Zelda Timeline

Legend Of Zelda Timeline theory is perhaps the object of greatest debate amongst fans of the series. Nintendo's unconventional formula of "Gameplay first, Story Later" has arguably produced some of the greatest games of all time, but it has also resulted in an incoherent chronology - full of loose ends, contradictions, and general confusion. Fortunately, this has motivated fans to do all they can to sift, sort, and organize the Legend of Zelda canon.

Overview
Since the days of Pong, videogame storylines have endured an amazing evolution, moving from simple "slay the dragon" conflict, through "save the princess" heroism, and into wonderfully deep epics. Early installments of the Legend of Zelda series emerged at a very interesting point of this process; a point where the market was divided between casual platformers and plot-focused RPGs.

Zelda found a niche market somewhere in the middle. This is reflected in the storyline of such games as The Adventure of Link and A Link to the Past, which are simple and yet inspiring. Over the years, Nintendo has kept to this trend. Developers often focus foremost on gameplay and theme, and generally only decide on a definite storyline close to the completion of development. Resulting games are well-connected to the overall Legend of Zelda universe - and consider elements of games past - but do not often present immediate or obvious chronological connections.

In the early stages, this worked wonderfully. The first five Legend of Zelda releases were easily understood and organized. In 1998, the timeline had room even for the content of the Legend of Zelda television show and manga, as well as the mistakes of NoA, which would later be considered non-canonical.

Unfortunately, as time went on the sheer amount of information being introduced into the Legend of Zelda canon made a complete understanding less possible. Games such as The Wind Waker and Four Swords Adventures seemed to strain the connection between older games, and many fans began to wonder whether the Four Swords series had a place in the timeline at all.

English fans of the series wanting to learn more of the timeline began to discuss the concept on the Internet, slowly reaching conclusions on those issues which could be resolved and falling into bitter debate on those which could not. They continue to argue, as they eagerly await the release of Twilight Princess and Phantom Hourglass.

Timeline principles
Timeline theory is often accused of being a collection of irrelevant fan-fiction with no real truth to it. In actuality, a large part of our timeline knowledge is strictly canon; a good deal more consists of simple, well supported inferences based on this canon and the intentions of Zelda's creators. These principles are held to be true by almost all Timeline theorists:

Canon
A canonical statement is one which cannot be reasonably denied within the context of The Legend of Zelda universe. To be more specific, when an official Zelda authority (i.e. a "canonical source") makes an informed, intended statement, that statement must be considered a fact in the timeline. Furthermore, when such a source makes such a statement, it is assumed to be intended and informed (and therefore canonical) unless an excellent argument is made to the contrary.

Sources considered to be canonical

 * All properly translated textual game content and game manual content from Nintendo-developed The Legend of Zelda games.
 * As-of-yet uncontradicted developer-announced information relating to upcoming The Legend of Zelda titles.

Sources considered to be non-canonical

 * The Legend of Zelda promotional material, such as the cartoon series, comic books, and choose-your-own-adventure books.
 * Fan-based Internet sources, such as online forums.
 * The Legend of Zelda games that were not produced by Nintendo, including the Phillips CD-i games (Zelda: The Wand of Gamelon, Link: The Faces of Evil, and Zelda's Adventure) as well as fan-produced games.

Nintendo-licensed games that are arguably canon

 *  The Legend of Zelda. This game is considered non-canonical since it replaces the hero (Link) with a different character and still tells of the same adventure.
 * BS Zelda: Kodai no Sekiban. This game is arguably canon. It takes place in Hyrule during Link's absence after ALttP and tells of a hero from another world that vanquishes Ganon shortly after he is resurrected. This story is never contradicted so it can be canon.
 * Zelda: Game & Watch. This game is almost never thought of story wise by fans but its intended place is after AoL. Dragons steal the Triforce and kidnap Zelda and Link stops them. Like BS Zelda: Kodai no Sekiban, this game is not contradicted and can thus be considered canon.
 * The Legend of Zelda: Game Watch. Thought of even less than its Game & Watch cousin, this game is an undetailed retelling of LoZ and is thus redundant to the timeline.

Intent
When trying to understand a creation, one should always consider the creator. Shigeru Miyamoto, Eiji Aonuma, and their colleagues at Nintendo provide the best possible perspective on the Timeline because their own intentions shape the series. When these intentions can be understood, they provide an excellent (albeit incomplete) blueprint for theorists and are followed with due care.

General Knowledge
Through the study of canon and intent, theorists have come to the following conclusions, which they claim to be almost as "true" as the canon itself.
 * LoZ and AoL center around the same Hero.
 * ALttP and LA center around the same Hero, and precede LoZ/AoL.
 * OoT and MM center around the same Hero, and precede ALttP/LA.
 * TP stars the newest Hero, and succeeds OoT.
 * OoS and OoA center around the same hero.
 * tWW and PH center around the same hero, and succeed TP.
 * TMC, FS, and FSA occur in that order, and are part of the timeline.
 * There is a "Fierce War" preceding OoT.
 * There is a "Seal War" preceding ALttP (which may or may not be represented in OoT).
 * There is a "Conquest War" preceding LoZ.
 * The curse of the "Legendary" Zelda of AoL succeeds ALttP/LA [possibly even featuring the same Princess Zelda from those games].
 * Vaati [presumably] attacks Hyrule again between TMC and FS (meaning FS's backstory may or may not be TMC).

We can combine all this information and conceive three timeline "arcs"


 * OoT/MM - TP - tWW/PH
 * TMC - FS/FSA
 * ALttP/LA - LoZ/AoL
 * OoS/OoA

Beyond that, all timeline theory is an attempt to combine these arcs and achieve a final chronology.

Common Points of Debate
Beyond these simple arks, the amount of helpful canon begins to decrease. At this point, disagreements inevitably arise between various theorists who have naturally formed differing interpretations of the small amount of "truth" they have to work with.

Four Sword Related Arguments
Nintendo went out on a rather interesting tangent when they expanded the multiplayer mini-game featured in 2002's ALttP GBA release. The styles and storylines of the Four Sword games were so different from the conventional Zelda that, at first, many theorists did not accept them as a true part of the storyline. Nintendo has since confirmed their place, but the controversy continues.

Where is FS placed in relation to OOT and FSA?

For obvious reasons, FS has many stylistic elements that mirror those of tWW (the principal Zelda of the generation) and ALttP (with which it shares a cartridge). Despite this, the game contains no story elements whatsoever that would enable a theorist to place it in the timeline.

Aonuma temporarily solved this problem in a 2004 GamePro interview (prior to the release of FSA and TMC) when he stated that Nintendo was "thinking of [this game] as the oldest tale in the Zelda Timeline". This was a simple and concrete answer, which was, of course, too good to be true.

When FSA was released later that year a dilemma was created. It was both chronologically after OOT AND (apparently) the direct sequel to FS. If FS occurred only a few short years before FSA, and featured the same incarnation of Link, then it would have to occur later in the timeline, after OOT, thus making Aonuma's previous statement incorrect.

Theorists are now forced to decide what is truer; a possibly outdated expression of developer intent, or their own logical conclusions.

Where is TMC placed in relation to OoT?

The FS argument became doubly conflicted with the release of TMC, which was a very obvious prequel to FS. Theorists maintaining that FS was an "older" tale then OoT now placed TMC at the very beginning of their timeline, those theorists in opposition to this cited TMC images showing a flooded world and that facts that Humans (in general) were the dominant race of TMC, and that were it truly prior to OoT, would have been much more Hylian focused.

In the end, arguers were again stuck debating principles. What was more important: A developer's quote or contrary canonical evidence?

Is FSA the prequel to ALttP?

Perhaps one of the most controversial debates is that of FSA's placement and its connections to other games, such as FS. Though it is not stated outright that FSA is a direct sequel to FS, FSA's backstory retells the events of FS and its backstory as if they were directly related, though some retain skepticism over this (partly due to the aforementioned Aonuma interview).

Of more importance, however, is its alleged connection to ALttP. Supporters of this connection cite similarities between both games' geography, common themes such as rescuing the maidens, the role of the Knights of Hyrule, the appearance of the Dark World, and the presence of a Dark Mirror (speculated to be the Magic Mirror used to teleport back from the Dark World in ALttP), and Ganon's Magic Trident. Ganon also makes an appearance here, meaning this game must take place after OoT, and by association, so must FS. These all lend themselves to suggesting a link between the Four Sword arc and the pre-OoT games.

On the other hand, there are those who claim there are problems with the connection. For instance, in the end, Ganon is sealed in the Four Sword, a condition not present in any other Zelda game. This situation lends itself to speculation so as to lead into ALttP, such as claims that the Four Sword Shrine is somehow connected with the Sacred Realm. However, that would mean FSA also had something to do with Ganon's acquisition of the Triforce pre-ALttP, which has led some to suggest FSA may be the Seal War, part of the Seal War, or simply another major event in between, depending on one's view on OoT as the Seal War. Despite all this, some have ceased to bother trying to figure out the connection, and have opted to leave the gap open as a plot-hole, until a future Four Sword game clears things up.

Hand Held Related Arguments
Non-console Zelda games have never garnered the attention or prestige of their home based cousins. Miyamoto himself has lamented that LA, OoS and OoA lack any grand connection to the timeline as a whole. Theses games are not only difficult to place, but also somewhat irrelevant. Still, in the meticulous world of timeline theorists, no detail goes unargued.

Is LA the sequel to the Oracles?

When a full Oracle Series Linked Game is completed, the credits end with a shot of Link sailing away from the land in a one-man sailboat. The opening LA scene showcases Link battling a storm in a similar boat. Most fans are quick to correlate these events and conclude that LA is the sequel to the Oracle Series.

More traditional theorists argue that LA was at release, is now, and will always be the sequel to ALttP. To support this claim, they use quotes from the Oracle games to show that OoX Link has never met Zelda and, therefore, cannot be ALttP Link. The argument continues that LA directly references ALttP with its backstory and boss battles, and must contain the same Link.

At this point, Oracle-LA supporters must either reject their theory or sever the traditional ALttP-LA connection. This is rare, as such a theorist must hold that LA's manual has been "retconned" and is no longer perfect canon.

Can there be a perfect Oracle placement?

For a particular spot in the timeline to possibly accommodate the Oracle series, it must only meet 2 conditions: Ganon must be dead, and the Triforce must be whole in Hyrule. This occurs at least twice in the series.

OoX may occur shortly after AoL. Both involve an enemy effort to resurrect a dead Ganon and AoL ends with the reuniting of the Triforce.

OoX may occur shortly after ALttP. They share stylistic elements, similar items, and ALttP easily meets the "Dead Ganon, Whole Triforce" condition.

OoX may even occur shortly after tWW, as it too ends with a dead Antagonist and a whole Triforce. This idea, however, has little support amongst theorists as it requires speculation on the Triforce's resting place post tWW.

At the moment, there is no "perfect" place for the Oracles, and most theorists are happy to let it be ambiguously "sometime after ALttP".

OoT/MM Related Arguments
Time travel is a principle element of Fifth Generation Zelda, factoring in 3 of its 4 games. In developing the game mechanics for OoT, MM, and OoA, Nintendo was far more considered with making the mechanics fun and interesting than being scientifically sound (or even consistent).

Attempts to logic out the uncanny mechanics of Time in the Zelda series have been moderately successful, but the various implications of these conclusions have made the OoT/MM connection the most hotly (and most commonly) debated timeline topic:

Is the Sacred Realm Timeless?

It is very often suggested that the Sacred Realm either exists outside of Hyrule's Timeline or is entirely timeless in itself. It is argued that, if this is the case, Ganon's sealing at the end of OoT would somehow extend into the past and alter history, sparing history from him altogether.

Dissenters quickly point out that there is no proof of this, that Link ages seven years in the Sacred Realm (supporting that it is temporal) and that seven years passed simultaneously in Hyrule (supporting that there is no difference in their "times"). It is also suggested that the concept of "timelessness" is beyond human imagination, inherently unknowable, and completely irrelevant.

Traditionally, it is a quick yet reoccurring argument. A new theorist will suggest the idea, and will be so steadfastly opposed that he quickly withdraws.

Is the Timeline "mutable"?

How does Zelda send Link through time at OoT's end?

How might a Single Timeline work?

How might a Double Timeline work?

ALttP/tWW Related Arguments
Both ALttP and tWW can be placed, with little doubt, a number of centuries after OoT, but there is hardly any connection between the game's themselves. Which comes first? How can both relationships be preserved? What has been changed by the release of FSA? This is the staging ground for the most brutal, least productive debate in the timeline. A controversy that most theorists have given up on. Is the answer even out there?

Could Hyrule ever recover from the flood?

This is a relatively new subject of debate, as far as timeline theorizing goes. Up until recently, it was almost universally accepted that OoT and ALttP were undeniably linked, with OoT perhaps serving as a retelling or "retconning" of the Seal War legend in ALttP. Upon tWW's release, however, this connection was largely put into doubt. After all, in tWW's ending, Hyrule is completely washed away, apparently for good. This led many to speculate that perhaps tWW is meant to be the last game in the timeline. This suggestion has largely been debunked, however, as tWW retains very strong ties to OoT (though connections to TP may also be present, unbeknownst to the general public). There is also Aonuma's word on the subject, who went on the record as saying tWW takes place hundreds of years after OoT, not mentioning other games.

With tWW separating OoT and ALttP, theorists came up with several suggestions. Some claimed the sea waters eventually receeded, or the mountain tops came together, as evidenced by FSA's overworld map featuring a coast line not seen in either OoT or ALttP. Another theory claims Link and Zelda succeeded in finding another land similar to the Hyrule of old, and called it Hyrule as well. Both of these theories have their fair share of criticism, however, as some find it unlikely that, whether the old Hyrule came back or a new one was founded, the locations and their names, geography, and the legends would all remain largely intact. As a result, these skeptics have either settled for leaving the issue alone until it's cleared up, or went with a Double Timeline that leaves tWW and PH as the last games in one timeline, with the rest of the games, including ALttP, in the other.

If indeed Hyrule is destined to rise again, it will not be readily apparent until at least PH. However, even that has been put into question, as Aonuma promises PH to be a side story of sorts, and will not really continue tWW's story. In fact, he has gone so far as to say PH may be the first of a sub-series on the Nintendo DS. So, if Nintendo does have plans to bring back Hyrule, it might not be for a while.

Does ALttP's backstory reference more than one event?

Does ALttP's backstory reference OoT?

Does ALttP's backstory reference FSA?

Could TP bring a solution?