Archived

This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.

Nintendo Releases Official Zelda Timeline

19 posts in this topic

Posted

It seems Nintendo wasn't just pushing our buttons the whole time. They may have had some messy mistakes in how they went about portraying their games in chronological order, but they apparently did have something in store for us. Cheating a little bit, it turns out Nintendo took a technically non-in-game order, making a split in the timeline not only for when Link goes back in time at the end of OoT, but apparently also after the player gets a game over. Alternatively, a split that happens when Navi hit the fence and died from the impact at the beginning of the game, presumably making Link sleep in and miss fulfilling his destiny. That was a joke.

[center][img]http://missiongeek.com/storage/post-images/2011/12/This-Might-Actually-Be-The-Official-Zelda-Timeline.png?__SQUARESPACE_CACHEVERSION=1324573333110[/img][/center]

In this image created by a fan on Kotaku, we see a logically sound timeline in which Link being defeated at the end of [i]Ocarina of Time[/i] causes the creation of the Dark World in [i]Link to the Past[/i]. If you're wondering why Hyrule is peaceful at the beginning of [i]Link to the Past[/i], it's because Ganondorf was sealed before the game took place, as per the introduction story.

I find it interesting that all their older games seemed to be grouped together on the third timeline split.

This information was released in Nintendo's book, [url="http://images.wikia.com/zelda/images/4/43/Hyrule_Historia.png"][i]Hyrule Hystoria[/i][/url][i], [/i]for the Legend of Zelda's 25th Anniversary. There are no known plans for release of this book in other countries.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Posted

This is the same thing as the last two times. I was expecting something new, but this is not.

???

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Posted

I suppose this is just something for the front page, since we don't have this in News & Reviews yet.

Oh no wait, it didn't post to the main page, so nevermind then.
Someone should tell Tappy about that idk.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Posted

def needs to go on the front page, i agree.

and yeah, that third timeline being mostly older games does look really suspicious. the MM split seems to be the more linear one, the WW split is basically intentional, and heck, it was written that way, but the third split feels to me like "well, puppy, we were just making games back then, not timelines, so what the heck do we do?" although it could be possible that that was the original premise of zeldas timeline, as OoT was made later--they started at the end and worked back in chunks, hit OoT, made a split, worked down the split, and then worked back from OoT.

i need to stop changing my opinion mid-post, it makes me sound like im arguing a point using the wrong sides pros.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Posted

Zeldas I and II definitely are later in the timeline. Zelda II taking place after Zelda I. The third timeline takes leaps and bounds, and it almost seems as if they were meant to be really bleak from the start. Maybe a setback from the origin of the timeline. In OoX it's implied that Old Hyrule was destroyed, so that also makes sense. Link travels to Hyrule on horseback and finds the ruins of what is clearly Hyrule Castle from OoT, with the Triforce housed inside. OoX is probably a long ways away from LttP, too, because of the different Zeldas.

And I guess boating was just a thing back then. Which brings up another possibility, that the Goddesses flooded Hyrule after the third timeline split, just like Wind Waker. It makes sense, because both timelines don't have Link anymore. So it would definitely make sense for the third timeline to have the flooding issue as well, which explains why Link boats around so much after the ends of those games.

Zelda I was probably the bleakest Zelda ever. There was almost no population except for elderly men and women in caves. No towns. Just Link trying to save Zelda. And if you don't count the elderly, Link and Zelda are the only Hylians/humans in the whole game, because Ganondorf is in his Ganon incarnation. It's a very lonely and stark scenario. Assumedly, something made it like this, but I don't even remember if there's a theory for that.

Zelda II was a lot more populated, but it was also very subdued and paranoid. Ganon looming over the atmosphere freaked people out. What kind of environment would one have to live in in order to be constantly afraid of an evil resurrection? Ganon was apparently that horrible. He had monsters hiding as people, and everyone was always hurried. Assumedly because being outdoors for too long is a bad move.

I don't even know what I was trying to get at here, lol.
But yeah this timeline is cool, except I am still annoyed at how their small details threw a wrench in the continuity forever. Like I said, I gave up on small details when I looked at my SS box and saw Twilight Princess-era Hylian, then played the game and saw a new, original, and more archaic text. It was annoying. I just threw my hands in the air and didn't care. I was going to have fun, and that's what I did.
Sahaqiel

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Posted

i think the art styles shouldnt be reflective of where in the timeline the game is. i mean, are we to believe that after the world is flooded, humand mutate into anatomically disproportionate things with absurd eyes? i think not. the art seemss to fluxuate more based on Links age, if anything. SS hit links clothes up with more of a reality check, adding details and such that wasnt possible with the graphics of OoTs time. people liked that. so they brought it back for SS, and even threw in more cell shading than TP had.

as much as id love to say "the outfits of adult link arent all that different" i cant say ive stared at his outfit long enough to make that statement, nor looked at it in as much detail than half the people here. but from a quick once-over, theyre not changed enough to warrant a timeline discrepancy, imo.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Posted

i won't believe anything unless i hear it from the mouth of Shigeru Miyamoto himself

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Posted

this is the actual time line, revised and such.
[img]http://30.media.tumblr.com/tumblr_lx6n4xAu3c1qizbpto1_500.jpg[/img]

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Posted

lol, PH listed as good, while ST is listed as "okay"
sure looks legit to me.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Posted

aw hell nah

PH is not better than ST. Nor is OoX or Zelda II just "Okay". Wind Waker and Majora's Mask are also pretty amazing. What a douche.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Posted

[quote name='Sahaqiel' timestamp='1326237868' post='373353']
aw hell nah
...
Wind Waker and Majora's Mask are also pretty amazing. What a douche.
[/quote]
Wind Waker ftw :D

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Posted

[quote name='Sahaqiel' timestamp='1326237868' post='373353']
aw hell nah

PH is not better than ST. Nor is OoX or Zelda II just "Okay". Wind Waker and Majora's Mask are also pretty amazing. What a douche.
[/quote]

you guys always raised a fuss about getting stuff for the front page, improve the site and whatnot. i guess i have to be the one to do it

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Posted

Nothing you said in that post related to my post at all.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Posted

Why are you implying that this timeline is not old old old old

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Posted

Isn't the thought of a Zelda Timeline pointless? As it will change the minute they release a new game....

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.