SPOILER ALERT: Don't read all of the wiki text if you don't want to know the endings to games you haven't played.  You should be safe enough with just the timeline image though.

http://zeldawiki.org/Zelda_Timeli...

So I may be a bit late to the party on this, but I have a bone to pick with story behind the Zelda series.  I recently read the "official timeline" that shows how all the games are connected.

Before I get too far, let me start by saying that I'm a HUGE Zelda fan and love all of the games individually.  My issue is purely with what the writers have tried to do with the timeline.

Anyway, at the center of the timeline is a three-way split that occurs during Ocarina of Time, including one scenario where Link actually LOSES to Ganondorf at the end of the game?!  That doesn't make any sense to me.  This has to be the only time I've ever seen a video game storyline include the failure of a playable character that is never seen in the actual game.  It would be one thing if Ocarina of Time had an alternate ending where this scenario occurs, but it doesn't.

The other two possibilities (Child and Adult Link) I might be able to buy with enough convincing, but even that is a little far fetched for my tastes.  I've heard a lot of time travel stories and this one just doesn't add up for me.  (side note: don't get me started on the time elements of Majora's Mask either)

I'm curious to hear what the rest of you think, from one Zelda fan to others.

I'm not a fan of them trying to connect everything personally. I enjoy each game for what it is and make my own timeline to connect the games I like best. I.E. Twilight Princess is basically another version of OoT to me. It's all basically the same story just played out differently. And Four Swords is basically ALTTP with a twist and a more linear gameplay mode. I also dont believe in the split where Link does not defeat Ganon, but fandom has to create a timeline somehow.

I've been a contributor for Zelda fansites, and Zelda is what got me into collecting in the first place. I love all the games, but never cared about the storyline at all. There are some games where it's nice to know a bit of the lore, and some games where they are directly connected (LOZ-AOL, OoT-MM), but I've always thought the attempt to string all of the games together was asking for trouble. Nintendo obviously did not plan for such a timeline from the start; if they did, it'd be clear as day.

I've always enjoyed each game individually. I even played Majora's Mask before Ocarina of Time and enjoyed it very much as its own game. But as far as the timeline theories go, I've always stayed out of the discussion. Now that Nintendo has posted an official timeline, I suppose I have to believe it, ignoring the fact that there are some glaring contradictions pointed out by fans. Also, Miyamoto stated in previous interviews that the timeline was different. Surely a statement from the creator should be regarded as canon? Or maybe not?

It always seemed a bit strange to me how they'd even fit together. Going from my childhood rationale: all of the Links and Zeldas can't be the same. But that's obvious. They all tell sort of the same story but from a different point of view. It's almost like the Legend of Zelda is just that -- a legend -- sort of like the ancient Norse tales that were passed on by prose. Each story is actually the same tale but different cultures have their own take on it (Wind Waker being an islander's retelling, etc.)

I think this actually originated from some fansite and then Nintendo / Miyamoto adopted it as lore.

Everyone that actually has played the Legend of Zelda series knows that Link is mostly never the same Link, and Zelda isn't the same Zelda throughout the Hyrule universe. Proof is simply by playing through you will hear references of past Link's referred to as "The Hero" or something similar to that.

I like that the universes are all split, and I hope one day that Nintendo makes some sort of amazing epic story to unify all three. Something like that will instantly make it dethrone LoZoT...which makes sense since that's the story that split the universe into three.

I have a book titled "Hyrule Historia" which has the actual official timeline in it. Seems to make sense. Kind of. It gets pretty messed up when you start introducing the Zelda games from the CDI.

What they simply should have done in my opinion is say the Link (the hero of time) is the reincarnating representation of the forces of good and Ganondorf is the same but of evil. PERIOD. No further explaination.

How they made it...

The fact they made 3 branches, especially the one where the hero is defeated. That makes no sense to me. Why would the hero be defeated? If he was defeated, we didn't beat the game. The whole point of the game is to beat the game. Unless Ocarina of Time had 2 endings, one where you lose the final battle and one where you win, this makes no sense. When you lose, you just go back and play until you beat Ganon... They made up this "hero is defeated" nonsense and it just throws the whole thing off.

I feel like they just made too many games with stories that followed no time line and they just made up some nonsense to satisfy fans.

What I would have done is...

Branch 1) Ganon retreats
Branch 2) Ganon is killed
Branch 3) Ganon is sealed

Branch 1 (which is the one that makes no sense) would have been better if Ganon simply retreated. That way the hero won still (at least isn't defeated) and it would make sense that you could say Ganon came back stronger than ever and Hyrule declined.

When it comes to the "beating the game" adult & child time lines, this was actually crystal clear and almost self evident by the time The Twilight Princess came out - that and The Wind Waker contain stuff that contradicts each other but fits this idea of branching timeline perfectly.

Now, I personally view the third branch as a really commandable effort to retcon Zelda's 1-3 to be part of the single Zelda mythos. It's really the best possible way to have them connected if you need that, as it evades a lot of issues (ie. doesn't eff up either TP or WW timelines), and there are nice touches as well like how Hyrule basicly went to hell after Triforce was lost which is why people live basically under rocks in Zelda 1. It's all presented masterfully imo in Hyrule Historia so anyone who has complaints about it should at least read the book before forming a final opinion.

I think it's just bs plain and simple as there's no sense to it like you stated Tom. I think Nintendo got caught in a wave of fanboy whining and assumption and had to concoct some garbage to tie all the games somehow together to make them happy to meet years of demand. The games really aren't except for some where the opening or closing alludes to another title (Hero of Time roll over into Wind Waker for example coming off of Ocarina of Time) that have a damn thing to do with another. Some do, some don't, they're mostly just independent stories re-using similar characters and enemies to create a unique yet not world for the gamers.

As kgbjay said there in his opening, that really should have been it. Reincarnation of characters into another world with little to nothing to do with the others or their passage of time. A few do and the games clearly state this, but a lot just are independent works.

No matter what game series it is,it seems that more often than not when they try to connect all the games together it ends up being one hot mess. Take the Castlevania series for instance. Supposedly Legends was the first in the series,then it was retconned and Lament of Innocence was the first and Legends was pretty much considered a mistake and taken off the timeline. (If I remember correctly.) And I know many Mega Man fans have wanted Capcom to give a definitive connection between the original and X series.(or all the series for that matter) I would rather they leave it as is. I think the phrase "keep it simple stupid" really applies here. Attempting to piece together timelines,explain backstories,retconning,etc all just overcomplicates things. Just give people a good story and what gaps arise,let the fans use their imaginations to fill them in.

It's all very simple and explained here:

!

I'm with you on this one. I haven't played all of the LoZ games, but I don't try to connect LoZ with Adventures of Link or ALTTP. Each game that I've played were great and enjoyed them as standalones.

I look at the LoZ series as the same story being told down throughout the ages by people who either have imperfect memories of the events or just heard the stories throughout time... like a Legend if you will...

...except when you have the games that have on obvious conection to a previous title, like Majoras Mask or Zelda II, those stories are just continuations of the first half.

I wasn't aware Zelda games even had plots?

Ha! I like that way of looking at it And it makes a lot of sense, especially in this case.

I like it because it also explains why sometimes Link is a child, sometimes he’s an adult, sometimes both. Every interpretation is different but feels familiar.

Twilight Princess could have been the interpretation of a depressed prisoner or bandit telling it as a campfire story which explains the dark, gritty look and feel of that game.

Wind Waker could be a mother’s interpretation while telling the story to a child before they fall asleep, which explains the cutesy look of that game.

No story is told the same way, sometimes Ganon is a man, sometimes a monster, sometimes he’s not even in the story at all, it accounts for the similar variety of weapons you get in each game, similar characters, ect.

I loved how the first two games were directly related. I've grown weary of the modern "hero" repeating, reincarnated stories. I cringed when I realized that I would receive a green tunic in Wind Waker.

The connected storyline is just bullshit.

Has anybody seen this video about the Zelda Timeline?

http://retroquestgames.com/blog/p...

Very well produced.

Excuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuse me rdrunner, but where does the Zelda TV show fit in?