Zelda timeline revised.

[Dark Jaguar]

https://www.nintendo.co.jp/character/zel...index.html

One thing has been changed to the official timeline. Link's Awakening now precedes the Oracle games. That's what I had originally assumed back in the day, and it makes more sense. He went on a journey to improve his skills, managed to get back to Hyrule just in time to find out what's been going on there, and we see him at the start of those two games riding a horse as he finally gets back. Further, it lets us know that yes, Link did manage to survive being lost at sea.

Other than that, lots of new additions to fit in games that were made after the timeline first became established.

As was already stated, Link Between Worlds takes place a century after Link to the Past, so it's on that timeline. Triforce Heroes, interestingly, takes place after Link Between Worlds and before Zelda 1. So, there's a dark twist. The reason all those imitators are running around dressed as Link is because that's the very start of the Age of Decline, when Hyrule slowly turns into the desolate wastes at the start of Zelda 1, before a true descendant of the hero finally rises again.

So that leaves Breath of the Wild. It takes place at the very end, a distant period in the distant future of, wait for it ALL three timelines. I mean, there's references to events and characters across different timelines in that Hyrule, but this cements it. Some sort of Crisis on Infinite Hyrules event must happen down the line, combining all three timelines into one singular world. That, that is going to be a hell of a game when that finally comes along, but it's the only thing I can think of with this revelation. It even goes to explaining just why Hyrule is just THAT much more vast in BOTW. The Wind Waker timeline involves founding a new Hyrule and protecting it from all new threats. So, if they all combined, then Hyrule would suddenly become a merger of both the new and old Kingdoms into one.

That's a lot to take in, but video game continuities are finally getting as convoluted as comic books. Enjoy!

[A Black Falcon]

Link in LA looks a whole lot older than the Link in Oracles, though, so LA happening first is quite impossible... they use pretty much the same sprite, but the character art is completely different!

Nintendo is probably pretty glad they've never attempted to have a timeline for Mario, the Zelda one is and continues to be such a mess...

[Dark Jaguar]

Um, LA artwork is pretty much the same as the LTTP artwork, so by that logic Link is "too old" either way. I don't think it's that bad, considering it's a different art style anyway. Look at the photo shop pictures in LA DX, he looks pretty young in those right?

So, other than a art style clash, what do you think of this? Also, what do you mean by it being such a mess? Frankly I think it works pretty well.

[A Black Falcon]

True, the LA and LttP art is pretty similar in style. So you're right, Oracles never did make much sense as happening after LttP, did it... they made Link look years too young!

Also, what do you mean by it being such a mess? Frankly I think it works pretty well.

Nintendo, or at least Nintendo EAD, going with the Miyamoto way, focuses on gameplay first, story... maybe eventually. I doubt that Nintendo has almost ever started work on a Zelda game already knowing where it fits in the timeline, if they even really had one back then. Instead they start with gameplay, and then toss in a story later. As a result, the plot points and retcons they've had to come up with to fit the whole Zelda timeline into one tree are kind of dumb at times. To give the most obvious example, retroactively inserting in a third timeline, where Link loses to Ganon at one key point, is absurd! Link wouldn't lose to Ganon, and having to go to that extreme to explain how some games are the way they are is pretty silly and, obviously, retroactively invented.

Or, you mention Triforce Heroes, and their new explanation of why that world is how it is. I just kind of doubt that that's the actual explanation for that. I mean, isn't it more likely that they made the game like that because they thought it was amusing or something, and then several years later invented an excuse for why it is that way? "Oh that game is like that because it's a setup for the decline of Hyrule, really!" Yeah, right... I mean, maybe, but they weren't saying this back when the game released as far as I know! It's more likely to be like the three-timelines thing, a later invention done to make their timeline vaguely fit together.

And really, I'm fine with all that. Zelda is one of the best series ever because of its gameplay, after all, certainly not the games' stories! Some Zelda games have decent and occasionally even compelling stories, but the gameplay is what makes Zelda games great and that is how it should be. I do care about the Zelda timeline somewhat, but because of the way the games are made I don't know if it is possible to make a fully plausible timeline that doesn't have to make random stuff up long after the games are made to explain how some of the games are the way they are. Re-interpreting a story after its release to fit it in with later stories in an ongoing series happens all the time of course across media and storytelling, but here we're seeing again how hard that can be to do in a plausible way.

And on that note, how can BotW be in three timelines at once? That doesn't make any sense...

[Dark Jaguar]

I'm with you there, and for a large number of the "spinoff" titles continuity was an afterthought if it was a thought at all, but it's clear they put some thought into timeline placement going all the way back to LTTP. The hint is in the name. It was called "Link to the Past" for a reason, and while the story of Zelda isn't exactly Shakespear, as someone who loves the series I like to think about it. Frankly, the current timeline fits in very well with my original idea of how they all worked.

BOTW appears to take place after some sort of "convergence" event, where all 3 timelines combine. As I said, that would make for an interesting game.

[A Black Falcon]

Sure, they've thought about the timeline in a vague sense, at least for main-series titles though probably not really for the spinoffs. It's never been with the kind of specificity you see in the timeline, though, and that really shows whenever you look at a Zelda timeline. Maybe they should just have stuck with the original not even really trying to really connect things coherently... though if they do I would rather that they would more consistently connect in plausible ways. The Link's age problem in Oracles is an example of something they didn't think through enough.

[Dark Jaguar]

Sure, they've thought about the timeline in a vague sense, at least for main-series titles though probably not really for the spinoffs. It's never been with the kind of specificity you see in the timeline, though, and that really shows whenever you look at a Zelda timeline. Maybe they should just have stuck with the original not even really trying to really connect things coherently... though if they do I would rather that they would more consistently connect in plausible ways. The Link's age problem in Oracles is an example of something they didn't think through enough.

The biggest difference in the official timeline with what they actually announced is the split timeline idea, but we knew about that starting with Twighlight Princess. The placement of the major games in the series has always been pretty danged specific, usually announced months in advance of the game's release. Everyone knew Ocarina of Time came before Link to the Past, and everyone knew Link to the Past took place before Zelda 1. That was never in question. Zelda 2 also very specifically took place after Zelda 1, and Majora's Mask clearly took place after Ocarina of Time. I would say Link's Awakening's story made it clear this was a Link that already had gone on a grand adventure, and based on what had already come out, the only sensible place was after LTTP.

As for the "age issue", is there one? Link's age is never stated, the only difference is artistic. Heck the sprites look the same, and in spite of what we see in the official artwork for LTTP, when it came time to give him a voice, they used "young Link" samples, not adult link.

[Weltall]

The whole timeline for this series is an extra anyway; I don't remember any game having a story that could not stand entirely on its own. Majora's Mask is a direct continuation of one Ocarina timeline, but other than for a handful of details, it could have featured a completely different Link in a totally different era and the game would not be any different.

[Dark Jaguar]

Yeah, I can agree with that. It's really the same with Castlevania. No one needed to play Rondo of Blood to get what was going on in Symphony of the Night.