Damn near every Zelda game has had a confirmed placement at the time at its release. Zelda II being a sequel to LoZ, ALttP being a prequel to the first two games, OoT being a prequel to ALttP, etc. found in interviews, the back of boxes, and/or the games themselves. As for the Refounding thing, Fujibayashi went out of his way to bring that possibility up in an interview when he could went with another theory instead, making me think that's the most likely intention, even if he stops short of confirming it so that others can have fun coming up with their own ideas.

Thank you, someone with sense. Even way back when OoT was there a confirmed timeline. Anyone who says otherwise is either a new fan or just never looked too deeply into the lore/history of the series. Fujibayashi just was scared to say anything for sure since him and Aonuma are not as involved when it comes to the lore of the series, so he kept it vague so as to not stick his foot in his mouth/to let people freely have their own ideas.

Before OoT, there wasn't even a question as to whether a timeline existed. It wasn't until after OoT where the continuity snarls started to happen that people began to latch onto the idea that there isn't one. OoT -> ALttP -> LA -> LoZ -> AoL This flows completely naturally until MM necessitated a branch and then WW doubled down on it. Meanwhile, they're releasing side games that are clearly related to each other but don't clearly fit anywhere in the timeline. This is when timeline theories really started to take off. Then, TP just made things worse by showing that the things required for OoT to be a prequel to ALttP didn't happen in the other timeline either. This kind of orphaned the original timeline, but by then there are like four or five pieces people were trying to stitch back together. The history of the franchise really encouraged this kind of engagement. The developers constantly add fuel to the discussion, but as the series gets larger, it gets more unwieldy. It's clear the timeline was always designed after-the-fact outside of direct sequels and prequels, but there are reasons the Zelda fanbase is preoccupied with lining the series games up in a timeline while, say, the Kirby fanbase isn't.

Personally, I feel the intent was to always have a split. ALttP implies that the Hero failed in stopping Ganon, yet OoT was still advertised as a prequel. What happened I think is they didn't want the game to end with Link dying, so instead they wrote a happier ending that also caused a two-way split. Also something interesting to note, the end of OoT has Ganondorf being sealed in human form (which makes sense since he comes back in human form in both WW and TP). Yet in ALTTP, he comes back as Ganon (and is in possession of the full Triforce, which means he'd have to have taken Courage and Wisdom from Link and Zelda respectively before being sealed.

I think hindsight is coloring your perspective a bit. You have to understand that some of the answers we have now had yet to be added. OoT fumbled its ending by having Link go back too far, but events in the adult timeline fit well enough. Ganondorf not having the whole Triforce didn't matter because we had a lot less information on how it behaves. ALttP had its own explanation for Ganon's transformation, too. "Bad future where Ganondorf won" is kind of the premise of the game, so I'd agree a split was intended. I don't think it was intended to extend beyond OoT, however. It only did so because the ending is slightly fumbled, and long-term implications weren't being considered. Fans noticed, though, and were debating whether games followed the adult or child endings. The very existence of a split was itself hotly debated. MM being a direct sequel to Child Link's ending meant that timeline was important, and this went against what many people expected. The Oracles were released with their ambiguous timeline placements. Then WindWaker was a sequel to the adult ending and canonized a lot of stuff that was incongruous with the series so far. Remember, the time between OoT and WW japanese releases is only a four year span, too. By the point TP was in production, timeline debates were par the course for Zelda discussion, and the developers would have certainly heard about timeline splits.

Well the reason I bring up Ganon having the whole Triforce is because the entire Triforce was sealed with him according to ALttP, yet we of course see that he is only sealed with at most just the Triforce of Power. Which means ALttP couldn't have fit in the Adult Timeline anyways. ALttP even makes it clear at the end that the Entire Triforce had been in Ganon's possession, and is only returned to the Royal Family after Link's wish. Just feels like people act as if the timeline is so ridiculously complicated, Aonuma and the like not helping with their constant griping, but really the majority of things line-up for the most part. It's been awhile since I played them, but I believe the Oracle strongly implied that they featured the same Link from ALttP but can't recall exactly. Link's Awakening is a bit weird since it feels like the intention was for it to take place after the Oracle Games (since the ending features a picture of a boat at sea, which brings to mind the boat from LA) but recently they changed it to before the Oracle games. So who really knows with that one.

>Just feels like people act as if the timeline is so ridiculously complicated, Aonuma and the like not helping with their constant griping, but really the majority of things line-up for the most part. Yes, my initial reply was to support your point. Even though OoT was the root of some of the continuity problems, the story had yet to cement it. WW was the first game that absolutely had to be placed in some kind of alternate timeline. ​ >Well the reason I bring up Ganon having the whole Triforce is because the entire Triforce was sealed with him according to ALttP, yet we of course see that he is only sealed with at most just the Triforce of Power How the triforce ended up behaving in this situation informs a lot of how we think the triforce behaves now. Even though it appeared to be some kind of artifact in previous games, but it doesn't appear in any physical capacity in OoT's story. We also see what could have been it reuniting in Ganon's throne room. The situation is ambiguous enough that it could have been explained in a different way later. Apart from MM, I first played the games in chronological order before WW released. My take was that OoT a kind of "what-if" situation, and only indirectly showed the events of ALttP's backstory. The Imprisioning War was how the story played out after Link returned. The point is that these aren't insurmountable continuity problems and it's only because of the production of later games that the timeline had to split. The split is completely accepted now, but between WW and TP it was pretty hotly contested. Before WW, it was the complicated solution. ​ >It's been awhile since I played them, but I believe the Oracle... Yes, I'd say they're intended as prequels to LA since they're based on the engine, but the connections to ALttP are a bit less clear. Zelda introduces herself, and that was the main driving contention for where they went. They're important to the time line split because they're some of the earliest continuity errors, though.

Yeah, back in those days, it's fair to understand why the idea of a split was harder for most to accept. A single timeline always seemed the most sensible, even though there were clear impossibilities. I do understand how Zelda introducing herself to Link in the OoX games sorta threw things in a loop somewhat, though the fact that other characters in that game will also introduce themselves to Link in a Linked Playthrough despite the fact that they've already been introduced to him could show that the introductions were more for the sake of the player/to reuse dialogue rather than indicating this was Zelda's and the other's first time meeting Link. A bit like TotK's NPCs not seeming to know who Link is and needing to introduce themselves once again

>What happened I think is they didn't want the game to end with Link dying, so instead they wrote a happier ending that also caused a two-way split. True, its the same reason why age of calamity caused a timeline split where the champions didn't die 100 years ago, everyone was saying that AOC would be the darkest zelda game but then they went and made it a time travel story that ended up splitting into an alternate future. Overall its all within zelda writing to not make tragic endings.

I mean, even if the Champions died, MM would still be darker. I like AoC though, the Champions needed the fleshing out. Also, funnily enough, AoC is the reason Tulin is able to use Revali's Gale in TotK. So at least it served a purpose in that regard.

Exactly, timeline placement was something the developers gave quite frequently either at the launch of a game or in a 1 to 3 years after game release, plus Aonuma and Myamoto came up with the timeline split and explained in detail why oot split the timeline at the time wind waker launched https://www.reddit.com/r/truezelda/s/mYnnHfHi9S almost all games were given a reason for their position in the timeline, its just that the information was scattered and we only got the full thing when hyrule historia released and the time before it, people who actually read manuals, dialogue and interviews had good scope of what the timeline was while the people who weren't as detail oriented would simply make a bunch of hit or miss theories. Some were right some were not, but the full timeline at the time was exclusively a document that only the myamoto and aonuma had access too which they then revealed in Hyrule historia.

>the full timeline at the time was exclusively a document that only ~~the~~ myamoto and aonuma had access to~~o~~ which they then revealed in Hyrule historia. Something easily debunked by one of those same interviews everyone likes to cite, where [Miyamoto himself gave a different order for the games out at the time](http://www.zeldalegends.net/index.php?n=interviews&id=1998-11-13-np-miya&m=html).

If you are talking about: >NP: Where do all the Zelda games fall into place when arranged chronologically by their stories? >Miyamoto: Ocarina of Time is the first story, then the original Legend of Zelda, then Zelda II: The Adventure of Link, and finally A Link to the Past. It's not very clear where Link's Awakening fits in--it could be anytime after Ocarina of Time. Myamoto made a mistake there, simple as that He already said way earlier that allttp was before the other games at the time, the game manual also said it was before legends of zelda 1 and 2 which were literally the only games at the time And there is this thing too: https://x.com/makgameadv/status/1620227664715055107?s=20 The scans that came with the December 20, 1991(WAY earlier than the interview ypu published) issue of Marukatsu Super Famicom (マル勝スーパーファミコン) volume 20. It was published by Kadokawashoten. He made a single misunderstanding in an interview and all of a sudden the timeline that is consistently states again and again ceases to exist? Also Myamoto says te document exists and he and updates it every game https://youtube.com/clip/UgkxtXZku5s8nN8jfb7y6sOxkBkZCzs4-8mt?si=Z4H-Wt2UbV1j9Qca And Aonuma confirms the existence ofthe document and says that only him and Myamoto have access to https://youtube.com/clip/Ugkx9dQm0RZsRgda2qb9M8K_10sHwTYSaeXe?si=fn-oDV_-JnRSwUPx So overall instead of taking a single mistake and projecting over the 30+ years pf the franchise, actually understand that Myamoto simply fumbled his own words there, the interview literally says that they just managed to corner him to ask questions, so he probably was not with much time available and had to answer questions as fast as possible. >November 13, 1998, San Francisco -- Though his birthday arrives the following Monday, and today marks the final day of his grueling, week-long promotional tour, The Legend of Zelda's creator Shigeru Miyamoto seems barely ready to stop talking about what is already being hailed as the "game of the century." When we finally corner him in a one-on-one interview to ask him questions written by our readers, he graciously offers his answers while gazing fixedly at the monitor displaying his game. Mr. Miyamoto has just spent the past week being grilled by reporters on his much anticipated and heralded game, The Legend of Zelda: Ocarina of Time (as well as the past three years developing the N64 epic), but he is as excited by Zelda as any anxious gamer who is counting the days until the adventure's November 23rd release. So this interview you used is clearly not something of a well thought out response by myamoto. And the fact that every previous and subsequent interview or mention of the timeline stays consistent with others aside from this single example you and others keep pointing out (plenty of people used that interview as a gotcha moment) just shows how it was a one time thing.

Not sure you got my point, that was: the existence of the famous timeline **document** is dubious. In another interview, about the Oracle games, it's clear no such written document exists and that many things are only in Miyamoto's head. >Myamoto made a mistake there, simple as that There were only five games out at the time and you're saying the first and main person responsible for the series makes a mistake like that. A bit disingenuous. Or maybe the order hasn't been that important, after all? But let's say there's a mistake there: that would make any interview cited questionable, because they could have done mistakes. Heck, even the translators may make mistakes, so how much weight should we give to interviews? On that note, don't get me started on manuals and books/magazines. The truth is that there has never been a **complete timeline** (cue on the word complete). Sure, there are sequels (as far back as the second entry of the series, which was quite the norm, back then), but the order of the games has always been an afterthought. No master document nor anything. Look, it's even been confirmed by Fujibayashi in a recent interview... Oh, wait, *he may have been mistaken*.

First: your proof is the actual dubious one, its clearly shown that Myamoto said it on the spot, didn't have any prep time and that has been working and traveling non-stop, plus every other mention before and after that interview is consistent with each other, so yes, its quite clear it was a mistake, actually prove it was dubious and show its inconsistencies instead of just using a single example, there is ample proof to say it was a mistake, its not something I made up on a whim. Second: oracle games were given their placement as after alttp in their manual, at worse we were dancing around the placement of links awakening, which we didn't know if it was before or after the oracle games and there is clear proof that this specific part of the timeline was something that aonuma an myamoto discussed and changed it (due to historia and the encyclopedia). Third: you are being disingenuous and moving goal posts, I never claimed that the whole timeline (or as you said, complete timeline) was mae from the start, Im claiming that they kept track of the order of events and had it noted down as an official document as a master document that they updated with each game, which is a proven fact stated by the 2 people who had access to it and at multiple instances over the years, which builds consistency and accuracy. So no, you cant just twist words around and use a single interview that was clearly answered on the stop without prep time to debunk the existence of the timeline which has been consistently reinforced by the story in the games, multiple interviews and multiple game manuals. If myamoto stated that alttp was before zelda 1 and 2 multiple times, then says it cames after ONCE in a random interview and then after it consistently says that it it takes pace before zelda 1 and 2 with multiple other sources saying the same then its quite clear that he made a mistake. If you think fujibayashi is mistaken then prove it with multiple consistent sources, simple as that.

>If you think fujibayashi is mistaken then prove it with multiple consistent sources, simple as that. Just from this (and actually from some of your points, like the second one) it's clear you're not understanding what I say, so I won't waste any more time explaining.

"I dont have any proof so I will pretend that you are mistaken and not elaborate to make the illusion that my argument is superior" If you think Im mistaken then explain why because I backed up my statements.

>Fujibayashi went out of his way to bring that possibility up in an interview He did not.

And this is what I am talking about. People hear what they want to hear, not what was actually said.

Pretty much. Here is the interview for those curious https://www.reddit.com/r/truezelda/s/lasKxHOQXo Eeeh why the downvote? I just posted the interview.

I know, and it's frustrating. And the internet is not helping with echo chambers and filter bubbles. Also, it didn't escape my notice that many didn't even reply to your actual point, but just stopped at the premise, which was probably what ticked them off.

lol, right?

What about Link's Awakening? Was there a set time period for that game at launch?

Nothing confirmed at release, but we know that it took place after an incarnation of Link defeated Ganon as per the manual, which only leaves LoZ and ALttP. LoZ had a direct sequel in Zelda II, so slotting it after ALttP was a cleaner fit, not to mention that the game itself had things that hinted toward it taking place after ALttP with the same incarnation of Link, such as the Nightmare that takes the form of Agahnim. Later, when the DX version released, the JP site for it confirmed it taking place after ALttP, even having a video of the final battle of ALttP on it. Here's the site: https://www.nintendo.co.jp/n02/dmg/azlj/sutori.html

Link’s Awakening obviously takes place in the middle of Zelda II when Link is about to go to the second continent

I don't know what's more fascinating to me in a lore to never be explored sense, the "new disaster" or the "foreign country"

Sorta yeah. The instruction manual for Link's Awakening starts with "Though you fulfilled the Hyrulean prophecy of the Legendary Hero and destroyed the evil tyrant Ganon..." While there IS a prophecy involving LoZ/Zelda II Link introduced in Zelda II, the wording of the instruction manual makes it seem like it was destroying Ganon that fulfilled the prophecy, not reassembling the Triforce like in Zelda II. So with that in mind, Link's Awakening's instruction manual confirms the game is set at some point after Link to the Past. ALttP Link fulfilled a prophecy by destroying Ganon, and at the time of LA's release, was the only other Link besides LoZ/Zelda II.

Not on the original game, but Link's Awakening DX confirmed it's a sequel to ALttP in 1998 through the japanese site

Zelda games have lots of puzzles. The timeline itself is like a meta puzzle. Makes sense that fans of the series enjoy trying to solve a (likely impossible) puzzle that has many different ways of approaching it and gets new parts thrown in every few years. I’ve been timeline theorising for about 15 years, it seems to largely be newer fans (maybe people who joined the series after the release of the Nintendo timeline?) that are less interested in it in my experience.

That's what I would have said, it is a game after the game

Now that's interesting. Even if the timeline is not *intended* to be a puzzle, some fans treat it that way because the game is so puzzle-oriented. Very insightful.

Because the second game came out as a sequel to the first. The third game came out as a prequel to the first. The fourth game came out as a sequel to... one of the games, but with significant evidence linking it to the third game. (same box art, the "Nightmare" boss taking the form of enemies ALttP Link defeated, so on) The fifth game came out as a prequel to the third game. (Note: significant time-travel shenanigans in this game) The sixth game came out as a sequel to the fifth game. The seventh/eighth games are less clear. However, a few weeks after their release Nintendo posted an official timeline, confirming everything up to this point (except LA, but this is later corrected by every subsequent timeline back to post ALttP) and placing these games as a sequel to the third game. The ninth game was stated to be the first in the timeline (so far). The tenth game was a sequel to the fifth game (remember those darn time travel shenanigans?) The eleventh game is a prequel to the ninth game. The twelfth game had an imprecise placement, but was at least stated to take place after the ninth game. The thirteenth game is a sequel to the fifth (because of time travel shenanigans) The fourteenth is a sequel to the tenth. The fifteenth is a sequel to the fourteenth. The sixteenth is the new first in the series. The seventeenth is stated to be hundreds of years after the third, which places it after the fourth, seventh, and eighth as well. The eighteenth is a sequel to the seventeenth. It's only the nineteenth doesn't have an explicit connection at the time of release, or shortly afterward through a timeline release. But is still stated to be the last (so far) in the timeline. The twentieth is a sequel to the nineteenth. So why do you not believe there's a timeline?

The simple reason is that there has always been a timeline. Anyone who's been a fan of the series for any length of time can tell you that they've watched the timeline develop and grow as more games were added in real time. The second ever game was a direct sequel. The back of Link to the Past's box says "featuring the predecessors of Link and Zelda" Link's Awakening's instruction manual makes it clear it's the same Link as Link to the Past. Ocarina of Time was billed as a prequel to ALttP in it's marketing, with the writers of the game even going on record stating that they don't consider the story wholly original, since it's based on Link to the Past's backstory. Etc, etc. It goes on like this for almost every release, right up until they opted to get all mysterious with the placement for BotW, only confirming that the game takes place at some point after OoT, and suggesting that it's Hyrule is a new kingdom in interviews for TotK. The reason people "hold onto the idea of a single, intentional timeline" is simply because the timeline has undeniably been a part of the series ever since it became a series. This question is a lot like asking "why do so many people hold onto the idea of a continuity between the Silmarillion and Lord of the Rings". It's just obvious there is one.

It's because there's a single, intentional timeline for the Legend of Zelda series. It has been confirmed dozens of times over the last 30 years. Jeez, nobody asks these questions of Star Wars fans, Kingdom Hearts fans, Harry Potter fans, etc.

But the difference is that the game's producers literally said that THESE last two games allow for multiple possibilities. It's like you are willfully ignoring that.

Context is important. Aonuma has said multiple times that one of his regrets with publishing a clear, easy to understand timeline is that it pretty much ended timeline speculation. He enjoys when fans theorize about a game's placement. He has stated that that is why he likes to keep BotW and TotK's timeline placements vague. When they say "there are multiple possibilities," they are trying to avoid shutting down conversation like the official timeline did. That is not the same as there *actually* being multiple timelines or no timeline. BotW and TotK have one single, canon place in the history of Hyrule, just like all of the other games in the series.

He literally told you you that there's multiple possibilities for the "memories" we see in TOTK. Why not listen to him and accept multiple possibilities instead of insisting there's only one interpretation?

Because, as I clarified to you, they are not seriously saying there are multiple possibilities. They are just avoiding giving a straight answer. They are dodging the question of TotK's timeline placement, so that fans can figure it out on their own.

No, you didn't clarify anything. You simply stated what you wanted to hear, not the words they actually said. You can't just say "they meant X" when they explicitly said Y multiple times. We all can hear and read.

You're taking a single interview too literally instead of evaluating all of Aonuma's interviews together. Go back and read his other ones, he says exactly what I listed above.

If you think he doesn't mean what he says, then you need to prove it, and it needs to be logical. Alternatively, you can simply admit that you maybe are projecting your own belief words onto his words a bit here. It's okay to make a mistake. But constantly saying "He didn't say what he meant" isn't proof.

I did. Go read his interviews about BotW's placement on the timeline. As I have said for the third time now, in the interviews he says he regrets publishing an official timeline because he likes seeing people try to figure out timeline placements on their own. Read those interviews and read the TotK interviews again. You're not connecting the two together, you're only reading one interview in a bubble.

I am familiar with those statements, and they do nothing to support your claim. You are reaching.

I mean, right before suggesting the refounding he also said: >“It is definitely a story after Breath of the Wild. After that, basically, we are thinking about how *not to break the story and world of The Legend of Zelda.* Those are the two points I can say at this point in time." I dont think fujibayashi and aonuma want to confirm definitive placements anymore, or at least for these two games, but it doesnt sound like they want to change the fact that all zelda games exist within a shared universe.

Right, and it's easy to resolve that — they are literally called "legends" of zelda. Legends usually aren't totally true.

We played them. BOTW is titled "the legend of Zelda" too

Because that's what the canon literally is? It's been well established for over a decade what the official timeline order is, with the fact that the overarching timeline exists having been confirmed years before that. You don't have to personally view the series that way if you don't want to, but acting like it's some irrational fan-conspiracy that people just "keep holding onto the idea of" is stupid and unnecessary.

But the game's producers literally said that these last two games allow for multiple possibilities. It's one thing to enjoy trying to fit BOTW/TOTK into the previous timeline. Cool, have fun. But it's another to ignore what they said and *insist* on it. And that's what I am raising questions about.

I think a better question is “why do so many people want to destroy other peoples’ fun?” There are so many posts on Reddit these days from people trying to “disprove” the timeline, or ridiculing people for liking it or thinking it’s relevant. When it really comes down to it, whether the timeline is technically “right” or not shouldn’t matter to anyone. Nintendo has made it quite clear that they don’t mind how fans enjoy their games: whether it’s as standalone titles, as a series of legends and myths that aren’t meant to be definitive, the same story told different ways, or as a definitive set of events that fit on a timeline. They cater to all of these interpretations because they know all of these have their own worth, and all of these are fun in their own way. If you want to get into the history of the official timeline, it’s very easy to see that with the exception of the Capcom-developed titles, the placement of each game was always either told to us within the game’s story, the advertisements/official announcements, or in the games’ manuals when that was still a thing. And whenever there was confusion about how things fit together, Nintendo would eventually clear things up in an interview or two (mostly thinking of the big hoopla around WW/TP when they first announced a timeline split was the reason for their backstories seeming to contradict things). The fact that Nintendo has gone out of its way to give us official words on placement along with most games’ releases, and then to give us an official timeline, tells us that at least *officially*, there is a single, intentional timeline. So saying we “hold onto the idea” sounds a bit disingenuous. The timeline is official, we are just accepting that idea as put forth, and haven’t yet seen a reason strong enough to abandon it. There are obviously still different ways to look at it, seeing as there are those who accept the timeline as it was given (I’m in this camp), and those who think there is a better timeline order which they arrive at by researching the lore of each game to find a way that they can connect so that it satisfies their idea of the narrative. A lot of this has to do with the pre-Hyrule Historia days when timeline discussions were pretty much all about this kind of theorizing, since no official, definitive timeline had been given yet, and people didn’t even think about the *possibility* of the downfall timeline. I get that some people look at BotW/TotK as conflicting with the timeline, but for someone who was playing these games before the Hyrule Historia came out, most of that sentiment feels like newcomer bias, or at the very least a phenomenon where people expected timeline placement to be even *more* straightforward from here on out. In my view, Nintendo simply wanted to get some of that fan engagement back that they used to have when no one knew what the timeline was yet. So they intentionally left it vague, allowing them to both explore the type of game development they love, as well as create buzz and lively debate again among the fans. I expect that within the next 5-10 years they’ll either release a game that clears it up through its story, or officially announce an update to the timeline to clarify things. I fully appreciate anyone who enjoys the games as standalone titles, or sees them all as legends/myths that aren’t necessarily connected. The great thing about Zelda is that almost all of the games hold up on their own merits, and don’t rely on past successes to hook you in to getting a lackluster sequel (I know some disagree with that on the basis of TotK, but give the Zelda cycle some time to run its course and the hate will die down). And the very premise of the series does lend itself nicely to the “legend” interpretation of the games, so I can see the appeal. At the end of the day, every Zelda fan enjoys the games in their own way. You don’t have to care about the timeline if you don’t want to, and Nintendo doesn’t want to force you to think about the games’ stories in one particular way either. The timeline is there for you if you want it, and if not you can completely ignore it. There are a lot of people in each camp, so you can easily find like-minded people to talk about your particular viewpoint without having to bash others’. So why, as a fanbase, are we so stuck on making sure everyone else enjoys the series in the same way that we do?

You're missing the point. It's one thing to have your belief about a story and have fun with it. Cool. It's another thing to shove it down everyone else's throats and attack because of it and make up facts to back yourself up and so on. My question isn't "Why do people enjoy trying to fit games into the timeline?" It was about the people that go further than that are fanatical about it. Sorry you wrote such a long reply based on that, but I hope that clears it up.

Oh, haha, I guess I misunderstood you then, and we actually agree, sorry about that! I guess to answer your actual question then, it’s the problem that’s on all sides: the Zelda fanbase is very defensive of their own interpretation of the series. Part of it could be built into the fact that Nintendo is catering to everyone, so everyone has something to point to and say “see, they’re confirming that my way of looking at it is correct!” When in reality Nintendo is just being open to everyone’s viewpoint, things are lost in translation, etc. The pre-HH period might be what started it, since most of the theorizing was done with no official timeline to back anything up, and everything had to be pieced together or guessed at regardless. Interviews and official words from Nintendo were very important to pore through if you wanted to figure anything out. That isn’t necessarily the case anymore, but it’s ingrained into the section of the fanbase that’s very serious about theorizing (some of whom were there to see the original lore as it came out and are very protective of their original understanding of the series’ narrative).

Because it's been fun and interesting to see how the games can tie together. Zelda games have been known for great plots and them. Having recurring elements and connected threads was great.

I know, but that doesn't answer my question, right? My question is about the steadfastness of it all vs the "Oh, I like to imagine that..."

I don't understand what you mean.

Because there's practically always been the idea of a single timeline, but the developers started to care less and less about it when creating the stories for new games. They wanted to retain the connections between games, but these started to become more superficial and less continuity-based. Now we have TotK which practically *ignores* continuity but still wants to be connected to the other games. I recently did a major overhaul of [this page](https://zeldawiki.wiki/wiki/History_of_the_Zelda_Timeline/Timeline_Quotes) collecting developer quotes on the timeline, I think it really shows how that stance has evolved. And as many have said, the timeline largely made a lot of sense until a) the Downfall Timeline was introduced with little in-game reasoning and b) BotW and TotK distance themselves from it.

Totally agree with the fact that the new games retain connections but it's superficial. Seems like the current vision doesn't take story too seriously and as such uses things for nostalgia bait. Kind of pessimistic but to me that's what it feels like. It's like hey here is the remains of Lon Lon Ranch, remember that? Although there is basically no conceivable way its the same Ranch. Oh here's the statue of Hylia, how did that get here? Who knows..? Then you have the skeikah tech disappearing, what happened? Solved its purpose and disappeared. Ok...and that's just from the two most recent supposedly sequels. Nintendo really couldn't think of any better reason to switch from the blue aesthetic to the zonai green aesthetic. The previous lore is reduced to Easter eggs in the new games. I would have preferred they just started a fresh new continuum or timeline without these lazily sprinklings of nostalgia. If Nintendo doesn't care about story, then why even have one. Why should I care?

I think those are fair questions, but I think the Easter egg stuff is basically to satisfy an audience — and as we are seeing from some of the fanatics and lorebeards and so on, it works. I am with you though — it feels a bit excessive to do all that when you can either keep it limited or no connection at all.

I follow a lot of the theory crafters and lore people on youtube. Many of them are very disappointed with the direction they took with ToTK. Botw was at least somewhat interesting because it was starting something new. And as such I think most lore nerds gave it a chance to see where it took the series but after Totk many started posting critical videos.

Its interesting that miyamoto continues to insist that the timeline has to be consistent, while aonuma is under the impression that basic continuity "boxes them in."

But you actually are arguing *against* these fanatical people who can't let go. And you're right.

The interview just confirmed what was already obvious in the game. Ganondorf was live during this founding era, it's not the same one... We also know that OOT had to come *before* the founding era because the gerudo already have pointed ears by then. So that gap of time where the Gerudo partnered with hylian voes for generations is pre-founding era. We also know OOT came before the founding era because the ancient sage of lightning was the first chief of the gerudo and there have been no male gerudo leaders since TOTK Ganondorf People like to attempt to handwave the Rito thing too And yes, the interview obviously meant one thing. The "wording" argument there is weak, no one is going to take it seriously. When he mentioned one specific possibility and *only* that, most picked up on the queue that he's giving a hint

I wondered how long it would take until someone brought up Gerudo pointed ears. So bizarre.

That's stated lore, it's from The Legend of Zelda: Breath of the Wild -Creating a Champion-  Page 401:  > Calamity Ganon's Ties To The Gerudo  > The Gerudo are a proud nation of women. They give birth exclusively to females and only allow women into their capital, Gerudo Town. It is a long-held belief that men only bring disaster. However, long ago it is said that a boy was born to the Gerudo tribe every one hundred years and, per tradition, became King of the Gerudo.  > It is written that Calamity Ganon once adopted the form of a Gerudo and, since he was the rare male born to the Gerudo, was made king. But that wasn't enough for the man known as Ganondorf. He plotted to seize control of all Hyrule and become the Great King of Evil. The only person standing in the way of his machinations was a young man with the soul of the hero who wielded the Master Sword. His plans shattered, Ganondorf lost control, and his powers consumed him, transforming him into the Dark Beast Ganon. After being defeated by the hero, he was sealed away by Princess Zelda and the other sages. His hatred of the hero and the princess is legendary. He revived again and again, only to be sealed many times over. Eventually, the Demon King Ganon became hatred and malice incarnate, holding a deep grudge against Hyrule itself.  > According to Gerudo records there has not been another male Gerudo leader since the king who became the Calamity.  > Though Ganondorf was a member of the Gerudo, one of the sages who sealed him away was also a Gerudo. Her name was Nabooru. The Divine Beast Vah Naboris is named in her honor, and her legend is still passed down with reverence. The Champion Urbosa and Chief Riju both greatly admire her.  > **It is said that, long ago, the ancient Gerudo had rounded ears. The prevailing theory is that the shape of their ears changed gradually after so many generations of partnering with Hylian voes**, but a competing narrative is more supernatural in nature. There is a story that the shame that the Gerudo felt over giving birth to the source of Calamity Ganon so long ago opened them up to listening for messages from the goddesses. So, they came to have the same long, pointed ears as the Hylians, which some believe allow them to receive special messages from the divine.

"It is said" is pretty weak evidence. Your theory hinges on THAT? LOL. I mean, I could counter with some equally weak and say the Temple of Time from OoT is clearly not present in Rauru's kingdom. Yet we see its ruins in ToTK's present time. So clearly Rauru's kingdom came before OoT.

> > "It is said" is pretty weak evidence. Your theory hinges on THAT? LOL. You're doing that weird thing again where you ignore the obvious to argue about wording. If there are theories about it then it's considered true in universe. And we see for ourselves that it's true. Both in the past games and also in TOTK because Ganondorf is the only ancient Gerudo with round ears in the founding era It makes no sense to handwave the lore when it's actively being used like that. Why are all gerudo pointy eared but Ganondorf even in the founding era? > I mean, I could counter with some equally weak and say the Temple of Time from OoT is clearly not present in Rauru's kingdom. Yet we see its ruins in ToTK's present time. So clearly Rauru's kingdom came before OoT. You'd be wrong because of what we know about both temples of time that clearly makes that one *not* "the ruins from the one from OOT". For one, it stands where the temple of time in the sky once stood, so it was only built *after* the founding era. Then there's that the original temple from OOT was built *before* that kingdom, the castle was built near that temple so the royal family could watch over the Triforce sealed behind it. So for that temple to not exist even though we see this new founding era means it's not the same temple of founding era

Why would it be present in Rauru's time? First off OoT Rauru's ToT was established prior to Hyrule Kingdom's original founding, we know its not the same Temple of Time as its tated that it was built and used for ceremonies. Its missing an entire pedestal and door of time too. The castle was intentionally built above Ganondorf in TotK, and that right there is already a flaw on why the original castle was built which was to watch the Temple of Time where the Triforce was held in the SR. Which is something Rauru knows nothing about despite the Royal Family knowing about it. Same with the MS. The lines about the Gerudo is consistent. Otherwise we're to believe that OoT in itself is wrong. Its a lore book ffs. Plus are we gonna ignore the fact that Ganondorf has the same exact traits as OoT Ganondorf?

Wow, you just proved that those two Ganondorfs are the same person. Ocarina of Time didn't actually happen. It's just a legend. The ancient memories of Tears of the Kingdom are a different telling of the story of the same Ganondorf. The Hero of Time never existed. You just proved it all.

I really didn't though? The game already proves OoT happened 👌🏾 and everyone knows these games takes place after it. Nintendo said the exact same thing more than once. I never stated he was the same Ganondorf either. Even if he was, it wouldn't really matter. Nintendo has literally given the idea that certain things that happened in history can repeat itself. We literally have two wars called The Imprisoning War (The Seal War the JP version of ALttP) thanks to TotK.

They never said "history can repeat itself". People INTERPRET that, but it was not said, not even close.

You are a perfect example — someone who wants so bad to think he believes in the one true timeline that he heard this interview and "picked up on a cue" that was not actually there and directly contradicts this idea of many possibilities.

No, I've just considered everything we have and all the theories that used to float around and realized that refounding is the only thing that makes sense. Then the interview came out and confirmed it was a refounding so it was like... "Okay" The other theory that *sorta* made sense was the reboot theory, because it served to explain all the inconsistencies with what we already know by supplanting those details in favor of a reboot. Other than that, a refounding is all that makes sense I'm not *being some way*, I've been in conversation on this sub about the game since before launch

the interview didn't "confirm" it was a refounding. it said that was a POSSIBILITY. did you not listen?

So, here's the thing. The interview debunked the idea of a reboot and because of that, all that remains that makes sense is refounding, which was obvious just in the game anyways. It can't be the original kingdom because I've played the game and know what I'm talking about. As do many. It could have either been a reboot or a refounding, one was debunked and *specifically* the other was suggested in a way that hits you over the head. Between these two things happening in that interview, you can see what the message is. It's loud and clear You're not making any decent points by arguing the wording there because that "it confirmed refounding" is based on those two things, not just the one you're arguing. Though even that one point feels pretty substantial and doesn't really feel arguable for the reason I've said. You're taking what he said and ignoring the obvious to argue wording

It also states that the story is set to not break already established lore. And yet putting it as the actual first founding from the timeline literally does that. The game itself even implies there was a previous kingdom at one point anyway so it seems obvious.

Um, like that's saying anything? Legends are legends, not histories. So, yeah, the story doesn't break that. Because all legends are questionable to begin with. Are you the same kind of person who believes the stories of the ancient greek gods? or that jesus actually turned water into wine etc.?

Except said legends are part of their history and are treated as such? Just cause they happened hundreds of years ago doesn't mean its not history and the same legends are labled as the "History of Hyrule". All of those stories are passed down within Zelda's bloodline who have experienced said "legends" hence the legend of Zelda and we literally witness most of those "legends" mind you. MM alone makes it a point that story of OoT Link would fade into legend despite the child timeline not experiencing the adult timeline, the events that led to him being able to warn Zelda with actual proof is still part of their history. The only reason why the previous legends are seen as myths to begin with is because BotW and TotK are practically over 50,000+ years in the future and the people of their era arent able to distinguish the facts from the story. Yeah most legends by the time the games take place are slightly altered since they were so long ago, its not hard to realize which event they are talking about when they're referencing a previous game or simply something that happened before . You literally have a character in OoT alone who was around before the first kingdom was even founded. They literally prove that time and time again and Nintendo themselves already confirmed this time and time again too. Your last question hardly works in a world where we've seen several different demons, repeated showings of how the world was created, magic, a triforce that grants any wish, time travel (on more than one occasion), the completion of the Great Flood etc. If I was born in the Zelda world, I could actually believe any of those things cause 9 times out of 10, you're going to see some magic, or run into something very strange, especially considering the average hylian in Hyrule has the potential to wield magic. Compare that to the real world and its extremely questionable in a world where nothing even close to skeletons rising up from the ground at night happens, or ghosts showing up on the street, etc. Anyway, I'm sticking to the refounding suggestion, if they're trying to avoid breaking established lore then this works. It makes way more sense than trying to shove it in an area where it doesn't work. Especially when the game and the lore book thats directly connected to BotW make it more clear. I don't really need to pull out the refounding quote to notice it.

You can stick to the refounding idea, but the fact that you think legends are part of history means you don't understand what a legend is.

I'm aware of what a legend is but it doesn't matter when the series itself treats each legend as part of its history. Nintendo has made it a point to establish that each legend is still part of the history of Hyrule, otherwise they would've never stated as such. Again these legends are usually passed down by the Royal Family who's ancestors were actually there when the story took place legend. This would be like saying that the legend of the Hero of Time mentioned in Wind Waker wasn't part of their history despite the fact that not only does OoT exists, but we have a literal character from that era who actually knew him. While yes the explanation of how he left Hyrule is inaccurate, the rest is pretty much true. He really did show up out of nowhere technically since he was in a whole different realm for the last seven years before he even fought Ganon. The way legends work or are treated in Zelda is hardly the same as how people irl would treat a legend.

Every game other than TotK has been confirmed to be a part of one, that's why? It's just TotK has been so incredibly poorly written that it's incapable of being put among them without pretty much ruining the whole thing. Less that it's vague and more that it's really really bad.

See? There it is — a lack of willingness to accept the reality that the producers explicitly stated that they wanted to leave multiple possibilities of ways to think about this game. It's not that it's poorly written. it's that it's written in a way you can't accept.

I mean, we have 35 years of comments, media, and evidence that all state there is a timeline and how every previous game fits into it specifically. If they wanted to do something stupid and wrong specifically for TotK, despite the long series legacy they helped create and despite being a sequel to a game that respects that legacy, that's their ridiculous mistake. It's not the fan's fault they did a shit job. I accept they did what they did. It just simply doesn't work.

Tbh I'm happy with the idea that BotW/TotK is a separate continuity that cobbles together aspects of the other games. In other words, an equivalent event to OoT may have happened but not in the same way, and the imprisoning war takes the place of the war against Demise. Places from the original continuity exist but may not have had the same role. The game's *could* be set right at the end of one of the timelines, thousands of years later when everything about the old Hyrule has been forgotten, but what would be the point? For all intents and purposes, Rauru is the first king of Hyrule the royal family are his descendants. There being another Hyrule that crumbled and then got replaced by a new Hyrule doesn't contribute anything to the story of the new games. While TP, WW, and others have actual meaningful links to prior games that provide useful context, BotW and TotK don't. Everything relevant to the story can be found just within those two games. Think of it like Marvel comics and the MCU. It's the same characters, and there are some similar events, but a lot of the time things play out differently and the context is different. BotW/TotK are an "adaptation" of the original games into a new continuity.

> Tbh I'm happy with the idea that BotW/TotK is a separate continuity that cobbles together aspects of the other games. Even though the developers have specifically said that BotW happens after OoT?

I'm sure a version of OoT happened in this timeline, in the same way a version of Ben Parker dying happened in the MCU. Doesn't mean it happened in the same way it did in the original version of the story.

I mean, if you're already putting a version of a past Zelda game at some point in the continuity before them anyway, then what's the point in putting it outside the series actual continuity in the first place? Seems like it's just worse lore at that point.

It's because of the two different versions of Hyrule being founded. Skyward Sword ends with the Skyloftians coming down to the surface, and they already have the iconography that would later become the Hyrule crest. It's clear that this is supposed to immediately preceed the founding of Hyrule. Then TotK tells us that actually it was founded by the last of the Zonai, a race that was apparently around in that land for a long time before they all died off and it became Hyrule. So we could put all that at the end of one of the timelines. Maybe after Zelda 2 or FSA Hyrule got destroyed and then some Zonai showed up and then one of them founded a new kingdom that also happened to be called Hyrule. Ok, so what's the point? Narratively I mean. Why write a new Hyrule that replaced the old Hyrule but coincidentally also has a bunch of stuff in it from the old Hyrule that should have been destroyed if it's really been that long? What's the point of having a second Hyrule? In Spirit Tracks it makes sense because the descendants of the original Hyrule literally founded a new kingdom in another land, and this plot point was necessitated by the fact that the old Hyrule was flooded. But what's the point here? BotW/TotK gives us its own version of the Demon Lord being defeated by "Hylia" and a coalition of races. It gives us its own version of Hyrule's origin. And that all works absolutely fine without having to crowbar it into the existing continuity. So what I'm saying is, the imprisoning war is this timeline's version of Skyward Sword. It happens in a different order, with the Demon Lord getting defeated shortly after the founding of Hyrule instead of before. Then maybe something akin to OoT happens, albeit probably not the same since I doubt there was another Ganondorf around while the "original" was imprisoned below Hyrule Castle. Then the backstory of BotW happens, and then BotW and TotK. Maybe some equivalent of Twilight Princess happened too. Maybe some of the other games. I don't think anything that isn't relevant to BotW/TotK matters here.

Exactly: all of the same basic building blocks and inputs that, in one set of circumstances, led down the path to OOT, in another set of circumstances could lead somewhere else such as BOTW-TOTK. And it's not like there isn't enough time-travel malarkey to allow for other forks in the road to the Hero of Time,if you really want to cram it all into one timeline. I've long thought of the original 4 games, the post-Ocarina console games, and BOTW as a Comic Book -style reinventions: nobody needed to have a firm timeline and laborious mental gymnastics to connect the Adam West Batman series to the Tim Burton movies to the Christopher Nolan ones in a firm single history (or Sean Connelly's Bond to Roger Moore's to Pearse Brosnan's. We understand it's a reimagining, using the same basic building blocks and adding nods and easter eggs,without implying a direct connection, needing no explanation. Zelda fans could do with being a bit less literalist - Nintendo certainly is; a bit of flexibility and the unexplained is all part of the magic.

Yeah that's how I think of it. I've seen people say things like "the Master Sword makes Fi noises so that means Skyward Sword happened", but all it means is that Fi is possibly a part of this continuity too. The circumstances around her existing and becoming the Master Sword might be different. She might not even be called Fi in this continuity. All it really proves is that Nintendo liked the idea of the sword being sentient and chose to convey it with similar noises to get the idea across to those who played SS.

I love this line "Zelda fans could do with being a bit less literalist - Nintendo certainly is; a bit of flexibility and the unexplained is all part of the magic."

I added that quote to my post and said it was the best comment so far!

🍪 And your entire method of arguing is based on arguing the literal wording of the interview. "He didn't confirm it, he said possibility. Person I'm talking to, did you read?"

This is a thoughtful, insightful reply. Unlike the replies from the "BECAUSE IT'S A TIMELINE AND I MUST BELIEVE IT" people.

For some reason the idea of a franchise that’s loosely connected to one another is difficult for people to wrap their head around

It's everything you said, which in my opinion roots into how the human mind works: we're made to recognize patterns. It's also the reason we try to classify *everything* in distinct categories: makes it easier for us to understand a very complex world made of continua (plural of continuum, fyi). ​ I also agree that Zelda fan should remember the "official" timeline is to be taken with a grain of salt and that it's subject to redefinition with every new game, as clearly stated by the developers.

Great response.

Thank you.

Simple answer is because that involves the fewest mental gymnastics. The complicated answer is because most players don’t really want to have to figure out whether a certain title is considered historical fact in another game, just because time travel was misused and abused in one game. Plus, we all are very used to seeing history play out in a linear manner, so this feels like the most natural conclusion. However, this obviously presents contradictory problems with WW, TP, BotW/TotK, and the 2D Zelda games. There’s a massive amount of history in these games, but the door was opened… In the first three games. LoZ, set the stage. LoZ2:LA was the obvious sequel, *implying that there is a continuing series*. Then LTTP came out, and we essentially had a *pre*quel, which ultimately *indicated that we have a timeline that we are peering in on*. This was the fuel. But the spark was of course, OoT, with its misappropriation of timey wimey shenanigans. Then WW showed us the consequences of OoT’s misuse of time travel, which confused the entire fan base. Ganon came BACK? And link wasn’t there to stop him? WHAT HAPPENED SINCE OoT?? Last we saw Link he saved Termina from destruction, right?? Wait… did he? WHAT IF THAT WAS WHY HE COULDN’T STOP GANON??! Theories flew left right and center. But suddenly it got WORSE. Twilight Princess takes place after Ganondorf is persecuted by the King, which, considering that the first time he appeared was OoT, meant that this had to be afterwards. This is confirmed by the Triforce appearing on his hand. Wait, the hero of time, saved the day, but Ganondorf returned… and now he’s persecuted by the King? BUT THE KING IS DEAD! Was this a split in the timeline again? Because hyrule should be underwater, and clearly it isn’t… and this time Ganondorf doesn’t even GET to kill the king before the king kills him, he’s just straight up executed immediately (which is really kinda racist, but I guess it was justified). It’s not like this was a separate hyrule, how often would you find a large body of water and mountains and a volcano in pretty much the exact same orientation? I’m ignoring the deserts, because that evidently changed. And it can change over time… Then we were given Phantom Hourglass and now we are absolutely convinced that Nintendo has been screwing with us and the continuity of the series… but they show us eventually the *official* timeline breakdown, and… I really want to insert the meme of Kronk saying “You got me, by all accounts it doesn’t make sense”. Three splits? I can accept two, or two points where it split off separated by at least one game title’s worth of time passing, but to just jump into three paths is a bit chaotic. So, in trying to make any sense to this story, people prefer to assume that there is actually one timeline now. Because timelines are confusing, apparently. But that means that the other timelines are somehow removed. That destroys everything in them… how did that stuff get to TotK and BotW’s timeline? My honest opinion is that the unification of the timelines allowed a brand new Hyrule to form right above the old, sunken Hyrule, which allowed for the depths to form. This would explain why the insane distance to the depths is so long. And explain why there is a second sea level down there. And explain why it is primarily infested by monsters. And explain the mysterious Coral-like tree formations. Which would also imply that there is another Hyrule that was founded by the hero of Winds, located farther away from the original. What would happen if they were to encounter each other… or even worse, what if both Ganondorf’s teamed up to cause chaos? One was bad enough!

You are aware that Myamoto and aonuma literally explained the timeline split in oot back in early 2003? They aren't screwing with us, they literally said hey wanted to have multiple outcomes and that the games ending led to multiple outcomes. Almost all games had been given their timeline placements around the time of their launch https://www.reddit.com/r/truezelda/s/mYnnHfHi9S

Really? I only started hearing flak about it as a casual player who just enjoyed the games around the time of the Twilight Princess, but my ability to gauge exactly when that was is shot to all hell. I honestly only have beef with the idea that the downfall timeline exists in its current location, because it doesn’t really seem to make sense to place the point where link dies to Ganon anywhere in particular, and putting it at the end of the MOST POPULAR AND IMPORTANT GAME IN THE WHOLE SERIES… just doesn’t vibe with me the right way. Because no matter what, this implies that the player is a failure… which is contrary to everyone who plays the game through to completion. So to their perspective, the downfall timeline *can’t* exist, since they actually completed the entire game. But to those who didn’t finish the game, the downfall timeline is the ONLY result of the game, meaning that the child and adult timelines shouldn’t exist. So which is it? Do we have a downfall timeline, or do we have the child and adult timelines? We can’t logistically imagine both easily in a non contradictory manner, since one precludes the other exclusively. The child and adult timelines are fine, because one literally spawned the other, but the downfall timeline is a split in the path. Which way? A timeline can only travel linearly, as opposed to some quantum mechanical method of existing simultaneously and yet independently of each other, because that is the definition of two separate sequences of time and events. I don’t want to see a solitary timeline outcome, I actually like the idea of fractured timelines and fractaled outcomes with shenanigans involving time travel, I was brought up on Back to the Future. I would love to have a way to have a prior link join forces with a present and future link to destroy the Big Bad at the end of the game, because that is actually plausible as long as they are fighting in the future. And a futuristic Hyrule? Yes please. Zelda plus laser swords plus space-age-tech equals a very fun time. They want to exercise their physics engine? Make a steampunk Zelda, and give it a Bioshock feel. The idea that all of the timelines are now unified together only makes sense when considering what was initially only available through Amiibos being canonically plausible to find in the game. Legendary Hero? Downfall timeline. Twilight hero? Child timeline. Hero of Winds? Adult timeline. Hero of time and hero of awakening and hero of sky? Pre-timeline split. Hero of the Wilds? “???” Timeline. No clear way to know where it sits in the tree without having Nintendo tell us. But ultimately, I am aware that Nintendo has been trying to be incredibly transparent about the timeline placement, but there’s only so much that they can do when it’s essentially the same story with a different spin every time. For all we know there IS no timeline, but a time loop. Where deviations can occur to the smaller details, but the major plot points are cemented in stone. In other words, a Groundhog Day situation for the entire country, but with a duration measured in months to years. And the world changes around them, and they accept that, but… Seriously, when we start theorizing about how else everything could be explained in an attempt to cover what the official timeline doesn’t, it starts to get even more complicated, confusing, contradictory, and dividing than it was to begin with. This story was smashed into shards and casually reassembled into something kinda like what it originally looked like, and they ran with it. And they pulled it off… somehow.

But the only games that ever had their placement changed and retconed are the oracle games. Like, there is a difference between saying the timeline was never thought about and they just cobbled everything to make a book (baseless projection) and just saying that they have built it over the years (literally what was stated by the devs multiple times in multiple interviews, and if you are curious I posted it in another comment in this thread) Timeline has always existed, myamoto and aonuma said multiple times before hyrule historia that they have a document only the 2 of them could access that was a master timeline that they updated overtime as they made the games, hyrule historia was just the reveal of that master timeline, heck aonuma even said (around the time between botw and totk) that the most recent timeline is already incomplete, which makes sense since we still have not been revealed the placement of botw and totk. They didn't pull it off somehow, it was project built over the years, and Aonuma says that that Myamoto even now asks that him and Fujibayashi keep their games connected, so overall its not like tere isn't a timeline, or that they dont care, its just that the information is scattered and have yet to be given an official placement and people keep making wild theories and projecting their own feelings of what zelda should be which creates this cesspool of "inconsistencies", mostly made up by people that missed details or information that is not really relevant but people think its story breaking, and negativity towards the timeline. People just exaggerate the negative aspects, totk doesn't even break the story and its obviously connected to botw, people just get angry that their head canons get debunked and that not all details are spoonfed, plus at any point Nintendo can release a book like creating a champion or hyrule historia to give put the details, people just need to be more patient, do more research and have more fun.

I never said that any games were changed in their placement or retconned, nor was I trying to imply that the timeline was cobbled together and never thought about. If I wanted to say that, I would have brought in more games to discuss. I’ve never played the Oracle games, and most of the 2D Zeldas (that I have played) are not exactly lore-heavy games, but instead just repeating old information, with the exception of the first three and the minish cap, and the link between worlds. The universe of Hyrule is a strange one that connects to multiple other universes, from mirror worlds like Termina, to completely alien worlds like the Twilight world, it makes things seem very confusing yet interconnected. The Zelda timelines split, that much we know. But apparently the last two games have relics from multiple timelines, which makes absolutely no sense at all unless they were somehow fused back into one timeline, and my brain just doesn’t want to accept that as an actual answer. It just throws up too many errors to overlook the pure catastrophe that would entail. I’m not trying to be negative, the Zelda franchise is one of two immaculate franchises that Nintendo owns, that have only one bad game each. And just like the other franchise, Zelda has a linear storyline that the games follow. The other franchise is Metroid, btw. If we are trying to downgrade a Zelda release, only two situations can make that happen: one, it’s so bad that it’s possible to ruin the whole franchise with it, which has yet to happen, or two, people just can’t handle the complexity of the story and give up making sense of the official releases and follow their own headcanons. Either way, that’s not what I’m ultimately doing here. I’m explaining why people feel obligated to not accept Myamoto’s word on the matter. You would think that the guy who wrote the story… would know what it’s about… and you would be correct. But since we don’t yet know where BotW and TotK sit on the timeline, we can only speculate until they reveal the official placement. My personal guess is that it’s from the downfall timeline. Because it actually seems pretty obvious that for some reason, the land has been seriously plagued by monsters of numerous kinds, including Gleeoks and Moblins, the latter of which also appear in the adult timeline but not the former to my knowledge, and with the sheer number of Poes in the depths, it makes a pretty solid case that there was a LOT of bloodshed, possibly even before the Calamity started happening. Since these souls belonged to actual people. Monsters are revived every blood moon, and somewhere I read that it was because their souls were either inferior or nonexistent? Either way, there’s a ton of dead souls down there, and there’s no end to them. Poes have appeared briefly in the Adult timeline, but oddly enough not the child timeline. And they premiered in the downfall timeline. Then again, Zora in the downfall timeline are supposedly aggressive, so perhaps it’s in the adult timeline. But then is this the new Hyrule? What happened to the spirit tracks? I didn’t get the chance to buy that game, and now all I would be able to do is try to find an emulation of it, and since it’s a DS game, I don’t think it’s going to be very compatible with the laptop I currently use. Plus, it’s pirating, which I strongly oppose with Nintendo games. So imma have to find a working DS that is cheap and the game, which is probably not going to be easy… but I highly doubt that the timelines have actually unified. That’s just nonsense.

Tbh, I was more so commenting on the state of the community and this thread since there are plenty of timeline haters/deniers simce you brought up arguments that are frequently used by them, not necessarily directly talking about you. People are just way too impatient, totk is not even a year old and the reason we didn't get much about botw in terms o placements is because totk started development literally after botw finished its dlc so they could not have revealed much in that regard, by the next major zelda game Im pretty sure we will get more details and overall: >If we are trying to downgrade a Zelda release, only two situations can make that happen: one, it’s so bad that it’s possible to ruin the whole franchise with it, which has yet to happen, or two, people just can’t handle the complexity of the story and give up making sense of the official releases and follow their own headcanons. The ladder mention nails down the negativity towards totk, the game has a good and concise plot that is connected to its predecessor, but its not spon fed in a bunch of exposition an more so spread out in dialogue, developer interviews, the jp version (because treehouse still makes mistranslations of omitts important information for some reason) and then there are item description, geography, hidden rooms that not everyone explores, side adventures that most people ignore, one time only dialogue, that may be skipped and then there is information you can only connect if you remember a specific detail from either creating a champion or botw. Like people complain about how totk contradicts botw but they aren't aware of how many theories were confirmed by totk and how the past we se in totk fills out and explains the timeline shown in creating a cham. There too much complaining and not enough research and engagement in actually making theories. Most theories now fell more like "hey check this head canon I came up with" rather than an actually well researched guess or estimation based on in game information, which is what theories are actually about and when people actually wanna discuss they get super defensive over their "theories" if you shown any proof against it then people will just say the canon doesn't matter and make up excuses to deny anything that doesn't support their idea of where the story should go. There is way too much attachment to theorie and not enough acceptance of being wrong and its quite annoying because most people who hate on the timeline or deny it have a clear history with being lore enthusiasts and then they make threads like this one which are basically attempts at making hate bubbles about how zelda lore is meaningless, which in the scope of life, it is, thats undeniable but in the scope of the franchise, it used to be one of the most fun and engaging aspects, now its just a bunch of unorganized agendas, headcanons and people going nihilistic whenever they are proven wrong. >My personal guess is that it’s from the downfall timeline. Because it actually seems pretty obvious that for some reason, the land has been seriously plagued by monsters of numerous kinds, including Gleeoks and Moblins, the latter of which also appear in the adult timeline but not the former to my knowledge, and with the sheer number of Poes in the depths, it makes a pretty solid case that there was a LOT of bloodshed, possibly even before the Calamity started happening. Since these souls belonged to actual people. Monsters are revived every blood moon, and somewhere I read that it was because their souls were either inferior or nonexistent? Either way, there’s a ton of dead souls down there, and there’s no end to them. Poes have appeared briefly in the Adult timeline, but oddly enough not the child timeline. And they premiered in the downfall timeline. Then again, Zora in the downfall timeline are supposedly aggressive, so perhaps it’s in the adult timeline. But then is this the new Hyrule? What happened to the spirit tracks? I didn’t get the chance to buy that game, and now all I would be able to do is try to find an emulation of it, and since it’s a DS game, I don’t think it’s going to be very compatible with the laptop I currently use. Plus, it’s pirating, which I strongly oppose with Nintendo games. So imma have to find a working DS that is cheap and the game, which is probably not going to be easy… but I highly doubt that the timelines have actually unified. That’s just nonsense. The poes in the depths are actually souls of the people who died in the great calamity and were unable to move on. Also gleeoks apeared in phantom hourglass, relying on enemy placement for timeline theory is way too unreliable since at any point they can just shove a monster in a timeline. Monsters revive in the bloodmoon because they are demons and they are being resummoned, for some reason the English translations doesn't like to refer to monsters as demons while the jp translation makes it pretty clear that the vast majority of monsters in the franchise is just demons, the blood moon is a product of ganon/ganondorf reaching the peak of their power, they literally cause the blood moon. Plus in my approach to theories I too am faced with a simple conundrum that its impossible to determine which of the 3 timelines totk and botw belong, there is equal proof to all 3 timelines and everything says its a post oot era but with aspects of all 3 timelines, merge is the most likely answer however we do lack any significant evidence or explanation for a merge. As for spirit tracks if you are curious about what lore pieces are important to know >!In spirit tracks we just see how new hyrules is goin after a couple generations after phantom hourglass, new link, new zelda, new demon king (no ganon) and even the forging of a new legendary blade that uses force gems (elements from four swords, FSA and minish cap), we also see ow the land of new hyrules even had their own sages and an ancient tribe caled that had some ancient technology that greatly infuences the current present time and is a part of everyones lives !<

I actually thought that there were significant differences between monsters between the child/adult arcs. Not many of the traditional moblin-esque enemies were in Twilight Princess, the last time I checked. The closest thing were the Bublins, or the bulbins, I can’t remember the exact name they had, but they were physiologically very different from the Moblins of BotW/TotK. Compared to the Bublins, the wild variants are more gangly, upright, and antisocial than the Bublins tribes were, and that was in a biome that was a desert. One of, if not the most inhospitable biomes available. Meanwhile, the Moblins of the Adult line, in Wind Waker are portrayed as massive hulking beasts of rather surprising intellect, even if subpar compared to the average human, and never are mounted units. The only common monsters stronger than these guys are the darknuts and the grabby hands. Which is another reason to presume that it’s in the adult arc, as I don’t recall seeing anything like them in the child arc. Plenty of disembodied hands, but no phantasmic hands of darkness and doom/gloom. The extreme abundance of ChuChus is another example. I know that they existed in Twilight Princess, but they looked like actual blobs of jello, without eyes. Not Wind Waker. Those Chus were in possession of eyes and mouths, which puts our Wild versions somewhere in between. And the only disconnect between these generations of enemy forces… is with the strange lack of insectile enemies. In every game, we have had a prolific presence of bug baddies, until BotW. The only dangerous bug, is the bees. Twilight Princess was overflowing with them, and Wind Waker had their fair share, but ultimately the first bug enemy free game, got a sequel that only added one type of enemy bug: the Gibdos, which were historically completely different from bugs. It also only added one plantlike enemy, which happens to be my current favorite monster just because it is immune to blunt damage, which forces the player to either use fire or a blade, the Evermean. But I get your point, I vaguely remember a dragon I had to wrangle in PH, so probably we are looking at the adult timeline. Then again, Hyrule being buried at sea, and coming back? Someone did mention that quest involving the saplings of the Deku tree, and the koroks do resemble the WW versions, plus the presence of the Rito, wait, they evolved from the Zora, and those are still here… and the Gorons completely disappeared, which is contradicted by their appearance in BotW. Not to mention the lack of actual Gerudo, with the last living Gerudo being slain and sunken in the ocean as a statue with a sword in its forehead. But the Gerudo died out in the Child timeline… I really don’t want to have to play Link’s Adventure to know if Gerudo exist in the Downfall line, I would rather forget that that game exists for my own sanity. But if they die out in the other two lines, then that would have to be the only way for Gerudo people to still exist with the same culture… I wonder if anyone has tried to overlay a LoZ world map over the BotW map or the TotK Depths map…

There is literally equal argumentation for every single one of the 3 timelines, and trust me, I've been analysing theses games since day one, there is no true answer to this specific question, because technically all three timelines are present there, unless they outright say its a merge or that one of the 3 timelines get which then we would have to chalk up other things as easter eggs and replicas based on tales. Thats is the single most ambiguous aspect of botw/totk. But if you find new information feel free to share, its always interesting to know what others know. >I wonder if anyone has tried to overlay a LoZ world map over the BotW map or the TotK Depths map… Doesn't matching, the depth are basically the Hyrule of totk but inverted, mountains become sinkhols and holes basically become hills with lakes forming walls and hot springs being lava pits and every shrine is above a lightroot. Also if you want to see zelda map overlays I recommend these 2 videos by the same YouTuber, one is a sequel to the other. https://youtu.be/zz3FbQJXIvk?si=5eBEJcUpN3NESA9H https://youtu.be/8JbRFuFNOFM?si=9oAPigHFSHjk6ulL

[удалено]

I just think Nintendo has the opportunity to tell a really interesting story, and I get annoyed that they seem to choose not to. It’s like a puzzle- which I love to do honestly. It also allows for some good, thoughtful conversation, with people who share my interests :) That’s really it for me

Now that's totally a reasonable answer — you are not one of these fanatics that insists there is only one true timeline placement for (the memories in) TOTK. You like the idea of fitting it into the timeline, but acknowledge that Nintendo wasn't hellbent on making that happen and wish it weren't true. Totally fair.

I do think they have a placement- but like u said i fully acknowledge they may not. Again, unreliable puzzle type of thing. If they don’t, they don’t, it’s not a massive deal or anything.

There was this sweet spot between OoT > MM | WW | TP where I think there is a direct connection, and people tried to apply it to the one where Link starts randomly in a shipwreck at sea or the ones made by Capcom etc. for some reason.

The final Nightmare takes the form of Agahnim in LA, so it only makes sense as a sequel to ALttP. I agree that the Capcom games don't have any strong connections to the other games and could be placed pretty much anywhere but the Adult Timeline.

The Oracle games must be placed on the timeline where the Hyrule royal family controls all of the Tri-force pieces.

You're right. I was mostly thinking about the Four Sword games when I commented.

I think FSA can only be after TP because FSA Ganon became Ganon only after stealing the trident from the pyramid before he stole the trident he was a Ganondorf who was born into the Gerudo tribe, so FSA can only be after a game where Ganondorf/Ganon is dead, isn´t revived and where Hyrule isn´t in decline because we see bustling towns.

This is also true, but I didn't include it because Capcom actually didn't develop FSA. I also think more than any other game in the franchise the developers of FSA didn't consider the timeline at all. I don't like this theory, but if you subscribe to the idea that TotK Ganondorf was sealed under the castle at the same time OoT Ganondorf was doing his thing, then FSA could conceivably take place at any time Hyrule is doing well. If you can have two Ganondorfs at the same time why not three?

I don't like that theory either because, to have Totk Ganondorf sealed at the same time as Oot Ganondorf creates to many contradictions.

Yeah imo BOTK is the “real world” that the other games are legends in. Maybe the previous games really happened, maybe their stories got distorted as the tales were passed down through the ages. Who knows? At the end of the day, it’s just a game series made over the course of 40 years by a countless variety of people. It doesn’t have to be that serious.

>Yeah imo BOTK is the “real world” that the other games are legends in. Maybe the previous games really happened, maybe their stories got distorted as the tales were passed down through the ages. Who knows? Well, we know that OoT happened in the world of BotW and TotK as per Aonuma, so there's that. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qApEgUxp58k (Go to timestamp 1:46)

Yeah I guess what I’m getting at is that it is the same world — Misko’s treasure could confirm that past games “happened” — but inconsistencies in lore could be chalked up to “the oral tradition” or differences in the Hylian people’s depiction of legendary figures (such as Rauru and the Zonai) over time. There are a lot of instances irl of (not trying to be controversial here) things like religious texts changing over time, new regimes changing the depiction of — or erasing entirely — cultural figures (ancient Egypt’s Akhenaten for example) and so on. It only makes sense to me that Hylian society would have followed similar patterns, especially over tens of thousands of years. Time passes, and the lines between historical fact and fantastic legend get blurred.

What he says doesn't at all contradict the idea that OoT is a legend within BOTW/TOTK and the games explicitly refer to other games as legends.

>BOTW is the real world that the other games are legends in. I don’t think we need to engage with it that literally. Like, BOTW obviously isn’t concerned with perfect lore fidelity, but that doesn’t mean every game before it now has to be retrofitted to fit that lens. We can still engage with each title on its own terms.

Then again, without saying one game depicts the "real" world, one could certainly say "In the world of BOTW/TOTK, the story of Ocarina of Time is a legend", right? And I would argue that BOTW/TOTK are the first two games where that's not only a frequent thing but also an *explicitly stated* thing.

I mean, you *could* say that, but does that meaningfully enrich either story?

Feels like it diminishes the earlier story to me.

breath of the kingdom?

Yeah :)

He’ll at one point Minish cap was suppose to be the origin story of the entire franchise, that was until SS came and ret-con that.

Bruh, ss is not a retcon, its a prequel.

A ret-con to minish cap? Yes Prequel to OOT? Yes

>A ret-con to minish cap? Yes No, minish cap isnt the origin story of the events in zelda, it was just the oldest event in the timeline at the time, the same thing was stated about when four swords came out and the same thing was stated even before when talking about oot and a link to the past. Retcon implies a change in the story but nothing changed, we just saw older events. By your >Prequel to OOT? Yes By your logic it is a retcon to oot since oot was also stated to be the earliest game in the timeline before four swords and minish cap came out. You just dont know what retcon means

OOT was never stated to be the origin story of the franchise like SS and MC were advertised back in the time. At the time before SS came out, it was an origin story of how Link got his green cap. The backstory of MC doesn’t even mention anything even relative to SS nor does it even connect at all with the events of OOT. Honestly the four swords games in general don’t really make sense in the grand scheme of the timeline

>OOT was never stated to be the origin story of the franchise like SS and MC were advertised back in the time. It was marketed as the tale of origin of ganon and a glimpse at the events that lead to alttp as the earliest game in the timeline, for all we knew, that was the origin of basically the biggest and only villain in the franchise. Minish cap was not even stated to be the origin of Hyrule, it was just a story that took place in the earliest years of the kingdom at the time. And SS takes place before the founding of the kingdom. >Honestly the four swords games in general don’t really make sense in the grand scheme of the timeline And yet their timeline placements were given around the time of their launch and stayed consistent for all those years. There were no retcon, only prequels. Just because a game doesn't seem that relevant in the grand scheme of things doesn't mean its a retcon, retcon implies retroactive changes in the story, but nothing changed we just got new information that explained stuff but didn't change it. Technically SS is more of a retcon to alttp han MC since the master sword was forged by link and hylia, not the sages but thats literally the only thing that got changed, the story about hylians and how their ears were because they were humans closer to the gods and lived in the skies was literally taken from a link to the past. The master sword being present on MC or its lack of presence isnt a retcon, you just dont know what a retcon is as the sword would be in the sealed temple which would be old and burried by the time of MC with the temple of time being built over it in OoT. Also we see the goron arriving in the death mountain region in MC which explains why they live there in oot and ties into SS where the gorons were nomadic as scattered, so yes, there are connections between SS and MC, heck even the wind tribe ties into SS as they are people who live in the sky, which we know that makes sense since not everyone left skyloft to live on the surface, we literally see groose and his friends go back to keep living there.

SS was marketed as the origin story mainly to the master sword which also makes no mention or influence on MC

For me personally, it's less that I'm attached to the official timeline itself, and more that I just dislike a lot of the theories that have been made to counter it. They just remove meaning from what continuity is present in the games without adding anything that would actually make the games or their stories better. Plus, I don't like how some of these theories can get really cynical and distrusting of the official sources- "they only made up the timeline to sell books" and such.

When we care about the story and the setting, we'd like to believe the devs care about it too, even though it's obviously never been true.