Zelda Timeline : your opinion

[Yorel]

Recently, Nintendo has announced that it was going to realise an encyclopedia called Hyrule Historia to celebrate the 25th birthday of the Zelda Franchise. As far as it goes, it seems this encyclopedia also reveals the timeline of the Zelda games: it's not been confirmed 100% by Nintendo, but it's been revealed on several Zelda fan sites as well as Zelda Wiki.

According to what has been collected, the Zelda Timeline would go as follow:
WARNING! Spoliers ahead: don't read if you don't want to know.

Skyward Sword
The Minish Cap
The Four Swords (the one released with the remake of A Link to the Past)
Ocarina of Time

From Ocarina of time, the games are then splitted in three alternate timelines linked to how the events of Ocarina of Time end.

Timeline A : Failure Timeline
The Basic precept is that Link failed in Ocarina of Time. In other words, he didn't defeat Ganon. However, given how the games of this timeline are ordrered, some speculate that though Link was defeated, Ganon was eventually sealed. The games of this timeline go according to the following order:

A Link to the Past
Oracle of Ages & Oracle of Seasons
Link's Awakening
The Legend of Zelda
Zelda II: The Adventure of Link

Timeline B : Young Link Timeline
This is the "Child Timeline" of the Adult/Child split theory of Ocarina of Time. In this scenario, Link defeated Ganon and then went back to his childhood days. Ganondorf was exposed as a traitor, and everything went as it was. The order of the games of this timeline is:

Majora's Mask
Twilight Princess
Four Swords Adventures

Timeline C : Adult Link Timeline
This one is, complementary to Timeline B, the "Adult Timeline" of the Adult/Child split theory. It follows the events after Link returned to his childhood days: Ganon escaped his dark prison and, eventually, this resulted in the three Cell-Shading Zelda Games.

The Wind Waker
Phantom Hourglass
Spirit Tracks

Now that you know the official timeline, what do you think about it?

For my part, I was never really convinced there was a Zelda timeline until recently. To me, the Zelda series worked more like the Fire Emblem and Final Fantasy franchises: games of the same genre, with the same themes, similar settings and eventually recurring characters but that did not forcibly follow each other (with exceptions naturally). Even today, I remain partially skeptical to the idea that there is a timeline going on: I tend to think that Nintendo hadn't originally planned to make a Zelda timeline.

Not counting that, I must say that this timeline does make sense to me, though I might have place Minish Cap & maybe Four Swords before Skyward Sword. However, the fact there are three separated timeline bothers me a little: especially Timeline A since it's basically telling players that they failed in one of the games. In my opinion, they might have been able of placing everything in one single timeline, though it probably was simpler the way Nintendo choose to do it in the end.

So in other words, I haven't much to say against the timeline. But I do find that Nintendo could have done a better job.

 

[Plumber]

Meh. It's ok. Timeline A should be merged with B, really.
Didn't expect to see FSA so late.

 

[jmberry]

I've already made my opinions on the lunacy of a split timeline clear. The fact that Aonuma has basically declared every game he didn't work on non-canon (as a game's canon always assumes the protagonist won) only confirms that what he claims regarding the timeline should not be accepted.

 

[teg]

My personal opinion (bearing in my mind I haven't played the more recent Zelda games) is that Ocarina of Time was the first chronological Zelda game, followed by the Wind Waker/Phantom Hourglass/Spirit Tracks. Then we get the Twilight Princess and the rest of the games in no particular order (mostly because I haven't played them....)

 

[Pkmatrix]

Hm... it never would've occurred to me to split it into three timelines. It's actually a somewhat elegant solution to the problem: the games in Timeline A all fit together well, but are difficult to place in sequence with the newer post-Ocarina of Time games. While I'd have preferred they stuck to two timelines, this isn't a bad solution either.

Also, is it wrong to assume that Timeline A isn't so much one where "Link fails", but rather one where the Hero of Time never appears to challenge Ganondorf and, instead, Sheik/Zelda leads Hyrule to victory over Ganondorf/Ganon? That's basically what's going on when Link travels into the future, we just don't get to see the war. It's kind of funny, though, as it implies that Ganondorf never could win: he's either foiled by young Link exposing his plans, defeated by adult Link, or sealed away by adult Zelda and her army.

 

[Yorel]

a game's canon always assumes the protagonist won

Not always. In Mortal Kombat, there is a game where the Canon Ending is actually the player loosing if I recall correctly. It also seems to me that there a few game series where a "failure" is included in the Canon. And lastly, though it's not really a failure, the Best Ending of multiple endings games is not always the Canon one.

I do agree with you though that having the Big Bad win is not a good idea. That's the main thing I have against the Nintendo timeline, because I don't like the fact they assumed players failed in Ocarina of Time for the Timeline A Split.

Also, is it wrong to assume that Timeline A isn't so much one where "Link fails", but rather one where the Hero of Time never appears to challenge Ganondorf and, instead, Sheik/Zelda leads Hyrule to victory over Ganondorf/Ganon? That's basically what's going on when Link travels into the future, we just don't get to see the war.

Well, it's currently called "Failure Timeline" amongst the Zelda fan site. However, your explanation could also work: especially considering that the game that follows Ocarina of Time is A Link to the Past in Timeline A, a game where Ganon is sealed in the Dark World.

It's kind of funny, though, as it implies that Ganondorf never could win: he's either foiled by young Link exposing his plans, defeated by adult Link, or sealed away by adult Zelda and her army.

You could see that as "Evil never wins" (Wonder if there is a Trope like that on TV Trope... ). Plus, isn't that why we love Ganon(dorf) so much? After all, in every game he appears, even the non-canon crappy CDI games, he always fail and is defeated

 

[jmberry]

Looking at the translated bits online, I'm actually reminded of Nintendo of America's old timeline (OoT -> MM -> ALttP -> Oracles -> LoZ -> Z2, with LA crammed into Z2 ... it predated all the other games), which was the last serious attempt to justify the "One Link" theory. Since the timeline description seems so similar (Game summary -> Short Connecting Paragraph -> Next Game Summary -> Connecting Paragraph -> Etc.) it really speaks of general disinterest on Nintendo's part.

 

[Plumber]

Hm... it never would've occurred to me to split it into three timelines. It's actually a somewhat elegant solution to the problem: the games in Timeline A all fit together well, but are difficult to place in sequence with the newer post-Ocarina of Time games. While I'd have preferred they stuck to two timelines, this isn't a bad solution either.

Also, is it wrong to assume that Timeline A isn't so much one where "Link fails", but rather one where the Hero of Time never appears to challenge Ganondorf and, instead, Sheik/Zelda leads Hyrule to victory over Ganondorf/Ganon? That's basically what's going on when Link travels into the future, we just don't get to see the war. It's kind of funny, though, as it implies that Ganondorf never could win: he's either foiled by young Link exposing his plans, defeated by adult Link, or sealed away by adult Zelda and her army.

That makes much more sense, but still seems a bit... lazy.
They should just make more games to tie the world together.

 

[Will Lucky]

I've already made my opinions on the lunacy of a split timeline clear. The fact that Aonuma has basically declared every game he didn't work on non-canon (as a game's canon always assumes the protagonist won) only confirms that what he claims regarding the timeline should not be accepted.

I prefer to think of it the other way, the Child and Adult timelines are what if scenarios.

The theory about Link pulling the sword out and therefore creating a second timeline without a Link is flawed in that it creates a timeline without a Master Sword. Link must also have been defeated before he could get the Master Sword in OOT as in LTTP its stated no one worthy came forward to wield it when the time came.

 

[jmberry]

I prefer to think of it the other way, the Child and Adult timelines are what if scenarios.

The theory about Link pulling the sword out and therefore creating a second timeline without a Link is flawed in that it creates a timeline without a Master Sword. Link must also have been defeated before he could get the Master Sword in OOT as in LTTP its stated no one worthy came forward to wield it when the time came.

Like I've claimed, the Split Timeline only makes things simpler with regards to a single scene in OoT. It otherwise complicates things to a very unnecessary degree.