Nintendo reveals the Zelda Timeline

[Will-powered Spriter]

Link to Article

After a fan sent in his theory on the time line of the zelda franchise, Nintendo sent back the actual timeline:

THERE ISN'T ONE!

The fan then became incredibly angry, and started a petition (Yes, we all know they don't work), stating: "If we can get enough names then there's a chance that Nintendo will give the timeline a chance and not abandon Zelda,".

Discuss!

Edit: Now I've checked, although the article appears to be new, it links to a youtube video about the response, which is a couple of months old. If this is old news, I apologise.

 

[Surfing_Pikachu]

Who cares. The commonly accepted timeline makes perfect sense anyway, so there's not much doubt that it isn't the real one. And the Zelda games aren't really known for their plots. They tend to just stay an entity of their own without connecting. Except for Wind Waker and Ocarina of Time.

 

[HERLS]

So... they told him each Link is a different one? And...?

That doesn't mean there's no valid frame of reference. Even outside of mere cameos/references, Nintendo and Aunoma have explicitly made clear that specific games do link up (all of the 3D games take place in one split timeline, we know that for sure, as do Zelda I, Zelda II and ALTTP all connect to each other). They've openly stated how games link up in the past, so the bigger question is why they've purposely changed their mind after leading us on with interview quotes and direct references for years?

Chances are, if Aunoma really said that, it's because Miyamoto's the puppeteer and has forced him into saying that (perhaps accompanied by a tea table being "up-ended") like how he forced a change in FSA's story so that it doesn't portray the events of the Seal War, and how he strangled Mario Galaxy's storyline and limited it to the library. Aunoma's always been a strong advodate for timelines in the past, so this seems very out of character.

Not that I've ever cared for the timeline anyway, but to say it doesn't exist after years of saying "yeah Game X links up with Game Y and the timeline splits here" seems very contradictory and not at all like Aunoma, who believes in more powerful storytelling in Zelda (he made Majora's Mask and Wind Waker after all).

EDIT: After looking this story up, it appears that message was just Nintendo Of America's auto-response to timeline emails and not any sort of statement from anyone important like the article implied. Just as well, Aunoma and Miyamoto have both confirmed the timeline, directly and indirectly, hundreds of times.

 

[Will-powered Spriter]

I think I reacted a little too quickly to this.

This means that - unless otherwise specified - each new game represents a new Link and that there isn't a true frame of reference or timeline possible for the series.

Yeah, I think they are mistaking this for something said by Aunoma as opposed to what the letter says is the implications of something he said, so I guess this isn't the be all and end all it's made out to be.

To be honest, what's more interesting is the guys reaction to this, claiming the lack of a time line is Nintendo saying screw you and abandoning the series, and HIS time line must be claimed as official or the series is [echo]DOOOOOOMED[/echo]

 

[Kabutopzilla]

He thinks Nintendo will abandon Zelda because they decided not to give it a timeline.

...Wow.

 

[Luke Groundwalker]

Huh? That's ironic because I specifically remember Aonuma or one of the other developers of the series saying that there IS a timeline. Either way what a stupid little ****, they just told him that every game has a different Link unless it's intentionally the same Link (LoZ->AoL, ALttP->LA, OoT->MM, TWW->PH and etc.), that's been known for a while...there's nothing to really complain about. Personally I've always liked the idea that the Zelda games are in their own alternate universes of some sorts with some shared elements kind of like in the Final Fantasy series (although some connections are blatant, like the connection between Ocarina of Time and Wind Waker), but with Aonuma's direction on the series he's made several accounts of trying to piece the games together in a consistent timeline. He also believes in the split timeline which made the whole timeline community in an uproar because the heads of it were devout linear timeline believers to the point where it was just getting stupid.

 

[the1stpkmnfan]

Wow Nintendo, doing it again I suppose. :| But I've heard many times that the actual timeline exists in Eiji's computer, though it's highly classified and whatever. I dont know, I really want there to be a timeline for this great series.

 

[BlitzBlast]

Wait, I thought that was just an automatic response to any timeline emails.

How is that in anyway an official statement?

Either way, fear the power of a fan's b*tching.

 

[Chris]

It was obviously just an automatic reply.

The one who wrote the article is very mislead and obviously didn't realize that all Nintendo did was copy/paste a response made for the usual questions from fans about a Zelda timeline.

That's some shitty journalism, if you ask me. Especially if they're reporting this as "finally" when it's a form reply from March; four months ago.

 

[Clamps]

It's obviously an automated reply, I got that exact same message when I asked about the time line, as many other people likely have. It's not a big deal that the Zelda time line is still unknown, since it's something that should never have existed anyways. People need to sit down, shut up, and remember that each game was developed individually, without a time line in mind.

 

[xXPorygonXx]

It was obviously just an automatic reply.

The one who wrote the article is very mislead and obviously didn't realize that all Nintendo did was copy/paste a response made for the usual questions from fans about a Zelda timeline.

That's some shitty journalism, if you ask me. Especially if they're reporting this as "finally" when it's a form reply from March; four months ago.

Exactly. What basically happens it that a program searches the email for specific key words -in this case, timeline- and replies with a response based on those keywords.

 

[Tyrant Tar]

Yeeeaah, that petition will work, especially with it's assumption that Nintendo abandoned one of it's biggest series by not giving it an official timeline.


I like to think that each Zelda game was more or less a retelling of the same ancient legend, meaning there isn't any need for one main timeline.

 

[BlitzBlast]

Pathetically enough, Metroid got a timeline yet Nintendo makes more games for Zelda then Metroid.

That's the final nail in the coffin for that theory.

 

[BCVM22]

I like to think that each Zelda game was more or less a retelling of the same ancient legend, meaning there isn't any need for one main timeline.

Which is a nice enough concept, particularly when just about every game features characters named Link, Zelda and Ganon[dorf] and a similar overall objective (rescue the princess, save the land et al.), but it's usually clear enough when one Zelda game is meant to follow another or refer back to another. Majora's Mask directly follows Ocarina of Time, for obvious reasons. Both Twilight Princess and Wind Waker refer back to and are derivative of Ocarina in different ways. Phantom Hourglass is to Wind Waker what Majora's Mask was to Ocarina and now it seems that Spirit Tracks will follow Phantom Hourglass in similar fashion. You get the idea.

 

[Surfing_Pikachu]

and now it seems that Spirit Tracks will follow Phantom Hourglass in similar fashion. You get the idea.

Actually, I heard that ST is supposed to feature a new Link. I doubt the WW one secretly learned how to drive a train good enough to be a conductor in the span of the past games. It's like what happened with Minish Cap. Same artstyle, but different person.

 

[BCVM22]

I said "it seems." One write-up of the game had ST taking place 100 years after PH, though this write-up was from one of the myriad of "journalists" covering E3, rendering it questionable at best. You got whatever said "new Link" from a similar source and likely that's equally questionable. We won't know 'til the game releases.

 

[Luke Groundwalker]

One write-up of the game had ST taking place 100 years after PH, though this write-up was from one of the myriad of "journalists" covering E3

Wow what a load of misinformation you have there. The Spirits Tracks takes place 100 years after Phantom Hourglass thing doesn't come from a "myriad of journalists," it comes from a Nintendo representative: http://www.gametrailers.com/video/e3-09-zelda-spirit/50770

 

[Kabutopzilla]

Pathetically enough, Metroid got a timeline yet Nintendo makes more games for Zelda then Metroid.

That's the final nail in the coffin for that theory.

That's because Metroid is awesome.

I don't know why they gave Metroid a timeline, but it was probably because it was rather easy to link the events of the games, and that there was a clear connection between the first three once Super Metroid came out. They then just put the Primes in to make sense and added a sequel to Super.

In other words, Metroid always had a timeline ever since Nintendo birthed its first plot-connected sequel. The Legend of Zelda did not.

Zelda is rather difficult to connect anyway. =/

 

[Blivsey]

The Zelda games aren't meant to be direct sequels to each other, or follow any sort of coherent timeline at all. That's part of how the series works, just like how Pokémon games are mostly meant to be separate from one another, save for a few instances. It's mainly fans wanting to make it so that causes any sort of timeline to be created.

Some things don't really need a timeline. Zelda is one of them.

 

[BCVM22]

The Zelda games aren't meant to be direct sequels to each other.

...

Except for the ones that clearly are...

...