Official Nintendo Magazine

Log in to access exclusive Nintendo content, win prizes and post on our forums. Not a member yet? Join for free

Zelda Timeline Explained

How does it all fit together?

Everyone loves a good mystery, right? And doubly, everyone loves a good Zelda game. Is it any surprise then that one of the most feverishly debated topics among the more obsessive ranks of the Nintendo faithful is exactly where each of Link's adventures fit in an over-arching Zelda timeline?

At first glance, it might seem like a fairly straightforward exercise, but delve a little deeper and you'll find that the labyrinthine twists, turns and contradictions of the Zelda mythology add up to one hell of a head scratcher.

Is there one Link, or a whole lineage of heroes? What's the 'earliest' Zelda game? Is Majora's Mask a direct sequel to Ocarina Of Time? Or is it actually Wind Waker? Are Nintendo making it up as they go along?

Zelda 2
Zelda 2
Type 'Zelda timeline' into Google and you'll be met with countless fansites and forums dedicated to picking apart the tiniest, most obscure intricacies of Zelda lore. Heck, there's a thread on our very own forum that is currently a staggering 87 web pages long. To save you from wading through the senseless ramblings of these passionate-but-unhinged enthusiasts, we've done our best to get to the bottom of the mystery.

Out Of Line

First up, let's throw out the two most logical assumptions - that the games line up chronologically in the order in which they were released, or that all the games feature the same incarnation of Link. Sorry, but that would just be too easy. A cursory examination of the various games' instruction books, plots and quotes from Nintendo themselves immediately discount the possibility.

The games' stories dart back and forth like a Quentin Tarantino movie at its most obtuse and convoluted. Almost every Zelda game (with a couple of exceptions) tells the story of a different Link and Zelda in a different time period.

It's widely accepted that certain chunks of the franchise slot together neatly, as follows:

The Adventure Of Link (NES) is a direct sequel to The Legend Of Zelda (NES).

Link's Awakening (Game Boy) follows on from A Link To The Past (SNES).

Ocarina Of Time (N64) precedes Majora's Mask (N64) which precedes Twilight Princess (Wii).

The Minish Gap (GBA) precedes Four Swords (GBA), which itself precedes Four Sword Adventures (GameCube).

Spirit Tracks (DS) follows Phantom Hourglass (DS) which is a sequel to Wind Waker (Wii).

Oracle Of Ages and Oracle Of Seasons (both GBC) fit together as one.

All that is left is to slot these chunks together. Easy, right? Series producer Eiji Aonuma stated upon its release that Four Swords is the earliest game in the timeline. That game, and its direct sequel, Four Swords Adventures, featured the evil Vaati as Link's primary adversary. Seeing as The Minish Cap tells the story of how Vaati came into being, we can therefore assume that it's a prequel and the earliest game in the timeline.

Link To The Past
Link To The Past

In The Beginning

Before Four Swords was released, Miyamoto and Aonuma insisted that Ocarina Of Time was Link's first adventure. Surely then, Ocarina comes next, followed by its oddball sequel, Majora's Mask. This is where things start to get complicated. When Twilight Princess came out Aonuma had this to say, "In Ocarina of Time, Link flew forward seven years in time, he beat Ganon and went back to being a kid, remember? Twilight Princess takes place in the world of Ocarina of Time, a hundred and something years after the peace returned to child Link's time. In the last scene of Ocarina of Time, child Link and Zelda have a little talk, and as a consequence of that talk, their relationship with Ganon takes a whole new direction."

Previous 1 2 Next page

Comments

68 comments so far...
Add a comment

  1. youngamernerd Monday 3rd May 2010 at 06:52

    YAY FRST POST
    but on topic on youtube type up ocarinahero10 go on his channel surf around and he tells you a very good timeline theory.
    MULTIPLE GANON THEORY FTW :!: :!: :!:
    (i don't know what I meant by that^^ :lol: )

  2. TyrDragon Monday 3rd May 2010 at 08:17

    Well, you've just confused my monday morning, cheers.

  3. pikarich Monday 3rd May 2010 at 08:20

    You guys know barely anything! You mentioned us, the Timeline Princess team, but you didn't even look at the thread!! CATv1 is much better than your timeline.
    YOU PUT MINISH CAP FIRST?! WHY?!!!?
    If you guys are reading this, I'm a big fan and a subscriber, but please take a look at the new version of the thread, you might learn something.

    YAY FRST POST
    but on topic on youtube type up ocarinahero10 go on his channel surf around and he tells you a very good timeline theory.
    MULTIPLE GANON THEORY FTW Exclamation Exclamation Exclamation
    (i don't know what I meant by that^^ Laughing )

    In answer to your post, I've seen ocarinahero10 and his is definitely interesting, but I've also seen his Superman 64 review and it's THE SAME as the AVGN review. (sorry for going off topic)
    Also, there is no multiple Ganon, he's the same all the way through.

  4. Adam_Lloyd Monday 3rd May 2010 at 09:03

    Saying that you know more than an ONM editor about an imaginary timeline that almost no-one knows the true incarnation of is a moot point. They were just trying to point out one of the most widely accepted versions of how the games fit together. Sure, you can convolute it and question it by studying the games in depth, but that's sort of your lookout. I'm sure the editors have better things to do ;)

  5. JRush Monday 3rd May 2010 at 09:37

    why do you keep blogging about articles that have already been in your magazine? I find that youtube videos explain the time line best.

  6. JRush Monday 3rd May 2010 at 09:41

    You guys know barely anything! You mentioned us, the Timeline Princess team, but you didn't even look at the thread!! CATv1 is much better than your timeline.
    YOU PUT MINISH CAP FIRST?! WHY?!!!?
    If you guys are reading this, I'm a big fan and a subscriber, but please take a look at the new version of the thread, you might learn something.

    YAY FRST POST
    but on topic on youtube type up ocarinahero10 go on his channel surf around and he tells you a very good timeline theory.
    MULTIPLE GANON THEORY FTW Exclamation Exclamation Exclamation
    (i don't know what I meant by that^^ Laughing )

    In answer to your post, I've seen ocarinahero10 and his is definitely interesting, but I've also seen his Superman 64 review and it's THE SAME as the AVGN review. (sorry for going off topic)
    Also, there is no multiple Ganon, he's the same all the way through.


    There is Ganon and Ganondorf. Ganon is some monster and Ganondorf is the big evil guy who looks indian. slightly.

  7. JRush Monday 3rd May 2010 at 09:46

    Sorry for posting three times in a row, but anybody who plays Zelda will obviously know that there is a lot of different Link characters.

  8. pikarich Monday 3rd May 2010 at 09:53

    ....
    There are certainly different Link and Zeldas, Ganon is the monster form of Ganondorf, they are NOT different, and these are mainly the views of my colleagues at Timeline Princess.

  9. Lewys Monday 3rd May 2010 at 10:45

    maybe they ignored your thread on here because they disagree with it? since there's about 3 of you in there discussing it that refuse to accept anything from anyone else, so it will never develop

    I don't agree with ONM's at all though. there's way too much evidence to show minish cap is not the first

  10. tomutwit Monday 3rd May 2010 at 10:48

    No, no, no. Look, the guy on Youtube explains the timeline theory very well. At least, it makes more sense than yours, even if it's out of date now.

  11. SilverLightning Monday 3rd May 2010 at 10:50

    Right, it's time to dismantle this awful article.

    Series producer Eiji Aonuma stated upon its release that Four Swords is the earliest game in the timeline. That game, and its direct sequel, Four Swords Adventures, featured the evil Vaati as Link's primary adversary. Seeing as The Minish Cap tells the story of how Vaati came into being, we can therefore assume that it's a prequel and the earliest game in the timeline.


    Aonuma: The GBA Four Swords Zelda is what we’re thinking as the oldest tale in the Zelda timeline. With this one on the GameCube being a sequel to that, and taking place sometime after that.

    Problems quickly arose with the release of Four Swords Adventures, which, simultaneously, was quite obviously the sequel to FS, and almost certainly could not take place before Ocarina of Time . Once again, it seemed game canon was challenging developer quotes.
    A deeper look at the May 17th, 2004 interview pack revealed the Aonuma's statement may have had little credibility in the first place.
    Aonuma: In an example with Four Swords Adventures, I was the producer.. I didn’t actually put the story for that game together... Mr. Miyamoto then came in and upended the tea table... we changed the story around quite a bit... storyline shouldn’t be something complicated that confuses the player... and the storyline changed all the way up until the very end
    This suggests that the development of the FS arc's storyline was a chaotic process which Mr. Aonuma was barely involved with. Opinion was suddenly split; some saw fit to completely disregard the first interview and allow Four Swords to occur elsewhere in the timeline, while others stuck by Aonuma's original words and kept Four Swords pre-Ocarina of Time.

    I'd have thought you'd have at least done your research, that took me merely 30 seconds to find. As for other reasoning as to put MC first, do you have any? I'm sure you've mentioned the hat thing before, back in the Zelda special (pretty sure you said there were 2 Vaati's as well-what were you thinking?. That's rubbish, because OoT shows how Link came to obtain the Hero's Clothes, whereas in Minish Cap, he has the whole set of Hero's Clothes, bar the hat. This, and the whole Triumph Forks thing, would suggest it takes place some time after the WW-PH-ST branch.

    Moving on...

    Miyamoto insisted at the time that the original Legend Of Zelda and its direct sequel follow on from Ocarina Of Time, meaning we can either place them in a 100 year gap between Majora's Mask and Twilight Princess, or directly after. A Link To The Past logically comes next, followed by Link's Awakening.

    WHAT? I suppose your evidence is this outdated interview, but still:

    Ocarina of Time is the first story, then the original Legend of Zelda, then Zelda II: The Adventure of Link, and finally A Link to the Past. It's not very clear where Link's Awakening fits in--it could be anytime after Ocarina of Time.

    Makes sense, but it was after OoT was released, and being 12/13 years old, its credibility is somewhat diminished. OoT was meant to be the Imprisoning War, but that was retconned with WW since Ganondorf escaped from being sealed. The Imprisoning War is now FSA, and there is a lot of evidence for this, particularly given geographical similarities between the Hyrule's of FSA and ALTTP. It makes sense in another way also. If you place ALTTP in the Child Timeline branch (ie. post OoT-MM-TP), there is a new Ganon in FSA, to replace the original Ganondorf who died at the end of TP.

    Going back to the point about LA following on from ALTTP, I don't blame you for saying this, but this is debated. My collegue kingconnor of the Timeline Princess thread has a really good theory saying it's either before or after the Oracles games (which I can't recall right now >_>).

    Last point:

    Firstly, many fans insist Ocarina Of Time is basically a remake of A Link To The Past, detailing the creation of the Triforce and the rise of the evil Ganondorf. They can't really exist in the same timeline as they're essentially the same game.

    I know (I hope anyway) it's not you saying this. But this is a ridiculous thought to have, the stories and characters, and also plot devices are in no way alike.

  12. Tyrakstooth1 Monday 3rd May 2010 at 11:30

    Aaaahhh! brain overload, too much :!: i just like to think of the toon link games the first as he looks youngest in those games then when link looks older (e.g. Twilight Princess) the timeline gets older :shock: haha problem solved lol :D much less confusion a LOT simpler everyones happy

  13. shadow.x Monday 3rd May 2010 at 11:47

    Still bamboozled :shock:

  14. allanironmaiden Monday 3rd May 2010 at 11:55

    it still amazes me how WRONG this article is now as well as when i first read it when it was published in the mag

    go see the timeline princess thread....great debate, logical answers and theories and a timeline that makes much more sense

  15. SilverLightning Monday 3rd May 2010 at 12:03

    Aaaahhh! brain overload, too much :!: i just like to think of the toon link games the first as he looks youngest in those games then when link looks older (e.g. Twilight Princess) the timeline gets older :shock: haha problem solved lol :D much less confusion a LOT simpler everyones happy

    I'm not even dignifying that with a proper response.

  16. Mmmyeah Monday 3rd May 2010 at 13:01

    i think that each game (or groups that fit togethor like the cel shaded zeldas do) are just at random points over thousands, maybe hundreds of thousands of years. There may be a first and a last, but i certainly dont think all the games can slot togethor.

    to sum up then, you can place alot of it in any order, because the gaps in between the games could explain it.

    i know thats basically what most people say but it is the most rational and likely answer.

    oh and also, you said that wind waker was a wii game
    hahaha
    HAHAHAHA

    HAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAA!

  17. Mastearl Monday 3rd May 2010 at 13:24

    Does it really matter?

  18. Medevac Monday 3rd May 2010 at 14:12

    Oh dear, some people get unnecessarily heated over this :?

    I think that there's no strict timeline and Nintendo have shot themselves in the foot by saying that there is one. There's just too much that doesn't make sense, and I think they could ruin the storyline if they did try make sense out of it.

    Part of the fun is coming up with your own timeline (however in depth you wish to go) but I love trying to think about it when playing the game.

    Alas, this is not the most important factor of a Zelda game for me so I don't really care either way :)

  19. sgu07dh Monday 3rd May 2010 at 15:27

    Oh dear, some people get unnecessarily heated over this :?

    I think that there's no strict timeline and Nintendo have shot themselves in the foot by saying that there is one. There's just too much that doesn't make sense, and I think they could ruin the storyline if they did try make sense out of it.

    Part of the fun is coming up with your own timeline (however in depth you wish to go) but I love trying to think about it when playing the game.

    Alas, this is not the most important factor of a Zelda game for me so I don't really care either way :)

    lol definetly over heating

    I largely agree with u Medevac, it is more fun to make up your own. Maybe thats what Nintendo really intended when they alluded to there being a master document somewhere. Doubt they'll ever produce it if it does exist else the series would loose some of its mystical appeal.

  20. Adam_Lloyd Monday 3rd May 2010 at 15:27

    I love how certain people are getting all high and mighty about this. Really, people, they're games. GAMES. Even the developers don't care enough to make the timeline a big deal (in fact, I specifically remember Miyamoto saying that the gameplay and settings came first, with the game's place in the timeline only being decided long after the plot's completion). It's nothing more than an afterthought. Nothing to get so worked up about :?

  21. Adam_Lloyd Monday 3rd May 2010 at 15:29

    Aaaahhh! brain overload, too much :!: i just like to think of the toon link games the first as he looks youngest in those games then when link looks older (e.g. Twilight Princess) the timeline gets older :shock: haha problem solved lol :D much less confusion a LOT simpler everyones happy

    I'm not even dignifying that with a proper response.

    I don't think they're particularly bothered.

  22. ACRID Monday 3rd May 2010 at 15:30

    I've heard this is the final puzzle in Prof. Layton 6

  23. DavidVM Monday 3rd May 2010 at 16:55

    I imagine this is what forums the world over will look like once Lost finally and thankfully finishes.

  24. Tyrex117 Monday 3rd May 2010 at 18:38

    Admittedly I'm not too smart about all this but may I suggest that there isn't a direct timeline - except for sequels we definitely know about (e.g. OoT and MM). There is always a chance that the creators wanted things to happen, but knew Link, Zelda and even Ganondorf were much too loved to be lost.
    Writers (like myself), where they can, will make an idea fit through all kinds of crazy links - so, I guess what I'm trying to say, is that there isn't a definitive chronological order, but just jumbled events so the writer's were able to create their ideas.
    Just a theory...

  25. Redfish20 Monday 3rd May 2010 at 19:13

    ....
    There are certainly different Link and Zeldas, Ganon is the monster form of Ganondorf, they are NOT different, and these are mainly the views of my colleagues at Timeline Princess.

    But Gannon appears in the first two Zeldas and Gannondorf is not mentioned untli his appearance in OOT.

    BTW in 2005 (so before TP, PH, ST) Miyamoto said OOT was chronologically the first.

  26. pikarich Monday 3rd May 2010 at 19:45

    ....
    There are certainly different Link and Zeldas, Ganon is the monster form of Ganondorf, they are NOT different, and these are mainly the views of my colleagues at Timeline Princess.

    But Gannon appears in the first two Zeldas and Gannondorf is not mentioned untli his appearance in OOT.

    BTW in 2005 (so before TP, PH, ST) Miyamoto said OOT was chronologically the first.

    Uh-oh.
    OoT COMES BEFORE!!!!
    I'm not even gonna go into this. You can say there's no timeline, but that's really just an excuse not to think about it. No offence, that's how I see it. The thing is, Zelda is such a mind-blowing experience that I wanna know the timeline. I wanna get closer to Link and Zelda! I LOVE ZELDA!

  27. RubbishGamer Monday 3rd May 2010 at 20:46

    Uh, there's so much debating I can't be bothered to say. I'll just wait until the Official timeline is ready and released (they're working on it as they release new games)

  28. Lewys Monday 3rd May 2010 at 21:39

    I LOVE ZELDA!


    but just because you love zelda, it doesn't mean that no one else does. and that's your problem in the timeline princess thread. you dismiss everyone who wasn't there at the beginning of your thread because you think they know nothing about zelda, when some of them probably know more than you. if you all weren't so pig headed in that thread you would have a lot more contributors

  29. ChrisONM Tuesday 4th May 2010 at 07:26

    ....
    There are certainly different Link and Zeldas, Ganon is the monster form of Ganondorf, they are NOT different, and these are mainly the views of my colleagues at Timeline Princess.

    But Gannon appears in the first two Zeldas and Gannondorf is not mentioned untli his appearance in OOT.

    BTW in 2005 (so before TP, PH, ST) Miyamoto said OOT was chronologically the first.

    Uh-oh.
    OoT COMES BEFORE!!!!
    I'm not even gonna go into this. You can say there's no timeline, but that's really just an excuse not to think about it. No offence, that's how I see it. The thing is, Zelda is such a mind-blowing experience that I wanna know the timeline. I wanna get closer to Link and Zelda! I LOVE ZELDA!


    Good for you, but you can't just wish something to happen and tell everyone else they're wrong.

    The fact is, there is no right or wrong answer for this Zelda timeline thing. The fact the timeline thread has gone on for so long proves this. If there was an easy answer, someone would have just said "here's the timeline" and everyone would have said "cool, thanks". But no, it's horribly convoluted, filled with contradictions, and it's impossible to lay out the games in an order that doesn't leave at least one or two gaping holes wide open.

    Please don't say that your theory is right and everyone else's is wrong, because that's all it is - a theory - regardless of whether it's in a thread or not.

  30. Hylian_Grouch Tuesday 4th May 2010 at 09:28

    its obvious to me that spirit tracks is the first, and then at the end, the timeline splits into 14 different universes so all the other games are the direct sequel.

    what do you think? (there is zero evidence for this btw)

  31. dm_1782 Tuesday 4th May 2010 at 10:36

    Consider this perhaps, Ocarina of Time is a re introduction of the Zelda franchise much like Batman Begins. It is followed by Majoras Mask then Twilight Princess. As all the games usually refer to a past hero and princess its not hard to see them in that order. The Cel shaded series which are all clearly linked, The Wind Waker, Phantom Hourglass and Spirit Tracks are all the latest and more modern feeling games so are the last in the timeline as they tell of an old Hyrule which is destroyed and Wind Waker also mentions the battle between Link and Ganon in the Ocarina of Time.
    Thats the way I see it anyway, the other games could probably fit in somewhere but theres no real need. I say that because although I had played the Original Zelda and Links adventure when I was younger, plus the gameboy games it was the N64 OOT that really felt as though they had started afresh.

  32. Eternal Darkness Tuesday 4th May 2010 at 11:56

    I don't really care about the time line. It's just pointless to try and work out.

  33. Athrun888 Tuesday 4th May 2010 at 12:45

    My thoughts on the timeline, there is no "All encampassing" timeline, there are arcs, the main one being the split timeline but the games not on the current split really just don't fit together (without a ton of fan fiction) and I honestly don't think Anuoma actually takes those in to account.

  34. Daz_Dagon Tuesday 4th May 2010 at 13:00

    A multiple ganon theroy sounds plausible... but if that is not the case should there not be multiple links?
    In every game ganon dosent mention a resembalence to link so yeah it could work.
    Where can I get the three gbc games?

  35. dm_1782 Tuesday 4th May 2010 at 14:36

    its obvious to me that spirit tracks is the first, and then at the end, the timeline splits into 14 different universes so all the other games are the direct sequel.

    what do you think? (there is zero evidence for this btw)

    Spirit Tracks is the last. Consider this perhaps, Ocarina of Time is a re introduction of the Zelda franchise much like Batman Begins. It is followed by Majoras Mask then Twilight Princess. As all the games usually refer to a past hero and princess its not hard to see them in that order. The Cel shaded series which are all clearly linked, The Wind Waker, Phantom Hourglass and Spirit Tracks are all the latest and more modern feeling games so are the last in the timeline as they tell of an old Hyrule which is destroyed and Wind Waker also mentions the battle between Link and Ganon in the Ocarina of Time.
    Thats the way I see it anyway, the other games could probably fit in somewhere but theres no real need. I say that because although I had played the Original Zelda and Links adventure when I was younger, plus the gameboy games it was the N64 OOT that really felt as though they had started afresh.

  36. Mart2006 Tuesday 4th May 2010 at 15:13

    "The Minish Gap" and "Wind Waker (Wii)"

    Typos :P

  37. BlueSoup8 Tuesday 4th May 2010 at 16:08

    Minish Gap lolz

  38. WaterMaster230 Tuesday 4th May 2010 at 17:41

    Woah! Too much after school! Interesting theory though and i agree with it. I played all the games and agree with your theory. I have to give you credit for this though. I must of took hours of thinking in the office to have come up with this. its definitly given me something to talk about.

  39. Yirba Tuesday 4th May 2010 at 19:18

    Until Nintendo reveals the correct timeline and solves this once and for all, I'm not going to worry myself about it. Less time spent on troubling yourself with the timeline means more time for playing and enjoying the games. :-D

  40. kingconnor Wednesday 5th May 2010 at 15:39

    ....
    There are certainly different Link and Zeldas, Ganon is the monster form of Ganondorf, they are NOT different, and these are mainly the views of my colleagues at Timeline Princess.

    But Gannon appears in the first two Zeldas and Gannondorf is not mentioned untli his appearance in OOT.

    BTW in 2005 (so before TP, PH, ST) Miyamoto said OOT was chronologically the first.

    Uh-oh.
    OoT COMES BEFORE!!!!
    I'm not even gonna go into this. You can say there's no timeline, but that's really just an excuse not to think about it. No offence, that's how I see it. The thing is, Zelda is such a mind-blowing experience that I wanna know the timeline. I wanna get closer to Link and Zelda! I LOVE ZELDA!


    Good for you, but you can't just wish something to happen and tell everyone else they're wrong.

    The fact is, there is no right or wrong answer for this Zelda timeline thing. The fact the timeline thread has gone on for so long proves this. If there was an easy answer, someone would have just said "here's the timeline" and everyone would have said "cool, thanks". But no, it's horribly convoluted, filled with contradictions, and it's impossible to lay out the games in an order that doesn't leave at least one or two gaping holes wide open.

    Please don't say that your theory is right and everyone else's is wrong, because that's all it is - a theory - regardless of whether it's in a thread or not.

    In the Timeline thread, we have never claimed that our Timeline is right. We know it is only a theory, and that there are problems with it...as with ever other possible outcome so far.
    However, we choose to stick with this theory because for us, it works best.
    When people come to us with another theory, we don't simply dismiss it like most people here seem to think, we look at the possibilities and then decided whether or not it is plasubile and base our reply on that. Yes, we get annoyed with people...but who woldn't get annoyed at an idiot posting in the Timelinethread claming there is no timeline (when I also clearly stated in the first post that if you believed that, fine, so no need to post here, a place for people who do believe in one).
    We have added a few new people so far, posting out of interest, some know more than others, some not very much. But not many people know more than a few of us on there (and yes I know that sounds big headed) but it's because we (at least some of us) have searched through text dumps, developer interviews, documented pieces of information from a lot of the games, and remember it all. Hence why we, and people from Zelda Universe know a hell of a lot, and can argue for quite a long time on certain things. Because, while we might know the same information, different minds will interpret events/comments differently and end up with a different outcome, which is just as likely to work.

    I am thank for a new poster lately, who has linked me to a brilliant translation site (the original Japanese writing, and it's direct translations, compared to it's American/English game version)
    I never took much notice of this before, but it has helped out a fair bit.

    People moan that we won't change our Timeline? Well, that's quite obvious...give us a good enough reason to If you can provide us with sustainable proof and reasoning, we will change it to best suit the evidence.
    For instance, we have now moved LOZ and AOL to the very end of the Timeline. As we felt it better there.
    Also, for those many of you that don't like the remerge, I shall create a second Timeline (Keep checking the first post for updates)
    This second Timeline will be one without a merge.

    And finally, to those that don't believe there is such a Timeline, look at the evidence, there is far too much to suggest a Timeline linking all the games together, than the games not be related at all.
    MM might come after OOT...but so does WW and TP.
    Likewise, ALTTP comes after FSA because of the Ganon being sealed in the Four Sword.
    And finally, one to break the idea that only specific 'arc's exist; It is mentioned in MC of the Golden Triumph Forks. This is first seen in WW, said by the Fish man, as a lost legend of the Triforce from the sunkern Hyrule. There are plenty of other links between the games, cross arc etc.

  41. Redfish20 Wednesday 5th May 2010 at 18:02

    Hang on. It's called the Legend of Zelda, so certain games could be essentialy retellings of the same story. This might be a cowards way out but it does mean that things like "Triumph Forks and Great Flood in Minish? Timeline eats itself" make (more) sense as the storyteller is not nessesarily recounting the tales in the order they happened (clearly they are not set in the order they were released).

    It is unlikely that you could chronologically order events from different retellings of the Legend of King Arthur or Robin Hood, so why should Zelda be any different?

    Besides, twisting and exageratting a story to the point that you can get a giant hammer or a train in it is more Ninty's style than a deep storyline.

  42. kingconnor Wednesday 5th May 2010 at 18:12

    No, Redfish20, you are missing the point.
    The Legend of Zelda doesn't mean that, though I can see where you'd be coming from, as a lot of people do think this.

    But think of it like this, the actual 'Legend' of Zelda didn't really make sense until AOL (Adventure of Link) In this game, we are told of the Princess Zelda, from an ancient Kingdom long ago. She was put to sleep by wizard. The wizard was a friend of the Prince. He couldn't forgive himself for this tragedy, and thus ordered that every female born in the Royal family should be called Zelda...and there you have it, the Legend.
    If you want to discuss this more, I think it should be done in the actually Timeline Thread in GNC

  43. Phoenix999 Wednesday 5th May 2010 at 20:37

    I don't really care about the time line. It's just pointless to try and work out.


    I agree, it's much more fun to play the game, then sit at a table and think about it with a pen and notepad

  44. swift Wednesday 5th May 2010 at 21:54

    Its hilarious how passionate some people get about this. As long as a Zelda game plays well, and its story is brilliant as it is, I couldnt care less. You shouldnt have to string them all together, just accept them as they are, and also accept that there is no real timeline

  45. nintendood Wednesday 5th May 2010 at 22:33

    Well I wouldn't worry too much about Zelda's story line, I mean, it doesn't have to make sense as its not real.

    I like to think of them as different interpretations of the same story. That's the simplest solution.

    Though I would prefer it if the stories of future Zelda games are a bit more interwoven, and perhaps not simply about saving princesses and stuff...

  46. Lewys Thursday 6th May 2010 at 10:27

    People moan that we won't change our Timeline? Well, that's quite obvious...give us a good enough reason to If you can provide us with sustainable proof and reasoning, we will change it to best suit the evidence.


    I gave you proof why you can't have a merge, and you ignored me even though you've got no evidence to support it. and you've had a couple of other people tell you why it can't happen, yet it's still there. you just keep it because it's your personal theory, and call it the "currently AGREED timeline". not really.

    but if you do as you say and make a second timeline without the merge, then I may start posting in the thread again. despite this rubbish about the merge, there has been a lot of very good arguments and information in the thread.

  47. sivlock Thursday 6th May 2010 at 11:18

    There is no official timeline some are text book sequels then there are other games that struggle to fit in at all. The reason is so that Nintendo can make up new things as they go along, I think people get really into this topic.

  48. pikarich Thursday 6th May 2010 at 16:48

    "currently AGREED timeline".

    *currently ACCEPTED timeline.

  49. Lewys Thursday 6th May 2010 at 17:48

    "currently AGREED timeline".

    *currently ACCEPTED timeline.


    same thing

  50. Everegreen Thursday 6th May 2010 at 18:34

    maybe zelda wii will explain all this?

  51. GMV_89 Thursday 6th May 2010 at 20:50

    my time line goes a little like this (note this is only part 1):

    the Legend of Zelda - an ancient story of a hero who destroyed the beast Gannon and saved Zelda and land of Hyrule (as the story gets passed down it is altered many times)

    the Adventure of Link- direct sequel to Zelda I (Link wakes the original Zelda thus the story becomes legend and in memorial of this legendary event every princess born into the royal family is named after her.)

    --------------------------------------------

    Zelda Ocarina of time - Centuries later Gannon is reborn/reserected by Twin rova and kept in a human form (Ganondorf)until he is ready to become king, Link and Zelda are also reborn. at the end split time line thing happens were there are now two Hyrules, two Zelda's, two Ganondorfs but only 1 Link ( there is no alternate Link as he was sent back in time and dose not remain in the future)

    Majora's Mask -Direct sequel to OOT. at the end Link leaves Terminia on Epona and returns to Hyrule were...

    Oracle of Seasons/Ages-
    He is called to hyrule castle via telepathic message (from Zelda?) and is told twin rova are trying to bring gannon back from the prison realm where the sages from OOT sent him and evidently his beast form gets seperated from his human form thus creating 2 Ganons. When Link defeats twin rova and stops ganon from returning through the void he saves Zelda again he decides to venture out for a while (maybe still in search of navi, see ocarina of time.)

    Link's Awakening- while traveling the high seas, a storm erupts thus shipwrecking Link on that island i can't quite remember the name of. At the end when Link sets sail on his raft he sets back for Hyrule where...

    A Link to the Past- Link goes to live with his Uncle (who Link might have met during his time at sea and decided to move to Hyrule) with the help of that wizard guy Ganon escapes the prison realm and takes his revenge by destroying the temple of time and hunts down the seven sages. Zelda then hides the master sword in the in the lost woods so as to protect it from ganon. at the end of the game Ganon beast is destroyed and the world turns back to normal.

    that's it so far will type up part 2 some time soon!!

  52. ILoveWii Friday 7th May 2010 at 06:30

    I hope Miyamoto releases one soonish to shut up the raving idiots who keep moaning about this timeline.

    Seriously, it's just unfair to come on here and badmouth ONM.

  53. 3MEGAMAN Saturday 8th May 2010 at 01:33

    i will be honest i don't care, to me each game is not a sequel nor a prequel but there own independent story of the character Link.

  54. Everegreen Saturday 8th May 2010 at 13:49

    sorry cos did has nothin to do with the timeline but i finally got zelda collectors edition :) lucky enuf to find it in a cex store today, for only 15 pounds. iv been wantin it for ages ever since i had to choose betweeen mario sunshine n loz collectors - about to play on it now :D

  55. sivlock Saturday 8th May 2010 at 14:18

    sorry cos did has nothin to do with the timeline but i finally got zelda collectors edition :) lucky enuf to find it in a cex store today, for only 15 pounds. iv been wantin it for ages ever since i had to choose betweeen mario sunshine n loz collectors - about to play on it now :D

    It's awesome cus you get to play the classics I do love that collectors disk, enjoy man!

    About the timeline I don't think it matters I know one thing with Zelda I will always buy it because it's gonna be the best game out at the time :)

  56. Everegreen Saturday 8th May 2010 at 15:13

    ocarina of time
    majoras mask
    links awakening
    zelda nes
    zelda 2
    twilight princess

    retelling:
    ocarina of time - wind waker
    lionks awakening - phantom hourglass


    this is just a wild guess i might add moe info soon

  57. ocarinaoftime12 Saturday 8th May 2010 at 17:30

    Every Game is a different version of one story ( Link saves the land)It really is that simple. The only reason they slightly vary is so that that nintendo can keep churning out more and more games to make more money. This is not me discrediting the series thats just how the industry works.

  58. Jarsh Sunday 9th May 2010 at 01:28

    The quote in which Miyamoto said "OoT-LoZ/AoL-ALttP" was confirmed as a misquote or mistranslation. A few months later in a Japanese magazine (which is much more reliable than a translation) he stated the order was "OoT-ALttP-LoZ/AoL" twice.

    That quote about Four Swords being the earliest tale is also one of the only developer quotes we lack a Japanese equivalent for, so it could easily be a mistranslation, but ONM already said it could possibly go after TWW/PH-ST so that's fine.

  59. Heroofhyrule Sunday 9th May 2010 at 12:47

    Aaaahhh! brain overload, too much :!: i just like to think of the toon link games the first as he looks youngest in those games then when link looks older (e.g. Twilight Princess) the timeline gets older :shock: haha problem solved lol :D much less confusion a LOT simpler everyones happy

    But that doesn't even make any sense...

  60. Daz_Dagon Tuesday 11th May 2010 at 22:59

    OH MY GOD MY POSTS HAVE BECOME INVISIBLE!
    Every (I was going to swear a lot in this space but this should suffice) time my posts are practicaly ignored. Sometimes I have some good ideas or points, other times im making a joke or I have gotten confused and went off topic. If this happens on the pokemon starters thread im am going to blow a fuse. Seriously though where can I get the gbc games?

  61. Lewys Wednesday 12th May 2010 at 20:55

    OH MY GOD MY POSTS HAVE BECOME INVISIBLE!
    Every (I was going to swear a lot in this space but this should suffice) time my posts are practicaly ignored. Sometimes I have some good ideas or points, other times im making a joke or I have gotten confused and went off topic. If this happens on the pokemon starters thread im am going to blow a fuse. Seriously though where can I get the gbc games?

    you're on the internet. do you really need to have a go at us? GOOGLE. EBAY. AMAZON. do you want me to carry on? try looking

  62. Daz_Dagon Thursday 13th May 2010 at 00:32

    The post before that one.

  63. King-X Friday 14th May 2010 at 03:38

    there isn't one

    Pretty much my take on it. Certain titles indeed slot together as you say but even if Nintendo were to release the secrets of the alleged "master document" it would be savaged by nitpicking Zelda fans like they were a pack of wolves as they bring up flaw after flaw. No doubt why Nintendo have never done so and most likely never will.

    I mean it's not like there's a timeline for say... Mario games. Whoever said that Zelda required a timeline in the first place? The whole thing is already nonsensical with Ganon rising from the dead again and again, all the females in Zelda's family tree being named Zelda and by some crazy coincidence all the heroes being dressed in green and called Link as well. (Yes yes, I know about Nintendo's "insert Link's name here because he's you" deal...)

    Nintendo make more Zelda games because they're popular and make Nintendo a lot of money. That's the bottom line. Coming up with complicated timeline harmonizations isn't on top of Nintendo's agenda. If you take each game individually they all have quite a simplistic plot - or in some cases no real plot at all. Plot - as already stated in the blog - is really not high on Nintendo's agenda.

  64. parallellink Tuesday 27th Jul 2010 at 13:06

    Looking at Phantom Hourglass, the treasure "Rutos Crown" has the description "Some say this regal crown was worn by a princess of Zora". This would put PH at some point after Oot , so um yeah :oops:

  65. Mscheekymonkeyx Friday 6th Aug 2010 at 12:26

    The Ganon in Four Swords Adventures looked like basically, a giant pig. WHY CAN'T THEY BRING BACK THE EPIC VAATI?! :(

  66. Beedy Sunday 28th Nov 2010 at 17:08

    I have just contacted Nintendo, and they explained the timeline in-depth with me.

    All the games are set in seperate quantum-mechanical universes based on broken supersymettry created by an Italian plumber called Mario (who is in fact from a parallel Mushroom Kingdom that is parallel to the universe we live in and has been travelled to by Miyamoto following a severe overdose of jelly babies).

    Bet you didn't see that one coming.

  67. Bleachyleachy Monday 23rd May 2011 at 16:53

    Do you think you could draw a diagram of your timeline? That would be nice. :)

Register or log in to commment
Add a comment
Nintendo Co., Ltd. is the owner of certain copyright which subsists and trade marks and other intellectual property rights in certain content, characters, artwork, logos, scripts and representations used in this publication. All rights are expressly recognised and they are used by Future Publishing Limited under licence © 2006 Nintendo Co., Ltd. All rights reserved. "Nintendo", "International Nintendo Licensed Product" "Nintendo DS", "Nintendo DS Lite", "Nintendo DSi", "Nintendo 3DS", "Nintendo DSi XL", "Nintendo 3DS XL", "Wii" and "Wii U" and the associated logos are the trademarks of Nintendo Co. Ltd. All rights reserved.