HOLY ISH! THERE'S AN OFFICIAL ZELDA TIMELINE!

Plot holes that occur when putting Link to the Past behind the first game? Let us start with the most obvious. In the first Zelda there are only two units of the Triforce and the third isn't discovered until the second game. In Link to the past Ganon gets the whole completed Triforce right away. Now why would everyone forget about the third triforce piece, including the guy that had the whole thing?

The entirety of Zelda 2 is one big failed plan to bring back Ganon, but we saw people were trying so him showing up, disguised, in 3 makes sense. The first game talks none about any imprisoning war, or what not because they hadn't happened yet, that was Hyrule's first conflict with Prince Darkness Gannon.

Um, no. The reason the Triforce of Courage was hidden away was because after ALttP Link got the Triforce, he gave it to the royal family, leading to an age where the royal family used the Triforce. Then II AoL's backstory happened where after the king died, that Zelda hid the Triforce of Courage from her brother, leading to him getting a wizard that puts her to sleep with a spell. Whence why you're trying to find the Triforce of Courage and awaken the sleeping Zelda.

And I don't see how Ganon's minions trying to use Link's blood to revive him are any proof. There's nothing to imply they actually succeeded, and there's probably other methods given his revival in the Oracle games. Basically, there just as little explanation for him coming back between AoL and ALttP as there is for between ALttP and LoZ.

And the reason they didn't talk about the Imprisoning War is because they didn't think it up yet. That was the point in making ALttP, to say where Ganon comes from and what exactly the Triforce is.

The given time line is BS and goes against everything Nintendo has ever said about the series, EVERYTHING! The only people that are trying to defend it are blind followers.

edited 5th Apr '12 2:40:29 AM by Ether101Prime

^Things Nintendo has said goes agaisnt other things Nintendo has said And Timeline is also by Nintendo.

In other words, what you just said doesn't make sense.

edited 5th Apr '12 2:40:26 AM by SpookyMask

Precisely, the time line make sense. In A Ltt P's back story not only does Ganon get into the Sacred Realm by accident but he never makes it back out after he gains the power of the Triforce which goes against what the time line says. Then the thing that all the Garudo mentioned in it are male not female.

Never gets out? Then you think Link to the past was last Zelda game considering its only one where he is trapped there during the game and not trapped there at end of game

I don't understand why people are worked up over this so much. Do they want a coherent, flawless chronology? That's completely impossible. Whether it's because they never really cared about any timeline, they did care about it to some extent, but gave it little importance and just accepted the plot holes that would come with it or, as somebody theorized, they cared about it initially, but after a few games just didn't give a damn anymmore, the games will never really fit together. Accept the timeline or pretend that the games are not connected at all. Or that "retelling" stuff or whatever. Arguing about it won't make it better and no "fan timeline" will be able to "fix" anything.

Me, I'm glad that they released it, if only it gives the (previously confirmed, but unclear) timeline some substance. Of course it's bullshit, but so would be any possible timeline, no matter if it splits into 2, 3 or 1957925 paths. I'd probably prefer the "retelling of the same story" thing (the only thing that would make sense, if one were to give the games any connection to each other), but I simply don't like it personally.

Come to think of it, at least this one seems to have some thought put into it. It's not perfect, but at least we can't blame Nintendo for not trying.

It wasn't planned from the start obviously, but I agree no fan timeline can easily surpass this one and remain simple.

Well, except for the origin of the third timeline split. That could have been used more logically.

Honestly, given that many of the games are radically different (i.e. Spirit Tracks vs Twilight Princess), the retelling thing seems incredibly unlikely. I would say there is some chronology, but since this is a legend, probably told by word of mouth, then some inconsistencies are supposed to come up.

People can interpret the different legends in ways unlike the person that told them did. And stories just change over time anyway. It gives the series some wiggle room for flaws.

edited 5th Apr '12 5:30:32 AM by hnd03

But that's just alternate interpretation of the retelling theory.

It would be more elegant to go with the retelling theory and leave the reason the retellings are so radically different up to personal interpretation.

For example, suppose they are the same Legend of Zelda, but in the hypothetical world they are getting retold in, hundreds of years have passed. So ST has railroads because it's told in the age of steam. SS meanwhile is a retelling originating on Pandora.

edited 5th Apr '12 5:37:06 AM by UltimatelySubjective

I still don't like retelling idea.

Neither do I because I really don't think someone could confuse Wind Waker with say Ocarina, especially since Ocarina caused WW.

Look at it this way, at the end of Ltt P, the king comes back. In WW, the king dies. There are a lot of legends in the Zelda universe folklore

I think timeline inconsistencies can be explained by stuff happening in the time between games that the legends change to leave out.

I'll take it.

Man, I still can't believe there was an actual timeline.

I mean, I never really thought they'd release it. Just keep saying there was and let everyone build their own thing.

Color me surprised.

I think we all were.

Obviously with all the seemingly impossible stuff this year, the world must be coming to an end in December.

I don't see the logic in how "Ocarina caused Wind Waker" makes the legend gets changed in retelling argument less valid.

That would mean some people were building off one version rather than another. Someone who never Medusa was part of a whole family of Gorgons decided she got that way by being cursed by Athena. Then there might be a tale about conflict between Athena and Poseidon regarding that curse while another tells of Medusa's trouble growing up as the runt of the Gorgons.(Thus a prequel and sequel to the same story that can't fit together in one timeline)

lack of respect?

what.

Tarsen, we're in the same boat.

I don't get why everyone's so worked up about this timeline shit.

Or why anyone cares at all.

Can't say I dig the insinuation of a mental deficit on my part for not having any issues with the official timeline, either...

edited 8th Apr '12 10:27:29 PM by Komodin

I can understand the interest in it, seeing as it was kept so tightly under wraps since OoT (or so they said), and I'll admit that there are kinks in the timeline that still don't quite make sense (such as Link dying in OoT somehow causing a third timeline, which brings up the question of why Link dying in a different game can't create yet another timeline), but overall, I don't think it's anything to be overly worked up over.

If I were a newer mod than I am, I would be amazed that I have to go to a thread about Zelda to remind the thread to refrain from personal attacks and to keep things civil.

So I know this is a necro out the wazoo, but can someone break this down for me?