So I'm playing Twilight Princess for the first time, and...

[5ir Psycho 5exy]

It's a legend. There are too many plot holes for all of them to intertwine in a way anyone can be 100% certain about, whether or not Miyamoto says they do. Since all the Hyrules are, geographically speaking, vastly different, too different to attribute to a natural change over time (which also takes millions of years in which I'd assume some technological advancements would have been made), I had always theorized that, unless explicitly stated otherwise, many of the LoZs were merely different retellings of the same story, gradually altered by word of mouth as it's passed down throughout generations.

Call it dumb if you will, but at least my head has never exploded trying to comprehend the flawed timeline. xp  

[GuruGuru214]

While it's true that you can play the Oracle games in any order you want, there's a few things within the games that make much more sense if you play Ages first. The biggest one that I always think of is Impa. In Oracle of Seasons, she'll recognize you in a linked game, as if you've met before, but if you play Ages second, Impa (possessed by Veran) acts as if you're a total stranger, yet Link trusts her anyway. If the storyline really did have Ages following Seasons, Link would have to be a moron to see Impa acting so strangely, with no memory of him, and still trust her enough to bring her to Nayru. And that's just one reason Ages probably goes before Seasons.

Also, the split timeline has irritated the hell out of me ever since it was just a theory, and it only got worse when it was made official. By the ripple effect, the OoT future shouldn't even exist for a second timeline to carry on (and Oracle of Ages proves that the ripple effect does occur in the Zelda universe).

But it's a story, the time travel bit doesn't have to make perfect sense. I just hope that the timeline document is released at some point in my lifetime. Perhaps upon (much as I hate to even speak of such a thing) Miyamoto's eventual death?  

[KyuubiNaruto4]

GuruGuru214

While it's true that you can play the Oracle games in any order you want, there's a few things within the games that make much more sense if you play Ages first. The biggest one that I always think of is Impa. In Oracle of Seasons, she'll recognize you in a linked game, as if you've met before, but if you play Ages second, Impa (possessed by Veran) acts as if you're a total stranger, yet Link trusts her anyway. If the storyline really did have Ages following Seasons, Link would have to be a moron to see Impa acting so strangely, with no memory of him, and still trust her enough to bring her to Nayru. And that's just one reason Ages probably goes before Seasons.

Also, the split timeline has irritated the hell out of me ever since it was just a theory, and it only got worse when it was made official. By the ripple effect, the OoT future shouldn't even exist for a second timeline to carry on (and Oracle of Ages proves that the ripple effect does occur in the Zelda universe).

But it's a story, the time travel bit doesn't have to make perfect sense. I just hope that the timeline document is released at some point in my lifetime. Perhaps upon (much as I hate to even speak of such a thing) Miyamoto's eventual death?

Who knows. If it is never released before he dies he might wish it so. But knowing Nintendo it might be just one secret we will never truly know.  

[Chloe Agnew]

Honestly... I really don't think they follow a timeline... trying to find a time line is like trying to find a needle in a haystack, or trying find a timeline in the mario games... like which one was princess peach's "official" first time being kidnapped.

In my opinion every zelda game is completely seperate from one another ((unless officially deemed a prequel or Sequel)) There isn't really a time line, there are just storylines. I don't know how to explain it exactly, it is like they all have happened but they all happened seperately, like there is a different hyrule for every quest almost like parallel dimensions, because trying to follow the timeline of zelda is like trying to find the lost city of atlantis: You don't even know if it exists... besides... I really think finding a timeline between all (insert correct number here)) of the zelda games is... well... really hard and kind of pointless  

[GuruGuru214]

Chloe Agnew

Honestly... I really don't think they follow a timeline... trying to find a time line is like trying to find a needle in a haystack, or trying find a timeline in the mario games... like which one was princess peach's "official" first time being kidnapped.

In my opinion every zelda game is completely seperate from one another ((unless officially deemed a prequel or Sequel)) There isn't really a time line, there are just storylines. I don't know how to explain it exactly, it is like they all have happened but they all happened seperately, like there is a different hyrule for every quest almost like parallel dimensions, because trying to follow the timeline of zelda is like trying to find the lost city of atlantis: You don't even know if it exists... besides... I really think finding a timeline between all (insert correct number here)) of the zelda games is... well... really hard and kind of pointless

I can understand how you could draw that conclusion, but Miyamoto and Nintendo have confirmed multiple times that the games follow a timeline. They just haven't given us a whole lot to fill in the blanks with.  

[Waynebrizzle]

If there is a timeline, it's really stupid.  

[Michi is a cat]

I found this in issue 96 of NGC Magazine, August 2004:



Hope it helps...  

[5ir Psycho 5exy]

Hmmmm, that makes a lot of sense after you make sense of the picture. xd  

[Gotham Blackmask]

Yeah, the Zelda timeline is technically hardly connected, except for the games listed in the second post. WW and TP are like, different legacies and prophecies (and what not) and are different people. There is more then one Hero of Time. razz  

[wariodude128]

I hate to bring this up, but if we're talking about timelines, then wouldn't the zelda tv show and three games for the cd-i be included in there?  

[Demon0fMists]

Personally I go with one of these explanations, Link in a different time, like when he was 100 years into the future or past or something. I sometimes go with, just a different game and none relate to each.
P.S.: my friend told me to type that the mother had a bunch of look alike twin, like octuplets (or more) and some were frozen in ice, and lived, so the years past by and the ice eventually melted.... so ya..  

[SylFariun]

wariodude128

I hate to bring this up, but if we're talking about timelines, then wouldn't the zelda tv show and three games for the cd-i be included in there?

Nintendo disowned the cd-i games like a drunken stepdad. I dunno bout the cartoon though.  

[teh_n00b_huntr]

kakarikosheikah

I found this in issue 96 of NGC Magazine, August 2004:



Hope it helps...

Actually this is the most widely accepted timeline from the different forums I have seen, OoT Link being the first Hero of Time and the subsequent Links merely being able to channel his power and destiny. I believe that the skeleton seen in TP is actually the first Link passing down some of the moves he had learned after the defeat of Ganon ninja  

[GuruGuru214]

Kenshin Kura

wariodude128

I hate to bring this up, but if we're talking about timelines, then wouldn't the zelda tv show and three games for the cd-i be included in there?

Nintendo disowned the cd-i games like a drunken stepdad. I dunno bout the cartoon though.

The CD-i games are the b*****d children of the Zelda series. They were the result of the time Nintendo gave another company license to use their properties. They were developed completely with no connection to Miyamoto or Nintendo and are completely non-canon. Much of the same can be said for the cartoon.

teh_n00b_huntr

Actually this is the most widely accepted timeline from the different forums I have seen, OoT Link being the first Hero of Time and the subsequent Links merely being able to channel his power and destiny. I believe that the skeleton seen in TP is actually the first Link passing down some of the moves he had learned after the defeat of Ganon ninja

How closely did you look at the thing? It has A Link to the Past following Zelda II (and if I'm interpreting the difference between "years later" and "centuries pass" correctly, with the same Link for both games), it has the arrow for "The Great Flood" after The Wind Waker and before Twilight Princess, it has The Minish Cap set as a side story to The Legend of Zelda, with Four Swords Adventures set with no connection to anything else, and it has an unlabeled line connecting the Oracles to either Zelda II or A Link to the Past.

As far as those events are concerned, the most widely accepted timeline (which in some places is just canon) is that the Legend of Zelda/Zelda II story takes place very last in the timeline, the "centuries pass" bit should be between Ocarina of Time and A Link to the Past (as OoT is a retelling of the Imprisoning War from ALttP), the Great Flood should take place somewhere before The Wind Waker, nobody quite knows where Twilight Princess falls in relation to The Wind Waker (and some would put them in separate forks of the timeline all together), and The Minish Cap takes place first in the Four Swords storyline, taking place at some point centuries before Four Swords and Four Swords Adventures (which does not take place "long ago" and is definitely connected to other games).

I really didn't mean to launch into a rant like that, but it looks like whoever assembled the timeline in the magazine barely even read about the games, much less played them.  

[Ribbin]

I disagree with any timeline, they don't make any sense. xD Why try connecting games that shouldn't be connected. =/