I wish there was one and that we could make a big story out of it all but who knows.  I don't think they planned very well they just did the best game they could at each momment.    With the new games other things open to debate.  One of the new trailers shows the Windfish... which makes me wonder if Links Awakening was really a dream...

This is where I personally have been the most confused; it seemed that Nintendo did actually try to make some sort of definitive, continuity timeline at first, but the more games they made, the less likely that seems to be. I admit that was one of the things that turned me off about 'Ocarina, and I didn't like it as much; I was originally disappointed that Nintendo didn't exactly align the game into the supposed place in continuity it evidently had. I realized that Nintendo wasn't doing that afterall, and I didn't like that. After awhile though, I accepted it, decided I didn't care, and take each game as it is, which I was doing anyway (and 'Ocarina just didn't end up as one of my favorites, anyway), and accept each game more like its own 'legend'. I'm fine with that now.

If we're thinking of the same thing, I think I've seen the trailer you mentioned. I'm....not sure if that is supposed to be the Windfish or not. They look similar, but I'm still not sure. We'll see soon, I guess!

which makes me wonder if Links Awakening was really a dream...

A dream, yes, but doesn't mean it didn't happen. The Wind Fish was real and was being attacked by a nightmare. Needing help, Link astral projected into the dream. Being an earth guardian, the Wind Fish staying asleep was detrimental to the world.

Oh that's right.  I remember now Mr. K.  

Spoiler (Select text to view):  

* When Link wakes up on the water you can see the Windfish.  *

Has Nintendo agreed that the time line split in Ocarina of Time?

i mean the zelda storyline isnt really decipherable to me. All i know is Ocarina and Majora's Mask are directly related, same with Zelda 1 and Adventure of Link

Well Majora's Mask Link is the kid Link from Ocarina of Time.  And the world saved by adult Link is the world in Windwaker, Phantom Hourglass and Spirit Tracks.

This is if Nintendo agrees to the split timeline.  Which I think they should because the intro to Windwaker mentions the Hero of time that came out of nowhere to help.

Essentially, yes; Eiji Aonuma said many years ago that 'Ocarina has 'two endings;' one where Link is an adult, and one where he is a child. That is indeed how the game basically ends, really.

He reaffirmed this in a later interview, as well. This still doesn't mean that Nintendo is still running the series from this standpoint, and that they just....I don't know, decide which 'timeline' they want to throw the next game into without much real rhyme or reason, especially when, from the context of each game itself, it really doesn't matter anyway.

 But then again, he's also stated that The Wind Waker takes place 'parallel' to The Ocarina of Time, instead of after, so there's...only one way that would make any sense. Despite this, I just don't fully buy it. Even if this is the real case of what Nintendo is doing, it doesn't make much sense, and like I said, when you actually get into playing the games, it doesn't end up mattering to begin with. Since the 'timeline,' whatever it is or is not, is never the real focus of any game, then who cares, anyway?  Besides, a 'split timeline' still doesn't explain other inconsistencies that Nintendo had created before/during 'Ocarina. Thus, my viewpoint of, if Nintendo actually is keeping a 'master timeline,' they're, uh, not doing a very good job, and again, it doesn't matter, in the long-run.

Aonuma had also stated that the presence of a real timeline is not always clear, "due to the poor translation protocols in the 1990s and the constant debate over what counts as being canonical," thus, "the publicly available information is disputed and may not be reconciled any time soon." Uh, no, sorry, Aonuma. I think the real reason why things are so muddied is because that's how Nintendo keeps making games. I suppose, for all I know, things got lost in translation somewhere along the way that could shed more light on the matter, but that really seems to be unlikely. That information would be posted everywhere, and it sure doesn't seem to be.

I did this video back in 2009.

http://youtu.be/gETeTLQQm-M

Nintendo had atime line printed at one point on the US Nintendo Power site, they were asked to remove it by NoJ. Nintendo doesn't have a mapped out time-line of the series, most theroies regarding time lines come from fans and what little bit the devs have throw at us regarding game placement on a line.

It seems to me that they really have no time line but are afraid to admit it :O

Actually, Miyamoto has said that the order the game logos appear in the LoZ collector's edition Gamecube game is the timeline. Though it does not make sense.

It seems Miyamoto gets confused quite a bit when questioned about the games.    Just because he created the game it doesn't mean he's aware of every tiny detail of things.    So yes he could actually be wrong in many things.  

I've always found the first Zelda to be in in a desolate Hyrule where everything is destroyed and in ruins.  Hence the need of the second game to take place north of the continent.   I wonder if anyone else thinks this way and places it at the end of the line.

You're not the only one to think so, no. I think there are other people who definitely do consider the last two games to be near the end of the timeline, if one exists.

....Sigh...Or rather, the end of one timeline. Remember that in The Wind Waker, Hyrule was  completely wiped out in a Biblical-style flood. Logic would tell you TWW and TPH would have to be at the end of....whatever timeline those games are in, supposing Nintendo is actually putting all these games in one timeline or the other. Seeing as how this is a fantasy series, I...guess there could be a way that hasn't been covered yet that would 'unflood' Hyrule, but that's getting ahead of ourselves, and besides...how lame would that be?

Like I explained, the way I generally look at at least part of the series is that the NES and SNES games go together pretty well, and form a 'trilogy,' if you will, so yeah, in there, the NES games are the last two games. A second 'trilogy' that does not connect well enough to this first one would be 'Ocarina, TWW and TPH. These two separate 'trilogies' seem to fit best with each other, but not into the other 'trilogy;' they just don't, as there are too many discrepencies.

Ugh,  it's reasons like this that it's just best not to think about it a lot. D:

I think they were just trying to be clever by implying a grand overarcing story, and couldn't think of an actual one,

and now are too proud to admit that it was a bullcrap idea. Like ShIrowWolf, I think there was no actual connection between more than a handful of the games.

Still a cool series, though.

Mr. K, about your video:

If you have no way of knowing something one way or the other, it's best to leave it out. The stuff about Link having a family, for instance. Reincarnation does not require ancestry.

Additionally, you based the placement of some games on the belief you know exactly what Link wished for in A Link to the Past. Moreover, you omit part of the ending that actually IS spelled out: that the Master Sword is laid to rest forever. These errors really start a whole of problems later on.

As far as the timeline goes, Nintendo doesn't say so that fans keep talking about it and stay interested. I've got my own timeline; maybe I'll write it down sometime. Four Swords Adventures really screws with EVERY timeline, though.

I considered that, too, Knightcrawler; maybe Nintendo intentionally doesn't reveal the timeline they claim to work from/on to keep fans talking and interested. That would be neat if this is the case. If it is though, then they should probably stop publicly saying there is a 'real timeline', few people are allowed to see it, and then not publicly release it. Yeah, I guess the knowledge of a real timeline could keep fans talking more about what they think it is, but I think in that case, the best answer could still be 'We leave that up for fans to determine themselves.' -___-;

The Four Swords games have definitely confused people, and it's easy to see why. Some people don't consider it a part of the main series; it's just meant to be a fun, multiplayer sub-game. Does it...need to have a place in 'The Timeline'? Think about other similar games, like Pocket Fighter; no one ever asks (that I ever heard of) 'Where does that fit into Street Fighter continuity??' Uh...it doesn't, so no where. Same with any of the VS. games; I....don't think they're meant to take place in regular Street Fighter continuity, or Mega Man continuity, etc., and what's wrong with that? Maybe fans react different to Zelda because Nintendo seemingly hadn't made a game like that for Zelda before, but companies like Capcom clearly do all the time. I'm not sure.

According to the Zelda Wiki though, "Eiji Aonuma said it was meant as the first game in the timeline [emphasis added], leading many theorists to place it before Ocarina of Time,  , but its placement may have changed with the release of Four Swords Adventures and other Zelda titles." According to their documentation, that came from a quote in GameInformer (their own link doesn't work anymore) where Aonuma is quoted saying, "The GBA Four Swords Zelda is what we’re thinking as the oldest tale in the Zelda timeline." Oy....Really? 

The Zeldapedia doesn't address this issue at all in the game's information, but if you look up a timeline, it doesn't provide any new information, and also relates Aonuma's quote. I guess the only 'new' thing they mention is just a theory of where the games might go, stating "As Four Swords Adventures is almost universally believed to take place around the time of A Link to the Past (generally as a prequel), this would mean that Four Swords does not occur before Ocarina of Time. This game's Link and Princess Zelda are childhood friends." I don't know if it's really true that the FSA "is almost universally believed to take place around the time of A Link to the Past." Yeah, I know of the same areas, etc., but still, I'm not sure if it's still that widely-held of a belief. No idea. :/

....it's reasons like this that I just say 'fuck it,' and don't care if there is a timeline or not. :P

Knightcrawler, I think you just like to disagree with me.

The entire basis for a Zelda timeline is speculation. If I'm not allowed to speculate, then why should I even acknowledge there's a timeline in the first place?

I get the feeling you like disagreeing with everyone else actually, Mr. K, and you can't accept criticism, not easily, anyway. I think you missed the points Knightcrawler was trying to make. Most people base their ideas of a timeline on known information presented in the games; Knightcrawler hints that you did not entirely, and ignored other information that it sounds like should have been relevant or acknowledged in your presentation. While you're still free to believe whatever you want, and no one said otherwise, by the way, keep in mind that if you leave holes in your argument, then your argument falls apart, especially when you use  theoretical information that just falls into your head with little or no basis.  But again, you can believe whatever you want.

Also, you don't have to acknowledge a timeline at all, if you don't want to! That's it exactly! It's up to you if you care to or not!

Shirow, did you watch my video? I said it was the intention of the Master Sword to sleep forever. Obviously it didn't. And if you beat ALttP in Japanese, it says Link wishes to make everything the way it was before Ganon took over the Golden Land.

As for not accepting criticism, the very first post I ever made on this site was about Back to the Future. Knightcrawler immediately told me I was wrong. Didn't critique. Told me I was flat-out wrong. I'm a journalist. I can't live without criticism. What you're doing is confusing the defense of my argument with not accepting criticism.

...You know, I actually forgot about one important thing that I guess deteriorates my old idea of the NES and SNES games being a solid  'trilogy.' The only real problem there is that I can think of is at the end of ALttP, the Triforce tells Link he has 'totally destroyed Ganon.' Well....if that happened, then how could he come back in the supposed successor, the original NES game?? 'Well, maybe that wasn't meant he was literally destroyed!' Well....then why should I listen to anything the game says then?? D: Oh I know! Maybe that was one of those evidently hideous 'translation errors' that Aonuma spoke of! Sigh...Miyamoto himself once said in Nintendo Power that ALttP actually does come after Zelda II, if you can believe that. I guess he later corrected himself, but it does make you wonder if he let out a bit of a Freudian slip there, or if even he has trouble remembering, supposing there is a real timeline.

I also realized that Aomura can't be correct about TFS being 'the first game' in a timeline anyway, even at the time when he made the statement, because from what I understand, FSA takes place not long after TFS, and FSA has Ganon in it. So....unless Ganon time-traveled then.....Also, a bit of a different backstory is given to Ganon. Or unless Ganon is also just reincarnated, like more or less Link and Zelda could be?  UUUGGGHHHHH!!

There, see, there's no point in thinking about it too hard, and thus, I just don't think seriously about a real timeline. :P

Now, just for shits and giggles, a lot of people here have probably already seen this, but here's the Angry Nerd's Chronologically Confused About The Legend of Zelda Timeline video!

http://cinemassacre.com/2008/01/08/chronologically-confused-about-the-legend-of-zelda-timeline/

if that happened, then how could he come back in the supposed successor, the original NES game??

That's why the wish Link made on the Triforce at the end of ALttP was like monkey paw. When he wished for things to go back to the way they were (which was kind of short sighted), it brought Ganon back to life, still bound within the Golden Land.

Well of course, as long as you are making stuff up, I'm going to say you're wrong. I really don't spend enough time on these forums to target anyone. If I see a false argument, I'll call it out. It doesn't matter who it comes from.

As for the Japanese version of the game, we'll see. There are a lot of false rumors about the Japanese version of the game. The translations are actually usually very good.

Four Swords Adventures makes it difficult because it gives an alternate origin story for Ganondorf.

However, here you're simply splitting hairs. Not calling me out for anything. You're upset I interpret things differently than you.

Have you ever played the Japanese version of the game? Do you speak the language? How do you know?

I have. I do. I know.

No, making things up is a sign of a weak argument. Do I speak Japanese? Not very well since it's been a long time since I studied. I can say that when I played Four Swords +, for the first half of the game I was translating as I went along. I also did so for the Hylian text in Wind Waker.  But better still, I know someone nearly fluent in it. And just now I saw the end of the game. Guess what? Link doesn't speak/think/anything, and there's no more Japanese text after he touches the Triforce. The English text that comes after is virtually the same as the English version.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6mbUvu5FWOE

Dunno when he'll get back to me, but it's already not looking good for you.

Sorry for the double post, but I figured you have already read my previous post so an edit would slip by you.

Another solution is you could write out the part of the text that says Link wishes for everything to be undone, and I'll check it. The kanji could take me a long time to get through, but if you write out the text in hiragana or romanji, I can check it really easily.

Wait, you are saying you speak Japanese, but you butchered Kotake's name in your video? Or is it Kouteiku in Japanese?

"As for the Japanese version of the game, we'll see. There are a lot of false rumors about the Japanese version of the game. The translations are actually usually very good."--

   This is why I have no idea what Aomura was talking about in regards to 'translation errors' being a reason why fans can't link the games together. It also doesn't help that he doesn't name any of these evidently gross errors either. -___-; Like I said, no, it seems the reason why fans haven't been able to figure out a  real order for the series is because Nintendo keeps making them in such a way that doesn't really make sense. And they're clearly doing it on purpose, which makes it even more confusing to think if there really is a true, definite timeline they are working on and from, and they keep claiming that there is, then why keep making games this way? I mean, who else does this with anything? All the more reason, I just throw a definite timeline idea out the window. :/ It's like the Angry Nerd said, "It's a puzzle that can't be solved!"

 As I also suggested before, I think that if there really were such grievous translation errors that are the cause of timeline confusion, fans would have known about it a long time ago because of fans who know Japanese, etc. As far as I know, this has never happened. I've certainly never heard anything that suggests such a notion.

No, making things up is a sign of a weak argument.

You are now purposely changing the definition of inference to fit your argument against mine.

Right. Think whatever you want. The more inferences you make, the less likely you are to be correct. Even if an inference is 90% likely, when you've done only 4 of them, the likelihood you are right is 65.6%. And if you are wrong at earlier inferences, then all future inferences fall apart as well. I mean come on, the stuff about blond hair vs. brown hair indicating a family tree which "supports" your timeline? You are assuming Miyamoto et al give a crap about the biology of Hyrule. And then on top of that, you're assuming that they both care about biology yet also don't know about genotypes/phenotypes and dominant/co-dominant/recessive traits. Another assumption on my part (though a much more likely one) is that they DON'T give a crap about biology in a fantasy setting. The solution? Build an argument that doesn't require assumptions to support itself.

Your argument makes even less sense than mine. Biology? Really?

By the way, Bowser only has one child.

What, you mean my saying that biology doesn't matter to the timeline and they probably don't give a crap about it? Or did you not understand that is what I meant? Maybe I should point out another way in which it's ridiculous to say "these two people both have brown hair, so one is almost certainly descended from the other."

You're just purposely misrepresenting what I said because you are upset that I called you out on the Z3 ending and you have no recourse. Who are you even trying to misrepresent to? I don't think there is anyone else on the board who 1) Gives a crap and 2) Thinks my reply you are referring to is too long to read.

I called you out on the Z3 ending

Is that so? Seems all you tried to do was disagree, yet you claim a grandiose victory. Just because the sword was said to sleep forever does not mean that was what happened in the long run. Intention, yes. Actuality, no. The sword was not supposed to have been pulled in ALttP in the first place, but guess what? It was. The sword was too powerful to ever be used -period-, but in a time of great need, Link had to pull it.

Also, even with the English translation of ALttP, explain how if Link hadn't made a wish to restore Hyrule to the way it was before Ganon's wish that both his uncle and the King came back from the dead. It was a full and total restoration of the kingdom.

Even Ganon's wish was more monkey paw, because otherwise no one could have challenged his power.

Mr. K, you start that Bowser having one child shit again I will slap you through the internet.

After years of considering a Zelda Time line I've come to a single conclusion, there is no time line and Nintendo likes yanking our chains.

Zelda Timeline? Sure why not... keeping looking assholes

Mother 3 is coming out, but not in America!

3DS? More like a portable N64 with your favorite games... that you have to buy again.

A new console geared towards hardcore gamers? Naw fuck that noise, we just made the Wii U instead.

These are the same people you trust to have a coherent time line for a beloved franchise. I think it's more likly to rain hundred dollar bills than there being an actual Zelda Timeline.

http://gaming-realm.com/2011/11/the-legend-of-the-zelda-timeline/

I wrote an article about this today. Some of my thoughts I already shared in here, and I elaborate on. Check it out!

Nice blog.  I think Nintendo can't admit to the fans that there is no time line  and that they will probably never make one.  Making a timeline limits creativitiy.  It limits them to what they have done before.   After thinking about it I belive that I rather have a good Zelda game than one that ties everything together just for the sake of continuity.  I like how every Zelda seems to be the same game with new and better things.

http://wii.ign.com/articles/121/1214953p1.html

  So, a big, cool Zelda art book is being released on the 21st, which supposedly "will include an explanation of the true Zelda timeline along with its Hyrule history section." It's not officially known if this is actually true or not though.

  Unfortunately, as of yet, this book is only being released in Japan. Of course. Still, since a lot of fans worldwide know Japanese, hopefully someone will get a hold of this book and find out for us!

   If it is true that Nintendo is going to release something, I somehow get the suspicion that it won't be what fans think or hope it is. I suspect, if anything is presented at all, it will still have holes in it, and a lot of things will still be unexplained. Maybe it will paint some kind of picture, but it'll be incomplete. We'll see, though.

Mr. K, you start that Bowser having one child shit again I will slap you through the internet.

Bowser only has one child.

My post >Tue, 11/22/2011 - 20:14

http://kotaku.com/5869993/this-might-actually-be-the-official-zelda-time...

  So, supposedly, Kotaku points out a Japanese fan who takes a look at the new Zelda art book I mentioned, and if translations are accurate, they evidently show what the order of the games supposedly is.

    And oh yeah, it's confusing. To me, anyway.

   If this is accurate at all, then this book claims that yes, the timeline not only split, but split three ways, not two. Kotaku explains, according to the supposed translation; "Note that the 'split' is due to Ocarina's time differences and assumptions based on the different ways that story could have ended and branched off from his two ages: the Link to the Past split is Link failing..."

    Uh...what.  So, a scenario that didn't actually happen is included in the series's structure, without a real hint it did occur (that I recall from any of the games)? I understand the Child/Adult Link split, but...."Link failing" in ALttP??  Am I forgetting something from one of the games, or one that I didn't play or finish?

    Another problem I can see is regarding the Four Swords Adventures; isn't that game supposed to take place not long, but still an undisclosed amount of time, after The Four Swords? They have it occurring at the end of the second timeline after some other games here though. That wouldn't make sense then.

    Kotaku also points out "There may be errors, given the nature of the transcribing, and Nintendo may later own up and say this isn't the super-secret official timeline they've been guarding with their lives for decades. This may be just an 'interpretation'." Yeah, the latter would be my guess. that sounds exactly like something Nintendo might say, actually, and I wouldn't be surprised to officially hear it.

Oy, I don't know, it still boggles my mind that Nintendo would actually bother to do all of this, especially if there aren't that many clear hints, and no real clear purpose for doing so either.

You know what else is also really weird and kind of bothersome about this, too, assuming this is accurate, is that yes, Nintendo has literally been working completely backwards almost the whole time, and almost every game after the NES games is a prequel to something. I've...never heard of anyone doing such a thing before. I know it's been evident Nintendo has been doing something like this for years anyway, but if this proposed timeline is accurate at all....damn.

I guess we'll have to wait and see if we hear more about this!

http://www.nintendoworldreport.com/rumor/28755

   So, either Kotaku worded their article poorly, or I just misunderstood it. Nintendo World Report also picked up on this story, and explained that the 'Link failing' bit is in regards to if he failed to stop Ganon in 'Ocarina, not ALttP.

   Despite that, I still think it's weird to think that Nintendo would  cause a third split, one of them being from a time in which "Link failed" in one of the games, when....well, Link never fails to stop Ganon, and as far as I know, there's never been any hints in any games suggesting that he ever did. So, I think my point still stands.

See, this is the reason I don't think a time line exists.

Nintendo is just trolling fans who created the split timeline theory.

It almost seems that way, doesn't it? Sigh.... -___-

It's giving me a headache but it makes sense so far.  Not too much though,  it's still a bit confusing to me.  Since some little details do not match.

  Yeah, even if this proposed timeline here is accurately translated, and officially approved by  Nintendo, there are still holes, and I get the feeling Nintendo won't bother to explain those either.

  The Zelda Wiki posted a translated image that provides a few very, very brief descriptions of some events, but otherwise, there isn't much else to say;  http://filemanager.linkshideaway.com/staff_files/autydi/zelda_timeline.jpg

   Still, I'll be on the lookout for any more possible news and explanations about this!

This timeline thing is boring me. All that I can say is that fans are putting to much effort into something that doesn't exist.

And proof that this timeline doesn't exist is the CD-i games are not listed in many of these timeline theories, but before someone says they weren't developed for a Nintendo platform while the thing is Nintendo did approve of the making and release of these games. One other thing to think about Nintendo releasing a book about it is that they are a company and companies are in the business to make money.

Well, the obvious answer is Nintendo is likely trying to forget the CD-i games, of course, so there's no surprise there. :P

Well. Yes, Nintendo wants to make money, and that's likely a reason this art book was made. However, it was also meant to be something to help celebrate the series's 25th anniversary; you know, how they did almost nothing for Mario, and nothing at all for Metroid, and you know, this year was Donkey Kong's 30th anniversary, too (that or last year), and Nintendo also did nothing! So, at least this book is something, in addition to some of the orchestral shows.

The CD-I games are like Episode I, II, III. They don't exist.

that sad thing is if you ask miyamoto about the timeline, he can't give a straight answer so maybe there isn't supposed to be a timeline like the pre-daniel craig james bond movies

The thing is, Nintendo, including Miyamoto himself, I believe,  keeps claiming there is a timeline; they just weren't releasing it for some mysterious reason they would never elaborate on. It sounds line this art book finally broke that policy. I haven't heard any official comments from Nintendo about it though, but I'll see if I ever do!

The Bond movies are a way you could also look at the possibility of a timeline, too. I can see that, to a degree. The movies seem to follow a sort of continuity, usually based by actor, but even then, like the Zelda games, the movies don't really have a very deep continuity, and don't really reference each other a whole lot. Not that I remember, anyway.

The Bond books do have continuity throughout the series. The movies, however, threw it out the window. For instance, the first movie, Dr. No, is the sixth book. However, Dr. No includes elements from other novels to introduce characters in a somewhat introductory fashion. Though later movies, with screenplays penned by other writers and directed by other directors, negate these introductions in a horrible way.

And yeah, Miyamoto has said the timeline is split in OoT. One in the future, one in the past.