Nintendo Lays To Rest Zelda Timeline Mystery

[dotun.o 0]

I'm glad Nintendo gave this reply, partly because:

- Many NEED to be reminded it's just a game.

- I've always believed Nintendo is not really bound by trying to make the games fit a sequence when they develop them (at best they consider a prior game to develop a sequel to it).

- This guy needed to be taken down a few pegs. While his effort is really commendable, he is quite presumptuous in believing his theory must be right, a theory never officially stated by the game's authors, a theory that may not even exist at all!

Besides, his timeline is not nearly as airtight as he believes. As NINTENDOZELDAFAN pointed out, there is reason to believe a Master Sword exists in the first two Zelda releases, only back then it was called Magic Sword (and Nintendo probably later renamed it).

Also, there is still a big unanswered question after OoT (NOTE: Personally, I do not subscribe to the split timeline theory, but that doesn't change this observation):
Upon Link returning to his childhood, logic indicates that he would warn Hyrule about Ganon's intentions and have him defeated in that time i.e. his childhood time (recall Link returns to a time prior to his first meeting with Zelda, and prior to opening the Door of Time - VERY IMPORTANT!). The narrative of MM supports this idea. It may also be conceivable that the attempted execution described in TP was the result of this "preemptive strike". However, what it does not explain is how Ganon still had a piece of The Triforce! With Link knowing the events that occured, one would think the sequence of opening the Door of Time for Ganon to touch The Triforce would be averted at all costs, yet Ganon has a Triforce piece; Link and Zelda's incarnations/successors continue to have one too. How The Triforce Pieces ended up with each line of incarnations/successors based on what the end of OoT suggests (and MM's narrative mentioning the Triforce of Courage departing Link when he left Hyrule - he clearly still got it somehow!) is a big hole that makes any timeline theory unsteady, based on what we officially know so far...

[Aethix 129]

No, they had the Triforce pieces because their counterparts in the other timeline had them.

[HylianLink15 0]

[quote name='dotun.o' post='237014' date='Jul 16 2009, 05:10 PM']- This guy needed to be taken down a few pegs. While his effort is really commendable, he is quite presumptuous in believing his theory must be right, a theory never officially stated by the game's authors, a theory that may not even exist at all![/quote]

True, this guy is way too blas

[dotun.o 0]

[quote name='Aethix' post='237033' date='Jul 16 2009, 11:54 AM']No, they had the Triforce pieces because their counterparts in the other timeline had them.[/quote]

This is assuming:

- the events of one timeline affect the other. Though the whole timeline/time travel is all fiction, within the "rules" of the fiction, some believe that each timeline would proceed along independent of the events of the other, so having items in one does not guarantee the same in the other.

- that there are even multiple timelines in the first place. This in itself is not guaranteed.

I do very much agree with those who believe that, just like in real life, history is not always accurately preserved, and the stories and legends passed down through Hyrule may be innaccurate. Afterall, WW narrative describes the events of OoT/MM (specifically mentioning Hero of Time, etc.), and no other heroic exploits. So no matter whether WW is in the same or separate timeline, it makes no sense to have other heroic adventures between OoT/MM and WW when WW narrative makes no mention of them at all. The narrative of WW can only make sense if WW occured sometime after OoT/MM, with no other adventures between (at least not in Hyrule). This is not the case in this proposed timeline.

[なべ 184]

This is largely a pointless chain of events.

Long story short: word from Miyamoto or Aonuma themselves would tell us something. This is just NoA attempting to quiet people who insist that they're correct and demand acknowledgement as a result. NoA doesn't know any more than we do.

[Embear 0]

In my opinion, i think that Nintendo made a huge mistake by acknowledging the timeline (or nonexistant timeline) in any way. I could see some passion lost in the game now that we know there's no time line, SOME.
Part of LoZ games appeal is how they do or do not connect, now they have lost a major part of the fun.

[LegoBonez 0]

But if each game is a new link, Wind waker and phantom hourglass can't be sequels.

[Chase 390]

LegoBonez, if the game states that it's a sequel, then it's a sequel. It's completely obvious that PH is a sequel to WW, MM is a sequel to OOT, etc, etc.