half of the timeline, and the collapse of an entire Ocean on Hyrule will have likely turned the whole thing to ruins anyway.

1) Did you visit the place where the Pedestal used to be to confirm this? xD
2) Isn't it in ruins in ALttP?

This doesn't bode well for it having the same landmarks as the TP half of the timeline. This of course includes the Pedestal.

If by "landmarks", you mean "structures", the only two structures that are shared between TP and ALttP are Hyrule Castle and the Pedestal ruins. Both of which existed in OoT, which is before both TP and TWW. If by "landmarks" you also mean "locales", the point remains the same. Very few things exist in both TP and ALttP that didn't exist in both OoT and ALttP as well.

Again, nothing says that either is or that either can't be the case. It's all a matter of what the gamer sees as important.

MC and FS /FSA being on seperate timelines really doesn't sit right with me, and certainly not as different origins of the Four Sword.

TMC provides origins of the Four Sword as a gift--in the form of the Picori blade--from the Minish.
FS provides origins of the Four Sword as a strange sword carried by a strange wanderer.

In both TMC and the FS backstory, the Four Sword is christened within the context of that story. FS backstory is decidedly not the same as TMC, since Vaati was neither a wind mage, nor did he kidnap maidens in TMC. Vaati is also fairly clearly destroyed in TMC, but is alive and well with no explanation in FS?

It's not necessarily a continuity-crushing discrepancy, but it does leave some open ends.

I don't remember hearing anything about Aonuma changing his mind about MC's placement.

I don't remember Aonuma ever placing TMC to begin with. Would you mind showing me the interview in which this happened, please?

[JC]

TMC and the Oracles are still Zelda games, Lex. If you're going to exclude them, you might as well exclude every other 2D Zelda title. They're not as irrelevant as you think.

Also, TMC and the Oracles need to be somewhat close together. Din and Nayru are in TMC, and in the game, it is said that they come from both Labrynna and Holodrum, respectively.

[LexLionHart]

TMC and the Oracles are still Zelda games, Lex. If you're going to exclude them, you might as well exclude every other 2D Zelda title. They're not as irrelevant as you think.

I didn't exclude them. I deemed them as the two titles with the least solid, most debatable placements. For TMC, usually before OoT or immediately before FS/FSA; for the Oracles, usually after ALttP/LA or after LoZ/AoL.

They didn't appear on the line for this reason, and because they're rather irrelevant to the two primary timelines most people will go with (i.e., the Oracles will probably not be too influential in the New Adult vs. New Child debate).

Also, TMC and the Oracles need to be somewhat close together.

I actually like the prospect, but Im curious as to how you'd work that out.

Additionally, how would you work out the Oracles placement with respect to the presence of Twinrova, or Tingle, or the Toilet Hand, etc. etc.? Moreover, is there any way to reconcile every character's appearance in every game in a way that makes sense? Several characters recur throughout the series while still obviously not being the same people; most notably Link and Zelda.

[Faceless]

I suppose I didn't word it too well.
What I meant was, the water would entirely destroy Ancient Hyrule's structures. It would be no more, and in the rebuilding process, I find it unlikely that things would be rebuilt as they were before. The inhabitants would have no recollection or knowledge of the original layout of Hyrule, and upon finding the Pedestal (if it had survived) wouldn't even know its function.

There's no bloodline in WW, and it's just a really big stretch to link LttP and WW based on the Triforce being whole for however long that lasts.

[JC]

I didn't exclude them. I deemed them as the two titles with the least solid, most debatable placements. For TMC, usually before OoT or immediately before FS/FSA; for the Oracles, usually after ALttP/LA or after LoZ/AoL.

You also said they were irrelevant, which is not the case:

NOTE: The Oracles placement and the placement of TMC are debatable as well as rather irrelevant.

I actually like the prospect, but Im curious as to how you'd work that out.

Additionally, how would you work out the Oracles placement with respect to the presence of Twinrova, or Tingle, or the Toilet Hand, etc. etc.? Moreover, is there any way to reconcile every character's appearance in every game in a way that makes sense? Several characters recur throughout the series while still obviously not being the same people; most notably Link and Zelda.

While its true that some characters are just randomly thrown into the mix (Malon, Talon, etc), The Minish Cap specifically states that Din is from Holodrum and Nayru is from Labrynna in their respective collectible statues you obtain with those Shells you find around Hyrule.

[LexLionHart]

There's no bloodline in WW, and it's just a really big stretch to link LttP and WW based on the Triforce being whole for however long that lasts.

The opposite side would reply

"There's no documented sages' seal in [the context of] TP [and the child timeline], and it's a really big stretch to link TP and ALttP based on the Master Sword remaining in the pedestal, for however long that lasts."

Literally every point that can be made against one has an equivalent counterpoint from the other.

I'm trying to play my cards using only facts, not my opinion of what's "a really big stretch."

I personally think both of them are a stretch, but I also thought that Ganondorf getting the Triforce of Power anyway in the child timeline [for TP] was a stretch too, so what do I know?

You also said they were irrelevant, which is not the case

I said where they're placed is irrelevant [implied, "irrelevant to the other games"]. Oracles could go before or after LoZ/AoL without having the remotest impact on the progression of those games; TMC could go before OoT or immediately before FS/FSA without having an impact on FS/FSA.

This is most certainly the case.

The Minish Cap specifically states that Din is from Holodrum and Nayru is from Labrynna in their respective collectible statues you obtain with those Shells you find around Hyrule.

So they're from Holodrum and Labrynna. It also says that one of them is descended from "a long line of [Oracles] from [Holodrum/Labrynna]", so what does that tell you?

[Faceless]

More of a stretch than the existance of the hero's bloodline, and the certainty of the existance of a Pedestal in the Sacred Grove. The Master Sword certainly wasn't located there in OoT - there's no way of knowing if that Pedestal ever existed in WW, or if it did, if it survived the downpour of an entire ocean.

All the useful Nintendo quotes I could find on MC:

NoE: How does the Minish Cap fit into the Zelda chronology? Is it a prequel to the upcoming The Legend of Zelda: Four Swords Adventures on GameCube?

Aonuma: Yes, this title takes place prior to The Legend of Zelda: Four Swords Adventures, and tells the secret of the birth of the Four Sword.

NP: In the prologue to this game, there are some hints that The Minish People brought a golden light into Hyrule. Does this relate to the Triforce legend?
HF: Golden light is a very, very old legend of Hyrule and nobody knows how it relates to the Triforce legend. It is still a big mystery whether it has some relationship with the Triforce, which is the most important element in the Legend of Zelda series.

http://www.landofthelegend.net/Hyrule/?grab=interviews

I know there are more out there.

[LexLionHart]

EDIT: If you're going to propose that the Pedestal in TP/ALttP is not the same as the one from OoT [when the Pedestals in both OoT and TP are in the "Temple of Time"], then I could just as easily propose that the Pedestal in ALttP is not the same one as the one in TP.

EDIT, PART DEUX: Your point on the hero's bloodline are more solid, although I'd point out that the bloodline in ALttP was related to the group of Knights who died out when the sages' seal was cast, and I don't see any sages' seal being cast in the child timeline [unless you propose that the war against evil is not OoT, which would involve contradicting a developer quote]. Regardless of whether or not TWW Link is related to OoT Link, other descendants of the Knights (who may or may not have been other relations of OoT Link, depending on your view on the subject) most likely survived, so the bloodline would still exist. (Again, this is all presuming that there is only one sages' seal cast through the course of the series in the Sacred Realm.)

Well, see, that shatters the thought that TMC is on a different timeline.

I still don't see how it's first, though, based only on what he said.

[Faceless]

I'll look for more, and in the meantime I've edited my above post.

[JC]

I said where they're placed is irrelevant [implied, "irrelevant to the other games"]. Oracles could go before or after LoZ/AoL without having the remotest impact on the progression of those games; TMC could go before OoT or immediately before FS/FSA without having an impact on FS/FSA.

Yes, TMC can go before OoT, but then FS/FSA would have to follow, if you go by the events and places and items spoken on in FSA like Ganondorf, the Gerudo, etc. If it went like:

TMC > OoT > FS > FSA > TP

It'd make no sense since TP's Ganondorf is the same one from OoT, and it seems as if Ganon obtained his power, or title as 'King of Evil' in FSA. Also, the Gerudo are in FSA and the whole game plays out as Ganondorf's 'rise to power', so to speak. Plus, depending on what you believe, FSA can't come after OoT due to TWW (he breaks specifically out of the Sages Seal, help cast with the Hero of Time's help). TMC, FS, and FSA really should remain together, and before OoT thanks to FSA.

So they're from Holodrum and Labrynna. It also says that one of them is descended from "a long line of [Oracles] from [Holodrum/Labrynna", so what does that tell you?

It tells me that they're decsendants of a long line of oracles from Holodrum and Labrynna. This doesn't excuse the fact that they specifically have the same names, titles, and hell, clothing. What has been said in-game has to be taken into account.

Actually, no. Now that I think about it, the Oracles can't even come too close to TMC at all. How can two Links be around at so close a time? Actually, can they?

Now I just confused myself. XD I'll need to look into it a bit further. If TMC is put before OoT, it could explain why Twinrova is present. But, eh. That's assuming too much, me thinks.

-------

And now that we are discussing Aonuma's sayings on TMC, he did in fact say once that it was the 'oldest tale' in the Zelda timeline, or something like that. I'll look for it. And here it is:

Billy Berghammer: That’s something that, you (Bill Trinen – Localization Team) and I have talked about with the release of the Zelda compilation disc, cleaning up some of the spellings like Ganon, and making sure everything is cohesive. Maybe that’s an American thing – us wanting to know how it all works together. I guess that leads me to my next questions. How do the Links in The Four Swords Adventure relate to the overall story line? Or is it just a subchapter or something like that?
Eiji Aonuma: The GBA Four Swords Zelda is what we’re thinking as the oldest tale in the Zelda timeline. With this one on the GameCube being a sequel to that, and taking place sometime after that.

Source: http://www.landofthelegend.net/Hyrule/?grab=z15interv-gi-ea-gdc

[LexLionHart]

Yes, TMC can go before OoT, but then FS/FSA would have to follow, if you go by the events and places and items spoken on in FSA like Ganondorf, the Gerudo, etc.

Why?

And as for the Oracles point, I still maintain that Nintendo's already shown us that characters can appear multiple times with basically the same backstory at several points throughout the series without necessarily being the same character. Feel free to continue trying to work it out, though.

he did in fact say once that it was the 'oldest tale' in the Zelda timeline, or something like that. I'll look for it.

He said that about FS at one point, but he would go on to say: "I actually wasn’t involved in the Game Boy Advance Four Swords game – that was before I became producer of the Zelda series. So there was another person at EAD that was responsible for the supervision of that title." (same source)

[Faceless]

The Temple of Time is in a different location in OoT and WW. We don't know how this happened, only that it did. It's not unreasonable to hypothesise that the Temple was only moved in TP's half of the timeline.

He said that about FS at one point, but he would go on to say: "I actually wasn’t involved in the Game Boy Advance Four Swords game – that was before I became producer of the Zelda series. So there was another person at EAD that was responsible for the supervision of that title." (same source)

Thus proving MC is the oldest story. If MC is the creation of the Four Sword, and the birth of Vaati (so to speak), then it predates Four Swords, and thus takes its position as the first story to date.

[LexLionHart]

^^ In comic book continuities, such changes are usually resolved as being retcons.

I have always maintained that such is the case with the Temple of Time.

EDIT: Since Aonuma admits he was "not involved" with FS, why should anything he says about it be remotely correct? [this is a rhetorical question] Furthermore, FSA's status as a direct sequel (i.e., one fairly clearly featuring the same Link as the previous game) means effectively that FS cannot predate OoT, since FSA's appearance of Ganon would then predate OoT as well.

[Faceless]

That's a weak arguement, and you've also dropped those cards you spoke of.
I'm really starting to lose track of this thread. :-[

[JC]

Why?

Why? Because if it goes as so:

TMC > OoT > FS > FSA,

it just makes no sense. In FSA, Ganondorf has been said to have been a sort of 'rogue' by almost ALL Gerudo women in the Desert of Doubt. Since Gerudo only make an apperance in two (or three, if you count Majora's Mask) games, they need to stay together. Comparing them to races like the Gorons or Zoras is pointless, actually, because they're everywhere almost. Not too much the Gorons, though. Just the Zora.

Also, in FSA, Ganondorf actually goes to the Pyramid (or some temple in that stage of the game) and gains his power from the Trident he steals and only through that does he become the 'King of Evil'.

He said that about FS at one point, but he had also just finished saying: "I actually wasn't involved with Four Swords for the GameBoy Advance." (rough quote)

See my above, edited post.

The Temple of Time is in a different location in OoT and WW. We don't know how this happened, only that it did. It's not unreasonable to hypothesise that the Temple was only moved in TP's half of the timeline.

The Temple of Time makes no apperance in The Wind Waker. The Master Sword is placed in the basement of the submerged Hyrule Castle. Also, you might be mistaking the Temple of Time for the Tower of the Gods, the third dungeon in The Wind Waker.

^^ In comic book continuities, such changes are usually resolved as being retcons.

I have always maintained that such is the case with the Temple of Time.

The comics are completely seperate from the games. While made by Nintendo, they don't have any affect on the actual games' storylines and continuity.

EDIT: Since Aonuma admits he was "not involved" with FS, why should anything he says about it be remotely correct? [this is a rhetorical question] Furthermore, FSA's status as a direct sequel (i.e., one fairly clearly featuring the same Link as the previous game) means effectively that FS cannot predate OoT, since FSA's appearance of Ganon would then predate OoT as well.

It doesn't matter what he says about it now. What needs to be known is that it comes in-between TMC and FSA, which both pre-date OoT thanks to the info in FSA and Aonuma's quote about TMC being the 'oldest tale' in the timeline.

[Faceless]

Well the Pedestal is still in the same location (more or less) whereas in TP it's miles off.
I wasn't thinking of the Tower of the Gods, but haven't been thinking things through tonight...
Perhaps I should get some sleep.