# Ocarina of Time's Link makes an appearance in Twilight Princess



## Valwin (Jan 3, 2012)

> For those Zelda gamers out there who love to think that Nintendo actually does have this rich history behind the land of Hyrule and that all of the games are deeply interconnected, then _Hyrule Historia_ is the gift that keeps on giving.  While most of the Japanese Zelda fans will have already probed the vast tome of Zelda information already, we English-speakers are having a slower time of it as each page is painstakingly translated for us by fans.
> And with the official timeline already revealed, some thought that that was all there was to be revealed.  Not so!  Zelda Universe forum member *The Baton of the Wind* revealed last night a connection between _Ocarina of Time_ and _Twilight Princess_ that many theorists had been debating over for quite some time.  However, now we can easily say with certainty that the Hero’s Shade from _Twilight Princess_ is indeed OoT’s very own Hero of Time.
> From _Hyrule Historia_, the text reads:
> When Link first set foot in the Twilight, the crest of the Triforce of Courage shined on the back of his hand; when he returned to human-form he wore clothes the hero wore. Link is taught mysteries from the ghost of the hero of time. Since he returned to his childhood, he’d felt regret that he would leave his name as hero. Therefore, the “son” of Link speaks proof of the courage he inheirited mysteriously.​Looking back on it, the connection does seem pretty clear, though everything always seems 20/20 when you already know the answer.  However, when you stop and think about the fact that _Twilight Princess_ exists the only timeline in which the Hero of  Time actually survives _and_ exists makes it pretty clear that Miyamoto and Aonuma must have been doing some conspiring here all along to help tell a more cohesive Zelda timeline, even if all of the details weren’t actually revealed in-game but merely hinted at.
> What other little secrets will we discover in this book?  It certainly makes me hungry for an official translation!



People were already debating this but we can say finally that that guy is in deed    MM Link



Source


----------



## Thanatos Telos (Jan 3, 2012)

Just edited Zelda wiki.


----------



## Celice (Jan 3, 2012)

It might be 'cause I didn't play Twilight Princess more than once, but I don't understand what's being said :x Is that dude that teaches you new weapon tricks (the pic up there) supposed to be an old Link then?

This timeline info doesn't seem very concrete to me personally :x It feels like someone just tried to connect elements they thought could be connected, not that were intended to be connected.


----------



## Valwin (Jan 3, 2012)

Celice said:


> It might be 'cause I didn't play Twilight Princess more than once, but I don't understand what's being said :x Is that dude that teaches you new weapon tricks (the pic up there) supposed to be an old Link then?
> 
> This timeline info doesn't seem very concrete to me personally :x It feels like someone just tried to connect elements they thought could be connected, not that were intended to be connected.




that guy is link from the MM timeline


----------



## 1234turtles (Jan 3, 2012)

don't really get it, but i guess it's saying oot link is a ghost in twilight princess


----------



## nando (Jan 3, 2012)

he didnt age too well


----------



## The Catboy (Jan 3, 2012)

nando said:


> he didnt age too well


Yeah and I think his diet might have worked a little too well


----------



## DarkStriker (Jan 3, 2012)

I still dont get it. So basically the dude in twilight princess is his son?


----------



## dragonkid6 (Jan 3, 2012)

This isn't really "proof", in fact the creator of the original topic is over reaching. It has been long debated that OoT Link is the Hero of Time but it didn't prove he was the Hero's Shade. And with SS, many have begone to suspect that he is the Hero's Shade. This article says doesn't have any new information, he's just saying the "the Hyrule Historia says it OoT Link" when in fact it doesn't. It's nothing more information manipulation, the reader figures hes not lying since he gave proof without even checking if it makes sense. Nothing from the passage he quoted says which link is the Hero's Shade.


----------



## Ben_j (Jan 3, 2012)

> However, when you stop and think about the fact that _Twilight Princess_ exists the only timeline in which the Hero of Time actually survives _and_ exists makes it pretty clear that Miyamoto and Aonuma must have been doing some conspiring here all along to help tell a more cohesive Zelda timelin



I dont understand... TP is in the Child era timeline, which means, Ganondorf is stopped from the beginning and the hero of time disappears in Majora's Mask. This contradicts this theory.


----------



## Sora de Eclaune (Jan 3, 2012)

dragonkid6 said:


> This isn't really "proof", in fact the creator of the original topic is over reaching. It has been long debated that OoT Link is the Hero of Time but it didn't prove he was the Hero's Shade. And with SS, many have begone to suspect that he is the Hero's Shade. This article says doesn't have any new information, he's just saying the "the Hyrule Historia says it OoT Link" when in fact it doesn't. It's nothing more information manipulation, the reader figures hes not lying since he gave proof without even checking if it makes sense. Nothing from the passage he quoted says which link is the Hero's Shade.


Well, there IS proof, actually.
The Hero's Shade looks like a Stalfos.
Hylians who go into the Lost Woods become a Stalfos.
Link wasn't exactly a child in Majora's Mask. He was much older, as seen when the Kokiri Sword he wielded was much smaller than it used to be. It was a wimpy knife compared to how the sword was in Ocarina of Time.
In Majora's Mask, Link goes into the Lost Woods to find Navi.
It's not known whether or not Link ever made it back to Kokiri Forest.
From this, we can assume that Link probably fell victim to the woods' dark magic.



Ben_j said:


> > However, when you stop and think about the fact that _Twilight Princess_ exists the only timeline in which the Hero of Time actually survives _and_ exists makes it pretty clear that Miyamoto and Aonuma must have been doing some conspiring here all along to help tell a more cohesive Zelda timelin
> 
> 
> 
> I dont understand... TP is in the Child era timeline, which means, Ganondorf is stopped from the beginning and the hero of time disappears in Majora's Mask. This contradicts this theory.


No, that's not what they mean.

They mean Link survives and exists for any period of time after the game ends.


----------



## ShadowSoldier (Jan 3, 2012)

I hope you guys see why I absolutely refuse to accept that there is a timeline in the Zelda series.


----------



## Sora de Eclaune (Jan 3, 2012)

ShadowSoldier said:


> I hope you guys see why I absolutely refuse to accept that there is a timeline in the Zelda series.


I hope you see why having no timeline in the Zelda series makes absolutely no sense.


----------



## rehevkor (Jan 3, 2012)

I'm petty sure this, or something like it, has been a fan theory for quite some time..


----------



## ShadowSoldier (Jan 3, 2012)

Sora de Eclaune said:


> ShadowSoldier said:
> 
> 
> > I hope you guys see why I absolutely refuse to accept that there is a timeline in the Zelda series.
> ...



How would it not make sense? Even when shit is being proved by Nintendo, people are still stupid and debate over it and say "nope, they're wrong".

The way that I've always taken the Zelda games, the way that I'll always continue to take the Zelda games, is that each installment is it's own story. They don't connect to each other. There's no overall story to the land of Hyrule. Each game is just different. Not everything needs a timeline.


----------



## mr deez (Jan 3, 2012)

Sora de Eclaune said:


> ShadowSoldier said:
> 
> 
> > I hope you guys see why I absolutely refuse to accept that there is a timeline in the Zelda series.
> ...



So lets fabricate one then.

Listen, these games were NOT created with any overarching story. no way. If fans enjoy Nintendo coming with a bit of back story now, great, but they didn't have this in mind all along.... and to my mind, it adds nothing whatsoever to the games anyway, I've played pretty much every Zelda game but I wouldn't say the story is important or even that good in the series. It does a job but nothing more.


----------



## Blebleman (Jan 3, 2012)

This makes as much sense as trying to tie the Final Fantasy games together.



Spoiler



It doesn't.


----------



## notmeanymore (Jan 3, 2012)

Blebleman said:


> This makes as much sense as trying to tie the Final Fantasy games together.
> 
> 
> 
> ...


Final Fantasy games were never intended to be the same universe. I think that fact was even mentioned in Dissidia (I haven't played the game in a long time, don't quote me on that). The different Zelda games have always mentioned one another, Final Fantasy doesn't.


----------



## locolol (Jan 3, 2012)

Come on,everybody knows this is the only/real zelda timeline:

http://i.imgur.com/TpcVN.jpg


----------



## KingVamp (Jan 3, 2012)

ShadowSoldier said:


> Even when shit is being proved by Nintendo, people are still stupid and debate over it and say "nope, they're wrong".


The most of what I been seeing is debate about explaining the timeline, not denying it. This thread is only confirming a theory of small details.


ShadowSoldier said:


> The way that I've always taken the Zelda games, the way that I'll always continue to take the Zelda games, is that each installment is it's own story. They don't connect to each other. There's no overall story to the land of Hyrule. Each game is just different. Not everything needs a timeline.


Thinking about them as their own game, thinking they didn't need to connect or/and that the timeline doesn't do anything for you,(which all that is fine) doesn't mean there isn't connections and a timeline.


----------



## BoxmanWTF (Jan 3, 2012)

locolol said:


> Come on,everybody knows this is the only/real zelda timeline:
> 
> http://i.imgur.com/TpcVN.jpg


So many offensive things crammed into one picture, and yet the one that infuriates me is that Sonic CD is mocked in it


----------



## mr deez (Jan 3, 2012)

KingVamp said:


> ShadowSoldier said:
> 
> 
> > Even when shit is being proved by Nintendo, people are still stupid and debate over it and say "nope, they're wrong".
> ...



Nintendo for years maintained there was no connection themselves and no timeline.


----------



## ShadowSoldier (Jan 3, 2012)

KingVamp said:


> ShadowSoldier said:
> 
> 
> > Even when shit is being proved by Nintendo, people are still stupid and debate over it and say "nope, they're wrong".
> ...



I didn't say there were no connections. I knew when I first played through TP that the shade was Link.


----------



## Valwin (Jan 3, 2012)

Guys Zelda haves a timeline get over it  and stuff like hero shade only proof that they are thinking about past game when making the new ones


----------



## Nah3DS (Jan 3, 2012)

locolol said:


> Come on,everybody knows this is the only/real zelda timeline:
> http://i.imgur.com/TpcVN.jpg


no, you're wrong... this is the TRUE timeline


Spoiler


----------



## Foxi4 (Jan 3, 2012)

Valwin said:


> Guys Zelda haves a timeline ge over it  and stuff like hero shade only proof that they are thinking baout past game when making the new ones


Thinking about past games when making new ones does not equal a "timeline". A timeline is established when the creators of a given game have a large story to convey, they think ahead and they let the fans learn more and more of this story in each new game. Shenmue has a story like that. Zelda doesn't. I'll elaborate on that thought...

Forcefully adding a few elements from old games regardless of whether they make sense in the particular setting or not and then, a good few years later trying to tie it all up into a more or less coherent whole is not establishing a timeline - it's fan service. It's giving people with Zelda fetishes something to live for.


----------



## mr deez (Jan 3, 2012)

Foxi4 said:


> Valwin said:
> 
> 
> > Guys Zelda haves a timeline ge over it  and stuff like hero shade only proof that they are thinking baout past game when making the new ones
> ...



This is absolutely spot on.


----------



## Zetta_x (Jan 4, 2012)

I'm going to join the Foxi Like bandwagon. I doubt when Zelda 1 or 2 was created the idea of this immense timeline existed back then. It's more probable that the only idea of a timeline was in the recent years as Foxi suggests.


----------



## Foxi4 (Jan 4, 2012)

Zetta_x said:


> I'm going to join the Foxi Like bandwagon. I doubt when Zelda 1 or 2 was created the idea of this immense timeline existed back then. It's more probable that the only idea of a timeline was in the recent years as Foxi suggests.



The way I see it, when Zelda was first created, the video gaming world was not yet "restored". Let's not forget the times this was made in - directly after the Video Game Crash of 1983. Revenue from video games dropped from heavens high to hell's deep within but a few years and by the year 1985 there wasn't much promise in the industry at all. Fair play, the Famicom/NES basically single-handedly resurrected the video game industry, but the first Zelda game was released in 1986 - one year after the crash.

It had a simplistic design, simplistic graphics and a simplistic story, much like a Mario game would. A bad guy kidnapped the princess - go save her. The difference between Zelda and Mario was that it also tried to appeal to "Early RPG" fans with its "dungeon crawling" nature and the addition of interchangable items. It was a novel design, but definatelly not one created with an intention to carry on releasing the games for the next 25 years - Nintendo wasn't even particularily sure if they'll *exist* for that long.


----------



## nando (Jan 4, 2012)

Foxi4 said:


> Valwin said:
> 
> 
> > Guys Zelda haves a timeline ge over it  and stuff like hero shade only proof that they are thinking baout past game when making the new ones
> ...



actually it pretty much does. when you reference something from another game it pretty much sets up a timeline. for example the ruins of the Temple of Time in TP with the master sword pretty much sets TP after Oot in a timeline. there may not be a deliberate overarching story but a timeline is there even if it is donnie darkoesque.


----------



## Foxi4 (Jan 4, 2012)

nando said:


> Foxi4 said:
> 
> 
> > Valwin said:
> ...


You can only establish a coherent timeline if you do it *deliberately *and in a *sensible *fashion, taking into account the entirety of the revealed plot so-far.* I'm not saying the developer has to create a scenario for the next 20 years to make it "legit"*, I'm saying that *there has to be some ahead-of-schedule planning done*, there has to be a sequel to Game A called Game B already partially in mind when A is released. I don't see that with Zelda - if see lots and lots of *Easter Eggs*, or even not that - I just see *archetypes *and *reoccuring items* scattered here and there with no logical explaination to them, connected in a crude fashion just for the sake of connecting them.


----------



## krazykracker1288 (Jan 4, 2012)

ok i can accept the fact that the stalfos pic is in fact mm link, until i realize one thing. up until tp for the wii, wasnt link left handed???


----------



## gamefan5 (Jan 4, 2012)

Although I knew that a timeline did exist for the series, I knew that fans would debate over this. XD 
On topic though, this doesn't surprise me one bit. Makes pretty much sense to me. 




krazykracker1288 said:


> ok i can accept the fact that the stalfos pic is in fact mm link, until i realize one thing. up until tp for the wii, wasnt link left handed???


The wii game was mirrored.


----------



## Foxi4 (Jan 4, 2012)

krazykracker1288 said:


> ok i can accept the fact that the stalfos pic is in fact mm link, until i realize one thing. up until tp for the wii, wasnt link left handed???


That is... actually a really good observation. I didn't notice until now.


----------



## Jax (Jan 4, 2012)

krazykracker1288 said:


> ok i can accept the fact that the stalfos pic is in fact mm link, until i realize one thing. up until tp for the wii, wasnt link left handed???



Well, the original version of TP is the Gamecube one, where he is indeed left handed. The Wii port mirrored the entire world, so both Links are right handed.


----------



## kurono (Jan 4, 2012)

krazykracker1288 said:


> ok i can accept the fact that the stalfos pic is in fact mm link, until i realize one thing. up until tp for the wii, wasnt link left handed???


Gamecube Twilight Princess Link was left handed.

The Wii version is a mirrored version of the Gamecube version.


----------



## M[u]ddy (Jan 4, 2012)

Foxi4 said:


> nando said:
> 
> 
> > Foxi4 said:
> ...


I think you give timelines to much credit. Even a cheaply tacked on timeline is still a timeline.


krazykracker1288 said:


> ok i can accept the fact that the stalfos pic is in fact mm link, until i realize one thing. up until tp for the wii, wasnt link left handed???


The Wii version was completely mirrored. In the Gamecube version the Stalfos should be left handed.


----------



## KingVamp (Jan 4, 2012)

>my stretch definition of a timeline
>force it on people

Since when can't a swordsman switch hands anyway?


----------



## Foxi4 (Jan 4, 2012)

M[u]ddy said:


> I think you give timelines to much credit. Even a cheaply tacked on timeline is still a timeline.


Nope, I don't think I do. I can understand that the timeline was now established by Nintendo, be it cheaply made or not. What I am saying is that this specific timeline was not *planned* from the beginning of the series, it was created only for the purpose of connecting them in some fashion.




KingVamp said:


> >my stretch definition of a timeline
> >force it on people
> 
> Since when can't a swordsman switch hands anyway?



I'm not forcing my opinion on anyone, I'm just stating it. You're free to disagree if you want to - if you're going to start a debate by just saying "nah, you're not right" then you can just as well stop right there.

As for the second point, "Since vertebrates developed twin hemispheres". Clearly you never held a sword or a heavy, elongated object in your hand - naturally you will pick your dominant hand when you want to wield it, both because it's instinctive and because that's what swordsmen do - inflict damage, and you inflict more with your stronger arm.



nando said:


> a timeline is a timeline wether thought out or not. the world has a time line... homo sapiens  have nothing to do with dinosaurs yet we exist in the same world history timeline. this post came after the last one, that's a timeline. that's all a freaken timeline is.



Not in the literary sense. Every creation that's based of a scrip has a timeline - a line on which certain events can be put sooner or later. In Zelda games though, this timeline was not thought through. The title itself suggests that each Legend of Zelda is a "Legend" - it's not necessarily planned or even remotely connected to it's predecessors or successors unless it clearly states it, like in Legend of Zelda 2, where you have a clear indication of the fact that it is indeed a sequel.

Think what you will, it's not like it "really matters". To me, this just isn't convincing enough and doesn't constitute solid evidence that Nintendo actually "planned" the story to progress in such crude fashions.


----------



## nando (Jan 4, 2012)

a timeline is a timeline wether thought out or not. the world has a time line... homo sapiens  have nothing to do with dinosaurs yet we exist in the same world history timeline. this post came after the last one, that's a timeline. that's all a freaken timeline is.


----------



## KingVamp (Jan 4, 2012)

I  think they started thinking about it at OOT. That say, the 2d zelda (Link failed games) in the timeline has a connection to each other.
Other words, after OOT it was all thought out and the only big problem was connecting them to the timeline, but they found away.


----------



## pubert09 (Jan 4, 2012)

That's pretty cool. Never finished OoT because the controls annoyed me so I never played Majora's mask. It is interesting to see how they're connected however.
I wish I knew where each Link was born and died in the timeline.


----------



## Foxi4 (Jan 4, 2012)

KingVamp said:


> I  think they started thinking about it at OOT. That say, the 2d zelda (Link failed games) in the timeline has a connection to each other.
> Other words, after OOT it was all thought out and the only big problem was connecting them to the timeline, but they found away.


Fair play - I can agree that at the point of OOT the *idea *of splitting the timeline could be introduced since the game featured Time Travel - the ultimate plot-meddling device. Until then though, the line was relatively clear Link to the Past --> Legend 1 --> Legend 2. This was *later altered*, and there isn't much that could convince me it worked differently.

Keyword being "idea".


----------



## Gahars (Jan 4, 2012)

nando said:


> Foxi4 said:
> 
> 
> > Valwin said:
> ...



A timeline should be determined ahead of time, not retconned on the spot many years later. 

Really, trying to make a cohesive timeline out of the Zelda series is like trying to get pieces from different puzzles to fit together; the end result is just going to be a disjointed mess.


----------



## Foxi4 (Jan 4, 2012)

Gahars said:


> Really, trying to make a cohesive timeline out of the Zelda series is like trying to get pieces from different puzzles to fit together; the end result is just going to be a disjointed mess.


This is exactly the point I'm crudely trying to get across. I honestly believe that even if a timeline was being prepared when new games were released, it was bent left and right, back and forth at will until it literally made no sense at all so they just had to "split it".

If the three timelines were in fact thought-through and "prepped" at the point of OOT, why don't we have three possible endings of the game? Because they weren't. OOT was used as a "plot device" much later.


----------



## raybattousai (Jan 4, 2012)

Foxi4 said:


> Gahars said:
> 
> 
> > Really, trying to make a cohesive timeline out of the Zelda series is like trying to get pieces from different puzzles to fit together; the end result is just going to be a disjointed mess.
> ...



Its not that there are 3 possible endings, its that there are 3 different timelines due to the time travel in the game. They all exist at the end of the game, future titles just continue off of specific ones


----------



## Foxi4 (Jan 4, 2012)

raybattousai said:


> Foxi4 said:
> 
> 
> > Gahars said:
> ...


Three different timelines are generated by three possible outcomes of the final battle, I can see your "point", but it's a rather weak way to support the hypothesis.

Going by your logic, Nintendo should release a sequel to Majora's Mask where the Moon actually does crash into the land and creates a beautiful, post-apocalyptic world. That'd be vaguely interesting, this series needs another fork in the plot.


----------



## ferofax (Jan 4, 2012)

Wow, interpreting vague lines and references... it's like Bible study among different sects. XD


I don't care how connected the Zelda games are, but I like most of them anyways.


----------



## KingVamp (Jan 4, 2012)

One technically didn't even fight the boss. One failed one way or another. The other beat the boss.

Also not everything has be shown in one game nor in game.

The other games right after oot shown you the outcome of every major change.
Those are you alternate endings which starts another beginning.  



Foxi4 said:


> Going by your logic, Nintendo should release a sequel to Majora's Mask where the Moon actually does crash into the land and creates a beautiful, post-apocalyptic world. That'd be vaguely interesting, this series needs another fork in the plot.


Awesome.


----------



## Foxi4 (Jan 4, 2012)

KingVamp said:


> One technically didn't even fight the boss. One failed one way or another. The other beat the boss.
> 
> Also not everything has be shown in one game nor in game.
> 
> ...


Relatively unconvincing, given the fact that neither of those beginnings shows the exact relation to OOT. It's only implied on paper after many years.


----------



## Nathan Drake (Jan 4, 2012)

For the timeline: A timeline doesn't need to be planned, nor does it need to be carefully thought out. You simply need to link the end of one game to another, which they have done with many titles. While some sit as direct sequels due to specific events and items linked to it (the raft, for example, or the four sword between Four Swords and Four Swords Adventure), others are merely connected by the legends and certain in-game elements (such as the Stalfos-esque Hero in Twilight Princess). I will accept that you can argue that there is no timeline, but there are many connections among the games considered canon that goes beyond what one might consider an "Easter Egg".


----------



## Foxi4 (Jan 4, 2012)

Nathan Drake said:


> For the timeline: A timeline doesn't need to be planned, nor does it need to be carefully thought out. You simply need to link the end of one game to another, which they have done with many titles. While some sit as direct sequels due to specific events and items linked to it (the raft, for example, or the four sword between Four Swords and Four Swords Adventure), others are merely connected by the legends and certain in-game elements (such as the Stalfos-esque Hero in Twilight Princess). I will accept that you can argue that there is no timeline, but there are many connections among the games considered canon that goes beyond what one might consider an "Easter Egg".


I'm not saying that there is no timeline - I'm saying that it is unplanned and bended at will by the developers as new games are released and it's been established by Nintendo contemporarily to apease fans, not because it was designed to progress in such a fashion and that the games are often connected artificially. One can see a clear connection between LoZ1 and LoZ2 or for 4Swords1 and 4Swords2, but others are not so apparent, if apparent at all. How one would, for example, explain the presence of Moblins in Minish Cap? Aren't they supposed to be created by Ganon in his image? According to the timeline, we are yet to encounter him and he's yet to gain power.


----------



## Nathan Drake (Jan 4, 2012)

Moblins have appeared in every LoZ game to date except for Majora's Mask, due to their representation in Ocarina of Time: zelda.wikia.com/wiki/Moblin

One game might have mentioned that as such, but then again, we only have the English localizations and non-Japanese localizations to go on outside of Japan, where everything is far more clear due to silly translating errors not being present in the original language. Moblins were even in Skyward Sword though. They have become a staple enemy as part of the natural creatures of the land.


----------



## KingVamp (Jan 4, 2012)

Is it possible that creatures can be recreated/revived in someone image?

Anyway, never say the timeline didn't have any issues.


----------



## Foxi4 (Jan 4, 2012)

KingVamp said:


> Is it possible that creatures can be recreated/revived in someone image?
> 
> Anyway, never say the timeline didn't have any issues.


God and Humans say "hi".

IB4 J00 SO STUPID, TEHRE IZ NO GODZ! No, I'm not a Creationalist. I wholeheartedly believe in Evolution, I just think that God gave it the little "nudge" to make it all roll the right way.




Nathan Drake said:


> Moblins have appeared in every LoZ game to date except for Majora's Mask, due to their representation in Ocarina of Time: zelda.wikia.com/wiki/Moblin
> 
> One game might have mentioned that as such, but then again, we only have the English localizations and non-Japanese localizations to go on outside of Japan, where everything is far more clear due to silly translating errors not being present in the original language. Moblins were even in Skyward Sword though. They have become a staple enemy as part of the natural creatures of the land.



So, we accept that some reoccuring themes are actually connecting games together but dismiss others despite the obvious pig-like features of the Moblins that are a clear indication that they are in fact Ganon's minions. Okay. I suppose there is an ever-so-slim possibility that this could be a coincidence, but from where I'm standing it really doesn't seem likely.


----------



## M[u]ddy (Jan 4, 2012)

Foxi4 said:


> Until then though, the line was relatively clear Link to the Past --> Legend 1 --> Legend 2. This was *later altered...*


Nope they still take place in that order.


Foxi4 said:


> Three different timelines are generated by three possible outcomes of the final battle...


That part is wrong. Two of the timelines take place parallel, because Link changed the past. Only the Ganondorf wins timeline is a what if scenario.


Foxi4 said:


> How one would, for example, explain the presence of Moblins in Minish Cap? Aren't they supposed to be created by Ganon in his image?


I'm pretty sure this information is false. Moblins are a special kind of Goblins, just like the Bokoblins in Skyward sword.


----------



## Nathan Drake (Jan 4, 2012)

Foxi4 said:


> Nathan Drake said:
> 
> 
> > Moblins have appeared in every LoZ game to date except for Majora's Mask, due to their representation in Ocarina of Time: zelda.wikia.com/wiki/Moblin
> ...



Sharing features means nothing. For all we know, Ganon's features are crafted like those of those he calls minions in later games. There is no textual link between the two, whereas there are actual story links between what people are attempting to connect. In the long run, Nintendo's storyline does make sense, though nobody did present a timeline where the Four Swords games fall one after another as they should. That has been a hole that peeves me.


----------



## KingVamp (Jan 4, 2012)

Foxi4 said:


> KingVamp said:
> 
> 
> > Is it possible that creatures can be recreated/revived in someone image?
> ...


 I see what you did there, but what I meant was

Ganon with all his magic and power could possible change the Moblins from what they was before to his image.
... 

Other words, he change existing creatures.


----------



## Foxi4 (Jan 4, 2012)

M[u]ddy said:


> Foxi4 said:
> 
> 
> > Until then though, the line was relatively clear Link to the Past --> Legend 1 --> Legend 2. This was *later altered...*
> ...


I was convinced they jammed the Oracle games and Link's Awakening in-between...?


----------



## Nathan Drake (Jan 4, 2012)

Foxi4 said:


> M[u]ddy said:
> 
> 
> > Foxi4 said:
> ...


They did. In A Link to the Past, Ganon is slayed by a silver arrow. In the Oracle games, Ganon is dead, the two witches whatever their names are tried to revive him. Link still uses the same shield as in ALttP. Link leaves on a raft. In Link's Awakening, he awakes after coming in on a raft, and he fights nightmares of bosses from ALttP. In the end, it would only make sense if those games were direct sequels of one another.


----------



## Bladexdsl (Jan 4, 2012)

funny i dont remember having all them cool moves you get taught in TP in OOT

and as for the timeline it's fucked they made up the 3rd timeline bs in the last year to try and explain alttp etc and a wizard did it. it can't and never will make sense it's impossible and ninty have no clue how (fictional) time travel works they need to go watch back to the future and benders big score to understand it.


----------



## Uncle FEFL (Jan 4, 2012)

Sweet, I was right.


----------



## Deleted User (Jan 4, 2012)

Bladexdsl said:


> funny i dont remember having all them cool moves you get taught in TP in OOT
> 
> and as for the timeline it's fucked they made up the 3rd timeline bs in the last year to try and explain alttp etc and a wizard did it. it can't and never will make sense it's impossible and ninty have no clue how (fictional) time travel works they need to go watch back to the future and benders big score to understand it.


He could have learned them later in life.


----------



## dragonkid6 (Jan 4, 2012)

brandonspikes said:


> Bladexdsl said:
> 
> 
> > funny i dont remember having all them cool moves you get taught in TP in OOT
> ...


Or it's SS Link like all the new theories are saying. I mean he starts off knowing the skills and it's a trademark bloodline skill.


----------



## KingVamp (Jan 4, 2012)

Bladexdsl said:


> and as for the timeline it's fucked they made up the 3rd timeline bs in the last year to try and explain alttp etc and a wizard did it. it can't and never will make sense it's impossible and ninty have no clue how (fictional) time travel works they need to go watch back to the future and benders big score to understand it.


What are you talking about about? It makes perfect sense that a split timeline is possible in a *fictional *time travel.


----------



## Bladexdsl (Jan 4, 2012)

KingVamp said:


> Bladexdsl said:
> 
> 
> > and as for the timeline it's fucked they made up the 3rd timeline bs in the last year to try and explain alttp etc and a wizard did it. it can't and never will make sense it's impossible and ninty have no clue how (fictional) time travel works they need to go watch back to the future and benders big score to understand it.
> ...


no it isn't if you travel forward in time and than back again that's *TWO *timelines *not *fucking three!!

link goes forward in time creates the adult  timeline
link goes back in time creates the child timeline. there is NO WAY FOR A THIRD TO HAPPEN ninty just threw this parrarrel universe bs in at the last minute cos there was no way they could explain it otherwise. it's a cop out.


----------



## Valwin (Jan 4, 2012)

Bladexdsl said:


> KingVamp said:
> 
> 
> > Bladexdsl said:
> ...


link dint create shit

Zelda created the 2nd and third time line by sending him back  in time  blame ZElda


----------



## ForteGospel (Jan 4, 2012)

wasnt the thirdline created when link went back to get the silver gauntlets and the eyes of truth? then he goes back to the future but not at the same time line where he didnt had those items, thus creating 2 time lines: one where the hero got those items and one where the hero disappears?


----------



## chyyran (Jan 4, 2012)

NahuelDS said:


> locolol said:
> 
> 
> > Come on,everybody knows this is the only/real zelda timeline:
> ...





Spoiler: Fixed


----------



## gloweyjoey (Jan 4, 2012)

Bladexdsl said:


> no it isn't if you travel forward in time and than back again that's *TWO *timelines *not *fucking three!!
> 
> *link goes forward in time creates the adult  timeline*
> link goes back in time creates the child timeline. there is NO WAY FOR A THIRD TO HAPPEN ninty just threw this parrarrel universe bs in at the last minute cos there was no way they could explain it otherwise.


FALSE. Link doesnt travel forward in time until after he goes back in time by putting the sword back. *When Link initially pulls the sword to open the sacred realm he is sealed inside a crystal by the sages until he is old enough to wield the sword,  there is no time travel done until Link puts the sword back in the pedastal.* After Link pulls the sword there is a scene with Ganondorf thanking Link for helping him gain access to the sacred real. *He is actually talking to the crystallized Link*. This would then make it the *ADULT TIMELINE* which becomes Linkless when Zelda sends him back to create the *CHILD TIMELINE* (2 Zeldas, an adult one and child one in respective timelines and ONE link, sent back as a child creating the child timeline).  This is all very clear, *IF YOU ACTUALLY PLAYED THE GAME* and have basic comprehension skills.

If the third time is from when Link time travels for the *FIRST TIME*, by putting the sword back in the pedastal sending him *back in time* to go to the shadow temple, and then *pulling the sword out to return to the future*, this would mean Link goes* back then forward then back again*(not forwards then back)  or the third timeline is essentially an IF Link was to fail. Much like in Zelda 2 regardless of how you Link fails to stop Ganon's followers, Ganon comes backs. So there is essentially 2 endings right there which can be used as a *CREATIVE TOOL* to create more fictional/fantasy games. This is called *artistic license*.

You seem like the kind of person that looks at an M.C. Escher, piece and says "that's not art, the physics make no sense"


----------



## Thesolcity (Jan 4, 2012)

I'll just mark this as another timeline I can't seem to follow.


----------



## Nah3DS (Jan 4, 2012)

I guess I'll have to play ocarina of time again


----------



## Bladexdsl (Jan 4, 2012)

Punyman said:


> no, you're wrong... this is the TRUE timeline
> SNIP



now that timeline makes sense!


----------



## Guild McCommunist (Jan 4, 2012)

gloweyjoey said:


> If the third time is from when Link time travels for the *FIRST TIME*, by putting the sword back in the pedastal sending him *back in time* to go to the shadow temple, and then *pulling the sword out to return to the future*, this would mean Link goes* back then forward then back again*(not forwards then back)  or the third timeline is essentially an IF Link was to fail. Much like in Zelda 2 regardless of how you Link fails to stop Ganon's followers, Ganon comes backs. So there is essentially 2 endings right there which can be used as a *CREATIVE TOOL* to create more fictional/fantasy games. This is called *artistic license*.



Actually it's called an ass pull. Basically creating something that the viewer would not be able to discover on their own accord to fill in plot holes. It's painfully obvious that the games were developed without a timeline and that they simply "ass pulled" a timeline to loosely string them altogether.


----------



## Bladexdsl (Jan 4, 2012)

gloweyjoey said:


> or the third timeline is essentially an IF Link was to fail.


oh so the 3rd timeline is simply a WHAT IF scenario is it?  exactly which is why it's a fucking cop out!

and btw i've played every zelda there is (except cdi they dont count) even the secret ones you prob don't even know about.


----------



## Valwin (Jan 4, 2012)

Bladexdsl said:


> gloweyjoey said:
> 
> 
> > or the third timeline is essentially an IF Link was to fail.
> ...




but is not because  it did happen


----------



## Bladexdsl (Jan 4, 2012)

but it didn't happen and were just supposed to believe it did so that would make the 3d timeline a SPINOFF THAN!


----------



## gloweyjoey (Jan 4, 2012)

Back to the Future is filled of paradoxes and plot holes as well, people just say "oh Doc took the paradox into consideration and took appropriate measures" even though we never see Doc actually do them. If we apply Guilds logic here, if we don't see it happen, it doesn't happen. Therefore saying Back to the Futures time travel makes sense is simply asinine.
Time travel just doesn't make sense, and it likely never will.

We MIGHT be able to somehow beat the beam of light(travel faster than light) but this would be due to gravity bending the light and not actually "traveling through time".

on topic: In OoT we are told about how if Hylians get lost in the lost woods they turn into stalfos and skull kids. At the end of MM we see Link still in the Lost Woods, where he likely could not have gotten out.


Guild McCommunist said:


> gloweyjoey said:
> 
> 
> > If the third time is from when Link time travels for the *FIRST TIME*, by putting the sword back in the pedastal sending him *back in time* to go to the shadow temple, and then *pulling the sword out to return to the future*, this would mean Link goes* back then forward then back again*(not forwards then back)  or the third timeline is essentially an IF Link was to fail. Much like in Zelda 2 regardless of how you Link fails to stop Ganon's followers, Ganon comes backs. So there is essentially 2 endings right there which can be used as a *CREATIVE TOOL* to create more fictional/fantasy games. This is called *artistic license*.
> ...


Except for the fact that before WW came out, Aonuma confirmed a time line and said that  WW occurs on the ADULT TIMELINE, that tells me the game was developed with this in mind and before the release of TP they confirm it takes place in the child timeline.


			
				2002 Gamepro Interview said:
			
		

> _*Interviewer:* Where does _The Wind Waker_ fit into the overall Zelda series timeline? _ *Aonuma:* You can think of this game as taking place over a hundred years after _Ocarina of Time_. You can tell this from the opening story, and there are references to things from Ocarina located throughout the game as well. *Miyamoto:* Well, wait, which point does the hundred years start from? *Aonuma:* From the end. *Miyamoto:* No, I mean, as a child or as a... *Aonuma:* Oh, right, let me elaborate on that. _Ocarina of Time_ basically has two endings of sorts; one has Link as a child and the other has him as an adult. This game, _The Wind Waker_, takes place a hundred years after the adult Link defeats Ganon at the end of Ocarina. *Miyamoto:* This is pretty confusing for us, too. (laughs) So be careful.



So this "ass pull" you speak of was thought of only once it became relevant (after OoT) and applied it to the VERY NEXT GAME and has been relevant ever since then. Which makes it fairly asinine to say there was no timeline being considered in the development of these games. Artistic License or Ass pull, its just semantics.


----------



## Deleted User (Jan 4, 2012)

Guild McCommunist said:


> gloweyjoey said:
> 
> 
> > If the third time is from when Link time travels for the *FIRST TIME*, by putting the sword back in the pedastal sending him *back in time* to go to the shadow temple, and then *pulling the sword out to return to the future*, this would mean Link goes* back then forward then back again*(not forwards then back)  or the third timeline is essentially an IF Link was to fail. Much like in Zelda 2 regardless of how you Link fails to stop Ganon's followers, Ganon comes backs. So there is essentially 2 endings right there which can be used as a *CREATIVE TOOL* to create more fictional/fantasy games. This is called *artistic license*.
> ...


They can make whatever lore they choose, its their series, It doesn't have to make sense, you don't have to follow it, they never said every game has to connect in the first place.

The biggest problem is people care about it, I don't give two fucks if the games are connected, each game has its own story and mostly unique playstyle.


----------



## Master Mo (Jan 5, 2012)

gloweyjoey said:


> --snip--


I think what you`ve elaborated on the timeline itself and its split on this thread is honestly everything that is needed to show people that obviously there is a timeline and also how the split happened.

I mean just because some of the folks here haven`t played the games for a long time they seem to think that Nintendo comes up with where the games fit after the games are released but that`s wrong.

I think to make clear what I mean I will describe every Zelda game as of yet (the ones with an (x) I will elaborate on afterwards):

(x) -The Legend of Zelda • *First game in the series. Nobody really expects something explicit here...*

-Zelda II: The Adventure of Link • *Obviously direct sequel to Zelda I.*

-A Link to the Past • *Prequel to LoZI&II. Talks about what happened after OoT and the defeat of the Hero of Time (Sealing War).*

(x) -Link's Awakening • *May not had a place in the timeline beforehand, since it is said to be a dream. Imo could fit anywhere.*

-Ocarina of Time • *Was always said to be the earliest point in the timeline. Therefore comes before all the games that came before it!*

-Majora's Mask • *Direct sequel to OoT.*

(x) -Oracle of Seasons & Oracle of Ages • *May not had a place in the timeline beforehand. Could fit anywhere similar to Links Awakening.*

-The Wind Waker • *It is talking about the absence of the Hero of Time in its intro and was also confirmed to be in the Adult-timeline because of that.*

(x) -Four Swords • *Obviously comes sometimes after MC, thought it wasn`t clear when. I think MC was the point when Nintendo knew were this fits.*

-Four Swords Adventures • *Sequel to FS. It tells us that ages had gone by since FS (different Link) so it was pretty clear that it wasn`t a direct sequel like Zelda II and MM were.*

-The Minish Cap •* Doesn`t mention the Hero of Time or the Master Sword. I for one was pretty clear that this game comes before OoT because of that. Also  it tells us the origin-story of the Four Sword. Therefore FS and FSA comes after it.*

-Twilight Princess • *It was pretty clear that it comes after MM, which was confirmed by Aonuma. It also mentions the failed execution of Ganondorf  and that was the reason he got into the Twilightrealm. Therefore it had to be in the Child-Timeline!*

-Phantom Hourglass • *Direct sequel to WW.*

-Spirit Track• *Direct sequel to PH.*

-Skyward Sword • *Was marketed as the earliest point in the timeline and quite obviously it is!*

So in a nutshell I count 14 games and only 2 of them may not have a place in the timeline altogether (OoA/S and LA) and two of them I think got tied into the timeline after their release through other games (FS through MC and Zelda I through aLttP), maybe even as an afterthought (These are the games with an x)! 10 of these games were crafted with their explicit place in the timeline in mind! This, my friends, is kind of a fact!

Lol, no timeline… I think some of you make yourself look ridicules, when you talk about thinks you clearly have not enough knowledge to back-up your statements with! The only reason some here still insist that there is no timeline is to discredit Nintendo and one particular member here I would even go so far as to say it has become his “life's work” to do exactly that. Very rarely are the complaints legitimate!

Also on Topic ( ):  I think the name of Hero`s Shade already implies that it was a legendary Hero. But who would have thought that it actually was the Hero of Time…

PS: Sorry for the textwall...


----------



## Guild McCommunist (Jan 5, 2012)

brandonspikes said:


> They can make whatever lore they choose, its their series, It doesn't have to make sense, you don't have to follow it, they never said every game has to connect in the first place.
> 
> The biggest problem is people care about it, I don't give two fucks if the games are connected, each game has its own story and mostly unique playstyle.



They can make whatever they want but if it makes no sense then they sure as hell will get criticism for it. If this happened in literally any other franchise I'm sure they'd be so much shit thrown at it that it'd make a Porta-Potty look clean. They should've obviously taken the Final Fantasy route and basically have most of the games not related to each other and just be different scenarios with no intention of linking them together. It'd certainly work better than this "ALTERNATE TIMELINES" bullshit.



gloweyjoey said:


> Except for the fact that before WW came out, Aonuma confirmed a time line and said that  WW occurs on the ADULT TIMELINE, that tells me the game was developed with this in mind and before the release of TP they confirm it takes place in the child timeline.



So they just ass pulled half the storyline? Oh great, now I feel so much better...


----------



## awssk8er (Jan 5, 2012)

I knew it! 

I was never entirely sure on a specific timeline, but I knew that was the same Link!

I didn't noticed until after I completed the game and I saw a video about it.


----------



## Bladexdsl (Jan 5, 2012)

just say the 3rd timeline is a spinfoff and has NOTHING to do with the *REAL *timeline it works for me. the *only* ones that matter are up to oot and the child and adult timeline fuck the rest their just games to play that's how i'm seeing this shit


----------



## Janthran (Jan 5, 2012)

Link's Awakening has bosses from the Oracle games, so it obviously comes after.


----------



## Valwin (Jan 5, 2012)

Bladexdsl said:


> just say the 3rd timeline is a spinfoff and has NOTHING to do with the *REAL *timeline it works for me. the *only* ones that matter are up to oot and the child and adult timeline fuck the rest their just games to play that's how i'm seeing this shit


too bad for you cuz that split make perfect sense


----------



## Master Mo (Jan 5, 2012)

Guild McCommunist said:


> They can make whatever they want but if it makes no sense then they sure as hell will get criticism for it. If this happened in literally any other franchise I'm sure they'd be so much shit thrown at it that it'd make a Porta-Potty look clean. They should've obviously taken the Final Fantasy route and basically have most of the games not related to each other and just be different scenarios with no intention of linking them together. It'd certainly work better than this "ALTERNATE TIMELINES" bullshit.



If you ask me, just like brandonspikes said, the games are connected and maybe how they are connected does`t please everyone but the matter of fact is, that at the beginning of nearly *every* zelda game there is an intro that will introduce you to the world that you are about to get into, be it related to a game that came before it or not doesn`t matter in that moment, and there is not a single game in the series that *requires* you to have knowledge beyond of what you will find on that game disc to fully enjoy the games. Ergo if you choose to you can enjoy these title just like a final fantasy game and honestly many people do! I chose, out of interest for the mythology, to not do that because I think the world they`ve created is fun to dip into! But you certainly don`t have to, like you want us all to believe...




Guild McCommunist said:


> So they just ass pulled half the storyline? Oh great, now I feel so much better...



It seems like, out of ignorance, you come to mind piece by piece. Before, you said they pulled the whole timeline out of their asses (a terminology I would never use and also which shows how angry you are about something trivial and optional), now you actually can accept that half of it was intended and if you would have read what I`ve explained some posts ago you would see that *at least* 2/3 of the games were made with their place in the timeline in mind. I think it is legitimate that they don`t have the whole timeline planned out beforehand rather then expanding it and that is what they did (strangely to all of us not just into the future, but also into the past and sideways )


Quite honestly if you haven`t played the game for a long time and you don`t remember things like you should to actually be able to contribute to the main discussion of Time-Link appearing in TP, *which implied that there is a timeline*, I don`t see why you wrote anything at all...

I would love to know what your intention is when you participate in a thread where quite frankly you are only pissing people off and don`t intend to stay on topic from the very beginning! TBH Guild: you are getting on my nerves...

And to quote my good friend ( ) p1ngpong:


p1ngpong said:


> Guild McCommunist, please stop posting.
> 
> Everyone is sick of you.
> 
> Thanks.


Though not in general...


----------



## The Milkman (Jan 6, 2012)

Anyone else pissed off a bit by the fact the timeline pretty much gives you 3 endings to OoT and the one that basically makes up half of the other games really makes no sense?


----------



## Bladexdsl (Jan 6, 2012)

Valwin said:


> Bladexdsl said:
> 
> 
> > just say the 3rd timeline is a spinfoff and has NOTHING to do with the *REAL *timeline it works for me. the *only* ones that matter are up to oot and the child and adult timeline fuck the rest their just games to play that's how i'm seeing this shit
> ...


no *THIS *makes sense






*^ THE REAL TIMELINE EXPLAINED*


----------



## KingVamp (Jan 6, 2012)

Bladexdsl... That actually makes it ten times less sense. That "timeline" of yours make as much sense as (idk ) walking in the rain with no clothes on.
... yea...


----------



## Bladexdsl (Jan 6, 2012)

it makes perrfect sense the alttp timeline is actually *NOT REAL* it's a spinoff meaning it's *SEPERATE *from the *REAL *timeline which is up to *oot than the child and adult spilt*. if you don't understand it than you need to fully understand how TIME works. to do this go watch back to the future 2 and benders big score  and if you can figure out how it works in benders big score (it's confusing so you might need to watch it a few times) and you'll understand the image fully! 

still too confusing ok how about this:

A WIZARD DID IT


----------



## Valwin (Jan 6, 2012)

Bladexdsl said:


> it makes perrfect sense the alttp timeline is actually *NOT REAL* it's a spinoff meaning it's *SEPERATE *from the *REAL *timeline which is up to *oot than the child and adult spilt*. if you don't understand it than you need to fully understand how TIME works. to do this go watch back to the future 2 and benders big score  and if you can figure out how it works in benders big score (it's confusing so you might need to watch it a few times) and you'll understand the image fully!
> 
> still too confusing ok how about this:
> 
> A WIZARD DID IT




Ok i want you to ask me what is about the timeline that you dont get


----------



## BORTZ (Jan 6, 2012)

Huh i would have never got that.


----------

