In ordinary events, this would be a trolling statement by any member not in the know of Nintendo's secrecy.
This is not an ordinary event.
Nintendo recently released a 200+-page art book called Hyrule Historia (Japan only, of course >_> ) to finish off the 25th-anniversary milestone celebration, and what could be inside it but a Zelda timeline?
You heard me, folks. A. Zelda. Timeline. (http://kotaku.com/5869993/this-might-actually-be-the-official-zelda-timeline) In an official Nintendo product. By Nintendo.
A timeline with a third split after Ocarina of Time that leads into A Link to the Past and the NES games.
Zelda! How many times must you blow my mind this year!?
I question this. I think it's grasping at straws to have a completely separate timeline for Link failing in Ocarina of Time. Every other timeline assumes he succeeds. Wouldn't every game theoretically have that kind of timeline split in the event he fails?
I don't buy it. >.>
I found an explanation online that, I think, explains it quite nicely.
Quote from: Maximum Taco of GamefaqZelda corrupted the timeline by sending Link back using the Ocarina. But 3 timelines are created based on the three travel points used in the game, 2 created by the sword and 1 by Zelda.
Time Junction 1: This is the point where the Master Sword takes Link whenever Link returns the sword to the pedestal and emerges as a child in the past. Which is after Link has met Zelda and collected the Goron's Ruby, and Zora's Sapphire, after Zelda as fled the Palace with Impa, after Link acquires the Ocarina of Time, and after Link has pulled the sword for the first time and opened the sacred realm.
Time Junction 2: This is the point seven years later where the Master Sword takes Link whenever Link draws the sword from the pedestal and emerges in the future as an adult.
Time Junction 3: This is the point Zelda sends Link to, before Link has met Zelda, before he collects the Goron's Ruby and Zora's Sapphire, before Zelda flees the Palace with Impa and before Link acquires the Ocarina.
When there was two connected Time Junctions (1 connected directly with 2, if Link disappeared from 1 he had to emerge in 2 and vice versa, he could always get to the other Junction as well, with no hindrances) there was no time travel paradoxes or discrepancies. But when Zelda creates a third junction point (and more than that a one way junction point), it removes the connections between the two Master Sword junctions. Link disappears from Junction 2 but instead of emerging in Junction 1 like he should, he emerges from Junction 3, meaning there is no Link in Junction 1 (so the events leading to ALTTP play out), and there is no Link in Junction 2 (so the events leading to WW play out), and the Link in junction 3 stops Ganondorf and leaves for Termina (so the events leading to MM and TP play out)
Since Link has no way of returning to Junction 1, the 'Link Fails' timeline must occur where Link simply vanishes after pulling the Master Sword.
The only headscratcher I can think of regarding the released timeline is how the towns in
Zelda II are named after the Sages in
Ocarina of Time if it lies in the Failed Timeline, which seems like it implies Link failed to awaken the Sages in the first place. I suppose that could be explained by someone
else awakening them, but...eh.
To answer your question, sure, why not? Quantum mechanics could tell you that much.
Dear God(desses), THREE split timelines?!
You know, this actually makes sense. I still think it is odd that the incident where all future princesses are named Zelda happens near the end of (one of) the timeline(s), but I'm looking into it too much.
Also, the timeline that was included in the Hyrule Historia book. Note the pretty pictures. (http://www.gonintendo.com/content/uploads/images/2011_12/nice.jpg)
EDIT: I still have some quibbles with this timeline. I don't think that the Link in LttP/LA (they're pretty definitely the same) is the same as the Oracles Link, since the Zelda in the Oracle games didn't know who Link was when they first met. You COULD just switch their place with LA and it would be fine, though. I think it's odd that the Gerudos are gone in TP only to come back in FSA, but maybe they're migratory people like Mongols (they DO live in tents in FSA). How are the towns in AoL named after the Sages in OoT when they never did anything in that timeline? How was Ganon revived for the first game?
Also, this explains why LttP and FSA have the same basic geographic design; they occur at the same time the other does in its respective timeline, after both timelines had the same geographic change over the same number of years.
The good thing about the Oracle games is that they can be placed just about anywhere without raising too many contradictions. I'd sooner place it in the Golden Era than in the Era of Light and Darkness and say that there's at least another generation in between Link's Awakening and OoX.
Quote from: Mysterious F. on December 28, 2011, 03:36:41 PMI don't think that the Link in LttP/LA (they're pretty definitely the same) is the same as the Oracles Link, since the Zelda in the Oracle games didn't know who Link was when they first met.
I may have to replay the game to make sure, but I thought Zelda did already know Link in the Oracle games.
And I've always thought that it made sense for part of the timeline to go ALttP -> Oracles -> LA, with only a few years between ALttP and the Oracle games, and the Oracle games leading right into LA, since the Triforce was reclaimed at the end of ALttP, is present at the beginning of the Oracles, Link is shown sailing off on a voyage at the end of a linked Oracle game, and Link is all by himself on a sailboat at the beginning of LA.
However ALttP, Oracles, and LA work out, it's nice to know how it's possible for Koume and Kotake to be present in the Oracle games; if Link fails, then it makes perfect sense for Koume and Kotake to still be alive in that branch of the timeline.
Quote from: Hi no Seijin on December 29, 2011, 07:42:33 AM
Quote from: Mysterious F. on December 28, 2011, 03:36:41 PMI don't think that the Link in LttP/LA (they're pretty definitely the same) is the same as the Oracles Link, since the Zelda in the Oracle games didn't know who Link was when they first met.
I may have to replay the game to make sure, but I thought Zelda did already know Link in the Oracle games.
And I've always thought that it made sense for part of the timeline to go ALttP -> Oracles -> LA, with only a few years between ALttP and the Oracle games, and the Oracle games leading right into LA, since the Triforce was reclaimed at the end of ALttP, is present at the beginning of the Oracles, Link is shown sailing off on a voyage at the end of a linked Oracle game, and Link is all by himself on a sailboat at the beginning of LA.
However ALttP, Oracles, and LA work out, it's nice to know how it's possible for Koume and Kotake to be present in the Oracle games; if Link fails, then it makes perfect sense for Koume and Kotake to still be alive in that branch of the timeline.
Her dialogue makes it clear that she does not know him yet.
Again, just move the Oracles a little down the timeline after LttP/LA and problem solved, but it bugs me how Nintendo somehow missed that.
Yeah, I looked at a text dump; you're right. Although, I still can't follow why LA has to follow right after ALttP with no room for the Oracle games. It can still make sense for LA to come after the Oracle games.
A thought just struck me. If TMC and FS come before the split, then it's possible that we might see Vaati in the Failure branch and the Adult branch.
Quote from: Hi no Seijin on December 29, 2011, 07:43:38 PM
Yeah, I looked at a text dump; you're right. Although, I still can't follow why LA has to follow right after ALttP with no room for the Oracle games. It can still make sense for LA to come after the Oracle games.
A thought just struck me. If TMC and FS come before the split, then it's possible that we might see Vaati in the Failure branch and the Adult branch.
Ehh, just my personal opinion. Largely because I prefer Link to willingly go to new lands, not be sent by the Triforce because destiny says so. And Zelda not knowing him.
Yeah, but in one branch he is flooded under the ocean, and in another he is sent to the Dark World before it is reformed by Link, so...
Quote from: Mysterious F. on December 30, 2011, 06:46:33 AM
Largely because I prefer Link to . . . not be sent by the Triforce because destiny says so.
That's kind of how it really is for many of the games. :P
It certainly fits the Hero's Journey story archetype, at any rate.
http://www.glitterberri.com/hyrule-historia/
This is a translation of Hyrule Historia. If you are not up-to-date about what happens in each game, avoid reading this unless you want spoilers. It doesn't just reveal the timeline, but other priceless information about various things in the series. For example
TWILIGHT PRINCESS SPOILER
The Hero's Shade is The Hero of Time's ghost.
OMG
^ Called it. (http://tvtropes.org/pmwiki/pmwiki.php/Main/IKnewIt) ;D
I was one of the handful who refused to believe it, heh...
Yeah, I actually assumed as much the first time I met him. It's the only thing that makes sense.
Dialogue aside, he was left-handed. There aren't many people in the Zelda universe with that kind of handedness, except Link himself.
Oh, I never noticed that.
But guys, this means...
...LINK SPEAKS
He spoke in the second game too, you know.
And in The Wind Waker! :D
And he kind of talks through dialogue options. YMMV.
Important update is important.
Hyrule Historia will no longer be Japan-only.
That's right. It's getting localized. (http://www.escapistmagazine.com/news/view/119121-Zelda-Guidebook-Hyrule-Historia-Getting-US-Localization)
Here's some toilet paper if you need it.
Quote from: MagmarFire on August 16, 2012, 03:33:48 PM
Important update is important.
Hyrule Historia will no longer be Japan-only.
That's right. It's getting localized. (http://www.escapistmagazine.com/news/view/119121-Zelda-Guidebook-Hyrule-Historia-Getting-US-Localization)
Here's some toilet paper if you need it.
Saw that, shax brit.
It seems you can get quite the discount on Amazon, too. Not a bad idea for you guys to check it out there!
Look, I've gotta say it. The timeline disappointed me for a few reasons. Basically, these are the reasons why:
First, it takes away from the mystery of the series. One of my personal favorite things about the Zelda community was the happy amount of constructive debate concerning the placement of the games. This timeline destroys that.
Second, I'm going to be kind of angry if they split the timeline into a fourth branch somehow. I'm not a fan of diluting the universe further, and on top of that, where exactly are you supposed to go from here? Which branch do you place the next game? Releasing so much information constricts the creativity of team Zelda. Instead of making any game they want nearly carefree, they now have to worry: "Oh, but where does this go in the timeline?" Think about it. A fantastic game like Majora's Mask would never have been released if a timeline model existed in 2000. It would never fit anywhere, at least not well. It stunts on entire branch
And third, every time a new game comes out, all anyone is going to talk about is WHERE to place it, and they'll have to update it every year. I'm not so pleased with that.
Quote from: MasterKeyX on August 21, 2012, 05:17:08 PM
First, it takes away from the mystery of the series. One of my personal favorite things about the Zelda community was the happy amount of constructive debate concerning the placement of the games. This timeline destroys that.
There's plenty more mystery in the series aside from the timeline. There are theories on characters' identities (just who is the Goddess of Time?), about the nature of Termina as a separate dimension (the Tower of Babel-esque theory, anyone?), symbolism, theorizing where the future of the series is headed, etc. Heck,
Majora's Mask alone is has enough epileptic trees to landscape an entire forest...
Sure, there's less room for debate about the placement on the games in the series, but there is still theorizing going on, including still some timeline theories. Just a few months ago did someone post his/her theory on how the Failed Timeline could work while assuming the proposition that Link was defeated in that timeline was false.
Honestly, I'd rather be led on to a mystery and end up having it concluded than never finding out about it, period.
That is bad storytelling--leading an audience through a mystery that never gets resolved. That completely renders the purpose of a mystery meaningless because, unless the storyteller intends to actually reveal it to you, there's no point in trying to solve it. It's wasted time.
Remember the GS Ball subplot in the
Pokémon anime? That's a quintessential example of a mystery being set up quite nicely and being led on for quite awhile...to ultimately being dropped like a rock halfway through
Johto Journeys and half***edly left with a character-of-the-week in the hopes of the audience "forgetting about it."
QuoteSecond, I'm going to be kind of angry if they split the timeline into a fourth branch somehow. I'm not a fan of diluting the universe further, and on top of that, where exactly are you supposed to go from here? Which branch do you place the next game? Releasing so much information constricts the creativity of team Zelda. Instead of making any game they want nearly carefree, they now have to worry: "Oh, but where does this go in the timeline?"
The timeline has been confirmed to exist. Therefore, we can conclude that there really was a master document that contained the entire timeline and that the
Zelda team has always had to worry about timeline placement, even if the majority of the dev teams didn't know it themselves. A public reveal changes absolutely nothing. In fact, I'd go so far to say that it's a positive thing. It gives the dev team a chance to bounce more and more ideas off of each other, and this time with a confirmed canon to refer to. Assuming they study it well, they'll be infused with a similar collective vision of creating games that fit more snuggly with the canon, as opposed to blindly making up a story and hoping that it doesn't contradict anything previously stated in the series.
QuoteThink about it. A fantastic game like Majora's Mask would never have been released if a timeline model existed in 2000. It would never fit anywhere, at least not well.
I mean this as respectfully as possible, but...what can I say? Assuming you're talking about
Majora's Mask specifically, that's ridiculous. It's pretty darn obvious that
Majora's Mask is a sequel to
Ocarina of Time. Even without the timeline split, one can assume that it took place from Link's point of view after he was sent back in time and had the future "changed," as what was most likely assumed by almost everyone at the time before the Split Timeline Theory surfaced and was confirmed.
We have the Ocarina of Time itself in the game, as evidence. And the Kokiri's Sword (well, its cousin). And the fact that Link was searching for "a beloved and invaluable friend," confirmed to have been Navi herself in
Hyrule Historia and theorized by almost everyone before its release. And the Skull Kid even referencing an event that happened in that game ("You smell just like that fairy boy who taught me that song in the woods."). And Epona.
I could probably go on, but you get my point. It would've existed. Look at
The Minish Cap. Good game, but its placement in the timeline was a complete mystery, and it was, indeed, released in the time when the timeline theories became rampant.
QuoteAnd third, every time a new game comes out, all anyone is going to talk about is WHERE to place it, and they'll have to update it every year. I'm not so pleased with that.
Er...hasn't that happened every time a game was released, barring direct sequels? Not to mention the fact that even if it hasn't, placing titles all over the place and fitting them together in the timeline like puzzle pieces has been done in other series before.
Kingdom Hearts comes to mind.
All excellent points, MagmarFire. Excellent points.
You're correct about my statement about Majora's Mask being... silly. It's true that it is a direct sequel, so placement was never really a problem as it was always bundled directly with Ocarina. On an unrelated note, I'd love to see a sequel to that game. Termina is awesome!
As for the theorizing about other things, you also have a point there. I browse other theories every now and then, and that aspect of the community isn't going anywhere anytime soon (the Tower of Babel theory is amazing). Maybe it's just the nostalgia goggles. I'll miss that part of the series, the debate about the timeline, you know? And you're right.. besides, releasing a a canon timeline on the 25th anniversary seems fittingly placed.
As for the problem of placement... my only complaint is that all of the timelines, at least to me, seem to end somewhat vaguely. You could basically go anywhere with adult era windwaker timeline, although I honestly do not like New Hyrule very much (it's too childish and cartoony thus far for my liking; what I mean by that is something like this: Golden Godesses, cool. Spirits of Good? Kind of lame). The Child era ends with Vaati being defeated and Ganondorf being resurrected again (and defeated). You can basically go anywhere; I'd like to see a full 3D console game featuring Vaati as the main villain. He needs more characterization so he can stop playing second fiddle to Ganondorf. I often get the feeling you play games with Vaati as the star, get to the end, beat him, and abruptly learn that somehow Ganondorf is the REAL menace. That's kind of half-***ed and lame. It'd be like playing MM and realizing at the end that Ganondorf was suddenly a threat and Majora was nothing to truly fear.
As for the Hero fails split, it seems a bit dead. Ganondorf's revival is prevented at the end of AoL and Zelda is finally awakened. I'm not really a fan of that part of Hyrule (people theorize it's an area north of where Hyrule is located in OoT, and that the Hyrule below is a wasteland of monsters. Or is that canon.. not even sure anymore...) because I find it a bit dull, but I bet a 3D remake or even a 2D remake (like a 3DS game; Shigeru mentioned wanting to remake a Zelda game in 2D form for the funzies) could have a ton of expansive potential.
Quote from: NathatSeijin on August 22, 2012, 11:03:01 AM
On an unrelated note, I'd love to see a sequel to that game. Termina is awesome!
I certainly wouldn't complain about that, either. ;)
QuoteAs for the theorizing about other things, you also have a point there. I browse other theories every now and then, and that aspect of the community isn't going anywhere anytime soon (the Tower of Babel theory is amazing). Maybe it's just the nostalgia goggles. I'll miss that part of the series, the debate about the timeline, you know? And you're right.. besides, releasing a a canon timeline on the 25th anniversary seems fittingly placed.
Alternatively, they could leave the placement of the next game ambiguous and leave it to the fans to debate about it, and then they could reveal it themselves sometime in the future. I really doubt it, though, as Aonuma has always cared about a coherent timeline. But yeah, there will be other theorizing going on.
QuoteAs for the problem of placement... my only complaint is that all of the timelines, at least to me, seem to end somewhat vaguely. You could basically go anywhere with adult era windwaker timeline, although I honestly do not like New Hyrule very much (it's too childish and cartoony thus far for my liking; what I mean by that is something like this: Golden Godesses, cool. Spirits of Good? Kind of lame). The Child era ends with Vaati being defeated and Ganondorf being resurrected again (and defeated). You can basically go anywhere; I'd like to see a full 3D console game featuring Vaati as the main villain. He needs more characterization so he can stop playing second fiddle to Ganondorf. I often get the feeling you play games with Vaati as the star, get to the end, beat him, and abruptly learn that somehow Ganondorf is the REAL menace. That's kind of half-***ed and lame. It'd be like playing MM and realizing at the end that Ganondorf was suddenly a threat and Majora was nothing to truly fear.
The cartoony stigma New Hyrule's gotten can be fixed simply by putting in a 3D console game with a slightly more realistic aesthetic, such as
Skyward Sword's or
Ocarina of Time's.
QuoteAs for the Hero fails split, it seems a bit dead. Ganondorf's revival is prevented at the end of AoL and Zelda is finally awakened. I'm not really a fan of that part of Hyrule (people theorize it's an area north of where Hyrule is located in OoT, and that the Hyrule below is a wasteland of monsters. Or is that canon.. not even sure anymore...) because I find it a bit dull, but I bet a 3D remake or even a 2D remake (like a 3DS game; Shigeru mentioned wanting to remake a Zelda game in 2D form for the funzies) could have a ton of expansive potential.
It seems dead because an addition to it hasn't been done since the
Oracle games. That could very well change, too. Going back to
Majora's Mask, that game admittedly doesn't have an important placement in the overall storyline (the dev team themselves have regarded it as a
gaiden game during its development), so we may see more of that later, too.