• Post New Message
You're browsing the GameFAQs Message Boards as a guest. Sign Up for free (or Log In if you already have an account) to be able to post messages, change how messages are displayed, and view media in posts.
  1. Boards
  2. The Legend of Zelda: Breath of the Wild
  3. Why do people hate the official Zelda timeline?

User Info: MechaFlo

MechaFlo
4 weeks ago#51
Personally while I don't mind the timeline (aside from the above mentioned fallen hero bit) I really don't feel like the games NEED one. What timeline is BOTW in? I don't care because it doesn't really matter. In the few games where it DOES matter it's made clear within the game. MM, TP and WW all clearly follow OOT in different ways. SS is clearly a pre Hyrule prequel etc. For me the timeline outside of the games that actually are directly connected is just a neat bit of trivia rather than something that actually impacts the games or their stories in a meaningful way.

User Info: thedarklordx3

thedarklordx3
4 weeks ago#52
MechaFlo posted...
I don't mind there being a timeline but it always seemed to me that the pre OOT games and the Oracle games didn't care about it.

My only gripe with the timeline is the fallen hero timeline. It feels so lazy. At least time travel was involved in the young/adult split. Having a random alternate timeline where Link got a game over feels cheap.


I think the idea of a "the hero fails" timeline is inherently more interesting than turning ganon into a scooby-doo villain or team rocket who just gets rekt weekly

That timeline existing inherently adds more threat imo
Dragon Ball is more than just anime/manga it's a way of life -DBZAOTA
being called a Devil rather than a man by his enemies is a testament to his greatness -HCE
(edited 4 weeks ago)

User Info: MechaFlo

MechaFlo
4 weeks ago#53
thedarklordx3 posted...
MechaFlo posted...
I don't mind there being a timeline but it always seemed to me that the pre OOT games and the Oracle games didn't care about it.

My only gripe with the timeline is the fallen hero timeline. It feels so lazy. At least time travel was involved in the young/adult split. Having a random alternate timeline where Link got a game over feels cheap.


I think the idea of a "the hero fails" timeline is inherently more interesting than turning ganon into a scooby-doo villain or team rocket who just gets rekt weekly

That timeline existing inherently adds more threat imo


Eh, for me it doesn't really add any threat factor. If anything BOTW handles that better with Ganon's 'victory' 100 years ago.

And if they're just going to split the timeline randomly like that they honestly may as well have just made more branches rather than trying to put every game into three.

User Info: Paper_Mario_4

Paper_Mario_4
4 weeks ago#54
I think it makes things more interesting. It adds to imagination
Paper Mario (N64) is a masterpiece.

User Info: shrimp05

shrimp05
4 weeks ago#55
squexa posted...
Mr Stick posted...

ALTTP was always a prequel to Zelda 1.

I agree with almost everything else you said, but this is debatable. Miyamoto purportedly said in a 1998 Nintendo Power interview that OoT --> LoZ --> AoL --> ALttP was the order, which became very confusing since fans immediately realized that ALttP makes no sense at the end of the timeline. The interview never ended up being published and later interviews confirmed that OoT --> ALttP --> LoZ --> AoL was the correct order.

So my guess is Miyamoto didn't care about any order when he was making ALttP. But when they were making OoT, they wanted the game to be about the imprisoning war referenced in ALttP, so they ended up with the timeline. Since then, Aonuma took over and he's cared about the timeline a lot more than Miyamoto did.

I'm pretty sure you're right that Miyamoto didn't really care that much about the order when he said that, but the packaging of A Link to the Past in Japanese and English places it before Zelda 1/2, and Ocarina was always a prequel to LttP, so Miyamoto was probably just mistaken because he really doesn't care. He is more of a developer than a story writer.

https://zelda.fandom.com/wiki/Miyamoto_Order

MechaFlo posted...
My only gripe with the timeline is the fallen hero timeline. It feels so lazy. At least time travel was involved in the young/adult split. Having a random alternate timeline where Link got a game over feels cheap.

I used to think this too, but then I learned that it's not just a random game over. It's if he falls during the final battle. That battle is the focal point of the entire split timeline and the three pieces of the Triforce were finally in one place again at that moment, plus this is the hero who traveled across time during his journey, so it wouldn't be a stretch to say the battle fractured the timeline because of its climactic nature. A scenario where any other Link failed would ordinarily lead to nothing, but this being the Hero of Time, his failure at the final moment would cause a split.

A better explanation that Nintendo could have gone with is if Link failed on his first attempt and Zelda sent his consciousness back in time to try again, leading to the victory in the Adult branch. Or they could say there had to be three because the Triforce or the goddess of time required a balance. Many people have pointed out how the three timelines can be represented by a piece of the Triforce: Downfall = power, Adult = wisdom, Child = courage. It's very poetic.

MechaFlo posted...
Personally while I don't mind the timeline (aside from the above mentioned fallen hero bit) I really don't feel like the games NEED one. What timeline is BOTW in? I don't care because it doesn't really matter. In the few games where it DOES matter it's made clear within the game. MM, TP and WW all clearly follow OOT in different ways. SS is clearly a pre Hyrule prequel etc. For me the timeline outside of the games that actually are directly connected is just a neat bit of trivia rather than something that actually impacts the games or their stories in a meaningful way.

You say that but in reality, most of the games are explicitly connected through in-game text or packaging materials: Zelda 1/2, LttP, OoT, MM, WW, TP, SS, PH, ST, LBW, are all explicitly connected to each other even if it's meaningless. That's 2/3 of the entire franchise.

User Info: shrimp05

shrimp05
4 weeks ago#56
For what it's worth, Aonuma heavily implied during BotW's promotion that it belongs in the Downfall timeline and that this can be deduced by playing the game. Evidence that it belongs anywhere else is basically nonexistent or logically impossible. By process of elimination, it is the Downfall timeline and there isn't much reason to think it isn't unless you're one of those people who only listens to the first half of Zelda's Memory 1 speech.

User Info: MechaFlo

MechaFlo
4 weeks ago#57
shrimp05 posted...
I used to think this too, but then I learned that it's not just a random game over. It's if he falls during the final battle. That battle is the focal point of the entire split timeline and the three pieces of the Triforce were finally in one place again at that moment, plus this is the hero who traveled across time during his journey, so it wouldn't be a stretch to say the battle fractured the timeline because of its climactic nature. A scenario where any other Link failed would ordinarily lead to nothing, but this being the Hero of Time, his failure at the final moment would cause a split.

A better explanation that Nintendo could have gone with is if Link failed on his first attempt and Zelda sent his consciousness back in time to try again, leading to the victory in the Adult branch. Or they could say there had to be three because the Triforce or the goddess of time required a balance. Many people have pointed out how the three timelines can be represented by a piece of the Triforce: Downfall = power, Adult = wisdom, Child = courage. It's very poetic.


The split that makes sense happens AFTER the final battle. Nothing about the climax of OOT makes any sense for there to be a timeline split. Zelda sending LInk back to the past causes a split timeline. That makes as much sense as you can get with things like split timelines and time travel. This does not expand to also make sense for Link dying to Ganon to cause an alternate timeline.

Symbolism also doesn't explain things. If the three timelines symbolize the triforce that's neat? But it doesn't explain anything.

User Info: MechaFlo

MechaFlo
4 weeks ago#58
shrimp05 posted...
For what it's worth, Aonuma heavily implied during BotW's promotion that it belongs in the Downfall timeline and that this can be deduced by playing the game. Evidence that it belongs anywhere else is basically nonexistent or logically impossible. By process of elimination, it is the Downfall timeline and there isn't much reason to think it isn't unless you're one of those people who only listens to the first half of Zelda's Memory 1 speech.


What evidence places it that strongly in the downfall timeline and excludes the others?

User Info: OhioLawyerF5

OhioLawyerF5
4 weeks ago#59
MechaFlo posted...
shrimp05 posted...
I used to think this too, but then I learned that it's not just a random game over. It's if he falls during the final battle. That battle is the focal point of the entire split timeline and the three pieces of the Triforce were finally in one place again at that moment, plus this is the hero who traveled across time during his journey, so it wouldn't be a stretch to say the battle fractured the timeline because of its climactic nature. A scenario where any other Link failed would ordinarily lead to nothing, but this being the Hero of Time, his failure at the final moment would cause a split.

A better explanation that Nintendo could have gone with is if Link failed on his first attempt and Zelda sent his consciousness back in time to try again, leading to the victory in the Adult branch. Or they could say there had to be three because the Triforce or the goddess of time required a balance. Many people have pointed out how the three timelines can be represented by a piece of the Triforce: Downfall = power, Adult = wisdom, Child = courage. It's very poetic.


The split that makes sense happens AFTER the final battle. Nothing about the climax of OOT makes any sense for there to be a timeline split. Zelda sending LInk back to the past causes a split timeline. That makes as much sense as you can get with things like split timelines and time travel. This does not expand to also make sense for Link dying to Ganon to cause an alternate timeline.

Symbolism also doesn't explain things. If the three timelines symbolize the triforce that's neat? But it doesn't explain anything.


Plus, I played the game and defeated Ganondorf. I don't like the implication that an alternate timeline exists for the ultimate outcome of a game that the user is designed to complete. There is nothing about the game that goes along with the idea that Link loses. I agree that a downfall timeline is stupid.
The timeline sucks because it's just nerds overthinking things. Nintendo is throwing their hands up and saying "Okay. Fine. Whatever" and trying to cater to said nerds by shoving in a bunch of awkward lore that was never supposed to be there.

The ONLY ONLY ONLY time I liked the original "theory" was that idea that Oracle of Seasons and Oracle of Ages could be happening in two universes parallel to each other as a result of Oot causing the timeline to diverge.
It's hip to f*** bees.
Don't read this: https://www.fanfiction.net/s/12861427/1/When-the-Heart-Rules-the-Mind
(edited 4 weeks ago)
  1. Boards
  2. The Legend of Zelda: Breath of the Wild
  3. Why do people hate the official Zelda timeline?
  • Post New Message