The REAL Zelda Timeline! Decoding the true order of the Zelda games. So You Think You Know Zelda
Vložit
- čas přidán 12. 02. 2021
- So, You Think You Know the Legend of Zelda timeline?
Last time we debunked the "official" Legend of Zelda Timeline found in the Hyrule Historia, and hinted at our theory of the true Zelda Timeline. This time, we'll jump in and do a deep dive into the lore of the Legend of Zelda series, the crelationships between the games, the various Heroes of Legend, the Triforce, the Master Sword, the Goddesses, the Demon King Ganon, the Royalty of Hyrule, and more, to find the connections and deduce the one true Timeline. From Skyward Sword to Spirit Tracks, Breath of the Wild to Wind Waker, Adventure of Link to Age of Calamity, we'll hunt down the clues and uncover the truth of the Zelda Timeline.
-
Check out the previous video debunking the "official" Timeline here: • The Zelda Timeline is ...
Songs used: "Wholesome", "Industrious Ferret", "Midnight Tale", and "Celebration" by Kevin MacLeod (incompetech.com) Licensed under Creative Commons: By Attribution 4.0 License. creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/ - Hry
![I Solved the Map of EVERY Zelda Game! [Legend of Zelda Theory]](http://i.ytimg.com/vi/zz3FbQJXIvk/mqdefault.jpg)
![I Solved the Map of EVERY Zelda Game! [Legend of Zelda Theory]](/img/tr.png)
I've gotta say I never thought that any other game could take the place of skyward sword at the beginning of the timeline, so congratulations for thinking outside the box, also I definetively agree about discarding the fallen timeline, it didn't really work logically
Glad to see someone who gets it. The amount of people who defend the downfall timeline just because its in the Hyrule Historia is ridiculous.
Honestly I think if the down fall time line works it doesn't just rely on ocarina because all it takes is for Ganon/ganondarf to beat the hero then it could fit in any time before those games where the hero can lose to them weather it be ocarina of time wind waker or even twilight princess.
@@Biz_God the issue is that if the Hero loses, then by definition that timeline ends in a dead end. You can't have a timeline where the hero loses and then there are OTHER games that take place after that.
If the hero loses, Ganon gets the full triforce, takes over Hyrule, and exterminates the royal family. The fact that the royal family is still around in games like ALttP proves that it DOESN'T come after a game where the hero lost.
@@Biz_God Yeah but we know ALttP Ganon is the same one from OoT. Link failing in OoT is the only game where the events of ALttP could realistically fit. Just cause Link fails doesn't mean there would be a dead end in the timeline as thats the whole reason why they immediately sealed him upon Link's defeat.
Hell in ALttP Ganon couldn't even escape the Sacred Realm. If he could easily leave the Sacred Realm or Dark World with the Triforce then sure I'd argue that he would be over to take over Hhyrule but it wouldn't be that easy. He technically failed to do so when he beat Link in the official canon and continued to fail to do so during the Imprisoning War and ALttP.
2:05
The intro of the Minish Cap never says that the monsters just came to Hyrule. They could have already been there (Like, say, in Skyward Sword) and the people just didn't have a large enough force to deal with them, so that's why they were sealed.
2:30
Just because the Minish only appear in Minish Cap doesn't mean they can't just exist in every other game regardless of whether it takes place before Minish Cap or not. Also I believe this description doesn't mean that the Minish built *every* Armos Knight, but only definitively *these particular* Armos Knights.
2:48
Perhaps the Master Sword is hidden, forgotten by the people of Hyrule? In fact, given a theory on the landmarks of Hyrule and locations of each game, I actually believe the Hyrule Kingdom of Minish Cap has no Master Sword because the kingdom has moved very far to the north east of the Master Sword's resting place and is actually relatively small compared to most other games.
3:27
The cap argument is fucking ridiculous. I didn't point out in my comment on your last video but. . not every game holds the green cap or the green tunic in high regard. In OOT it's just the garb of the Kokiri, and in Skyward Sword it's just the uniform of the entire Knight's Academy, similar to Spirit Tracks, actually. It also, to my knowledge, isn't too important in the original Zelda game, A Link to the Past, or Four Swords Adventures. This goes for any sequels to those games as well. So. . . in most games, actually. It's only given fanfare in Wind Waker and Twilight Princess.
4:03
Twilight Princess. . and even Ocarina of Time actually, shows us directly that Ganondorf can turn back into his Gerudo form from the Beast Ganon, so using his state of being Ganon for literally any theory is just really fucking stupid.
14:19
Shadow Link is just a name, mostly. So is Dark Link. Both names are used in multiple points in the timeline and almost no two games use either term the same way.
wow
Bro,relax..we get it...u love zelda...we all do...no need to curse and be a dick about it...what,are you the God of all things zelda? Idc if your THEORY makes sense or not,the way you go about it is pure ignorant and arrogant..if you're right then fine ,but don't proceed to rip part someone's opinion like yours is 100% right...Noone knows 100%.. the people of Nintendo probably don't even know 100%....so calm tf down,take a valium,and maybe not act like you know everything.....
Geezus
@@rainman42 yeah you're right. This person takes zelda lore way too seriously.
@@rainman42 He's just pointing out stupid and baseless claims made in the video, as the video author requested. Dark Storm is 100% correct in his criticisms.
Some problems I have with this theory:
-There's nothing saying that the Monsters weren't first trapped inside the Bound Chest *after* Skyward Sword happened. Just that in the Minish Cap, they had already been sealed in there sometime between Skyward Sword and The Minish Cap.
-Just because the Armos in Minish Cap were created by the Minish, doesn't mean every single one in every other game was.
-It isn't mentioned in-game that the Knight's uniform in Skyward Sword is based on an ancient hero's outfit, since the colour changes every year (The Headmaster even had doubts about the colour the year Skyward Sword happened). I guess it's possible since it's not explicitly confirmed or denied, but I think it's extremely unlikely considering the standard colour would almost certainly be green if it were. So even if Minish Link did or didn't have a cap, it wouldn't matter in the grand scheme of things.
-It seems odd to me that Zelda in Skyward Sword would be the Goddess reborn, if Skyward Zelda herself wasn't the first of her lineage.
-I think the Oracle/Links Awakening games take place after A link to the Past, and before A Link Between Worlds, since the Manual for Link's Awakening mentions Ganon, not Yuga-ganon. It's Trivial, I guess, since destroying Yuga would have destroyed Ganon too, but I thought I'd mention it.
-The Ganondorf in Four Swords Adventures is a reincarnation, not the original Ganondorf.
-The Shadow Link in Zelda 2 was summoned by the Old Man who was guarding the Triforce of Courage as a final test for Link, it wasn't summoned by Ganon himself. Since he was dead at the time.
I hope I wasn't too overbearing in this. It's just some constructive criticism, I mean no harm by it.
Going in order:
In MC, it explicitly says its the FIRST appearance. Not "The first appearance in a long time." If SS came before MC, then it wouldnt *be* the first time. Thus, MC must be first.
- Occam's razor. The alternative is that multiple unrelated people, independently of each other, totally by coincidence, just happened to create the *same* monster, and give it the *same* name, and use it for the same purpose... No. Thats far too large a coincidence. The more logical, more likely explanation is that all Armos ARE in fact based on the Minish design.
-Again, Occam's razor. The alternative to the sky knights uniform being based on the previous hero's uniform is that two totally different cultures, separated by thousands of years, just so happened to come up with the exact same design, AND that in both cases, the Hero ended up wearing that outfit. No, the much more logical explanation is that the former is based on the latter.
-It actually makes perfect sense. Who better for a goddess to incarnate herself as, other than a princess? It would make no sense if SS Zelda WAS the first of her lineage. Like, in that case, she's just some random nothing-special girl who's the daughter of some school administrator. THATS who the goddess is gonna choose to be born as? No. It makes much more sense if SS Zelda ISNT the first one; that way, the goddess Hylia is choosing to be born as the latest princess in a royal lineage, rather than some random girl.
-Almost every version of Ganon is a reincarnation or a rebirth or a revival. Ganon is still Ganon.
-Summoned does not mean created. Its still possible that that it was created by Ganon, and simply imprisoned to be used as a final test by the old man.
And yeah, no worries. I hear these arguments a lot, but almost all of them have an explanation. Its just that not every single bit of information can make it into the video or it'd be 5 hours long, so some stuff gets cut out, and that leads people to have misunderstandings and then I have to explain here in the comments. :)
@@sytyk7437 Gotta argue some of your rebuttals. Especially the Ganon is always reincarnated thing. Every single instance of Ganon returning outside of Four Swords Adventures was him either being revived from death (meaning he's literally the same person from Ocarina of Time), or the seal that was binding him broke (also meaning he's literally the same person from Ocarina of Time). Four Swords Adventures is literally the only time in canon that he was ever reincarnated as a different Ganondorf. Even in the Oracle games the Twinrova sisters specifically stated that they were resurrecting Ganon (though that resurrection was incomplete due to them sacrificing themselves instead of Zelda, thus making him a mindless beast [which coincides with A Link Between Worlds and Zelda 1 taking place after the Oracle games {thus after Link's Awakening} considering those games had Ganon portrayed as a mindless beast]).
I'd add more about the other topics, but my phone is on low and I'm busy right now. I might edit more in or reply to any responses later.
@@sytyk7437 I’m going to go out on a limb, and say they weren’t actually thinking when they made that choice.
Gotta say that the only thing I really disliked is the Zelda II AOL reasoning for Dark Link... I understand how Shadow Links are created in other games, but here he wasn’t “chilling for 100 years” or even alive during LoZ, he’s created by the King in the backstory(The lil dude holding the ToC) in the final temple. That lil guy has a red garb and can use the Triforce (like King Daphnes in WW) which he then grants to Link after the final trial. In essence, the King was the final guardian and if it’s unclear how even a spirit survived so long, check what happens in the game when Link enters the final temple ie a seal releases itself as Link walks into the temple(could it be like the stasis seal that was placed on Hyrule castle in WW, which froze time in that area..).
The fact with AOL is that ALL of the guardians were created by the king(as the ones in LoZ were created by Zelda in every level aside from Level 9)which is evident in the manual’s backstory. The king surviving in spirit also puts into context why you go to the King’s Tomb, then just happen to walk and fall through an empty grave to progress through the game.
Other than this detail, it’s a cool theory and it’s evident that you’ve put work into it.
This was a lot of fun!
I like your theory about the Minish Cap being first in the timeline, and your rationale for BotW being in the child timeline makes a lot of sense.
I have heard from Zelda Lore that the Oracle Games CANNOT come after A Link to the Past since Zelda does not recognize Link, but maybe it's a different Zelda?
I also am skeptical about A Link Between Worlds. At the end of A Link to the Past it says... "And The Master Sword sleeps again, FOREVER"
(I have a personal theory that this makes a timeline split. One timeline for when the sword awakens, and one for the sword staying asleep.)
Regardless, I LOVE seeing videos like this and it would be cool to see what else you have in store in the future. Your editing is awesome.
Regarding ALttP saying "The Master Sword Sleeps forever." they were quite simply wrong. Like, they THOUGHT the Master Sword would sleep forever; they *thought* that, with Ganon defeated, there would never be a need for the Master Sword again. They just turned out to be incorrect.
And thank you for the compliment! Ive honestly been kinda unsure about the editing so its nice to hear people are enjoying it. :)
@@sytyk7437 Certainly! You have a fun and straightforward editing style which I appreciate.
@@sytyk7437 i could watch videos edited like this all day. Only thing i'd change is the track with the horns; they were a little distracting but not inappropriate. Probably just me. Good stuff!
@@TheBreadPirate Thank you!
Hey Bread Pirate!
I’m glad you talked about that Link’s Awakening must be after the Oracle of games.
This is something we knows for long, and it’s strange the ”new” official timeline place the Oracle of games after Link’s Awakening.
I think it’s to debunk the theory that link died at sea after the oracle games and links awakening is some kind of dream. I’ve heard it before so it wouldn’t be shocking if Nintendo changed it therefore
@@chisakiaiko6678 Hell, they could throw Link's Awakening right smack in the middle of the two Oracle games and it'd still work.
It's because Zelda didn't recognize Link. And apparently in the Japanese manual it sort of indicates that this is a new Link as the Triforce caused him to come to it. It was testing this new Link to be a hero which is something that if you think about it, wouldn't happen with ALttP LInk since he was at one point the master of the triforce.
@SYTYK,
I would like to turn your attention to a video made by BlackNintendoCrisis introducing a timeline made by LoruleanHistorian, because between this and the other, I would prefer the other, and it made more sense
One thing that I have not seen anyone comment yet is that the backstory of Windwaker mentions ganon breaking from his seal after the events of ocarina of time and with no hero to stop him the goddess flood the land. In the last game before Windwaker in your timeline ganon was not sealed away he was killed and his minions were trying to revive him with Link's blood. Once again the backstory also specifically calls the hero who sealed Ganon away as the Hero of Time. I admire the creative thinking in this video, however. No matter how you look at it any timeline someone makes is gonna have a hole somewhere cause honestly, nintendo admits they don't put as much thought into this as the fans.
The prologue never actually says he broke free from a seal, specifically. What it says is that "The great evil that all thought had been forever sealed away by the hero... once again crept forth from the depths of the earth, eager to resume its dark designs."
So while it mentions that the evil had been "sealed away by the hero" it doesnt explicitly tell us whether its referencing a *literal* seal, or a metaphorical "sealing away" which could also be accomplished by killing or slaying the evil. I mean, if you kill a monster, but you know it could revive some day, then its not inaccurate to say youve "sealed it away."
So then, the prologue could be referring to a previous game where ganon was sealed away literally OR one where he was killed and his evil was "sealed away" metaphorically until the next time he revived.
Also, I dont know about you by "crept forth from the depths of the earth" sounds like a dead guy coming back to life to me. Doesnt that sound like how youve describe the dead returning to life? "Creeping forth from the depths of the earth?"
And notice they say depths of the EARTH (which is where we bury dead people) and not the depths of the dark realm or anything like that. This further supports him being dead and not sealed.
How can there be two floods, one just before WW and one just at its end??
@@sytyk7437 but if in OOT he was sealed, then how come his execution was botched in TP then he was sealed in the twilight realm beginning the game?
@@k-dogg9086 he was sealed on the adult timeline. His botched execution in TP is on the child timeline.
@@sytyk7437 if Link was sent back and warned them of what he went through and what had happened, it changed things and made this adult time line void. There is no adult Link carrying on them a child Link doing the same. They didn't split into two people. That's ridiculous. And how would things continue in the adult time line when everything was made null by Link being sent back in the past and things being altered???
I like and follow Hyrule Historia’s timeline but your timeline is superb. Extremely well done!
Link from Link to the Past the Link from Link's Awakening and the Oracle Games are the same Link. That is at least what the timeline says.
I don’t think you understand that Ganon in oot turned back into ganondorf once he was defeated. And the cap being used can also apply to skyward sword but other then that interesting theory..... I guess.
He turned back into Ganondorf *at that time*, but he didn't lose the Trifroce of courage, and thus he retained the ability to transform back into Ganon in the future once he recovered from the battle.
IDK if you watch DBZ, but its sort of like how Goku would change from Super Saiyan back into regular form if he was defeated or knocked out. He would still be able to transform into a Super Saiyan later on once he recovered. Or how, in Pokemon, a Mega-Evolved Pokemon will transform back to its regular state if it faints, but it can still Mega-Evolve again later.
Ganon isn't sealed away in LttP. He explodes after the final battle so is dead. Link claims the full triforce for himself at the end. Why do Nintendo not know the end to one of the greatest ever games made?
Here are my criticisms about your video.
1. The intro of the Minish Cap never says that the monsters just came to Hyrule.
The Intro goes like this: "A long, long time ago... when the world was on the verge of being swallowed by shadow... The Tiny Picori appeared from the sky bringing the hero of men a sword and a golden light. With wisdom and courage the hero drove out the darkness... when peace has been restored, the people enshrined that blade with care."
2. The King's motivation was never about defeating Vaati. It's to undo Vaati's curse he casted on Zelda.
"A man named Vaati has cursed my fair Zelda and turned her to stone. If we had the sacred Picori Blade, we likely could have broken the curse. But Vaati shattered the blade... However, I have not given up hope. What do you know about the Picori?
[...]
If Link has recovered, then yes, I would like to ask this of him. Please, turn my precious Zelda back to normal. The Picori should know how to create a new sacred sword. It will be a dangerous journey, now that those monsters have been freed. Please, take this sword with you, along with the broken Picori Blade."
Perhaps the King and the people of Hyrule knew that The Hero of Men used the Picori blade to undo curses like how what Vaati did to Zelda. Somewhere in the timeline The Hero of men must have undo curses using the Picori blade. The King never know that the Master sword is capable of doing so.
Sure the King might have thought of beating Vaati to undo the curse but here is my take. I think it actually makes a lot of sense for the Master Sword to be absent from MC. After the Triforce wars in the Era of Chaos, the Sages sealed the Triforce in the Sacred Realm and used the Master Sword as the final key to that seal. The sword itself was then sealed behind the Door of Time. Only one worthy of the title "Hero of Time" could retrieve the sword from its pedestal. To our knowledge, the only person to have that title is OoT Link. And to even open the Door of Time, one would need to collect the three Spiritual Stones and the Ocarina of Time, requiring the help of four different tribes. Hyrule was not completely unified until shortly before OoT, so gaining the trust of all the tribes may have been difficult. The Royal Family may have also been intentionally avoiding the Master Sword to prevent the Sacred Realm from opening and the country from descending into more strife over the Triforce. Between there being no Hero of Time, the difficulty of opening the Door of Time, and the possibility of reopening the Sacred Realm, the Master Sword was likely inaccessible during the time of MC. It was simpler for the Link of that game to repair the Picori Blade than to go on a larger quest for a different sword that might not even solve the kingdom's problems or the King's Problem to uncurse Zelda.
3. Just because the Minish only appear in Minish Cap doesn't mean they can't just exist in every other game regardless of whether it takes place before Minish Cap or not. Also I believe this description doesn't mean that the Minish built every Armos Knight, but only definitively these particular Armos Knights.
4. As for the cap argument, not every game holds the green cap or the green tunic in high regard. In OOT it's just the garb of the Kokiri, and in Skyward Sword it's just the uniform of the entire Knight's Academy, similar to Spirit Tracks, actually. It also, to my knowledge, isn't too important in the original Zelda game, A Link to the Past, or Four Swords Adventures. This goes for any sequels to those games as well. So. . . in most games, actually. It's only given fanfare in Wind Waker and Twilight Princess.
1) There is an old man in Castle town during the festival, before Vaati petrifies Zelda, that tells the story in more detail. He says, quote, "Long, long ago, and then even longer before that... Evil creatures *appeared* in the world of humans. They were powerful, frightening beasts, and they created such trouble! But then the Picori came from the sky, bringing humans powerful magic. With the magic light force and the Picori Blade, the beasts were repelled. And the world of humans once more knew peace, thanks to the Picori."
"Appeared" in Hyrule. That's pretty clear. There's also the fact that he says that the world "once more knew peace" which clearly means that the world was at peace BEFORE the monsters showed up, and then again after they were sealed. In other words, he's *very* clearly saying that there were no monsters before this event.
2) and how does one usually undo curses placed by villains? Almost always, by defeating that villain. Also you say that the hero of men " *must* have" used the Picori blade to undo curses in the past, but that's absolutely no evidence for that. I could say he "must have" used the Picori blade to shave his back, and there's just as much proof of that.
As for the king "not knowing" that the master sword could break a curse; the master sword is *THE* ultimate anti-evil weapon. It's literally the sword of evils bane. If there's ANY weapon you would assume could break a curse, you'd assume the master sword could do it WAY before your assumed the Picori sword could do it.
The temple of time hasn't even been built in Minish Cap (you'll notice it's conspicuously absent from Castle town and from the game in general) so that kind of debunks your idea that MC happens after the sages sealed the sword behind the door of time.
3. You can't just say "well we may not see them but the minish were still present in other games." That's not how burden of proof works. If you want to claim the minish are present in other games, you have to offer EVIDENCE to support that claim. Without any evidence, the null hypothesis (that they are NOT present) wins out.
Also you're missing the point RE: The Armos. It doesn't matter whether they built every single one in every game or just the ones in MC. The point is that they INVENTED the Armos, so even if the ones in other games were built by other races, they were built BASED ON the ones the minish created. Just like how it doesn't matter that Alexander Graham Bell didn't build EVERY telephone ever made, because he invented the FIRST one, so that means that anything that has other phones built by other people HAS to come afterward.
Imagine a video game series about Alexander Graham Bell; any game that features a phone has to take place AFTER the game where the very FIRST phone is created. Get it? You couldn't have a game where someone has a cell phone taking place BEFORE the game where inverted the very first land line phone, now could you?
4) you're confusing the game not POINTING OUT how important the cap and tunic are, with the cap and tunic not BEING important. Yes in OoT that's what the Kokiri wear; why do you think that *is?* It's obviously not just a random coincidence that this race just HAPPENS to wear the exact same thing as the previous heroes, so even if the Kokiri themselves don't know that it's based on the Hero's green tunic and cap, that's still why they wear it. Same goes for every other instance you mentioned.
I like that you’re knowledgeable but also trying to be radical! I’ve tried to do the same for example I think that the entire timeline takes place over 10,000 years and the first calamity was actually the imprisoned breaking free
I think there may be a reason for why the master sword was not used in minish cap and 4 swords in the latter when the sword is remove it’s pedestal vaati is set free Maybe the reason the master sword wasn’t used was the fear of releasing demise demise
Demise was destroyed, not sealed away. There is nothing left of him to BE released.
@@sytyk7437 he is sealed but in spirit was beginning to die but considering how many villains are imprisoned in swords in the series is it really that unusual to believe that’s some I just think demise was just sealed a way I mean why else would you keep up powerful magical artifact locked up
I think the main reason that links awakening what is changed It’s time placement especially with the switch remake it’s because the author of the hyrule Historia made a mistake The same one you did that the cut scene was from a remake plus I don’t think Nintendo likes the idea of one of their main characters dying at sea who is this one thing you need to take into account with Zelda directs equals most of them are only a few years apart The only exception our phantom hourglass what was originally planned to be a new four swords game and the sequels your breath of the wild Which I think might have to do with Covid
@@ajerjavec4723 He was not sealed. Go play the game again, or just watch a clip of the ending. He was destroyed. It is made explicitly clear. Its fine to have different interpretations of ambiguous events, but this is not ambiguous. The game makes it abundantly clear that he is destroyed 100% for sure.
@@sytyk7437 Impa said in skyward sword and I quote The last remains of demise are decaying Slowly within the sword so yeah he is technically imprisoned in the sword
5:51 and their both heading the same direction
how do you explain demise putting the curse amongst hyrule?
The "lots of time" argument could just as well be used to explain why there are no train tracks in Breath of the Wild
The 1 thing that you have definitively wrong. The oracle link and awakening link are also the link to the past link. Those game have to be together as they are the same link.
AttP is not the same Link as the oracles and LA.
When Link meets Zelda in the oracles games, it is made clear that that is the FIRST time they are meeting. If it was the same Link and Zelda from ALttP, they would have already met.
Also, ALbW makes it very clear in-game that it is a direct sequel to ALttP, with no other games in between, and ALbW takes place hundreds of years after ALttP. In other words, ALttP happens, then HUNDREDS of years pass and the Link from ALttP eventually passes away, then hundreds of years later a new Link is born, and THAT Link goes through the events of ALbW.
The backstory/prologue of ALbW tells of the events of ALttP, but makes no mention of the events of the oracles games. If the Link in Oracles was actually the same Link from ALttP, then the prologue of ALbW would tell of the events of both ALttP AND the oracles games. But it doesnt; it ONLY mentions the events of ALttP. This is because the link from ALttP is NOT the same Link from Oracles, and because Oracles takes place AFTER ALbW.
Therefore, it is impossible for the Oracles Link to be the same Link as the ALttP Link.
Alternative timeline:
Two fully, entirely separate set of events, two parallel universes with timeline splits in accordance to each, with events similar to each other in each timeline split.
Skyward Sword "Universe": Skyward Sword > Minish Cap > Four Swords > Four Swords Hyrule Adventure
Ocarina of Time "Universe":
-Events about to be told in Tears of The Kingdom's Flash Backs- > Ocarina of Time:
- Child timeline - Majora's Mask > Twilight Princess > Windwaker > Phantom Hourglass > Spirit Tracks
- Adult timeline - A Link To The Past > Oracle of Ages/Seasons > Links Awakening > The Legend of Zelda > The Legend of Zelda II > Breath of The Wild > Tears of The Kingdom
Or an alternative to this that is likely also a thought that would make logical, coherent sense, as this doesn't "retcon every past game" but simply "sets unique plot points that entirely conflict with other games" to their own timeline and course of history:
*Events happen of Skyward Sword*;
Hero is Successful > Skyward Sword > Minish Cap > Four Swords > Four Swords Adventures
Hero Fails or does not exist > Ocarina of Time > Child / Adult Timeline split
In both scenarios here, it sets these distinct four games far away from the other games.
"But Josh, why the hell did you do that?! Skyward Sword started it allll man like seriously it started it allllllllllllllllllllll"
No. Skyward sword retconned it all and created a universe based around a singular entity known as Hylia, who in previous games wasn't an entity but a lake that usually would hold the Water Temple, upon which the Water Sage & the songs affiliated with "Water" would usually go to. In Skyward Sword, they made Hylia a Goddess, removed importance of alternative God's, whom were non-humanoid creatures but alien beings from another world, and finally, this did so at the expense of the basic lore of the original games.
In the original games, the Master Sword was created to defeat the powers of the Triforce in-case evil was to obtain it's power, and this was created by the sages. In Skyward Sword, it was Hylia's sword she provided to "the hero" to turn into "The Master Sword" with the help of God's, not Hylians. Not to mention "Demise", being the same basic understanding of "Evil reincarnation" as such as Ganon.
Which I should denote that Ganon is not just "Evil reincarnation" but simply Ganondorf's presence that was ultimately turned into Ganon due to his time imprisoned in Sacred Realm.
Where essentially Skyward Sword takes this plot and says "Instead of Ganon, let's call it Demise. Instead of bore, let's make it America-style demon with flaming red hair. Instead of multiple deities based around Japanese mythology mixing multiple cultural and religious ideologies into this mix, let's centralize the core theme to Christianity".
Skyward Sword's plot isn't bad. But it retcons all the previous Zelda entries and would make the lore and history of each of those games entirely misplaced.
The only solution is to put Skyward Sword in it's own separate Universe, parallel to the current one, and take the games that clearly follow it's events after.
Consider how you noted "There was no evil before Vaati unleashed it" in the Minish cap as an example; It's evident that all the events of Minish Cap, Four Swords & Four Swords Adventure all take place within the same realm and universe as Skyward Sword. Each do not have a bore-like creature as a "demon", but instead the "hatred and lust" of power. Equally as such, this would depict that the Hero is successful and was able to trap Demise in the Master Sword, which was never pulled from the pedestal again.
Meanwhile, it's evident that Ocarina of Time is the true, definitive starting point to the current Zelda lore if you erase Skyward Sword and branch the games that "Directly came after it" away from the timeline.
Which would provide Tears of The Kingdom an ability to provide appropriate information to the events far in the past, before the events of Ocarina of Time, during the Hyrulian Civil War, where the creation of the Master Sword would have occurred.
In addition, putting Twilight Princess in the Child timeline wouldn't depict that the "events" of Twilight Princess didn't happen in the Adult timeline, instead that they happened differently than anticipated or than told in that game. Providing the ability to have an alternative to that game exist without retconning that game. Equally, it allows the "universe" of Twilight Princess, Windwaker and Twilight Princess to all remain canon and directly aligned with the events that exist in BOTW & TOTK as it doesn't denote that "This is a separate timeline" but simply that it's a different account of a specified event that has a different result.
In which case, to simplify that last part -- if you were to kill Hitler before the Germany events of WWII, the Cold War, Golf War, 911, and everything after would still occur almost identically with minor changes. Just because one of the numerous sparks were removed from starting the fire, doesn't mean the fire wasn't capable of being started, a large piece is now missing and in doing so, some courses of history are now changed, but not all. History flows like a river, and you cannot change events that would happen regardless of the outcome.
And I think "that" is what they're going to do with TOTK. Properly address the issues that were created due to "Developing the games without the timeline in mind" and realizing during the events of BOTW that "It's impossible to write a story when you retconned the lore of previous games in the recent game installment, and you're now required to follow this lore".
The solution to that, realistically, is to divide it in it's own universe and allow the ones that provided hefty story telling in a separate universe.
my only issue with this is the placement of the oracles and links awakening, since those seem to be directly tied to a ALttP link's and ALBW is generations after ALttP so they should come in between ALttP and ALBW
If the Oracles games happened in between ALttP and ALbw, then we would logically see the events of those games mentioned alongside the events of ALttP both in the prologue of ALbw, and in the paintings inside Hyrule castle in ALbw.
ALbw goes out of its way to tell us of the history of Hyrule and explicitly references the events of ALttP two separate times. So if the Oracles games happened in between ALttP and ALbw, then ALbw would ALSO mention the events of the Oracles games, the same way it mentions the events of ALttP. (Links awakening was all a dream and we don't know what happened to Link after, so it makes sene that it wouldn't be mentioned.)
@@sytyk7437 they could have just left it all out to stay in point to the plot of the game and its connections. Adding extra info could confuse the point.
Can't the Oracle games be after Twilight Princess
Since in Twilight Princess Ganondorf becomes Ganon at the end and while yes you said he is ganondorf when he dies that doesnt mean they wont try resurrecting him as ganon we also see Khoume and Khoutake in the Oracle games, in the Adult timeline link killed them in the Spirit temple while in the Child Timeline they are alive
Hmmm or maybe Four Swords Adventures is after Twilight and it's Ganon is the one from Oracle since it mentions a new Ganondorf
the problem with having fsa anywhere on the timeline is mostly because its made to be a direct sequel to fs, also skyward sword has to be the first as zelda in that game, hylia is the one who takes people to the sky and in minish cap zelda is already established as the princess. very cool video though and loved the elimination of downfall timeline
True but it's also clear that a bunch of centuries passed in between FS and FSA. The four Swords sanctuary looks even more run down than it did in FS.
So I couldn't find your timeline sheet online. Why not post a link to your timeline sheet/graphic?
Cause CZcams is where I post my content. I'm a video maker; not a graphic designer.
@@sytyk7437 but you made a graphic and used it in the video?
This is awesome! How many times did you have to play each game to get all this all figured out?! Great work man
Ive played most of the games dozens of times throughout my life, and I also studied the heck out of a lot of wiki articles, game manuals, etc, and re-played certain games to check on certain points for this theory.
The adult timeline is not Link deciding to stay with Zelda and rebuild. The adult timeline is the timeline that goes on AFTER Link is sent back in time, and leading this timeline to be left without a hero. Which is why the game after that, Wind Waker, tells the tale of how Ganon broke free of his seal, but the hero of time did not appear.
That doesnt really make sense, IMO. If Link leaves, then that means there is no more spirit of the hero in the adult timeline. If that was the case, then it would be impossible for WW or any other game on the adult timeline to HAVE a hero, since the hero went back to the child timeline.
Same goes for the Triforce of Courage. If Link goes back to the child timeline, the Triforce of courage goes with him, which means that any games on the adult timeline would be missing a third of the triforce.
Also, Im not sure whether I should be flattered that you left something like a dozen different comments on my video, or annoyed. XD Well, either way, I guess... Im glad it left such an impact on you? Also I wanted to apologize if, in some of my replies, my tone gets a bit snippy. It can be frustrating responding to the same points over and over again even when youve already given the explanation.
@@sytyk7437 It is theorized that WW Link is apart of a new bloodline of heroes, which is why he seems so different from other Links.
(And yeah for sure, I left so many comments because I love you. 😘 And don't worry if you're snobby, we can work around that.)
But as I stated before, in the very prologue of the game, WW states that the hero of time did not appear. This is what the adult timeline is. Notice how at the end of Oot, Link is sent back to the past, and he disappears and ends up as a child in the temple of time in the past. That timeline that SENT HIM BACK TO THE PAST is the one that goes on to be the adult timeline! Not because he decided to stay there, but because it was the era where he existed as an adult. Which is why he doesn't appear when they look to him, because he was sent to the past to relive his childhood. Therefore, he is never heard from again.
You don't have to agree with this, but this is the current canon story of the game. I understand you won't agree with it, because you see your own flaws in it, but this was confirmed by the creators of the game, so what else can we say? How would you like it if you made a drawing, and you said the person in the drawing is a ninja? And they looked at the drawing, and said: "No he's not."
You would feel a little hurt. Who are they to tell you what your Drawing is? And then your provide a little bit of proof for why the person in the drawing is a ninja, giving a short backstory, and everything, and they still don't believe you? Saying: "That doesn't make any sense. How are they a ninja, if XYZ?"
It would be a little frustrating to say the least. I understand why you have your concerns about the current Zelda canon, but we can't really just pass off everything told to us by the creators of the game as false. It just doesn't make sense, considering they gave us Zelda in the first place.
@@sytyk7437 also wind waker link is not connected to other heroes your a boy from an island
@@deoxysoverlord8710 that's bc in MM Link tried coming home but got lost in the Lost Woods and became a stalfos as we see him in TP.. yet he is an adult???? He must have come back and grew up.. and married Malon.. from which TPs Link decended from! So this no hero crap doesn't fly as he was there. Yet still then, when why and how did he die and become a stalfos???? I heard once that it was during another time of war and he ended up dead and Malon and their boy fled. Yet, again, Link didn't have the armour of Hyrule on him in TP! So, wha????
@@deoxysoverlord8710 when they first began the games I don't think they planned on a timeline for a successive plot linking all the games. That came after rewards after seeing its initial success.
great timeline theory! I think you did a great job reimagining the timeline, I'm also trying to think of a way to fix it so I know how tough it can be to do the research and come up with a timeline that has as few as possible contradictions. The only small problem that I have with Wind Waker being one of the last games in the timeline is that they keep reffering to Ocarina of Time, even Ganondorf himself saying That he (Link) is indeed the Hero of Time reborn. Don't know if you just missed it or just left it out beacause it wasn't important enough but I'd like to hear your thoughts on it.
The fact that they refer to OoT doesnt mean other games didnt happen in between OoT and WW; it just means they dont mention those ones. People tell stories about the *first* time they did something all the time, but not about the 2nd time they did it, or the 5th, or the 12th, or the 487th, etc. The first time is the one you remember.
OoT was the FIRST time Ganondorf faced the Hero, the first time anyone obtained a piece of the triforce, the first time Ganondorf was sealed, etc, etc, so thats the game they talk about.
Saying that no other games happen between OoT and WW because WW only mentions OoT is like saying someone never had any birthday parties between their first and their 10th, just because their mom only talks about something that happened at their first, and doesnt mention any other parties. Like, those other parties still happened, they just didnt get mentioned.
@@sytyk7437 I see, that makes sense. You did a great job and it seems like you've got solid reasoning for everything, which is no easy feed with the Zelda Timeline xD I'm very impressed!
@@dannykosuke6917 Thanks! Glad to hear it. Keep an eye out for videos like this in the future. :)
@@sytyk7437It isn’t just that they mention OoT. The entire prologue specifies that after OoT, Ganondorf escapes precisely once, and then Hyrule is flooded. If LttP and its chain occur BETWEEN OoT and WW, then the prologue of WW is wrong. And LttP can’t occur AFTER WW because Ganondorf is just straight up GONE after Wind Waker. Even if he returned, LttP takes place in Hyrule proper, not New Hyrule, which is where the story ends up by the time of Spirit Tracks. How can we be sure it’s not New Hyrule? Well, the layouts of the two realms are completely different. More specifically, there’s no Kakariko, which would need to disappear and then reappear again between OoT and the LttP chain. But most importantly: there are Zora in LttP. But if LttP is on the Adult Timeline, and isn’t BEFORE WW, then how are there Zora when the Zora evolved into the Rito? Where did they come from?
I appreciate the originality of this theory, but I think people need to just accept that there HAVE to be three timelines in the split. There HAS to be a distinct timeline containing the LttP chain and the OG LoZ chain. They’re the only games featuring Ganon rather than Ganondorf (aside from FSA). Why? Because he won in OoT in that timeline and wasn’t sealed away. He retained, if not the entire Triforce, at least the Triforce of Power. This is also why FSA has to fit on the Child Timeline: Ganon in FSA gets his power not from the Triforce, but from the Dark Trident. This Ganon never HAD the Triforce, and is in fact a reincarnation following the death of OoT/TP’s Ganondorf.
The WW chain has to be in ifs own distinct timeline because no games fit before or after that chain on the branch.
And that just leaves Twilight Princess and FSA in the Child Timeline. They can’t fit in either of the other timelines, so they have to be in their own. Thus, three different timelines.
@@mephostopheles3752 I just re-watched the prologue of WW. It does not state that at all. Go look it up and watch it. It never, ever says how many times he escaped. Also, the prologue of WW is an ancient, *ANCIENT* Legend. Itd be crazy if it *didnt* get a detail or two slightly wrong.
I never said LttP occurs after WW? I said it occurs between OoT and WW.
You say that the LttP chain and the OG LoZ chain are the only ones containing Ganon, but thats just factually wrong. Ganon appears in BotW and TP as well, and those are on the child timeline.
Ganon CANT win in OoT, because by definition, if he wins, the game ENDS. The idea of having any games take place AFTER Ganon wins is just impossible by the very nature of what Ganon's victory would mean. If Ganon wins, then Zelda and the entire Royal family die. So how can there be games which feature the royal family AFTER Ganon wins? Also, if Ganon wins in OoT, then he gets the full triforce, so any game taking place AFTER Ganon "wins" would have to *Start* with Ganon already having the full triforce. But no games *do* start that way, because Ganon never wins, because if he wins then the world ENDS and there can be no more games after.
I also already explained why FSA Ganondorf doesnt have the triforce and has to get powered up by the Trident; because at the end of ALbW, Zelda takes possession of the ENTIRE Trifroce, thus leaving Ganon without his Triforce of Power. FSA takes place after ALbW, thus Ganon still hasnt gotten his triforce back, and thus is in his Ganondorf form, rather than his Demon king Ganon form.
I literally explained EXACTLY how other games fit into the WW branch in this video. I also explained why FSA DOES fit in another branch. Did you not watch the entire video before commenting? Go watch through it again, and pay closer attention. No offense, but youre bringing up objections that are already answered in the video itself.
What if Nintendo celebrates Zelda 35th, by having a collection thats themed around the timelines? Like "Adult TImeline Collection" or sumn like that
Doesn't wind waker have to be immediately after oot since the opening cut scene says they were waiting for the hero of time but he never came? Specifically saying hero of time doesn't make sense if it came WAY after oot
The WW prologue actually makes it clear that it MUST come way after OoT. It says that after the Hero of Time defeated Ganon, "the boy's tale was passed down through generations until it became legend..." In other words, many generations passed between the time when the HoT defeated Ganon, and the time when Ganon came back and the flood happened. It was such a long time that it stopped being a historical fact, and more of just a myth. Therefore, it would be impossible for it to be the "same" Link. The incarnation of Link that was the HoT had grown old and died many, many, *MANY* years before the flood.
@@sytyk7437 ok true I thought it was immediately after but I remember know that it took a long time after oot. But the phrasing of wind waker implies that when gannon appeared again this was the first time since oot, why would people be expecting the hero of time when the hero of legend from the original games was more recent of a hero?
@@pascalthedog8451 Not necessarily. A lot of people seem to think that, but the language they point to doesnt *necessarily* mean the flood was the first time Ganon came back. Thats one way it *could* be taken, but its not the only way. Based on whats actually said, its entirely possible that there were other re-emergences of Ganon in between OoT and the time that resulted in the flood, and they just dont mention them individually because the one in OoT and the one that caused the flood are the only ones relevant to the story at that moment.
As for people expecting the HoT instead of another incarnation, you have to keep in mind the time scales we're dealing with. The prologue DOES say the story became legend, and legends tend to lose details here and there. Its likely that the different titles IE Hero of Time, Hero of the Skies, Hero of Men, Hero of Legend, etc, etc, all got muddled together over time and people just ended up using the HoT to refer to any incarnation of the hero. Sort of like how they often say "Ganon" when theyre really talking about Ganondorf. The two names got muddled together over time and people stopped making the distinction and just used "Ganon" for everything.
@@sytyk7437 You keep saying stuff like "doesn't necessarily mean" or "doesn't necessarily say" to back up your claim. You're using gray areas to justify your flaws in this theory. Firstly, as I stated many times, if there were multiple Links in between Oot and WW, it would have been AN IMPORTANT THING TO MENTION. Even if the stories were passed down for generations and generations, they would have at least stated that there were multiple Links. It specifically says that they looked for the HERO OF TIME, but he didn't appear. And then the land was flooded. He he returned more than once, that would have been an important thing to mention in the story. But they don't mention it, BECAUSE IT DIDN'T HAPPEN. YOUR TIMELINE IS WRONG!!! Another thing to note is that The Hero of Time is always mentioned but no other hero? Why? Why would no other hero who also fought and risked their lives be mentioned? It doesn't make any sense? It's like not putting recording a president as a historical president for no reason. If there were more presidents, don't you think that'd be valuable information?
Also, things Link Kokiri and Zora, as well as Gorons are mentioned in Wind Waker. TWO OF WHICH ARE NEVER SHOWN IN A LINK TO THE PAST. The other has become a monster. A MONSTER!!! So if the Zoras were monsters by the time of A Link To The Past, DON'T YOU THINK THAT WOULD BE AN IMPORTANT THING TO MENTION?? The ghosts seen in Wind Waker, i.e, Fado, and the Zora who's name I forgot, as well as the living Goron suggests that Wind Waker has a tie to Ocarina of Time, but obviously not A Link To The Past, since A Link To The Past has monstrous Zora's, and neither the Kokiri, or the Gorons. Nor do they have Koroks or Rito. I could go on. But yeah, there are a lot of flaws that you are missing, and it's ironic, since you are telling everyone else to play the games, watch the video, and do research. When you've clearly done none prior to making this video.
@@deoxysoverlord8710 >ou're using gray areas to justify your flaws in this theory.
No, Im explaining that the games dont actually say the thing someone might think they say. Then, Im showing why what the games DO say, most strongly supports the other of games Ive gone over here.
>Firstly, as I stated many times, if there were multiple Links in between Oot and WW, it would have been AN IMPORTANT THING TO MENTION.
And as Ive already explained multiple times, NO IT ACTUALLY WOULDNT. The reality is that it would be weird if they DID mention them, because they werent giving link a history lesson on the full history of hyrule; they were explaining to Link what was happening, and what his mission was. And for that, they would ONLY mention the stuff that was absolutely necessary, IE, the time Ganon was created (OoT) and the most recent time he broke out (just recently). They would NOT mention all the time Ganon came back in between, because Link doesnt NEED to know that complete his mission.
If you were in the middle of WWII and you encountered a legendary hero destined to win the war and kill hitler, and you needed to tell him what was happening, what his mission was, and what he needed to do, are you gonna explain the FULL HISTORY of EVERY country involved and every war theyve ever fought?
Of course not! Youre ONLY gonna tell him about the RECENT history of Germany in the last few decades, a brief summary of how WWII started, and where he could find Hitler and how he could defeat him. Youre not gonna go over EVERY war Germany has ever fought!
And thats exactly what the games are doing; those characters are giving Link only the details he NEEDS to complete his mission, rather than going over the full history of every time Ganon has ever returned.
>It specifically says that they looked for the HERO OF TIME,
The Hero of time is widely considered to be the greatest of the heroes, and is the standard on which all other heroes are judged. He was the first one to ever face Ganon, the first to obtain and keep a piece of the triforce, and the first to seal ganon away.
So then, if Ganon showed up and the people didnt know what the next hero would be hero "of" yet (for example, Link hasnt show up yet so they dont know if hes gonna be the hero "of seasons" or the hero "of twilight" or the hero "of light" or whatever else ) it makes perfect sense that they would "Look for the hero of time" since he's sort of the archetypal hero.
Like, if you live in the DC comics universe and a giant alien shows up and attacks, the people are going to "Look for superman" even if he isnt the one who stopped the last alien, or even if hes not the one who shows up THIS time. So in the exact same way, if Ganon returns, the people are gonna "Look for the hero of time" even if the hero of time isnt the one who stopped the last villain, or even if the hero of time isnt the one who shows up this time.
>The Hero of Time is always mentioned but no other hero? Why? Why would no other hero who also fought and risked their lives be mentioned? It doesn't make any sense?
It makes perfect sense and Ive already explained it. The Hero of time is the first one who ever faced Ganon, so he's the one who comes to mind when Ganon shows up. When Ganon attacked in ALttP, do you think the people didnt "Look for the hero of time" then? Of course they did! Even though the one that *showed up* was the hero of legend, the Hero of time is the one the people LOOK for, until they know what the new hero's title is.
When Ganon attacked in the original LoZ, who do you think the people looked for? Again, they looked for the hero of time, even though the hero of legend from ALttP, the hero of paint from ALBW, the hero of fashion from TH, the hero of ages/hero of seasons from the oracles, the hero of dreams from Links awakening, had ALL come in between. Because until the hero SHOWS UP, they dont know what his title is, so they default back to "Hero of time" since he's the greatest and the first to beat ganon.
>It's like not putting recording a president as a historical president for no reason.
No, its like not mentioning EVERY single president just to talk about WWII. Like, if youre in the middle of WWII and you need to tell a legendary hero destined to defeat Hitler whats going on and what his mission is, do you REALLY need to mention Lincoln? He was a great president to be sure, but hes also TOTALLY irrelevant to the situation at hand.
> If there were more presidents, don't you think that'd be valuable information?
If you were writing a HISTORY BOOK, yes. If you were trying to give critical information to a legendary hero while time was of the essence, or trying to write a legend that would survive for THOUSANDS OF YEARS just through oral storytelling without losing any key details, then no. Every piece of unneeded info is another chance for some part of the legend to get lost over time, and every piece of unneeded info told directly to link is another chance for him to get confused or forget something important cause you threw too much info at him.
>Also, things Link Kokiri and Zora, as well as Gorons are mentioned in Wind Waker. TWO OF WHICH ARE NEVER SHOWN IN A LINK TO THE PAST.
They also never show Chuchus in ALttP, but those are present in Wind Waker. They dont show LOTS of stuff in ALttP. Whats your point?
>So if the Zoras were monsters by the time of A Link To The Past, DON'T YOU THINK THAT WOULD BE AN IMPORTANT THING TO MENTION??
They werent monsters, they were just hostile. The fact that the zoras you encounter in that game attack you doesnt make them no normal zora. If a hylian attacks you, does that make it NOT a normal hylian? Or does it just mean that particular hylian is hostile?
And again, NO, it WOULDNT be important to mention. Because it doesnt affect WW Link's mission. I mean, really think about it, why WOULD they mention it? WHO would mention it? Laruto? King of red lions? WHEN would they mention it?
"Oh, link you must sneek into the forsaken fortress and rescue your sister! oh and also did you know that Zoras were enemies at one point thousands of years ago? That has nothing to do with your mission, but I just felt like it was SUPER important to bring it up for some reason."
See how ridiculous that is? When and where would it even FIT IN? It doesnt affect what WW Link has to do, so why would anyone waste time mentioning it if it didnt affect anything?
>Fado, and the Zora who's name I forgot, as well as the living Goron suggests that Wind Waker has a tie to Ocarina of Time, but obviously not A Link To The Past, since A Link To The Past has monstrous Zora's, and neither the Kokiri, or the Gorons. Nor do they have Koroks or Rito.
Dude... are you even serious right now?
By that logic, OoT has monsterous/hostile Deku scrubs, but in MM, theyre non hostile, just like the Zora in OoT or WW. So by your logic, if ALttP having hostile Zora means it CANT come before WW, which has non-hostile zora, then that means OoT having hostile deku scrubs means it CANT come before MM, which has non-hostile deku scrubs.
or another example, if WW cant come after ALttP because ALttP doesnt show us any kokiri, then by that logic OoT cant come after SS OR MC since neither SS or MC show us any Kokiri!
its the EXACT same logic youre applying, but it proves that the logic is flawed.
>you are telling everyone else to play the games, watch the video, and do research. When you've clearly done none prior to making this video.
Ive proven literally every single one of your comments irrefutably wrong with evidence directly from the games themselves, but yeah sure, Ive *toooooooootally* not done any research. /s
The Adult Timeline is actually the timeline the Hero of Time left when he was sent back in time
Why you don’t put OoX and LA right after ALTTP?
Because its explicitly stated in the games that ALBW and TF come right after ALttP, so the Oracles and LA *cant* go there. Re-watch the section from 10:36 to 11:56 if youre still confused.
Great video, I love stuff like this. I do believe that not all the games, in reality, were made with consideration for any timeline. IMO piecing everything together was an afterthought, but it still can be done logically to some extent, just like you have done. The defeated timeline seems like so much of a cop out, any game can technically have one if it is actually a thing. I think there could still even be a third timeline without it being links defeat, primarily though Zelda sending link back improperly to the wrong point as a child, which should already be occupied with a link, ocarina, and courage triforce, and so his original child time apparently wouldn't even have a young link anymore.
Thanks a bunch! Glad you liked it. :)
>I do believe that not all the games, in reality, were made with consideration for any timeline. IMO piecing everything together was an afterthought, but it still can be done logically to some extent, just like you have done.
Id agree to an extent, but not 100%. Like, some of the games would logically have been made without considering timeline placement (especially earlier ones) but some of them have clearly had the timeline in mind when being made, EG some of the memories in BoTW explicitly referencing the events of past games, ALbW being explicitly made to come after ALttP, MM being made as a direct sequel to OoT, TP being shown to take place after MM, LA being shown to come right after the Oracles via the beginning/ending cutscenes. Also, the directors of some of the games have said in interviews that they (the directors of each game) do indeed explicitly decide where in the timeline the game theyre directing takes place, so even if it wasnt a consideration at the very beginning, it definitely is nowadays.
Nah the official timeline for the most part was pieced together based off official statements. The timeline has been considered since Zelda 2 AoL. I'll list a good bit of them and fill in gaps for other games.
"Zelda II AoL is a direct sequel to Zelda 1."
"ALttP is a prequel to both Zelda 1 and Zelda II."
"LA is sequel to ALttP."
"OoT is the origins of Ganondorf and is set before ALttP. OoT was originally going to be the Imprisoning War."
"MM is a direct sequel to OoT."
OoX seems to indicate that it's a prequel to LA. However Zelda who looks entirely different from ALttP's Zelda has never met him prior to the end of the game. The Japanese version and the JP manual seem to indicate that this a new Link being tested to be the new hero by the Triforce. Which explains the change in the Encyclopedia. After all why would the Triforce test an already established hero who was technically it's master at one point? In LA, ALttP Link trained in foreign countries because he grew tired of the peace of Hyrule and seeked adventure. He traveled by boat to foreign lands while OoX Link travled by boat after both of his adventures after being teleported to the triforce.
"WW takes place after OoT."
"Minish Cap is the earliest story in the timeline as of now."
"TP takes place hundreds of years after MM. The ending of Ocarina of Time had two endings. The adult timeline ending where Link defeats Ganondorf and the child ending where Zelda sent Link back in time to warn the Royal Family. WW takes place after the adult ending and TP takes place some time after the child ending, taking place roughly around the same time as each other in their respective timeline splits."
PH is obviously a direct sequel to WW.
"ST takes place 100 years after WW and ST."
"Skyward Sword is before Ocarina of Time."
Though Nintendo is refraining from saying it's the first game in the timeline, it's clear that for now it is. Any game that features Hyrule would have to be after it. If there was a kingdom before SS I would rather refer to the SS prequel as a basis for a story taking place before SS.
"ALBW is supposed to be six generations after ALttP."
"BotW takes place in timeline where Ganon attacked Hyrule a lot."
Age of Calamity whether canon or not is supposed to be a prequel but the ending splits off to where they won against Calamity Ganon rather than what actually happens so honestly who knows.
TotK is a direct sequel to BotW.
The Downfall Timeline was created so that the original intent of OoT being before ALttP stays intact and considering OoT's battle with Ganondrof (not to be confused with the final battle with Ganon), is the most realistic outcome that could lead into ALttP. The seven sages are there to seal him (These seven sages would later have towns named after. Well five of the seven as yet another incarnation of Zelda and Impa already exist). The winner takes the full triforce which would technically still fit with ALttP and Ganon was immediately sealed into the Sacred Realm which lead to the Sacred Realm becoming the Dark World we see in ALttP.
@@firionkaiser8291 just so I can understand are you trying to state that the original encyclopedia had it right or that this theory video does
@@CableMD The original encyclopedia (and to that extent Historia) had it right.
There's only one event that can fit prior to Skyward Sword and that isn't Minish Cap. Hyrule didn't exist prior to Skyward Sword.
There's a few other issues with the timeline theory in the video but that's just one of my points.
@@firionkaiser8291 In interview the devs also said ALTTP was the true sequel to LOZ and they see AOL as a side story to LOZ rather than its proper sequel. Miyamoto has also said the timeline isn't that important to them.
Of course some games were explicitly connected on a timeline, but they didn't decide to commit to a single timeline positioning each game/set of connected games relative to all the other games until Hyrule Historia, and in order to fit everything together they moved things around to different places than they originally intended when making those games. Like how LA was clearly meant to come after OOX, but they changed that when they created the official timeline.
The whole downfall branch was also clearly not planned. OOT was meant to be a regular prequel to ALTTP, but then they realized the way they wanted to end it could not line up with ALTTP's prologue, so they made up the downfall timeline to give them freedom with OOT's story. There were much more elegant ways to accomplish this but they didn't think about it that hard.
This is why they put BOTW 10,000 years in the future and include references to many different games across different branches. The devs probably have downfall timeline in mind for BOTW, but the idea is to put it so far in the future that it doesn't need to have a ton of continuity with other games so they can stop worrying about timeline placement and just put all future games some time after BOTW. It's a soft reset to get away from the mess they made.
So does ToTk just retcon the whole timeline altogether?
Havent finished playing it yet unfortunately. Life, job, kids, etc.
Great vid, hmmm the only thing that I dunno about is so many games between Oot and Wind Waker, like why did wind Wakers flood happen in this world?
The flood happened for the same reason as stated: Ganon returned, and no Hero showed up to stop him. The only difference is that that happened several games after OoT, instead of immediately after OoT.
I thaught there’s a master sword in minish cap
Like took the broken master sword and reforged it in to new one
But I don’t know where that sword goes after four swords story LOL
You're thinking of the Picori sword. The Picori sword is broken when vaati opens the bound chest, and Link takes it to the Minish to get it fixed, and then over the course of the game he upgrades it to the Four Sword.
As for where it goes after Four Swords, it stays in the Four Sword Sanctuary until the events of Four Swords Adventures.
Good video but the ganondorf in wind waked is the same ganon that was sealed in ocarina of time so it would have to be first on the adult timeline
A lot of people seem to think that, but its not actually true. There's no actual evidence that proves WW "has to" come after OoT with no other games in between. People misinterpret a few lines of dialogue and *think* that the game is referring specifically to OoT Ganondorf, when in reality the dialogue, as written, could just as easily refer to any other version.
@@sytyk7437 but the legend told beginning of the game refers to the hero of time and how he defeated ganon in the prologue. Than the king of red lions tells link that it’s the same ganon from the prologue that is causing havoc. Ganondorf even sees the hero of time within the hero of winds stating “surely you must be the hero of time reborn”. Why would he know so much as about the hero of time and not the other hero’s that defeated him like the hero of legend
@@leafguardian Yes, the prologue *mentions* the Hero of time and OoT, but that doesn't mean that that's the ONLY time Ganon showed up before WW. In other words, its entirely possible that Ganon was sealed by the Hero of Time during OoT, then came back and was defeated by the Hero of Legend in ALttP, then came back again in ALBW and was defeated again, etc, and then came back one last time and the Gods flooded the world. The fact that the prologue doesn't MENTION any of those instances doesn't mean they cant still have happened. The prologue was basically telling the very beginning of the story of Ganon, and the very most recent part with the flood, and leaving out all the other times he came back because it didn't really affect the story the prologue was trying to tell.
And the KorL tells you its the same Ganon because they're ALL the same Ganon. Like, its the same guy, coming back over and over.
Ganon says WW Link reminds of the The Hero of Time because the HoT was the first one to defeat Ganon and is probably considered one of the greatest of all the heroes, thus, he's the one Ganon most vividly remembers and is most likely to see Link as. Youre gonna remember the first Hero to ever defeat you a lot more than the 4th or 5th.
@@sytyk7437 If there were many heroes and many times that Ganon returned before the events of Wind Waker, don't you think that would have been an important thing for the game to mention? In the prologue, or at the very least, by GANON himself!? It just doesn't make sense for Ganondorf to mention the hero of time, but no other hero. He could have easily said: "You remind me of the many heroes that came before you." Or something along those lines. If many heroes came before Wind Waker Link, this means that Ganondorf would have theoretically had to say that to every other Link. Since they all defeated him and were all reincarnations of the hero. I just don't think it would make sense for the prologue to mention Ganon returning, but not how many times he returned, or how many other Links faced against him.
All they mention is the Hero of Time, and then they mention that the God responded by flooding Hyrule. Which, by the way, isn't flooded in any other games that you placed before Wind Waker. They would be leaving out a lot of important details, and basically not giving any credit to the heroes who also went up against him. This heavily implies there there was only ONE hero before WW Link, since if there were multiple, they would ALL be worthy of a placement in the story, wouldn't you agree? Not talking about the other Links would be like not talking about any President before Biden, and after George Washington. It just doesn't make any sense, since they are all important. Maybe some more than others, but they are all important in the end.
@@deoxysoverlord8710>don't you think that would have been an important thing for the game to mention?
No, I DONT think it would be important for the game to mention. Whether there has been one hero or twenty heros before, either way, Link's mission is still the same. So then, why would Laruto waste precious time telling him about those other heroes? She wouldnt. She would tell him only what was 100% NECESSARY for Link to understand what he needs to do, and mentioning anything other than the first time Ganon showed up and got sealed is not necessary, because either way, Links mission is the same.
>It just doesn't make sense for Ganondorf to mention the hero of time, but no other hero.
It actually makes PERFECT sense for Ganon to mention the hero of time and no one else, because in his eyes, theyre ALL the Hero of Time. The HoT was the first hero to ever defeat him, so, logically, EVERY hero Ganon faces is, in his eyes, just gonna be some new incarnation of the Hero of Time.
> I just don't think it would make sense for the prologue to mention Ganon returning, but not how many times he returned, or how many other Links faced against him.
Why WOULD it mention that? Again, whether its 1 time or 50, either wat, your goal is the same. Thus, that information is not *necessary* and thus, it would be left out, since the more information the legend contains, the more chances for something to get lost over the years.
>Which, by the way, isn't flooded in any other games that you placed before Wind Waker.
Because the flood happens AFTER those games. OoT happens, then all the games in between OoT and WW happen, THEN the gods flood hyrule, then WW happens.
> since if there were multiple, they would ALL be worthy of a placement in the story, wouldn't you agree?
Again, no. This isnt some written history book; its a LEGEND. A legend passed down by word of mouth. ANY information that wasnt 100% critical would be cut out, because the shorter and more concise the legend is, the better the chances of it being passed down *intact* over the years. And again, ALL versions of the hero are still "the hero" whether theyre "of the sky" or "of time" or "of legend" or anything else. But the Hero of time was the first to defeat Ganon, so he gets his name used instead of anyone else.
This is the true canon in my mind now
The only thing I disagree with is skyward sword not being first. Hyrule was not yet established yet
Wasn't the land of Hyrule discovered at the end of SS? How could it be after MC if the kingdom was established some time after the Hylians descended back to the surface?
Not quite. At the end of SS, the citizens of Skyloft move back down to the surface and start a NEW Hyrule Kingdom, with SS Zelda as the princess of the ruling royal family. However, that doesnt change the fact that there already was a Hyrule Kingdom before that.
Basically, the Hyrule kingdom is originally founded before the events of MC, but then hundreds of years later Demise attacks and Hylia sends all the surviving Hylians up into the clouds. Hundreds more years pass and the people forget that they ever lived on the surface at all, and they forget that there ever WAS a Hyrule Kingdom. Then, after Demise is defeated at the end of SS, they "start" the hyrule kingdom there, not knowing that there already WAS a Hyrule Kingdom before them.
The ruins we find on the surface in SS, are the ruins of the OLD Hyrule Kingdom that we saw in MC.
@@sytyk7437 I find it a bit of a stretch that an entire civilization who can remember an ancient story of Goddess Hylia choosing her hero would forget that there was a pre-existing kingdom on the surface, especially since the royal family from said kingdom would've most likely survived to tell the tale. We even see in MC that the royal symbol has wings which we know were based off Loftwings.
Also, why aren't the Picori or their presence hinted at in SS? Surely they would've survived alongside the Hylians.
Lastly, it just makes sense from a story standpoint that there'd be no Link and Zelda before SS. Whether you take Demise's curse literally or symbolically, it's an integral part of their existence.
@@DillonMaynard > I find it a bit of a stretch that an entire civilization who can remember an ancient story of Goddess Hylia choosing her hero would forget that there was a pre-existing kingdom on the surface,
They forgot that the surface even EXISTED. Before Link goes through the cloud barrier, the people of skyloft all thing the surface is just a myth and doesnt really exist.
So no, its not a stretch at all. In fact it would be essentially impossible for them to NOT have forgotten the previous hyrule kingdom. If they forgot that the surface even existed, how could they remember a specific place that existed *ON* the surface?
>especially since the royal family from said kingdom would've most likely survived to tell the tale.
Again, we are explicitly told they forgot. Yes the royal family survived (We know since Zelda and her father, the headmaster, ARE the royal family) but its been so long they dont remember that they ARE the royal family. And again, theres no way they can possibly remember who the royal family of that kingdom was if they dont remember the kingdom itself, and they cant remember the kingdom itself if they dont even remember the surface in general.
>We even see in MC that the royal symbol has wings which we know were based off Loftwings.
Incorrect, and you actually just proved my point. THIS is what the royal crest looks like in MC:
www.blogcdn.com/www.joystiq.com/media/2007/06/zelda-shield-2.jpg
Notice how it is clearly and distinctly NOT a loftwing. This proves beyond any question that MC takes place before SS, since EVERY game after SS features the loftwing on the royal crest.
>Also, why aren't the Picori or their presence hinted at in SS? Surely they would've survived alongside the Hylians.
Again, if they forgot the entire surface itself existed, they would have had to forget that a specific race (which was considered a myth by most people even during the time of MC) that LIVED on the surface. You cant remember who lived on the surface, of you dont remember that the surface itself exists.
>Lastly, it just makes sense from a story standpoint that there'd be no Link and Zelda before SS. Whether you take Demise's curse literally or symbolically, it's an integral part of their existence
The opposite, actually. When demise curses link and zelda (or more precisely, the spirit of the princess/goddess and the spirit of the hero) he shows that he ALREADY KNOWS that link and zelda reincarnate over and over. That proves that there MUST have been other Link and Zeldas before them.
His exact words are "those like you... those who share the blood of the goddess and the spirit of the hero... they are eternally bound to this curse."
So if SS Link and Zelda are the FIRST Link and Zelda... who is he referring to when he says "Those like you... those who share the blood of the goddess and the spirit of the hero..." That clearly implies that there were others "*like them*" before SS. Otherwise, how would he know that there would BE others "like them" in the future? The ONLY way his curse makes sense if he knows there have been previous Links and Zeldas, and the only way THAT makes sense is if SS isnt the first game.
@@sytyk7437 Hylians forgetting where their people once lived is way more possible than the actual hierarchy fading from obscurity. If they were there to rule from the beginning of Skyloft, they would be there during the game aswell. The only way the royal family could be forgotten is if it was discontinued, which would make no sense. Forgetting about the surface doesn't erase millenia of a ruling hierarchy on Skyloft.
In regards to the MC crest, it can still be based off the Loftwing without entirely looking like one. Hell, some of the royal crests don't even look like the Loftwing, some just have the wings, some have extra triforce pieces. Symbols mix and change over time.
The Picori were considered a myth by some, but they still existed. They don't need to be remembered to have their presence hinted at in the era.
In your theory, MC Zelda would not share the blood of the goddess as Hylia chooses to reincarnate after that.
Even if MC Zelda did share the blood of the goddess, Demise still would not be referring to her and MC Link as there's no way the curse would affect them in the past. The threat is for future incarnations or else it doesn't make sense.
He can deduce that there would be future incarnations because Hylia reincarnating automatically gives her descendants the blood of the goddess and the "spirit of the hero" is most likely symbolic.
@@DillonMaynard >Hylians forgetting where their people once lived is way more possible than the actual hierarchy fading from obscurity. If they were there to rule from the beginning of Skyloft, they would be there during the game aswell. The only way the royal family could be forgotten is if it was discontinued, which would make no sense. Forgetting about the surface doesn't erase millenia of a ruling hierarchy on Skyloft.
Youre missing the point. We KNOW they forgot about the surface. We know that for a fact.
In order for them to remember the royal family, they would HAVE to remember the surface, because if they dont remember the surface, where would the royal family be royalty FROM? In other words, the fact that they forgot the surface even existed means they would have HAD to forget everything about how things used to BE on the surface; including the royal family.
How can they possibly remember the royal family that used to rule on the surface, if they dont remember the surface itself? Thats like remembering the royal family of china in like 8000BC, while not remembering China itself.
Also, look at the fact that Zelda's father is the headmaster of the knights academy. Once the Hylains moved up to Skyloft it would be natural for the royal family to remain in power, but what that power *IS* would change. The Patriarch of the royal family went from being the king, to the leader of the town, to the headmaster of the academy, over the course of THOUSANDS of years. Its only natural that they might forget that Zelda's family started out as literal royalty, rather than just the leaders of the academy.
>In regards to the MC crest, it can still be based off the Loftwing without entirely looking like one
It could look a *little* different and still be based on a loftwing, sure, but that is CLEARLY a totally different creature.
LOOK at it! www.kindpng.com/picc/m/69-693755_shield-artwork-shield-link-minish-cap-hd-png.png
It has horns and a humanoid face, nose, eyes, and mouth. It is *clearly* not a beak. Its legs are very thick whereas a Loftwing's are very VERY thin. It has no tail.There is no POSSIBLE way that that is based on a loftwing.
imgix.kotaku.com.au/content/uploads/sites/3/2021/07/14/legend-of-zelda-skyward-sword-hd.png?ar=16%3A9&auto=format&fit=crop&q=65&w=1280
>The Picori were considered a myth by some, but they still existed. They don't need to be remembered to have their presence hinted at in the era.
Again, youre not getting how much the Hylians lost their history and basically all information about their past after they moved to skyloft. If they didnt remember that the surface existed, how could they POSSIBLY remember a specific race of creatures FROM the surface? They couldnt.
>In your theory, MC Zelda would not share the blood of the goddess as Hylia chooses to reincarnate after that.
When Demise attacks for the first time, prior to the events of SS, that is the first time the goddess Hylia chooses to incarnate into mortal form in Zelda's body, but Zelda was always destined to be Hylia's vessel. Remember, Hylia is the goddes of *time* so it would be entirely within her powers to see that Demise was attacking, and send her spirit/blood/whatever back in time to the very first zelda, so that the royal family would have her blood from the very beginning, even thousands of years before Demise attacked.
>Even if MC Zelda did share the blood of the goddess, Demise still would not be referring to her and MC Link as there's no way the curse would affect them in the past.
I wasnt saying that the curse would affect them in the past. Vaati was just an evil dude that existed on his own; he was not connected to Demise's curse. But Demise could still KNOW about previous incarnations of Link and Zelda, even if he/his curse wasnt the one who fought them.
My point was that if SS Zelda was the FIRST Zelda, it wouldnt make sense for Demise to say what he does. If SS Zelda was there first then there would BE no one "Like them". Remember, he says "Those LIKE YOU."
The ONLY way Demise's curse makes any sense is if he knows for a fact that the hero and princess reincarnate, and the ONLY way he could know that, is if there had already BEEN a previous incarnation of the hero and princess, and if thats the case, then SS Link and Zelda are NOT the first.
>The threat is for future incarnations or else it doesn't make sense.
But how would he know there would BE future incarnations *unless* there had already been previous incarnations? If SS Link and Zelda were the very first hero and princess, he'd have no reason to believe they would reincarnate. If SS was the very first Link and Zelda, then as far as Demise would know, they would be the ONLY Link and Zelda.
The fact that he is specifically cursing future incarnations means he KNOWS that reincarnating is something they ALREADY do.
> He can deduce that there would be future incarnations because Hylia reincarnating automatically gives her descendants the blood of the goddess and the "spirit of the hero" is most likely symbolic.
How can he deduce that if this is the FIRST Zelda? What you said *only* makes sense if Hylia has incarnated before, which is ONLY possible if SS Zelda is not the first Zelda.
If SS Zelda is the first Zelda, then there would be NO information to possibly let Demise know that there would be additional Zeldas in the future.
its mostly good if im honest but some things are odd mostly the fact that four swords adventures HEAVELY implies that Ganon/Ganondorf is different from the Gannon from other games.
I covered that. He is "different" because he lost his connection to the triforce if power in the previous game. That's why he has to find the Dark Trident to become Ganon again; without the triforce if power, he needs some *other* powerful magical artifact to achieve his demon king form.
@@sytyk7437 still unlikely but i see your point
The should be more space between zelda 2 and wind waker
The amount of space between the icons on the timeline is not proportionate to the amount of time between games. AoL and WW being physically close together on the screen doesnt mean I was implying they occur close together in time. I didnt space them out more because I was already having to zoom pretty far out to get the whole timeline in one shot, so adding blank space between two icons would have made that worse. It was a stylistic choice, not an indication of the passage of time.
I have a question, if minish cap is before skyward sword then does the hero of minish not have the spirit of the hero, also when twilight princess is mentioned in botw it actually mentions a different game depending on language (ea in German it mentions windwaker and in another language it mentions alt)
Its hard to say, really the Link from MC might not have the spirit of the Hero at all, or he may be a sort of proto-spirit of the hero, or the precursor to it, etc. Its possible that the first time the actual spirit of the hero was incarnated, it was *based* on the Hero of Men and the Hero of the Minish.
Regarding BotW mentioning a different game in other languages, Zelda mentions SS, OoT, and TP in both the English version and the original Japanese. Given that the Japanese is the original "true" source material, and the English release is probably the biggest market, the fact that those two both agree is pretty compelling evidence that it is indeed meant to really be after TP.
@@sytyk7437 Re: The Hero of Men, from memory it’s implied that King Gustav was once the HoM, explaining why he didn’t have the hat and why he started the ceremony in the first place. The issue with MC>SS is that the intro shows Gustav driving away monsters even though there were none in MC before the game starts. Those monsters had to come from somewhere (SS intro explains where all the demons came from) as well as Hyrule already being established in MC. (Although the point about the origin of the monsters still stands). Gustav didn’t use the Master Sword because it wasn’t known about or the Temple was sealed off. (However, it’s clear from the blue appearance of the FS in the intro as well as the Goddess Blade baring a striking resemblance to the FS, that at least at one point, the Picori Blade/ FS and the MS may have been intended to be the same blade).
@@ausgamecollector I just replayed MC like a month ago and I dont recall there being anything at all implying, so unless you have a source to back that up, Im gonna say thats not accurate. The reason there are no monsters in MC before the game starts is BECAUSE the hero of men sealed them all in the bound chest. The order of events goes that things were peaceful, then monsters appeared for the very first time, then the Minish gave the Hero of men the Picori sword, then the HoM sealed all the monsters inside the bound chest, then there were no monsters around anymore, then hundreds of years pass, then the events of MC take place.
SS intro says where all DEMONS come from. Not all monsters are demons. There are keese which are just ordinary bats, Ropes which are just ordinary snakes, and Rats which are, yknow... rats. Octorocks are basically just octopi, so still basically just animals.
Also, it is literally 100% impossible for MC to *NOT* be the first game, for one very big reason: The Armos.
MC tells us that the Armos were created BY the Picori. If the Armos were created by the Picori, then any game that has Armos MUST come after MC. SS has Armos. QED, SS absolutely *must* come after MC.
There are only 3 games that DONT have Armos, and those 3 games all have other things that definitely place them after MC. Therefore, MC is the first game.
@@sytyk7437 There’s no conclusive evidence, however, it’s known the HoM inherited the FS and the Lightforce, which had stayed within the Royal family - being with Zelda by MC. It’s possible it was simply an unspoken Hero, but the ties to the LF make it seem less likely that the HoM would have no ties to the royal family(particularly that the Lightforce appears to exist within Zelda).
SS Armos and Beamos bear the ‘magnets’ symbol of the Ancient Robots, who themselves and their technology have only appeared extensively through SS. The Armos are knights in every other game than SS, where they appear more primal(tribal heads like Easter Island) with a completely different physical appearance. These have never appeared in any other game, it’s entirely possible the Picori adapted the ancient robot’s technology and used it to create guards based upon the Hylian knights. As well as the ancient robots, other races, such as the Mogma, Kikwii, Parrela (Gorons being the exception) only existing in SS, appearing to be predecessors to the current races. Yes there are actual animal-based enemies roaming the world, but the HoM backstory mentions “when the world was on the verge of being swallowed by shadow”, specifically picturing Moblins, who are Demons. They had to have materialised from somewhere ie fissures in the Earth, Pre-SS (during the SS backstory). Specifically Moblins and Bokoblins materialise during the events leading to the final Girahim battle.
I agree in principle re: The Master Sword and Triforce being out of sight and mind is a convenience factor. However, it’s less of a convenience than the FS never being touched between MC>FS>>>>>>>FSA, implying the FS remains unmoved for centuries and generations well beyond what SS>>OOT would have accounted for in terms of time.
There’s also the issue of Zelda originally being Hylia which is not remembered by the time of MC and the Kingdom of Hyrule as we know it, originally being established by the time of MC, with only a few still connected to the sky. The biggest giveaway here is that Zelda has always dwelled in the sky, herself Link and her father establish Hyrule in SS. Zelda, previously to SS WAS Hylia, was given the Triforce by the Gods/ Goddesses, raised the land(creating Skyloft), sealed Demise and then & only then was reincarnated as Zelda. (It makes no sense for Hylia to create Skyloft, seal Demise, descend back to Hyrule, live there for a couple of generations, go back up to Skyloft, then come back down again - That makes no sense). There’s no Zelda prior to Skyloft existing, meaning Hylia>Skyloft>Skyloft Zelda>MC Zelda... This sequence of how Zelda manifests into the series is more significant than one enemy who can be explained by other logical means.
It’s not to say the Picori, the Lightforce or the HoM don’t predate SS, but MC certainly doesn’t seem to predate SS.
@@ausgamecollector Sorry, but thats incorrect. The HoM received the Picori sword directly FROM the minish; he did not inherit it. The HoM has "ties" to the Royal family the same way most other heroes do; they saved the world, and the Royal family made them a knight or some such or just celebrated them as a hero. Theres no bloodline relation. MOST heroes dont have a "direct" tie to the royal family in the form of being blood related or anything.
RE: The armos, if anything its the other way around. IE, the makers of the ancient robots in SS based their designs on the original Armos made by the Minish. The fact that the SS Armos as more complex and behave somewhat differently also supports the idea that theyre an "upgrade" of the original Minish-built Armos, but the fact remains that the Minish-built ones ARE the first. MC also tells us that the Minish built the Armos for the wind tribe, so this ALSO supports MC being first, as it shows us there was an entire race of people living in the sky BEFORE Hylia sent the Hylians up to Skyloft.
RE: the Picori sword/FS being untouched in between FS to FSA: They had no reason to need it, as they had the Master Sword available most of those times, which is a superior sacred blade. Why go for the second-best sword when you can go with the best one? The FourSword's evil-sealing powers arent as strong as the Master Sword's, so sometimes the weaker sword just isnt gonna cut it. (pun very much intended.)
RE: Zelda always being Hylia, thats not quite right. Zelda wasnt ALWAYS Hylia. What happened was that, when Demise shows up the first time in the backstory of SS, Hylia incarnates herself in mortal form, choosing the form of Zelda. Thats when Hylia sends everyone up into the clouds. Its entirely possible that there were "normal" Zelda's before Hylia incarnated. Its also possible that even if all Zeldas always "were" Hylia, the power of Hylia was lying dormant. Thus, the Zelda in MC would be unaware that she was/had a connection to Hylia. And again, the presence of the Wind Tribe in MC shows us that there were already people living in the sky before Hylia sent people to Skyloft. Unlike the people that Hylia sent up there, the Wind tribe could walk on the clouds themselves, rather than using floating chunks of rock and dirt. Also, in MC, there are no dirt-based Sky islands like there are in SS; only cloud-based ones. If MC took place after SS, there would still be some earth-based Sky islands, since not all of them came down by the end of SS.
- You forgot the Abandon timeline, in Oot one of the Links couldn't access the power gloves or the lens of truth and could finish the quest also how did the First Link got the song of storms?
- Zelda 2 > Wind Waker, why did the gods drown hyrule if Ganon is already dead
No, the abandoned Timeline is just nonsense. it doesnt exist. If Link loses, then thats a game over, and the timeline ENDS. By definition, an abandoned timeline or "hero is defeated timeline" cannot exist, because if the hero is defeated, the world ends.
And as for Zelda 2 > WW, Ganon *was* dead, and then he came back. As he tends to do. Thats why the gods had to flood hyrule; he was dead, but then he came back.
@@sytyk7437 but that doesnt make sense because link died in the abandoned hero timeline and the sages sealed Ganon away in the sacred realm as a last ditch effort to stop him from destroying Hyrule, hence the events of A Link to the Past.
Zelda 2 > WW literally isn't right because in the prolouge of WW, it says that it takes place 100 years after the events of Ocarina of Time after Zelda sent the Hero of Time back to his original timeline and when Ganondorf broke his seal after Ocarina of Time, the hero of time couldn't save them, so the goddesses flooded Hyrule to try to drown Ganondorf and Zelda 2 would come after A Link to the Past, Link's Awakening, The Oracle Games, A Link Between Worlds, Triforce Heroes, and Zelda 1 in the fallen hero timeline because they all just lead into each other.
@@thatrandomperson5010>ut that doesnt make sense because link died in the abandoned hero timeline and the sages sealed Ganon away in the sacred realm as a last ditch effort to stop him from destroying
Ive explained this multiple times in other comments, but thats impossible. The sages NEEDED Link to defeat Ganon before they would be *able* to seal him, so if Link loses, they cant seal Ganon at all. And before you say "but they sealed him in the sacred realm itself when the original plan was to seal him in a void between dimensions" Im sorry, but thats not how that works. WHERE they seal him is irrelevant. If he's too strong to seal in one place without Link defeating him, he's too strong to seal in any other place without Link defeating him. WHERE you seal him makes no difference.
Imagine a 10 foot tall pig monster is standing in front of you, right in front of a door, and you are trying to force him through it so you can lock him in. WHERE that door leads does not make a difference to how hard it is to push him through. No mater how hard you push, he is much stronger than you, and you cannot push him through and "seal" him on the other side. Even if you got 6 friends to come and help you (or 6 sages) he would STILL be too strong, and again, it makes no difference whether the door youre trying to push him through leads to the sacred realm or a dimensional void. Either way, the point is he's too strong.
However, if a guy in a green tunic comes along and stabs the giant monster a ton of times, THEN you can push him through the door while he's too weak from blood loss to resist.
But if that guy in green DOESNT stab him to near death, you CANT seal him away, no matter where it is youre trying to seal him.
Also, if Link loses, Ganon would get the Triforce of Courage, so he'd be even MORE powerful and the sages would have even less chance of sealing him. And Zelda was right there watching the battle, so if Link loses, Zelda is dead right away too. Not only is she one of the sages, meaning they now have only 6 sages to seal Ganon instead of 7, but Ganon would also get the Triforce of Wisdon and have the full Triforce upon killing her. So even if the sages could seal Ganon without Link beating him first, (which we've just proven they cant) they sure as heck cant do it with only 6 out of 7 sages. And even if they could do that, they sure as heck cant do it if Ganon gets a second piece of the Triforce and DOUBLES his power. And even if they could somehow manage to seal Ganon with only 6 sages AND with him having 2/3 of the Triforce, (which they cant) theres no way in hell they could do it with only 6 sages and Ganon having the FULL Triforce.
So yeah, no matter how you look at it, if Link dies or loses, its game over and the timeline ends. It would be impossible for ANY game to take place after Link loses, because all of Hyrule would be destroyed, or at least under Ganons rule. Ganon would have the full triforce so for all intents and purposes, he's practically omnipotent. And since Link dying means Zelda dies too, there would be no more Royal family since Zelda is dead and cant produce any descendants. The fact that the royal family still exists in ALttP is proof that it CANT come after a timeline where Link dies.
>it says that it takes place 100 years after the events of Ocarina of Time after Zelda sent the Hero of Time back to his original timeline
It does not sat that. At absolutely no point does it ever mention 100 years, or any specific amount of time. You are factually incorrect.
See for yourself:
czcams.com/video/V7ms1PGpC7k/video.html
Jesus christ
@@sytyk7437 it makes sense considering the Ganon in botw is still alive but sealed in place to keep him weak and from coming back again. Bit again he just gets stronger over time.
but how can botw be on the child timeline if they aknowledge the actions of the sages and the hero of time, who technically wouldve not awakened/existed on that timeline
After Link defeats Ganon, Zelda sends Link back to his childhood, but he still retains all the *memories* of what he did as adult Link. Child Link remembers the sages, BEING The Hero of Time, wielding the Master Sword, and defeating Demon King Ganon. He tells Zelda about all this, and thus, it becomes a legend passed down by the royal family, and that Legend is still around by the time of BotW.
Its the same reason why Ganondorf is caught and sentenced to death before he can seize power in the child timeline; because Young Link uses his knowledge of what happens 7 years in the future to prove Ganondorf is evil.
Why can't the Oracle games come after a link to the past instead of Triforce heroes? Didn't Link to the past Link destory Ganon?
Also, the Ganon in Four Swords Adventure was reborn, either meaning it's a reference to Oot or it's a completely new Ganondorf.
Because we're told in-game that ALbW comes directly after ALttP, so if OoS/OoA came in between, that would directly contradict what the characters themselves tell us has happened.
@@sytyk7437 Isn't it 6 generations in between? And wasn't the manual for Link's awakening alluding to A Link to the Past?
@@willbitz8651 The exact amount of time in between is irrelevant. The point is that, if the Oracles games came in between ALttP and ALbW, then the events of OoS and/or OoA would be mentioned in ALbW, alongside the events of ALttP.
In ALbW, we are told multiple times about the history of Hyrule and how things got the way they are. We are told about the events of ALttP and how Ganons attack in ALttP lead to Hyrule being how it is today, but nobody mentions ANYTHING about the events of the Oracles games. The events of the Oracles games were a significant event, so it would make absolutely no sense for them to just... not be mentioned.
Like, imagine you're a character in ALbW, and you're telling someone about the history of Hyrule. Are you gonna tell them about the time 125-ish years ago that Ganon attacked (ALttP), but just randomly leave out the time even more recently that Ganon was almost brought back to life? (OoA/OoS.)
It wouldn't make sense. It would be like telling someone about IRL history and how the world got to how it is today, and mentioning World War one, but not mentioning world war two at all. It wouldn't make sense to leave out something that is not only crucially important, but also even more recent than the thing you *did* mention.
@@sytyk7437 Wouldn't you say the same thing for ALbW from the perspective of an NPC in Zelda 1 or 2?
@@willbitz8651 The difference is, in ALbW, we're explicitly told about what happened in ALttP. Like, the opening prologue talks about it, theres a series of paintings in the castle describing it, and Sahasrahla tells us about it. So if the Oracles were in between ALttP and ALbW, it would be really weird that NONE of those things in ALbW mention it.
In Zelda 1 or 2, we're not given some big, extensive explanation of exactly what happened in a previous game over a century ago. We're only told what happened JUST NOW right before the game started. So its not weird for someone in LoZ or AoL to not mention anything about ALbW.
This was great and I loved your reasoning. Consider myself subscribed.
The only detail I would change is that the BotW Rito are natural birds evolved from the Loftwings given their resemblance, while the WW Rito are basically reverse penguins (fish who forgot how to swim instead of birds who forgot how to fly) and while they developed feathers (or what looks more like fur) they still need a scale from the sky deity Valoo to gain the ability to fly.
I dont really think it would make sense to give the same name to two totally different races that evolved from two totally different ancestors in two totally unrelated ways. If the bird people in botw had evolved from the loftwings, they wouldnt be called Rito; theyd be called something different.
Its a neat idea though. :)
That was impressive,great work....even if you're not 100% right, noone can be....and you def make a great argument if there were ever a LOZ timeline debate...which there prob has been somewhere...
Oh, you have no idea. Theres been a debate since the 90's. There were some *really* whacky ideas out there for a while. One popular idea suggested that Tingle was actually an older, crazy Link, and that Link was his own father. I wish I was making that up but that was a real thing that people believed.
I don’t get how they manage cap is at the beginning Because in skyward sword Hirule did not even exist when that happened But I do like your theory though
Thats not true. Hyrule kingdom DID exist before Skyward sword; it just fell when Demise attacked and the people of Skyloft forgot it over the centuries. What do you think all those ruins on the surface world are? Who do you think built the temples and springs and all those buildings, if *not* the ancient Hylians?
The possibilities are either A: It was the kingdom of hyrule, but it all fell into ruin when Demise attacked and Hylia sent the survivors into the sky
or B: It was some other, random, TOTALLY UNRELATED kingdom that just so happened to build Hylian structures, in the geographic area of Hyrule, but somehow *wasnt* the hyrule Kingdom.
Its like, if you found Roman-looking ruins, IN Rome, the obvious answer is that they were built by ancient Romans. So if you find Hylian-looking ruins IN Hyrule Kingdom, the answer is that they were built by ancient Hylians.
@@sytyk7437 You're half right, and half wrong. It's most likely B. There was SOME sort of ancient civilization, or ancient society on the surface. But IT WAS NOT HYRULE. Hyrule itself was founded after the events of Skyward Sword, when Skyloft was sent BACK to the surface! The ruins and other things found in the surface during the game can easily be passed off as things the Hylian built, but this doesn't mean that it has anything to do with the Kingdom of Hyrule. For example, America wasn't founded, or named until AFTER Christopher Columbus traveled to the continent. Sure, he may not have discovered it, but he and his people did name, and help make it what it is today. America did not exist before the arrival of the British. Sure, SOME form of civilization existed IN what is known today as America, but not America itself. Because America wasn't founded, and had not been thought of yet.
It's a similar case with Hyrule. Sure, there were things built and ruins of an already existing Hylian civilization, but Hyrule itself wasn't made, named, or founded until AFTER the events of the game. Nintendo wouldn't just make a statement in the timeline that is completely not true. You're basically taking a statement that the creators of the game said is true, and saying it's wrong, and making up your own excuses for why it's wrong. You have no proof that Hyrule itself existed, and that it existed before Skyward Sword, and you have no proof that Minish Cap was before Skyward Sword. We on the other hand, have proof. The creators of the game confirmed it. Where's their proof, you might ask? Well, they don't need proof. They created the games. ☺️
@@deoxysoverlord8710 > There was SOME sort of ancient civilization, or ancient society on the surface. But IT WAS NOT HYRULE
Right, so it was in the same geographic location as Hyrule, and was populated by the ancestors of the people of Hyrule, and built Hylian structures like the Temple of Time or the springs of power which are only built by hyrule.... but it somehow wasnt hyrule.
Nah dude. If it looks like a duck, walks like a duck, and quacks like a duck, its a duck. And if its in the same location of Hyrule, populated by the ancestors of the Hylians, and builds the temple of time, then its Hyrule.
You also have to remember that the people of Skyloft dont even remember that the surface really EXISTS; they all think its a myth. So it makes perfect sense that they dont remember that there already was a Hyrule kingdom down there.
>Hyrule itself was founded after the events of Skyward Sword, when Skyloft was sent BACK to the surface!
Close! It was *RE*-founded then.
It was originally founded before the events of MC, but then it was abandoned when Hylia sent the Hylians up into the clouds, and forgotten. Then, when Skyloft came back to the surface, it was *RE*-established by the Zelda of SS and the people of Skyloft. They may not have KNOWN that they were re-founding it or that there was a Hyrule Kingdom there before them, but the fact that they dont know it, doesnt mean it isnt true.
>America wasn't founded, or named until AFTER Christopher Columbus traveled to the continent.
Perfect example, because America was discovered and named America long, LONG before Columbus ever came along. (In fact, he never even FOUND America; he found the Caribbean.)
>America did not exist before the arrival of the British. Sure, SOME form of civilization existed IN what is known today as America, but not America itself. Because America wasn't founded, and had not been thought of yet.
Right, but thats NOT what happened with Hyrule. With hyrule there WERE actual Hylians there who *FOUNDED* a kingdom called hyrule, and then that kingdom was abandoned and forgotten when they went into the clouds, and then the *RE*-founded it after SS.
So to use your analogy, it would be more like if America was founded with the declaration of Independence in 1776, and then Amercians live in America for hundreds of years, and then EVERY American went and lived in space for a few thousand years and forgot the "original" America every existed, and THEN they all came back down to earth and Founded a new nation called America with the exact same constitution and laws and the same presidents (since the royal family of pre-skyloft Hyrule, and post-skyloft Hyrule, were the same family, even if they didnt KNOW they were a royal family.)
>but Hyrule itself wasn't made, named, or founded until AFTER the events of the game
It was though. We literally see it in Minish Cap. The fact that the people living on skyloft dont REMEMBER that that kingdom was founded down there, doesnt mean it never happened.
>Nintendo wouldn't just make a statement in the timeline that is completely not true.
Thats the funniest thing Ive ever heard in my life! XD My friend Nintendo has made so many completely-not-true statements in the timeline its hard to count them.
>ou're basically taking a statement that the creators of the game said is true, and saying it's wrong,
*IM* not saying its wrong; the *GAMES* are saying its wrong.
If Nintendo comes out and says "The official canon is that Link has blue hair in OoT" that doesnt make it true. It just means Nintendo is wong. Know why? Cause I can boot up my copy of OoT, and look at the screen, and SEE with my own eyes that his hair is blond. Thus, Nintendo is wrong. You could literally bring Anouma or Iwata or Miyamoto or any other Nintendo exec over to your TV and say "look, right there, his hair is NOT blue. You are wrong."
>You have no proof that Hyrule itself existed, and that it existed before Skyward Sword,
Aside from the entirety of Minish cap.
>and you have no proof that Minish Cap was before Skyward Sword.
Aside from the prologue explicitly stating that its the first ever appearance of monsters, and the game stating that MC is when Armos were first created (And since SS has Armos in it, it has to take place AFTER armos were created, and thus after MC) and the fact that the royal family doesnt send Link after the Master Sword rather than sending him on a (possibly) wild goose chase to fix the broken (and much weaker) picori sword which means the master sword must not EXIST yet because if it did theyd send him to get it, and about a dozen other things.
>Where's their proof, you might ask? Well, they don't need proof. They created the games.
Creat*ED*. Past tense. As in, they DID that already, and now its done.
Once they release the game, the game itself takes precedence over anything they say OUTSIDE the game. Again, if Nintendo says Link had blue hair in OoT, and I boot up my copy of OoT and Links hair is blond, then Nintendo is wrong. And if Nintendo says Skyward Sword is first, and I boot up my copy of MC and MC says that the Minish created the Armos, then that proves that MC has to come before SS, and Nintendo is wrong.
Good job
The problem with the Zelda series is that script has always been terrible and they have always tried continuity.
Thus, absurd things like the ending of Ocarina of Time and Skyward Sword, which make no sense at all, happened.
I would say this is why BotW tried to move forward and leave the old chronology behind.
Just because of the geology, I think any attempt to put together a timeline is doomed to fail. Every game features a completely different map, and Hyrule barely consists of a few 50 people. This already makes no sense whatsoever so...
Where’s “The hero is defeated” timeline?
There ISNT one. A timeline where the hero is defeated cannot exist, because if Link is defeated, then Ganondorf gets the full triforce and takes over all of Hyrule. If that happens, no games could possibly come after since the royal family would be wiped out, which means no more Princess Zeldas ever again, and even if Link and Zelda *did* get reincarnated, theyd be powerless to do anything since Ganon already has the full triforce.
If you look at the Hyrule Historia Timeline (see my first video for more details on why that cant the true timeline) you see that the first game in this "downfall" timeline is ALttP, and yet at the start of ALttP, there is still a royal family, which would be impossible if the game takes place after the "hero is defeated" in OoT. If ALttP *TRULY* took place after Link was defeated, youd start the game in a hyrule that was even more destroyed and lifeless than the Hyrule of OoT's adult era, and there would be no castle town, and Ganon would already be king.
@@sytyk7437 This is wrong. In the downfall timeline, Link is defeated. Which is why it's called the downfall, or failed hero timeline. It's the downfall of the hero, LINK. NOT Hyrule! Which is why Ganon is sealed away. Link dies, but the sages are still able to use their sealing magic to seal Ganon away, at least for the time being. Which is why Ganondorf is in a seal, and is able to escape that seal in the events following Ocarina of Time, which becomes A Link to The Past. A timeline that heavily implies that this version of Ganon was sealed away, and then was resurrected, or freed from the seal by Aganihm. (Probably spelled that wrong.)
You need to remember that a lot of things get retconned or lost in translation with the American release of originally Japanese games. So when they say Ganon is resurrected, they don't mean brought back from the dead. Very rarely, and I said VERY RARELY, NOT NEVER, is Ganon ever killed. He is only fatally wounded, and sealed away for a long period of time, until he is brought back by some villain, so that he can wreck havoc on the land. So when he is resurrected, he is freed from his seal, not revived from the dead. And A Link to The Past and Wind Waker cannot be in the same timeline, because both games talk about the events that conspired in Ocarina of Time, and how things went down in the respective timelines. Wind Waker talks about how after the events of the adult timeline, where Ganon was slayed, and Link was sent back in time to relive his past, Ganon eventually broke free from the seal, and wrecked havoc on the land. The inhabitants of Hyrule hoped that the hero would save him. But there was no hero. The hero did not appear, as he was sent back in time where the events of the child timeline played out. And they had to look to the gods for help, who responded by flooding Hyrule, and making the Zora become the Rito.
A Link to The Past on the other hand, talks about the events of the adult era as well, BUT in an alternate version where Link died. They talk about how Ganondorf and his band of thieves entered the sacred realm, which ties to Ganondorf entering the sacred realm after Link pulled the master sword in Ocarina of Time, and they talk about how the sacred realm became corrupted, and became the dark world. And how because of Ganon's greed, the sacred realm turned him into what his true personality reflected. A pig. Which is why he assumes the form we see in Ocarina of Time. That is not just a form of his true power, as well as his alliance with his respective piece of the Triforce, but also him on the inside. He is a man filled with hatred and greed. A metaphorical pig, or swine. Even more greedy and gruesome looking than that of a normal pig.
Both games cannot talk about events that happened directly after Ocarina of Time, if they are indeed in the same timeline. If the Gods responded by flooding Hyrule after Ganon's return, then Hyrule would be flooded in A Link To The Past as well.
Sure, there is no proof that suggests that they flooded Hyrule right after his first return, but there is also no suggesting they didn't. Which in my opinion, leans more toward the fact that there were no times in between. And I'm speaking on behalf of Wind Waker, AND A Link To The Past, which exist in their own separate versions of the timeline split. Both of which the events told to us by the characters happen with nothing in between. Sure, there is time in between the games, but no time in between the stories. Hyrule was flooded right after Ganon's revival, in the adult timeline, and Ganon was sealed away after becoming a pig in the downfall timeline.
You could argue that both of these things happen in each timeline, but again, Hyrule is not flooded in A Link To The Past. If it was not flooded until much later, many Links after, and many resurrections after, then this would have been an important thing to mention!
You just don't leave important things like that out in history.
@@deoxysoverlord8710 >Which is why it's called the downfall, or failed hero timeline. It's the downfall of the hero, LINK. NOT Hyrule!
If Link was defeated, then that MEANS the downfall of Hyrule. If Link loses, then Ganon wins and Hyrule is destroyed.
>Link dies, but the sages are still able to use their sealing magic to seal Ganon away, at least for the time being.
Thats 100% NOT how that works. The sages CANT seal ganon *unless* link beats him first. If Ganon isnt at the brink of death, he's too strong for the sages to seal.
If it was even POSSIBLE for the sages to seal Ganon without Link weakening him... why didnt they just DO that to begin with? Why have Link risk his life if its possible to seal Ganon WITHOUT Link weakening him? And before you bring up that absurd theory about them sealing him in the sacred realm rather than in a void between dimensions, dont bother because thats not how any part of that works. WHERE you seal him doesnt make a difference in how DIFFICULT he is to seal.
Imagine someone like Dwayne the Rock Johnson in standing in front of a door, and youre trying to force him through while he tries to resist. It doesnt matter WHERE that door leads; whether it leads to the sacred realm or a void, either way you cant force him through, because he's too strong. Even if you had 6 friends (or 6 sages) come and help you, he'd STILL be too strong. But, if some guy in a green tunic came and stabbed him a ton of times, THEN you could force him through while he's on the bring of death, and lock him in. But again, WHERE the door leads is irrelevant. Forcing him into the sacred realm is not ANY easier than forcing him into a void. If Link doesnt defeat Ganon, the sages cant seal him. Period.
Also, if Link loses, Ganon would IMMEDIATELY take his triforce, and then kill Zelda and take HER triforce. So not only would the sages be down from 7 to 6, but Ganon would ALSO have the full triforce, making him too powerful to seal no matter how many sages there were, or how much Link stabbed him.
So yeah, if Link loses, Ganon CANNOT be sealed. Thus, the downfall timeline is impossible.
>Very rarely, and I said VERY RARELY, NOT NEVER, is Ganon ever killed. He is only fatally wounded, and sealed away for a long period of time,
100% not true. He is most often killed, and then later revived. Him being sealed away is actually LESS common. The original LoZ, ALttP, ALbW, WW, TP, these are ALL games where Ganon is killed, rather than sealed. Like, you literally see him BLOW UP in some of them, and then his triforce is sitting there for you to take.
Where exactly did any sealing happen in TP? Hm? Go watch that ending cutscene. He's DEAD dead my dude. He's literally a corpse with the Master Sword stuck in his chest. Do you see anyone sealing him away in that scene? What about WW? You ram the master sword THROUGH HIS SKULL so far it reaches into his chest. he's effing DEAD my dude. Why do you think that the immediate sequels to WW (PH and ST) have DIFFERENT villains than Ganondorf? because Ganondorf is DEAD dead.
>Ganon eventually broke free from the seal, and wrecked havoc on the land. The inhabitants of Hyrule hoped that the hero would save him. But there was no hero. The hero did not appear, as he was sent back in time where the events of the child timeline played out. And they had to look to the gods for help, who responded by flooding Hyrule, and making the Zora become the Rito.
And where, in any of that, does ANYTHING say that that couldnt have happened after a game OTHER than OoT? Its entirely possible that Ganon was sealed away in OoT, then broke out and the events of ALttP happened and he's killed, then he's revived by Yuga in ALbW but then killed again, etc, etc, etc, and then AFTER all those games, Ganon comes back again, but no hero shows up.
There is literally NOTHING in *any* of the games that indicates WW *HAS* to be right after WW. Ive explained this in detail in other replies to comments of yours, but is ENTIRELY possible, based on what the games themselves say, that there are multiple games in between OoT and WW.
>A Link to The Past on the other hand, talks about the events of the adult era as well, BUT in an alternate version where Link died.
Literally nothing in ALttP mentions ANYTHING about Link dying. At all.
> If the Gods responded by flooding Hyrule after Ganon's return, then Hyrule would be flooded in A Link To The Past as well.
They didnt flood Hyrule in response to THAT instance of Ganons return. They flooded it WAY later, after all the other games that go between OoT and WW. Thats what I keep explaining.
OoT happens, ganon gets sealed.
ALttP happens, ganon breaks free from the seal, but is killed. The gods do NOT flood Hyrule yet, because they dont NEED to, because Ganon was defeated by the hero.
ALbW happens, Ganon is revived by Yuga, but is killed again. The gods still dont flood hyrule because Ganon was defeated again.
TH happens, ganon remains dead. Still no flood.
The Oracles games happen. Ganon is partially revived, then killed again. No flood needed.
LA happens, Ganon remains dead. No flood.
Original LoZ happens, Ganon is revived, but killed again. The gods dont flood hyrule yet, cause Ganon gets killed again.
AoL happens, Ganon remains dead.
THEN only ***AFTER*** all of this, does Ganon break free one more time, IN BETWEEN games, and the gods flood hyrule because no hero shows up to defeat him..
*THEN* WW happens.
See? Hyrule wouldnt be flooded during ALttP because the flood doesnt happen till wayyyy after that. OoT happens, a bunch of other games happen, *THEN* the flood happens, and THEN WW happens.
>here is no proof that suggests that they flooded Hyrule right after his first return, but there is also no suggesting they didn't.
There is actually a ton suggesting they didnt. EG; the events of all the games from ALttP to AoL. The fact that none of those games feature a flooded hyrule, and the fact that in between OoT and WW is the ONLY place those games can go (since we've already established why the downfall branch of the timeline CANNOT exist.) suggests that the flood MUST take place *after* those games.
>Both of which the events told to us by the characters happen with nothing in between.
We are told no such thing by any character in either game. If you disagree, please provide proof of such dialogue. And if youre referring to the cutscene with Laruto in WW dont bother, because, Ive already thoroughly explained (in other replies to you) why her dialogue does not in any way imply that WW is directly after OoT with no games in between.
>Hyrule was flooded right after Ganon's revival, in the adult timeline,
But WHICH revival? Ganon is revived numerous times. There is literally NOTHING in any of the games that even *suggests* that the flood happened in response to his first revival, and there is an enormous amount of evidence which shows it actually happens after he has already been revived and defeated multiples times.
>If it was not flooded until much later, many Links after, and many resurrections after, then this would have been an important thing to mention!
It would not. Ive explained this multiple times in multiple other replies to your comments. There is actually no reason why anyone WOULD mention how many times Ganon has come back. From the perspective of the characters IN the game, it would make no sense to bring it up.
If you were in the middle of WWII and you encountered a legendary hero destined to win the war and kill hitler, and you needed to tell him what was happening, what his mission was, and what he needed to do, are you gonna explain the FULL HISTORY of EVERY country involved and every war theyve ever fought?
Of course not! Youre ONLY gonna tell him about the RECENT history of Germany in the last few decades, a brief summary of how WWII started, and where he could find Hitler and how he could defeat him. Youre not gonna go over EVERY war Germany has ever fought!
And thats exactly what the games are doing; those characters are giving Link only the details he NEEDS to complete his mission, rather than going over the full history of every war Ganon has ever fought.
>You just don't leave important things like that out in history.
But were not TALKING about history; we're talking about one person giving Link specific details he needs for his mission.
@@sytyk7437 This does not necessarily mean that Hyrule would have been destroyed if Link was defeated. Link could have weakened Ganon enough in order for the sages to seal him away before he died. It's the FAILED HERO timeline, not the DESTRUCTION OF HYRULE timeline.
If Ganon came back multiple times, this would have been an important thing to even temporarily mention, not just during Link's adventure, but in the prologue of the game as a whole.
I never said ALTTP said Link died. I said they talk about the events IN THE TIMELINE where he died. Because ALTTP is in the downfall timeline, and nowhere else.
Yes, the downfall branch CAN exist. And you can't use games from the downfall branch as proof they didn't flood Hyrule just yet, because these games are in a different timeline. Again, you're using your flawed theory as evidence. Use FACTS as evidence if you're going to argue, NOT your flawed hypotheses.
In ALTTP, the female sages that we free explain to us what happened in Ocarina of Time.
(Yes, this actually happened. Look it up. A game that came before Oot foreshadowed the upcoming game. Either that, or the game was made based off of the events explained in ALTTP.)
The female explains that Ganon was originally a man. A thief by the name of Ganondorf who entered the sacred realm with his band of thieves, presumably the Gerudo, and stole the Triforce. But it turned him into a monstrous pig when he used it's power, which in Ocarina of Time, was during the final battle.
In Wind Waker, the prologue of the games, we well as the King of Red Lions explain what happened before the split, in Ocarina of Time, AND DO NOT EVEN VIRTUALLY MENTION ANYTHING IN BETWEEN. BECAUSE IT DIDN'T HAPPEN. IT'S FROM A DIFFERENT TIMELINE.
If there were other heroes before WW Link, and after Oot Link, they'd be worthy of being mentioned too! Let's say even if the King of Red Lions DIDN'T have time to explain! Let's say no one had time to explain or bothered to explain, like you say. NOWHERE IN THE GAMES IN WIND WAKER DOES IT MENTION ANY OTHER HEROES. Not in books, not in murals, not on the walls, not in tapestry, not in hieroglyphs, NOT IN ANYTHING AT ALL. And none of the characters mention it at all! Not even the ancient ones! BECAUSE IT DIDN'T HAPPEN!!! There was nothing in between the games!
If it was not flooded until way later, the game could have at least explained this in Wind Waker's prologue. You know, the one where they're talking to us, and not Link? BUT THEY DON'T!!! BECAUSE IT DIDN'T HAPPEN!!!
@@deoxysoverlord8710 >Link could have weakened Ganon enough in order for the sages to seal him away before he died.
If Link dies, Ganon gets his piece of the Triforce. If Ganon gets his piece of the Triforce, he becomes WAY more powerful, and thus the sages wouldnt be able to seal him.
>It's the FAILED HERO timeline, not the DESTRUCTION OF HYRULE timeline.
If the Hero fails or loses, that INHERENTLY MEANS the destruction of Hyrule. If the hero fails, Ganon wins, and if Ganon wins, Hyrule as we know it is GONE. At the very least, he would absolutely exterminate the royal family. And yet the royal family HASNT been exterminated in this timeline, which means Ganon couldnt have won, which means the hero didnt fail.
>f Ganon came back multiple times, this would have been an important thing to even temporarily mention, not just during Link's adventure, but in the prologue of the game as a whole.
It wouldnt. You keep saying that, but it really wouldnt. The objective fact is that it doesnt actually change the story. Therefore, it is NOT important to mention.
Also, the prologue is an ancient legend passed down by word of mouth. It HAS to be as short and concise as possible, because the longer it is, the more likely that something important will get lost over the centuries.
> Yes, the downfall branch CAN exist.
Ive already explained why it cant.
If hero was defeated at the end of OoT, then how can there still be a royal family in ALttP when Ganon would have KILLED Zelda and taken her Triforce?
If the Hero is defeated, then why does Aganhim have to kidnap the maidens to BREAK the seal and release Ganon from the dark world? If the Hero was defeated, Ganon wouldnt have been sealed in the dark world to BEGIN with!
That PROVES that the hero *wasnt* defeated, because if he was, Ganon wouldnt have been sealed. (and Ive already explained that no, they CANT seal Ganon if Link is defeated, so please dont try that. If they could seal Ganon without Link beating him, they would have done so in the first place. And If Link weakened Ganon JUST enough but then died, then Ganon would have simply taken Links Triforce and become too powerful to seal)
The link to the past being after Oot on the adult timeline is something ive been saying for years. Like to the point where at this lingerie party I got into an argument about it with a hot blonde wearing green lingerie and showing off a Tri-force tattoo lol
It doesn't work though. At all.
Where does hyrule warriors fit on the timeline
The events of Hyrule Warriors are non-cannon and as such don't appear on the timeline at all. Its a sort of alternate dimension "what if" story kind of thing. However, if it *were* to be placed on the timeline, it would go right before Breath of the Wild, since its essentially an alternate version of the prologue of Breath of the Wild, exploring what could have happened if the original Champions didnt die to the Blight Ganons.
But how on hyrule did they get to the sky island in skyward sword
The Goddess Hylia sent the Hylian people up there *with* the island. Like, she gathered a bunch of people together in one place, and made a huge chunk of the ground beneath their feat float off into the sky, carrying them with it, and that is what became Skyloft.
here's the thing.
the adult and child timelines can't happen at the same time if this theory is true. just think about it, how can link be a child, looking for navi, and rebuilding the adult era hyrule? here's what i think. Minish cap is first, then the rest until OOT. there has to be some change to the fallen timeline, as that's what's wrong with the timeline as a whole. the fallen timeline can't happen at the same time as the other ones, because then it would essentially delete lots of Zelda games. I like the idea that in wind waker, there is no hero, and that's why the world was covered in ocean. the only problems are skyward sword being at the beginning, (it should be minish cap,) and the fallen timeline making no sense.
also, in skyward sword, what about the giant birds that i cant remember the name of? those huge birds you ride on. if the game isnt first, then how do they appear?
Minish Cap being at the beginning makes no sense since SS Zelda is the one every Zelda in the series was named after. SS is the second origin story with the ancient War against demise.
The fallen timeline exists because it was confirmed that ALttP Ganon is the same exact person as OoT Ganondorf. OoT was originally made as a prequel to ALttP and they wanted to keep it that way. This is even doubled down by the fact that both HH and even one of the devs from OoT confirmed that some of sages in OoT were would have towns named after them later in Zelda II and that they wanted to make that connection with OoT.
Placing the downfall timeline games in the adult timeline or child timeline don't work. There were no other game events that can fit between OoT and Wind Waker, the only possible one would be a Great Flood game.
The child timeline doesn't work for reasons below
OoT is the only game that had seven sages that would define Zelda II's history and full Triforce which is essential for ALttP since Ganon has the full thing.
and now i know
This is a point I always had a problem with the design your own timeline theories.... Minish being first doesn't work... The Goddest comes before Zelda... The Goddess lifted up skyloft into the air and then was reincarnated as zelda.... It doesn't make sense for Zelda to come first as Zelda and then the Goddess.... It is still the first game in the series.... Besides that good job! New sub!!!
The goddess Hylia did exist before the first princess Zelda was born, but Hylia *incarnating* herself *AS* Zelda happens later. So first, the Goddess Hylia was created by the 3 Golden Goddesses when the world was created, but she was *just* a goddess and had no mortal/earthly form. Then, the Hyrule Royal family came around and ruled the kingdom, and the first Princess Zelda was born. *THEN* Hylia chose to incarnate herself in human form by being born as Zelda.
Also the origins of the Armos definitively and irrefutably prove that Minish cap MUST come before Skyward Sword, as it explicitly states that the Armos were created by the Minish. Its impossible for any game that contains Armos to take place BEFORE the Minish Cap, since they didnt *exist* before the Minish Cap.
@@sytyk7437 To the first point why would she choose Zelda to reincarnate into? If you have power and you're a god you have a lot more power than you realize. Which again brings up if not from the goddess why does zelda have powers in minishcap? Also transitioning ... The armos according to in game text states, " Appears in the Wind Ruins.
Built by the Minish for the Wind Tribe
long ago." It never defined how long ago... Also while on that subject you notice they have a MUCH different design in Skyward Sword meaning it could have been a much older design of the armos the pikori created... If you look at the art of the armos in ss and mc one looks like a tiki head with magnets on its head and it has a retractable tounge... It could also be that this design was NOT created by the pikori for how different it is from the rest... all the rest are soldier like... This one is a tiki head... Those are glaring issues with your theory... it can't come first... We also can not use it as where link gets his hat because in botw most of the game you don't have a hat... I'm just saying this part is very flawed but besides that I'm really impressed by it!
@@awesomemike1500 Why would she choose anyone OTHER than Zelda to incarnate into? Think about it; if youre a goddess sent to protect hyrule, are you gonna have yourself be born as some random peasant or farmer or whatever? Of course not! Youre gonna have yourself be born as the most powerful, influential, important person you can. IE, Zelda. Being incarnated as the princess means she has power and authority even without anyone knowing she's a goddess. That makes it much easier to get people to listen to her and get them to do what she needs them to do to protect hytule.
If she had incarnated as anyone OTHER than Zelda, everyone would ignore her or think shes just some crazy peasant with delusions of divinity.
RE: Her powers in Minish cap, thats explicitly covered in the game. The power she has is the Light Force, which was one of the gifts given to man by the Minish, along with the Picori Sword. It is an irrefutable fact, explicitly stated in-game, that the power Zelda has in MC is *NOT* related to the Goddess. It is related to the Picori.
And if MC *did* come after SS, youd think MC Zelda *would* have some kind of goddess powers, and yet she doesnt. QED, MC cannot come after SS.
RE: The armos. The text says the Armor were created *FOR* the Wind Tribe, and the wind tribe exists in MC, and the entrance to their area is guarded by Armos that were made for them. QED, these are the "original" Armos, made by the picori, for the wind tribe.
The wind tribe does not appear in SS, so the Armos we see in SS are being used by people OTHER than the wind tribe, which means they are NOT the originals, which means that they must be new ones, BASED on the originals made for the wind tribe.
The fact that they have a different design from the ones used by the Wind tribe PROVES that they are not the originals. The armos were made FOR the wind tribe, which means the ones used by the wind tribe are the originals. If other Armos have a different design, that means that are NOT the originals, and therefore come *after* MC.
Its sort of like... We know that the original Gameboy was the first one. So, if another Gameboy has a different design (IE, Gameboy Pocket, Gameboy Color, Gameboy Advance), it HAS to be a newer model, *based* on the original gameboy.
@@awesomemike1500 didn't hylia become zelda only to access the triforce?
@@airtiger4577 this thread is almost a year old I don’t remember lol I think she used the triforce to make skyloft though lol
My son wants to know where is Hyrule warriors age of Calamity
Technically, its non-canon and therefore doesn't have a place on the timeline at all. Because it is a spinoff game and not part of the main series, the events of the Hyrule Warriors games are not considered to have "actually happened" in the official story of the Legend of Zelda.
That said, if it WERE to be placed on the timeline, it would be right before Breath of the Wild, as it is set exactly 100 years before BoTW starts.
@@sytyk7437 thanks for the response. My son was so excited that you got back to him.
@@abarax3000 Glad to have helped. :)
That was a good video of the Zelda timeline. Good job dude.
Glad you enjoyed it!
What if the cycle actually repeats and after breath of the wild 2 it just restarts at skyward sword again
That wouldnt really make sense, since if it went back to Skyward Sword... well, Skyward sword is BEFORE Ganondorf first obtains the triforce, right? But if we're going from BotW sequel to SS, then that would make SS also somehow *after* games that had Ganon in them. You cant have it be both before *and* after something has already happened.
@@sytyk7437 unless Breath of the wild is from an alternate timeline cause in skyward sword as we don't know the repercussions of link destroying demise in one timeline then the other...skyward sword could stay where it is but have breath of the wild taking a loooong ass time afterwords as it would also allow the the sheika advancement of tech, the difference in how ganon was dealt with and allowing for varience in how history played out involving a mix of the other games that could have led to a single chronological inclusion of twilight princess and wind waker before breath of the wild. accounting for then the variances in how the zora and rito developed alongside the koroks being how they are. a timeline in which link in oot did not actually time jump causing the age split in the timeline. at least thats one possibility in my head for how SS and BOTW or connected given the new trailors of BOTW2 involve a sky ruins like that could have been an advanced skyloft given TP also has a sky ruins.
You need more subs
I liked the logic of your timeline
Glad you enjoyed it!
Very good work. One question, if Ganondorf didn't touch the triforce in the child timeline, how did he get the triforce of power when he was being executed? I think there will always be inconsistencies in any timeline theory since the context in which the games were made were different each time and to retcon different creative pieces can prove clunky. Overall, yours is highly logical and as consistent as can be and I wish Nintendo picks it up.
Also, does the yellow band on the green cap indicate anything in your theory. According to others, the band represents the fallen hero timeline, which you argue doesn't exist.
The historia doesn't address the Hyrule Warriors games. They describe canonical information but don't seem to be canon. Do they fit or what would you consider them?
Thanks! Glad you enjoyed it. :)
>if Ganondorf didn't touch the triforce in the child timeline, how did he get the triforce of power when he was being executed?
This is what is known as "The Divine Prank." It isn't totally clear how or why the Triforce of Power came to Ganondorf on the Child Timeline, but it is implied that is it some kind of pre-destiny or divine will for him to have it. Personally, I believe that the Triforce transcends time and space, so if one version of you gets it in one time, ALL versions of you are forevermore connected to it, even if they don't actually possess it.
So when Ganondorf obtained the Triforce in the Adult branch, that caused ALL versions of Ganondorf on ALL timelines to be invisibly connected to the Triforce of power via a thread of fate. When Ganondorf was executed in the Child timeline, his rage and hate was powerful enough to tug on that thread, and so the Triforce of power came to him.
Other theories hold that it was the Goddesses themselves who sent the Triforce of Power to Ganondorf in that moment, because it was necessary for him to have it in order for fate to play out how it was meant to, or something similar.
>Also, does the yellow band on the green cap indicate anything in your theory. According to others, the band represents the fallen hero timeline, which you argue doesn't exist.
Minor cosmetic differences like that usually don't mean much of anything. The Hero's garb is based on legend and that legend has been passed down over many hundreds of years. Its only natural that some slight changes will occur, simply as a result of different people in different ages *making* those clothes. Like, maybe the seamstress that made the tunic this time used the best green fabric she had available, but its not QUITE the same shade of green as all the other incarnations. Or maybe this time they made the hat a little bit longer or shorter, just because that's how they interpreted the legend, and they don't have like a blueprint or a pattern to give them exact specifications. Maybe this time, they added a stripe and then everyone after that thought the stripe was always meant to be there. Its like a game of "telephone" where the message is passed down so many times that the exact message changes a bit with each retelling. Something like that, a minor cosmetic change, is usually mundane and not really meaningful.
MAJOR cosmetic differences often *do* mean something significant though. For example, the fact that the Hylian crest seen on the shield in Minish Cap and Four Swords does NOT feature a Loftwing, while every other instance of the Hylian crest does. That is a significant difference, and in this case, it tells us that those two games take place BEFORE the Hylians ever encountered Loftwings, and thus those two games take place before Skyward Sword. A simple stripe on a hat, on the other hand, cant really tell us much.
>The historia doesn't address the Hyrule Warriors games. They describe canonical information but don't seem to be canon. Do they fit or what would you consider them?
You are correct that the Hyrule Warriors games are not Canon. They are more "what if" kind of spinoff stories, but the events of the Hyrule Warriors games do NOT actually ever take place on the main canon timeline. You could consider them to take place in a parallel/alternate universe, or to simply be a story about something that COULD have happened, even though it never actually did.
That said, if we WERE to place them on the timeline, Age of Calamity would take place exactly 100 years before the start of Breath of the Wild, as it is explicitly stated in-game that this is the case.
The original Hyrule Warriors game cannot fit anywhere on the timeline, as it includes not only events from both the child and adult branches of the timeline which would not be able to coexist within the same game, but also tells of an alternate version of the events of Ganondorf's rise to power and defeat, wherein his soul is split into four pieces and sealed in different moments in time, as opposed to being sealed in the Sacred Realm as seen in the adult timeline, or being caught and executed as seen in the Child timeline.
Its description of events and history is entirely different from the events we know take place on the canonical timeline, and thus the original Hyrule Warriors simply doesn't fit anywhere.
That a good and all theory. But what hyrule warrior legend and yes I know people said it not canon. but think it goes in between majors mask and twilight princess. Because the way the princess act like she didn't recognize link and I found that is odd
The original Hyrule Warriors is indeed non canon, (same goes for Hyrule Warriors Legends, which takes place in the same story) but also, it literally CANT fit into the timeline. There are various contradictions such as characters that we know were never alive at the same time being together, details about what some characters have done that we know dont match any spot in the timeline, etc.
For your example, it cant possibly come between MM and TP because we know for a fact that in between MM and TP, Ganondorf was sealed inside the Twilight realm. But Hyrule Warriors claims that Ganons soul was split into four pieces. These two claims directly contradict each other. Thus, it is impossible for HW or HW:L to take place between MM and TP.
And there are similar contradictions for every other placement. No matter where on the timeline you look, there are reasons why HW doesnt fit.
@@sytyk7437 i think shad the wolf from twilight is from hyrule warrior legend
Good video so I was wondering does this mean the hero of time is still alive please let it be so or didn't die in the way they said
Who is they and what way did they say the hero of time died?
Hyrule Historia says that link died during a battle with ganon
I love your video so far But I do have a problem with the minish cap being The first game in the timeline thing and that is Why are there moblins in that game Weren't they created in Ganons Image So clearly they couldn't have existed Until after ocarina Of time. So clearly they couldn't have existence Either It would probably make a lot more sense If the moblins we saw in minish cap were actually reckoned into being bacablons I don't know, I'm just. Pointing out Something I'm not saying it was your fault. I'm saying it was minish caps fault for even putting moblins in In that game and I wanted to point out something.
How does Ganondorf get the Triforce of power in Twilight Princess when the child time he hasn't touched the Triforce
From what I've gathered, no one really knows. There are theories but no confirmed answer how Gannondorf, Link, or Zelda got their Triforce piece in TP.
awesome
cant wait for you to redo this video if the rumors of tears of the kingdom end up being true.
This makes alot more sense, especially Four Swords Adventure not going after Twilight Princess 👏
imagine nintendo making a zelda timeline (even if it makes no sense to some people) and people dont count it as cannon
If Nintendo made a Pokemon timeline, and claimed that the events of Gen 1 somehow happened AFTER the events of Gen 2 (which explicitly reference the events of gen 1 as having already happened), would you "count it as canon?" Or would you go "thats dumb and obviously wrong, so Im not gonna accept that."
If JK Rowling released a Harry Potter Timeline, and said that Book 6 somehow takes place BEFORE book 1, would you "count that as canon?" Or would you go "I can literally read the book myself and see first hand that thats wrong, so Im not gonna accept this obviously wrong timeline."
@@sytyk7437 I don't care if the fans think it's wrong. As a writer myself, I can say that if the creator says something, even if you disagree, you have to accept it as fact. Nintendo created the games, and Jk Rowling created Harry Potter. So if they say that something in their series is so, IT'S SO. Even if you disagree, that's on you. Because they created it and what they say goes. Even if you have evidence to back it up, what it all comes down to is that you weren't the ones who created the series. So even if you contradict what they pass off as the truth, you're still wrong, and they're right. If JK Rowling decides that Harry Potter was female the entire time, as absurd as it may sound, it's true. If Nitendo decides that Link was a Cucco the entire time, then it's canon. And you can't do anything about it. Mortal.
@@deoxysoverlord8710 >I can say that if the creator says something, even if you disagree, you have to accept it as fact.
>Because they created it and what they say goes
Sure, WHEN theyre creating it. But once they RELEASE it, then its no longer what they say goes, its what the WORK says goes. Once you release a book or movie or game, what the work itself says wins out over what you say. You lose the ability to edit the work when it gets published. If you wanna make a change, you gotta make it BEFORE the work is released.
> If JK Rowling decides that Harry Potter was female the entire time, as absurd as it may sound, it's true.
Its not though, because you can literally pick up the books and read them.
If JK Rowling were to say Harry was always a Girl, and I open up my copy of Philsophers stone, what is it gonna say on the page? Is it gonna say "The GIRL who lived?" No? Its still gonna say "The boy who lived?" Then Rowling is wrong and Harry is still (and always was) a boy.
If Nintendo SAYS Link has blue hair in OoT, and I boot up my old copy of OoT, what color will his hair be on my screen? Blond? Not blue? Ok then, Nintendo is wrong, and the game itself wins out.
Im sorry, but youre just objectively wrong here. Something the creator says AFTER the work has been published cannot overrule what the work itself says, because the work itself still exists, and you can still LOOK at it and see with your own two eyes that the creator is wrong.
@@sytyk7437 I'm not talking about in terms of obviousness. I mean in terms of something that may have been hidden, similar to Dumbledore's sexuality. Suppose she reveals that he was born a girl but changed into a boy by magic? You can't say this is false becomes there's no proof that disproves it, and also she created the character so she can decide whatever she wants, as long as there is no contradicting information. What you have regarding Zelda is not contradicting information, but rather, theories or what ifs that go against what we already know. So it's not a fact or reliable information, since it's your TAKE on the facts! Not a fact in itself. If you make a theory going AGAINS why this transition shortly after birth never happened, but never show any proof, before there is none, no matter how much information you give, or no matter how long the video is, it's still just that. A theory that is false until further notice Because JK Rowling already confirmed something, and you are going against her.
i dont see hyrule warriors: age of calamity you seem to have forgotten that that game is actually canon-ish
I didnt forget it, theres just no real need to include it.
A: its not a core-series game (I also didnt include other spinoff games, like Tingle's Rosy Rupee Land, or Cadence of Hyrule, etc)
and B: its literally an alternate version of the backstory of BotW, so theres no question as to where it would go on the timeline, since thats kinda the entire concept of the game; its 100 years before BotW starts.
@@sytyk7437 yeah but it also creates a new alternate timeline which might be explored in future games because of how it has a perse happier ending compared to the calamity of botw
No Hyrule Warriors games are canon to the Legend of Zelda games.
@@CosmicGoku529 hyrule warriors original is not canon but hyrule warriors age of calamity is canon its an alternate timeline which the zelda franchise is very familiar with
@@Nightcake Age of Calamity is not canon to the main Zelda game. It's a what if story and nothing more. If it was canon there would be no BotW anymore because everyone good guy survived and they defeated Calamity Ganon.
You made one big mistake
Wind Waker takes place in a Hyrule without a Hero. The game's backstory is that, after Zelda yeeted Link into the child timeline at the end of Ocarina, Link no longer existed on the adult timeline. So when Ganon inevitably showed back up, neither the Hero of Time nor a reincarnation of his spirit was present to stop him.
That's why the goddesses had to intervene and flood hyrule. There was no other option. And if you look at the subtext in Windwaker, it supports this backstory. The Hero of Winds is not an incarnation of the same man from Ocarina. He's just a random kid who happened to be a huge fanboy. But he was also brave enough to throw himself into danger trying to stop Ganondorf.
That's why he had to prove himself going through the Tower of the Gods. He needed to prove to the 3 golden goddesses that he was worthy of taking over as Hyrule's new hero after the old one ceased to exist.
But if Wind Waker takes place after A Link to the Past and several other games, then why was there no hero in the first place? And where did the Link from A Link to the Past come from if he wasn't an incarnation of OOT link?
>The game's backstory is that, after Zelda yeeted Link into the child timeline at the end of Ocarina, Link no longer existed on the adult timeline.
The games backstory does NOT actually say that. The game says that Ganon showed up, and no hero showed up to defeat him, but it never says WHY.
You are *assuming* it is because Link had been yeeted back to the child timeline even though there is no evidence to support this.
> And if you look at the subtext in Windwaker, it supports this backstory.
It does not. Or rather, it does not *necessarily* support that. The idea that its because Link was sent back to his childhood is one POSSIBLE interpretation of what Windwaker tells us, but there is nothing that tells us that that is DEFINITELY the correct explanation. The idea that it is because a version of Link from a previous game was still alive, but was too old to fight, is an equally valid explanation.
>But if Wind Waker takes place after A Link to the Past and several other games, then why was there no hero in the first place?
I literally explained that in the video. There are multiple possible causes, (Ganon came back just after the new Hero was born and so Link was just a baby and couldnt fight ganon, or Link DID show up but he failed at like the first dungeon and so no one ever realized he had shown up, he was off in some other area outside of Hyrule and didnt hear about Ganon coming back until it was too late, etc, etc) but I think the best explanation is that a version of Link from a previous game was still alive, but he was very very old and couldnt fight, so Ganon went unopposed. Thus, the gods had to cause the flood.
>And where did the Link from A Link to the Past come from if he wasn't an incarnation of OOT link?
All Links are an incarnation of The Spirit of "The Hero." You dont have to be an incarnation of OoT Link, or any other *specific* Link. ALttP Link was just an incarnation of the Hero, just like every other Link. Theres no reason why he NEEDS to be an incarnation of specifically the OoT Link.
@@sytyk7437 then why was there no hero than
@@linkgamer9591 As I said, we dont know for sure, but my preferred explanation is that Ganon came back when Link was an old man, and thus too old to beat him, so no one was able to stop Ganon.
in the minish cap the game takes place in hyrule.... and hyrule was only named after skyward sword
Actually, no. Theres a large amount of evidence that the Hyrule Kingdom existed before Hylia sent everyone up into the sky, but it was forgotten by the people of Skyloft over the thousands of years they were up there.
For instance, we see ruins on the surface world that we know for a fact are built by Hyrule Kingdom. The Temple of Time, the Goddess springs, etc.
@@sytyk7437 Maybe another kingdom under another name but not Hyrule. Nothing supports that the kingdom itself was named Hyrule.
The Kingdom of Hylia from the Skyward Sword prequel manga sounds way more believable than a previous Kingdom of Hyrule before the actual Zelda lineage was made.
wait, in Skyward Sword it's said that the goddess, Hylia ascended a piece of land to the sky which we know as Skyloft. and you're saying that Minish Cap, and Four Swords come before Demise and the demon tribe broke from the earth and destroyed the land before the game the issue is that the Hyrule kingdom was formed after Skyward Sword, but you say that it existed before Demise's demons entered the picture and wrecked house. so, are you saying that Hylia and her knight that sealed Demise was actually Zelda and Link? i don't buy it.
>the issue is that the Hyrule kingdom was formed after Skyward Sword,
Not true. There was a Hyrule Kingdom before SS. We know because in SS, we find the Goddess Springs, Temple of Time, and other structures that we KNOW were built by the Kingdom of Hyrule.
The presence of these structures on the surface proves that there must have been some incarnation of the Hyrule Kingdom on the surface before Hylia sent the people up into the clouds.
>are you saying that Hylia and her knight that sealed Demise was actually Zelda and Link?
Its explicitly stated in the game that thats the case.
There's no way Minish cap is first. No mention of Hylia, no mention of the triforce. Skyward Sword Link and Zelda re populate the surface and create the Hylian royal family which the Minish cap already has. There's an entire era of chaos you are overlooking, this could be when the hero of men had to fight demons and locked them away in the chest. The Master Sword is not meant to be used again until the hero of time, SS leaves off with the master sword in the sealed temple which later becomes the new temple of time. The hat was part of the SKyloft uniform, green uniform originated there. Finally, the next point you have to consider is how many hundreds of years years passed between the era of chaos and the minish cap? SS's war with Demise and Hylia was thousands of years before the present timeline, and that past had ancient robots/technology where as the minish cap is straight up medieval.
The fact that theres no mention of Hylia or the Triforce proves that Minish Cap HAS to be first. Think about it; the Triforce isnt discovered until SS, right? So if MC came after SS, there WOULD be mentions of the triforce. The fact that theres no mention of the triforce indicates that the people dont KNOW about the triforce yet. Because it hasnt been discovered yet, because that happens later, in SS.
You say the Master sword isnt "Meant" to be used again until OoT, but if MC was after SS, the royal family would at least KNOW about it. They would at least mention it, rather than going straight to the broken Picori sword. The fact that they dont even bring up the Master sword as an option indicates that it hasnt been created yet.
The green uniform DIDNT originate in SS. Did you, like... not watch the video? The green uniform originates in MC. With Ezlo. That is literally WHERE the green hat comes from.
Also as far as ancient robots and everything... you do realize that SS *has* Armos in it, right? And MC explicitly says that the Armos were created by the Minish.
Thats straight up irrefutable proof that MC comes first. How could SS have Armos if it takes place BEFORE Armos get invented by the Minish?
@@sytyk7437 -What part of thousands of years between SKyward swords past and the actual game don't you understand? There's an entire era of Chaos before the minish cap, Twilight princess's backstory talks about the triforce being out in the open and the people killing each other to claim it, this likely takes place before the minish cap and it definitely takes place after SS because the triforce is out in the open at the end of the game. That would explain no triforce and no knowledge of the master sword. It's Rauru that re builds the sealed temple into the new temple of time, who knows if he even told the royal family about it or perhaps the royal family in Minish cap just considers the sword a legend, we just don't know how much time has passed between SS and the MInish Cap.
There's an inescapable truth here and that's that Capcom made the minish cap and Zelda team made Skyward Sword. That's why Nintendo doesn't count it as the earliest game because they wanted to make an origin game for the master sword and explain the re incarnation cycle of Demise,Link and the blood line descendants of Hylia. yea lInks hat is a cute nod in MC but Skyloft academy knights all had the hat without the color green, the green uniform is first introduced there.
I don't know why you wanna hold on to this armos thing as definitive proof, for all you know the Minish made armos because they found an old prototype and re created it their own way, regardless the facts point to minish cap in a miedeval setting to be post Skyward Sword, there's no high tec facilities nor mechanical enemies and they are called Hylians in that game, not humans. In Skyward sword they are humans who became skyloftians, Hylians don't exist because Hyrule itself does not exist. The world below the cloud barrier is simply the surface world and there are no humans alive.
@@nworder4life Have you... actually *played* Minish cap? Or Skyward Sword? Because the things you saying are so *incredibly* wrong that I have a very hard time believing youve played either game. At least not recently.
Go play through the games again, and then re-examine your claims. Ive literally *already* explained to you why the things youre saying are factually untrue, but you just keep repeating them.
Your own claims even disprove your own arguments. You claim MC has more high tech facilities and such, but thats demonstrably untrue. SS has LITERAL ROBOTS, and flying remote control drones, and all sorts of things. MC, on the other hand, has no technology beyond the middle ages. Look up a picture of the Armos from SS, and a picture of Armos from MC. If you can look at that and tell me that the SS version is older than the MC version, youre crazy.
You calim that Hylians didnt exist because Hyrule didnt exist yet, but that just PROVES that you dont have any clue what youre talking about, because the kingdom of Hyrule was named after the Hylian race, not the other way around. Where on earth did you get the idea that the name of the race came *after* the name of the kingdom?
You calim the minish "found an old prototype" of the armos but... no, they didnt. You cant just MAKE SHIT UP and say "maybe this happened. Unless its stated in game, no, it didnt happen.
Just accept that youre wrong. Go replay the games, re-examine your ideas, and wake up to the fact that youre factually wrong about almost everything youve said. Literally just playing the game is enough to definitively prove wrong most of your statements.
I really like this approach to constructing a timeline, but there are a few big holes. The main one is SS coming after MC. There was clearly never a Hyrule Kingdom prior to SS (a civilization, yes, but not Hyrule as we know it), so it seems very unlikely MC could come first. For monsters to have been bound in the chest prior to MC means they had to have been on the loose at some point first, so MC isn’t necessarily the first time monsters appeared.
The other thing is putting the oracles & LA after ALBW instead of ALttP. Everything you said to justify your placement also works for after ALttP, which is where Nintendo has always said LA goes. There’s still the issue of Zelda not knowing Link, but that issue still exists if you put those games after ALBW, so I don’t see a reason for going against what Nintendo has said in this case.
Despite that, I really enjoyed this video! I totally agree with where you put BotW; there’s always been a much stronger case for it going in the child timeline than any of the others.
>there was clearly never a Hyrule Kingdom prior to SS (a civilization, yes, but not Hyrule as we know it),
There was most definitely a Hyrule Kingdom prior to SS. We're shown as much in the game.
In SS, we see ruins and structures on the surface that we KNOW were built by the Hyrule Kingdom. IE, the Temple of Time, the Goddess springs, etc. The presence of these structures is direct proof that the kingdom of Hyrule did in fact exist on the surface, prior to Hylia sending everyone up into the clouds.
Also, bear in mind that the people of Skyloft have been up there for so long, they forgot that the surface even *exists,* so of course theyre also going to have forgotten about the kingdoms that existed *on* the surface.
>The other thing is putting the oracles & LA after ALBW instead of ALttP. Everything you said to justify your placement also works for after ALttP,
How so? if the Oracles took place after ALttP, but before ALbW, then why arent the events of the oracles mentioned alongside the events of ALttP, in the prologue of ALbW? Or in the paintings in Hyrule Castle that tell us about Hyrules history?
ALbW goes out of its way to telll us, multiple times, about the history of Hyrule and Ganon. Why would they go through all the trouble of telling us about the time that Ganon nearly took over but was defeated (ALttP) but just not mention the (even more recent) time that he was briefly resurrected? That would be like teaching a world history class and telling us over and over about World War I, but just never even *mentioning* World War II.
It makes no sense to devote all that time to telling us about the older conflict, but never say anything at all about the more recent conflict.
>Despite that, I really enjoyed this video! I totally agree with where you put BotW
Thanks! Glad you enjoyed it. :)
@@sytyk7437 Impa had been on the surface since before the Hylians were sent skyward, so it seems like she would’ve mentioned Hyrule Kingdom by name if it had existed already. That would be a pretty big piece of info to leave out. It would also be a huge coincidence that the name Hyrule would be used again after SS, if it had been completely forgotten. Instead, the terminology that SS uses for the past era is Realm of Hylia, if I remember correctly. There was definitely a society similar to Hyrule, but the game suggests it hadn’t been named that yet.
As for the ALBW references to ALttP, I would argue that the events of ALttP were simply more relevant to the story. OoS/OoA took place in foreign countries, and Ganon was defeated mere moments after his resurrection, so Hyrule wasn’t significantly affected. It makes sense that they would remember/talk about the events of ALttP more, since Ganon was in power for a while, and it was Hyrule that was affected by it.
The Oracles have always felt like kind of a wild card, so I could see them going after ALBW, but I feel like their official placement makes equal sense.
@@francescoparisi4998 >Impa had been on the surface since before the Hylians were sent skyward, so it seems like she would’ve mentioned Hyrule Kingdom by name if it had existed already
Why? There was no reason for her to mention it. It would actually be really weird if she DID mention it. Like, she's sitting there talking about the fate of the world and how demise is this huge threat and all that, and then just out of nowhere shes gonna be like "Oh also just FYI there used to be an actual kingdom here. I know that has nothing to do with what we were talking about, but I just thought Id mention it."
See what I mean? Theres no way it would organically come up in conversation, so it makes perfect sense she wouldnt mention it.
> It would also be a huge coincidence that the name Hyrule would be used again after SS, if it had been completely forgotten.
If "Hyrule" was a name chosen at random, then yes. But its not; its named after Hylia. So it makes perfect sense theyd choose the same name both times.
>, I would argue that the events of ALttP were simply more relevant to the story. OoS/OoA took place in foreign countries, and Ganon was defeated mere moments after his resurrection, so Hyrule wasn’t significantly affected. It makes sense that they would remember/talk about the events of ALttP more, since Ganon was in power for a while, and it was Hyrule that was affected by it.
The key there is that they would talk about the events of ALttP ***MORE,*** not, like, exclusively. Sure they might devote more time to ALttP, but they would still mention the events of the Oracles. Even if ALttP gets like 10 paintings and OoX just gets 1 or 2, theyd still 100% mention it.
ALBW is to ALttP as WW is to OoT. If you argue that any number of games can take place between one pair but not the other then your argument fails.
@@sytyk7437 The Temple of Time in Skyward Sword is a completely different Temple of Time. The Temple of Time in Ocarina of Time and the later games is actually built by Rauru upon where the sealed grounds are. The Sacred Springs having being always existed is irrelevant since the Golden Goddesses have always been worshiped since the start of history so obviously the springs would've existed before Hyrule began, none of these ruins are actually ruins typical of a kingdom, they're all places of worship or a mining facility.
I don't know why you feel like Minish Cap should be first, but it doesn't make any sense logically, if it did then we'd hear about things such as the Goddess Hylia, but she doesn't even appear in the game, not to mention the sealing of the monsters in the bound chest coming before the appearance of monsters with Demise's invasion? Minish Cap was created by Capcom with some oversight by Nintendo, so I feel like any inconsistencies should be superseded by something from a game that was actually made by Nintendo ie Skyward Sword
1:08 you can't just cherry pick claims from nintendo. They also claim the Hyrule historia is the official timeline so this reasoning for Tri-Force Heroes is flawed.
The difference is that one claim contradicts the games, and the other doesn't. The claim that the HH Timeline is the real one can be disproven in a hundred different ways and contradicts what the games themselves tell us, therefore, THAT out-of-game statement is false and cannot be used as evidence.
On the other hand, the statement that TH is a direct sequel actually matches up with everything we see in game and doesn't contradict anything. Thus, this out-of-game-statement CAN be used as evidence.
Besides, even without that statement, this is still the most logical placement for TH. Its not like there's many other places it would fit.
Also, even
I will say something about oracle and it's the oracle duology zelda meets for the first time but in a link to the past that has no sense and you forgot ancient stone tablets
Im not entirely sure what youre trying to say about the Oracles games. Could you clarify?
And I didnt include Ancient stone tablets because its generally not considered to be canon.
@@sytyk7437 if you see with some detaiks you see the truth
@@armosthelivingsekizou Sorry, I still dont have any idea what you're trying to say.
@@sytyk7437 actually this gas i' m from colombia and you know not so easy to explain
@@sytyk7437 and are about a text when you rescue zelda in a linked game
How do you miss the fact that the kingdom of Hyrule didn't exist BEFORE skyward sword? It's impossible for minish cap to be the first game in the Hyrule.
It did though. We literally see it in the game.
During Skyward Sword, we visit the Goddess Springs and the temple of time on the surface, which we KNOW were built by the Kingdom of Hyrule. This proves that Hyrule existed on the surface before Hylia sent everyone up into the sky.
Breath of the Wild, as I understand it, was meant to collapse the timeline.
Some people say that, but I don't think the evidence we have available supports that idea.
@@sytyk7437 Fair enough. I appreciate that you addressed the goofiness about the green hat origins in minish cap. That always seemed odd to me.
I definitely think you're on the right track (especially by getting rid of the Downfall timeline altogether), but I don't think you're quite there. I personally don't like the idea of a timeline split at all. That is, unless it's explained well and makes actual sense. Now in CZcams videos the explanation of the adult timeline does make sense, but if you look back at OOT, where the split occurred, it doesn't make any sense whatsoever.
After Link got the Master Sword, he was sealed in the sacred realm for seven years. With Link out of the way, and the path to the spirit realm now open, Ganondorf is able to attain the Triforce, however he is only qble to acquire the Triforce of Power, and the other pieces go to Linka and Zelda respectively. After defeating both Ganondorf AND Ganon, Zelda sends Link (along with the Triforce of Courage) to the past, right before he drew the master sword. Because there can't be two separate Courage pieces of the Triforce, this necessarily means that the Triforce transcends time itself. So because Link had it in the future, and he had already experienced the future, after being sent back to the past, the Triforce split in the past as well, thus giving Ganondorf the Triforce of Power, as seen in Twilight Princess, and whatever incarnation of Zelda the Triforce of Wisdom. Link then uses the Triforce of Courage to prove his story and force the king of Hyrule to gather six sages (not THE six sages) to seal him in the sacred realm, as the Triforce is no longer there. Then link sets off (presumably) to find Navi, gifted with the Ocarina of Time from princess Zelda (despite having technically already recieved when she threw it in the moat outside castle town, but we'll just overlook that little thing and forget that a knight of Hyrule died in an alleyway in front of Link's eyes.
Now, back in the future, supposedly, because the Hero of Time is no longer present (although he technically is, he's just no longer the hero of time, because that's kind of how time travel works), the Triforce of Courage is said to have been split up into multiple different pieces and then hidden across Hyrule. Except we know that it went back in time with Link, and we know that Link killed Ganon after Ganondorf turned into Ganon, thus obviously requiring him to shorten his name, a bame which he would eventually extend again by adding another "n" and then further shorten back to the regular old "Ganon" in time for both The Adventure of Link and Breath of the Wild. Well, he kind of killed him, and then he kind of didn't. See, he killed him, and then the sages for some reason decided to seal him away in the sacred realm, which probably healed his wounds. So uh, they're kinda stupid. Anyway, all of this was essentially undone when Link was sent back in time, and prevented Ganondorf from ever taking over Hyrule. Also, in the prologue to Wind Waker it shows the Hero of Time riding q horse away from Hyrule (or at least Hyrule Castle) which resembles the beginning of Majora's Mask far more than it does Zelda sending Link back in time. But I don't know, maybe she actually had him ride Epona back in time or some shit, and Eona also transcends time, so she automatically transported to inside the Temple of Time with Link. Because... why not? Just kidding, that's stupid.
Now, I could go in more detail about how sending Link back in time doesn't create a timeline branch (though it's far more likely than Link dying), and that it just undoes the future that the Hero of Time experienced. In fact, I'm very much one of the few people who follows the idea of a singular, straight timeline and view the Zelda timeline to be a far more consistent and clean version of the timeline of the Fox X-men films, where essentially the original trilogy (and far more than that) is completely undone through Days of Future Past but remains in the mind of Logan, and the future of OOT is like those, where they happened, but because of time travel were erased from existence and now only exist in the mind of Link, the Hero of Time.
I'm actually planning on making a video series breaking down lore within the games, as well the stories of each game, the worlds of each game (terrains and locations), the different races of each game, etc. Along with that, I'm planning on solving the 10 chalenges for flat Earthers posed by Professor Dave, despite not being a flat Earther myself. And I have ideas for numerous other videos as well. Because I've never wanted to start a CZcams channel and stick to one type of content, or have my content focus on one topic. Because that's boring as hell.
Anyway, I enjoyed the video regardless.
Hats off to you sir this actually makes real sense for once Nintendo just cash grabbing because they’ll make updated books for thirty bucks a pop lol great job
Wind waker??
Yes? What about wind waker?
isn't Link from Oracle Games & Link's Awakening said to be the same Link from Link To The Past?
Nope! When Link meets Zelda in the oracles games, she makes it clear they've never met before. And if it was the same Link from ALttP, then she would obviously have met him already. Same goes for Impa; she doesn't recognize Link at the beginning of the game when he finds her, because they've never met, because it's a different Link from the ALttP Link. Also, we know that ALbW is the direct sequel to ALttP and takes place many generations later, and the Oracles games and LA can't really fit in between there, so there's no way for it to be the same Link.
How can windwaker be after Zelda 2, if its a direct sequel to Oot?
WW is not a direct sequel to OoT. That's never actually stated in the game. There are a few things that people INTERPRET as meaning WW is right after OoT, but those lines of dialogue don't actually mean what people assume they mean.
For instance, Ganondorf compares WW Link to the Hero of Time, and people assume that that means OoT MUST be the most recent game before WW, but that doesn't actually NECESSARILY mean that. It's equally possible that Ganondorf is comparing Link to the Hero of Time (and not any other version of the hero) because the Hero of Time is the first one to ever defeat him. It's possible that ALttP Link, ABLW Link, etc, have also existed in between OoT and WW, but Ganondorf thinks of OoT Link the most, because he thinks of that hero as the "truest" version of the Hero, so he compares WW Link to the hero of Time and not any of the others.
Pretty much everything that people hold up as "evidence" that WW comes after OoT works the same way; it's something where ONE possible interpretation implies it's after OoT, but there are multiple other interpretations that are equally valid, which people just ignore.
@@sytyk7437 The reason Hyrule was flooded was because the Hero of time dissapeared. ALTTP isnt flooded, so that cant be after WWs prologue.
@@beyondthecamera333 incorrect. The reason it was flooded was because Ganon returned and ***NO*** hero appeared. It never actually says that it was the same Link/ the same hero of Time from OoT, specifically, that was supposed to be appearing. Just that SOME version of the hero was expected to appear, and he didn't.
Also, the game explicitly says that Ganon returning and the flood happening all occured a long, *long* time after the Hero of Time first sealed Ganondorf, so it wouldn't even make sense that the people were waiting for that *same* hero, specifically, since he would've long been dead of old age. The exact words it uses are "the boys tale was *passed down through generations* and became legend." This clearly means the Link we play as in OoT, was dead many, many years before Ganon returns and the gods send the flood, because numerous generations have already come and gone. The fact that the game says the people expected the hero of Time to appear, doesn't mean they expected the literal SAME link from OoT to appear. They just expected SOME version of the hero, and the Hero of Time was the most well known one.
The game also explicitly says that Ganon "once ***AGAIN*** crept forth from the depths of the earth" thus explicitly telling us that this ISNT the first time he's come back. If this was the first time he came back, they would've just said he "crept forth from the depths of the earth" because adding in "once again" to that sentence means he's already come back *before.* So the prologue actually flat out tells us that there ARE other games in between OoT and WW.
And your argument of "ALttP isn't flooded, therefore it can't be before WW" doesn't hold up. The correct logic would be "ALttP isn't flooded, therefore the flood happens *after* the events of ALttP, but before the start of WW."
@@sytyk7437 Damn, solid argumentation. I found it essentially impossible that there be games between Oot and WW, but I think you got me convinced.
@@beyondthecamera333 honestly, just good on you for being willing to look at the evidence and change your viewpoint. Way too many people would've just stuck their fingers in their ears and refuse to accept any evidence that disagrees with their view. Kudos!
Almost no one has actually played four sword adventures. Not even Nintendo cause the games intro clearly says that it's a direct sequel to four swords with the same link and Zelda having defeated vaati before
It most certainly does NOT say anything of the sort.
czcams.com/video/sviQk3T1JYg/video.html
Literally all it says in regards to the time that elapses between FS and FSA is "Princess Zeldas childhood friend Link used the four sword to defeat Vaati and seal him away once again. And, for a time, the people of Hyrule believed their land to be safe. Until..."
See? Where in that does it say its the same link and Zelda? it doesnt. All it says is that "For a time" everyone thought they were safe. That could be a month, a decade, or a thousand years.
@@sytyk7437 lol who welded the four sword and sealed Vaati away?
In every single Zelda game whenever it references a different Link and Zelda it never refers to them by name. If they were different the narrations would have referred to them as "a hero and a princess of hyrule"
Also also Nintendo has said officially before that FS and FSA were originally created to be direct sequels
@@majora5664 >lol who welded the four sword and sealed Vaati away?
A different version of Link? Obviously?
>n every single Zelda game whenever it references a different Link and Zelda it never refers to them by name.
100% untrue. There are numerous games where its a new Link and Zelda that havent appeared in any other games, and they still refer to them as Link and Zelda.
>If they were different the narrations would have referred to them as "a hero and a princess of hyrule"
Says who? Where is it written that games MUST refer to them that way if its a different incarnation from previous games? Youre just arbitrarily decided that they MUST refer to them that way, based on absolutely nothing.
>Also also Nintendo has said officially before that FS and FSA were originally created to be direct sequels
Comments made outside of the games take a back seat to the contents of the games themselves. If Nintendo says one thing in a tweet or an interview or some such, but the GAME ITSELF says different, the game is whats true. For example, if Nintendo released an official statement saying Link has blue hair in Ocarina of Time, but the game itself clearly shows his hair is blond, which of those is correct? Obviously the blond hair, because what HAPPENS IN THE GAMES is the ultimate, final word on what is and isnt true.
@@sytyk7437 quote one time where a past incarnation of link is referred to as "Link" in another sequel that features a new Link besides four swords adventures. It has never happened a single time, his past incarnations have always been referred to as a past hero of some kind. Even in four swords adventures they refer to the link in minish cap as "the four who are one" why would they not call him "link" as well? In wind waker his past incarnation was called the hero of time, in twilight princess he was called an ancient hero. None of the GBA games do that either. They never call a past hero by the name "link" so why in this one game would they do that?
I also never said that was a general rule that always must be. All I said is that from a writing prospective it's extremely odd and inconsistent from every other Zelda game for the writers to do that.
And as for your last point, if the people who created the games word take a back seat and that all that truly matters is what happens in the game means more that anything (which I do mostly agree with you on that) this means that books like the hyrule historia also fits in that category of taking a back seat. So if that is true, doesn't that prove my point? If the games info takes precedent over anything else then FSA is a direct sequel to FS.
Yes the game does not directly state that they are direct sequels but it HEAVILY implies that the incarnation of Link and Zelda in FSA have sealed away Vaati once before. So either this previous sealing of Vaati was the events of FS or there's some other unknown story or unreleased game that has yet to come out but I'm willing to bet they're just direct sequels.
@@majora5664 >, his past incarnations have always been referred to as a past hero of some kind.
OK, I misunderstood what you were saying. I thought you meant that no other game referred to the characters IN GAME as LInk and Zelda. I didnt realize you meant that no game refers to *previous* versions of Link and Zelda by name.
That being said, thats still not even remotely close to proof that FSA is a direct sequel to FS. It could easily just be a choice the development team made. Theres no rule written anywhere that says that referring to previous characters by name HAS to mean its the same incarnations.
>They never call a past hero by the name "link" so why in this one game would they do that?
Because they wanted to? Because the team that made that particular game felt like it? Youre assuming it must have been an intentional choice made specifically to indicate that its the same Link and Zelda, and thats just objectively not true.
Hell, FSA had a different Director that every other Zelda game. Thats reason enough on its own. FSA is the only Zelda game that Toshiaki Suzuki was director on. It makes just as much sense that they referred to Link and Zelda by name in FSA and not in any other games because Suzuki thought it sounded better.
>this means that books like the hyrule historia also fits in that category of taking a back seat.
Yes, it does take a back seat to the games themselves. It can add to the info in the games, but not contradict the info in the games. if theres a contradiction, the games win.
>So if that is true, doesn't that prove my point? If the games info takes precedent over anything else then FSA is a direct sequel to FS.
No, because theres no info **IN** the games that indicates that FSA is a direct sequel. Nothing in the game ever says or even indicates that its the same Link and Zelda. The ONLY piece of "evidence" you have to support this claim is the fact that the game refers to the Link and Zelda from FS by name, instead of as "the pricess" and "the Hero" but that just flat out does NOT mean it must be the same incarnations. It could just as easily mean that the dev team just thought it sounded better to use their names.
And, given that there is no reason to believe FSA *IS* a direct sequel, while there actually IS reason to believe its not (Process of elimination making it not fit anywhere else on the timeline) the logical conclusion is that it isnt a direct sequel.
>Yes the game does not directly state that they are direct sequels but it HEAVILY implies that the incarnation of Link and Zelda in FSA have sealed away Vaati once before.
It does not. Nothing it actually says implies that *at all.* You are seeing the meaning you *want* to see in the vague wording. Sure, that is one POSSIBLE interpretation. You COULD concluded that the fact that they refer to the Link and Zelda from FS by name, means theyre indicating its the same Zelda. It COULD mean that. But it doesnt HAVE to mean that. It could just as easily mean something different.
>So either this previous sealing of Vaati was the events of FS or there's some other unknown story or unreleased game that has yet to come out but I'm willing to bet they're just direct sequels.
Or, the more likely option, the sealing of Vaati that FSA refers to WAS the events of FS, but the Link and Zelda from FS are not the same Link and Zelda from FSA.
Also, in the opening of FSA, Kaepora Gaebora says that Link has "accepted the destiny of the Hero" when he draws the four sword. If it was the SAME Link from FS, wouldnt that be kind of weird? Like, THAT version of Link already WAS a hero, so why would K.G. say that Link has just now "accepted" The destiny of the hero like he wasnt already one?
Now, just like the game referring to Link and Zelda by name, this COULD indicate that its a new Link, but it doesnt HAVE to mean that. But given that the *only* piece of evidence that supports it being the same Link and Zelda is the name thing, and given the fact that THIS seems to indicate that its *not* the same Link, the latter basically cancels out the former, and youre basically left with no evidence at all.
FSA is explicitly a direct sequel to Four Swords, featuring the same Link and Zelda.
It is not. I literally explain why in these videos.
I consider this canon in my mind you got me convinced👍
Great video!
Glad to hear it!
nice video
It looks like you didn’t consider the status of the triforce for your adult branch placements. You’ve got the pieces jumping about in impossible ways.
10,000 years is not long, since the days in hyrule are only 10 minutes long.
Thats like 100 years in real life
The ten minute days are purely a gameplay thing
If you ignore the fact that every game had its current placement revealed around its original release this could work. But then again with the same argument I could say that the CDi games are canon and the first games in the timeline.
If minish is first then that zelda isn't Zelda
Breath of the wilds Twilight Princes connection doesn’t mean much, as in the original japanese version, windwaker is mentioned as well. I say Breath of the wild is on both timelines
>as in the original japanese version, windwaker is mentioned as well.
No, it is not. That's an old mistranslation based on a partially-heard line of dialogue, and has been debunked many times over. It's hard to hear all of what Zelda is saying in that part of the memory, because it's during the part where the other champions are talking and the focus is on them so Zelda's dialogue is muffled and in the background, but people heard her mention "the seas" and just assumed that HAD to mean the great sea from WW.
More recently, however, people have managed to make out the entirety of what she says, with some even accessing the games audio files directly, and while she does say the Japanese word for "sea" what she actually is saying translates to "over the seas of TIME and distance" which is referring to the Hero's penchant for time travel and for all the different land's he has saved, and NOT to an actual physical sea like a body of water.
So no, wind waker is not mentioned in the Japanese version of Zelda's speech
@@sytyk7437 Just checked, and you are absolutely correct. Thanks for pointing that out
:)
BOTW is at the bottom of the timeline. it connects all 3
That's not how timelines work. That's not how causality works.
You can have an event with multiple possible outcomes split a timeline into multiple branches (where each branch has one of the possible outcomes occuring) but you can't have branches that have already diverged just randomly merge back together.
Already found your insta .
Lmao I don't even have an Instagram. XD Never have. And like I said, get help dude. This whole "ooh ooga booga imma find when you like and come beat you up" shtick is just sad.