Zelda Chronology

Har D Har

Master Mapper Supreme!
    • 361
    Posts
    19
    Years
    We all know the huge debate over the chronology of the Zelda series. In a recent interview, we find out there is an official timeline, and it is at least on the computers of Miyamoto and the guy who made Phantom Hourglass. Besides that, we know only this for certain from interviews: Ocarina of Time is first, followed by Majora's Mask; Wind Waker is last; and that Twilight Princess is a 'What-If' reality, where Link stayed an adult, and Ganon never came back, and Hyrule was never flooded, and all that good stuff. Now all we can do is debate what order the middle games came, which, at this time, has no fruit.
     
    Actually, Wind Waker isn't last. Phantom Hourglass is as of now (How could Princess Zelda have turned into Tetra before Wind Waker?).

    One thing that I have always wondered is what the order of the Oracle series is, whether Oracle of Ages comes first or Oracle of Seasons comes first. They give no real clues in the games to prove which one comes first. I am also wondering if they replaced Link's Awakening with Link's Awakening DX in the timeline, mainly for the Color Dungeon and the camera shop sidequest.
     
    Thanks, I forgot about Hourglass, so yeah, that is last. But about the Oracle games, I always thought Ages came first, though that may be cause that's the one I played and beat first.
     
    When it comes to the Zelda series, I believe that there are multiple timelines which had split from the story told in Ocarina.
    Wind Waker and Twilight Princess are both in timelines of their own. As for Oracle and Four Swords, I don't think that they fit anywhere.
     
    No, I'm pretty sure that it was aid that the timeline is straight, except for the What If reality of Twilight Princess. I am pretty sure Oracle take place directly after another game, because it seems that the triforce just zapped on Link into the Oracle world.
     
    I am a huge fan of AVGN, and that episode led me to this topic. I understand his frustration, but he made a boo-boo. Miyamoto has said that since the beginning there was a timeline, with a short story description of each game. Since the first game was released, they have been filling up the spaces. Who knows how many spots are left unfilled right now...and if Link's Crossbow Training is on there, but I doubt it. The game was a cool was to try out the Wii Zapper, end of story.
     
    Woah, woah, what?

    That's not what we know from the interviews at all.

    What we know is:

    - Adventure of Link is the sequel to Legend of Zelda.
    - A Link to the Past is the prequel to Legend of Zelda.
    - Link's Awakening is the sequel to A Link to the Past.
    - At the time of its release, Ocarina of Time was the first chronologically.
    - Majora's Mask is the sequel to Ocarina of Time
    - The Wind Waker is a sequel to Ocarina of Time and takes place hundreds of years later
    - At the time of The Wind Waker's release, a split timeline was confirmed.
    - This was reconfirmed at the time of Twilight Princess' release - stating that Twilight Princess takes place in the child timeline and The Wind Waker in the adult timeline.
    - At the time of Four Swords Adevntures release, Four Swords was considered the "oldest" tale.
    - Four Swords Adventures is a sequel to Four Swords
    - The Minish Cap is a prequel to Four Swords
    - Phantom Hourglass is a sequel to The Wind Waker

    Oracle of Ages and Oracle of Seasons are mysteries. What we don't know is where exactly the above games fall and why.
     
    How could Four Swords be oldest? At the end of Phantom, Hyrule was still covered with water, and in Four Swords, it isn't. Four Swords mini-saga probably took place sometime between Majora's Mask and Wind Waker, like most of the games. Some say Minish cap is the first, but this can't be, the game has Moblins, and it was said Ganon, who didn't exist befire Ocarina of Time, created them in his Pig-like image.
     
    No, that video is generally shunned in the Zelda community.

    And, there is evidence to suggest that Ganon is a mythological demon that "inhabits" Ganondorf. Err...in the sense that there are multiple Ganondorfs, just as there are multiple Links and Zeldas. We know that Ganon is an "ancient demon". Just not how ancient. For all we know it could predate OoT.

    If it doesn't, then...well there were Moblins in OoT, but Ganon doesn't take on a physical form until the end of that game. Ganon looks like a pig because it is a reflection of his heart. Moblins were around before Ganon.

    Also, Four Swords can be the oldest because the creators said so. And oldest meaning earliest. :x

    My best guess is:

    TMC-FS-OOT-TWW-PH
    TMC-FS-OOT-MM-TP

    The rest of the games I haven't figured out yet though. I'm thinking ALttP, LA, OoA, OoS would go in the top one though
     
    https://youtube.com/watch?v=0tWlJpFKTvs

    Answers most if not all.

    so OoS and OoA goes in both young link and non-link timelines! and reunites the split just for ages to come,

    You all are lucky i google and wander aroung youtube.

    omahkakaw, obviously your link was the same thing but you may have wanted the Direct video link, no offense
     
    TRIFORCE89 said:
    No, that video is generally shunned in the Zelda community.
    Click to expand...

    I understand where you're coming from. I really do. And I even agree with some of it (namely the whole multiverse idea).

    But the thing is, I trust AVGN alot more than I trust most of the Zelda community (not ALL of it, mind you). Especially since, like he said, they (and also apparently alot of the execs at Nintendo) can't even agree on issues as basic as what order the games happen in.

    Could be worse though. It could've been SpoonyOne. In a way, Zelda's lucky it got AVGN instead, because he doesn't complain about the mechanics, just the order of the games.

    Like you said, it just seems the simplest to assume they're all seperate universes, even if that isn't the official truth (don't get me started about my Four Swords theory). Like AVGN said, the only way to accept the single timeline theory is to assume they already had these games planned from the start. Maybe this is the reason that direct sequels to Final Fantasy games have never really worked...

    Besides, he wasn't trying to point out what order the games came in at all. He was just trying to make a point about how messed up the Zelda timeline is (which is something that I think even the most hardcore Zelda fan can agree with, lord knows I do). Once you understand that, his whole video makes worlds more sense. Even you've reinforced that, to some degree.
     
    Last edited:
    Huh? I wasn't talking about Angry Video Game Nerd. :x I was talking about that retrospective video from Game Trailers.

    There is an internal document within Nintendo that only handful of people have seen. It shows how already released games connect and where possible stories for future games would fit. Zelda games are made backwards so to speak. The game and "gimmick concept" are created first. Then they change what they've made a bit to fit a story they pull out of that document. That's why in Zelda games, the story is more of a bookend concept.

    And a split-timeline if confirmed. Both the internal document and the spilt-timeline concept have been officially confirmed twice.

    Har D Har, Miyamoto would make off-the-cuff remarks about the timeline until OoT was released. It is known that he doesn't care as much about how they all connect. He cares more about the game. Aounma cares about the story and wants to work on getting them to fit better. Statements about the internal document didn't surface until...shortly after TWW's release.
     
    TRIFORCE89 said:
    Huh? I wasn't talking about Angry Video Game Nerd. :x I was talking about that retrospective video from Game Trailers.

    There is an internal document within Nintendo that only handful of people have seen. It shows how already released games connect and where possible stories for future games would fit. Zelda games are made backwards so to speak. The game and "gimmick concept" are created first. Then they change what they've made a bit to fit a story they pull out of that document. That's why in Zelda games, the story is more of a bookend concept.

    And a split-timeline if confirmed. Both the internal document and the spilt-timeline concept have been officially confirmed twice.

    Har D Har, Miyamoto would make off-the-cuff remarks about the timeline until OoT was released. It is known that he doesn't care as much about how they all connect. He cares more about the game. Aounma cares about the story and wants to work on getting them to fit better. Statements about the internal document didn't surface until...shortly after TWW's release.
    Click to expand...

    Good to see there are others who know of the document. I know a lot of friends who doubt it exists. I'm sure it does. In any timeline, I'm pretty sure WW/PH would have to be last, as Hyrule was completely flooded. I don't beleive the Ancient Demon Ganon thing. I think Ganon is just what happens when a maniacal madman gets his hands on the Triforce of Power. Ganon is just the demonic form of Ganondorf, that's all. I just think there is more evidence to support that then that Ganon is an eternal demon. Also, I am pretty sure Ganon(dorf) won't show up in the Twilight split of the timeline, just because how it showed the Power leave him, making him mortal once again.
     
    TRIFORCE89 said:
    There is an internal document within Nintendo that only handful of people have seen. It shows how already released games connect and where possible stories for future games would fit. Zelda games are made backwards so to speak. The game and "gimmick concept" are created first. Then they change what they've made a bit to fit a story they pull out of that document. That's why in Zelda games, the story is more of a bookend concept.
    Click to expand...


    Wow. I thought you were talking about the AVGN. Sorry about that.

    I have heard of the document, but I've never seen it. Do you have a link possibly (no pun intended)? I'd really like to see what all the fuss is about that. I like how you call it a 'gimmick concept' though. That is what it is. It's not a bad thing or anything. Most RPGs have some sort of gimmick. It's what makes many games successful.

    Things like that are why I usually think of Zelda games as seperate universes altogether. It's just less confusing that way.
     
    Last edited:
    ...
    You do know that only a handful of people in the whole world have seen the document, right? The only known keepers are Miyamoto and Eiji.
     
    Uhh...I can give you a link that shows Aonoma discussing the document - thereby proving it's existing. This has happened twice.

    But, like I've said no one has actually seen it outside of a small handful of people - namely Aonoma, Miyamoto, and Iwata. There's also just two known copies of it...sitting in computers at Nintendo.

    Ganon - as in the pig creature - is a reflection on Ganondorf's evil heart. Link turning into a rabbit in A Link to the Past was a reflection of his pure heart.

    To quote Four Swords Adventures:
    Ganon... This beast was once of the Gerudo... Once human. He was called Ganondorf! King of Darkness, ancient demon reborn. The wielder of the trident!!
    A more accurate translation would be:
    Ganon... This demonic beast was of the Gerudo...once a human named Ganondorf! King of Darkness... The demon's evil spirit revived from ancient times, the wielder of the trident!!

    This is a different Ganondorf from past games. It's also likely that Ganondorf died in TP and TWW. And we've seen Ganon revived several times. So, I subscribe to multiple Ganondorfs and Ganon as an ancient dark beast.
     
    TRIFORCE89 said:
    Uhh...I can give you a link that shows Aonoma discussing the document - thereby proving it's existing. This has happened twice.

    But, like I've said no one has actually seen it outside of a small handful of people - namely Aonoma, Miyamoto, and Iwata. There's also just two known copies of it...sitting in computers at Nintendo.

    Ganon - as in the pig creature - is a reflection on Ganondorf's evil heart. Link turning into a rabbit in A Link to the Past was a reflection of his pure heart.

    To quote Four Swords Adventures:
    Ganon... This beast was once of the Gerudo... Once human. He was called Ganondorf! King of Darkness, ancient demon reborn. The wielder of the trident!!
    A more accurate translation would be:
    Ganon... This demonic beast was of the Gerudo...once a human named Ganondorf! King of Darkness... The demon's evil spirit revived from ancient times, the wielder of the trident!!

    This is a different Ganondorf from past games. It's also likely that Ganondorf died in TP and TWW. And we've seen Ganon revived several times. So, I subscribe to multiple Ganondorfs and Ganon as an ancient dark beast.
    Click to expand...

    Multiple incarnations, to be exact.
     
    You must log in or register to reply here.
    Back
    Top