while I understand your opinion I still believe in an overall timeline and a single timeline! I know im in an extream minority with that but I dont trust what the developers say seeing as they always tend to contradict themselves. so yes I have found a way to connect all the games in a single timeline and I believe in that timeline. I respect others ideas as well though. but to me there are to many connections both big and small in every game to sugggest to me at least that they are all connected.

Nice article. =)

I saw 'the light' a few years ago and it's been a major relief as far as the timeline goes. Personally, I do believe that there is a timeline (and I'm pretty convinced of my own theories), but I've also become quite certain that a true chronology will never really be revealed.

Perhaps future Zelda's will fit together a bit better (hey, that rhymes), but I don't think Nintendo will ever come out and say 'Hey, this is how the timeline goes'.

But that's part of the mystery that is Zelda. It's not like other games in fantasy settings - it is the LEGEND of Zelda, after all.

Umm... duh? Wasn't this obvious to anyone in the first place? One need only compare two Zelda games to see they never fit perfectly in the story department. The fact of the matter is that each theorist has his or her own reasons for wanting to make a coherent series of events within the series.

For example, I'm designing stories revolving around the Zelda franchise, and it's much easier if there is a set order of events to follow and fit them in then just assuming there is no placement and randomly make up stuff.

People who theorize often look at the smallest details within the games, and sometimes figure out overlooked elements which can serve as inspiration for even more stories. That's one of the most fun aspects about it.

However, it becomes another point entirely when people base their opinion about a game solely on their connectivity within the franchise. In that respect, this article could indeed open a few eyes.

We should just move along as we always have done; people who like to theorize can go ahead and theorize, and people that don't like it simply don't.

No the 'truth', is that there isn't a truth. The idea of the games is to present the player with a chronology that is open to multiple interpretations. There are as many valid answers to the timeline as what can be conceived. Personally, the only one's I have a problem with are the ones who try to position themselves as some sort of undeniable 'truth'. Like this article for example.

Also, what Nintendo says doesn't account for a lot. They change their minds as much as gamers do. You can't just accept something blindly becuase they tell you something. There's no getting around the fact that the series has at some point or another been designed with a timeline in mind, that most likely was dropped for obvious reasons.

At the end of the day, it isn't Nintendo who lives in these worlds. It's us, the fans. If a person wants to create a chronology that makes the game they're playing make more sense to them, then more power to 'em.

Timeline theories for all their convolutions at least provide people with a point of discussion, and a sense of comfort if they find something they like. On the otherhand No-Timeline theories don't achieve anything. Nothing at all. They are, by quite a large margin, the most "whiny" and 'pointless' thing are Zelda fan can come up with. The only thing more desperate and nerdy than a impassioned timeline theorist, is someone who impassionatoly mocks them.

I enjoy making timelines and drawing connections between games, but I understand that it's probably not the developers' intent to have these quite involved timelines. You know what? It's fun. I like pondering what Tetra brought to New Hyrule. We already have little bundles of games that go together, it's natural for people to want to put them together overall.

How can anyone think the entire Zelda series has a chronical timeline? And even more important, who cares? I love every Zelda game, but I play every Zelda game as if none of the other games ever happened.. unless it's a sequel, of course. I think it's best to think of the Zelda games as in Wind Waker. It are all legends and there might be thousands of years between each itteration, yet they're not really connected, so who gives a damn. :P

Noone here is really waiting for a sequel to any of the Zelda games anyway, right? As long as it's in the same universe we'll all be happy with it.

I have nothing personal against you Mel, but I absolutely hate this article.

The Split Timeline's confirmation was hard enough truth that Nintendo no longer was going to constrict themselves to making sense of their series. It was hard enough to accept that their was no 'absolute truth', no trophy, no hope to ever obtain that thing which all theorists lusted for. And now this attempt to crush anyone's desire to find an objectively plausible timeline.

Their may not be a full timeline document, but I most certainly will still believe their is an outline - an outline which suggests different directions the timeline can lead into once all other factors (besides storyline) have been completed first. I have accepted how things have turned out, realizing that it is mere luck in which one's theories will be proven true by Nintendo. However you've taken it a step too far Mel. I see no optimism here. I therefore will stay true to the philosophy of TheMissingLink by pointing this out:

"You can have a timeline, or you can have canon, but not both . If one strictly follows the strictest form of canon, the timeline is ultimately destroyed.
On the other hand, if one strives to create the most coherent timeline, the canon must be broken by corollary. It is the unfortunate world in which Nintendo has placed us, and now it is up to decide which road we shall follow: the road of truth where nothing can be created, or the road of imagination where nothing can be destroyed."

---Source: http://www.zeldalegends.net/index.php?p=886

How dare you denounce the meaning behind theorizing, the very thing that played a role in the foundation of this website. I will fundamentally challenge your article with a rebuttal article. Maybe not today or tomorrow, but I will fight for theorists to keep expanding their interests within the Zelda fanbase.

I still feel like Miyamoto has at least some kind of outline, even if it's general. Now, if Miyamoto himself confirmed there was no timeline, then I'd wholeheartedly believe that. I kind of doubt that most people at Nintendo would know of it even if there was one, let alone customer service reps.

I really don't mind about the timeline, it's a subject that was left for fans to debate. Sometimes the debates are interesting and others they can be as boring as shipping wars.

I have to say that enjoy the Angry Video Game Nerd's take on the zelda timeline XD! It's hilarious!

"Just enjoy the f***ing games and have a great day!" A quote from the video he made.

I can easily come up with a decent timeline easily, and most of the time they break. In the end, I came up with one I thought was good enough, and now stick to it saying "I don't really care to change it", because in the end, it's pretty silly to take it so seriously.

Naturally as a bit of post-game messing around though, I'll try and plug Zelda Wii in there somewhere based on what I find in-game and read online, etc, but that's 'cause old habits die hard.

It's not just Miyamoto, but Eiji Aonuma said more recently than the Superplay Interview there is a timeline (and used that word), and NOA's localization team have constantly said there is one, even as recently as last year.

Not to mention, in an interview with Eiji Aonuma last year, he explained Twilight Princess was developed around a story, not gameplay, originally, and other titles in the series have been done this way.

Whether or not from day 1 there was a "timeline" is debatable. Whether or not the games in current form would nicely fit into Nintendo's own timeline is suspect because we don't know their timeline and their could be contradictions.

Simple fact is, everyone on Nintendo's end except one idiot customer service rep who is a nobody at NOA has publicly stated their is some form of a timeline, so saying there isn't one is ignorance. That's a fact.

Wow. Forceful opinions flying around.

As for the article, I "sort of" agree with it. The way I see it is this...

OoT - TWW - ST - PH
|
MM
|
TP

There. That's the time line confirmed for us. The rest of the games are to me, their own reality, or different retellings of a legend... or whatever.

TMC - FS - FSA and ALttP - LA - LOZ - AoL can all be their own story arcs though. I don't care enough. With the time line, all I see is the Ocarina of Time order, with MM and TWW branching off of it in different directions.

If I'm going to be honest though, I kind of wish that Miyamoto Aonuma would just come out and say "there is no concrete time line. We'd rather the fans take the games and place them in their own order". If that happened then I'd love to create my own history for it.

The whole reason people come up with time lines is not because they don't enjoy each game. It's because they love the games so much they really try to analyze details and care enough to see them all connected. The time line theory is more just something the fans do because they love Zelda games so much. I just think saying "there is no time line" is just because the time line can be so confusing, but in the end, the time line is just something fans try to find out for fun.

There is a timeline because I say there is a timeline!

The people who say there can't be a timeline either think NoA created zelda or a the same people who belive evolution couldn't have happened becAuse there are gaps in the timeline. The gaps can be filled! And there can't be contridictions withen the series itself because there can always be explanations in the gaps!

I fail to see how this article is any more or less of a whiny article than the ones rebutting NoA's statement.

"WHY DON'T YOU ALL REALIZE YOU'RE WRONG AND I'M RIGHT!!! NINTEDO EVEN SAID SO!!!"

Both sides use that exact same argument. This is just as whiny and useless.

The timeline is just about fans enjoying Zelda from a new perspective. Being able to enjoy the game while not even playing it. It's supposed to be fun.

I also find it pretty strange that you are blatantly denouncing one of the fundamental building blocks of this site. Quit whining.

Who's this Ben Lamoreux guy? :P

Well, I'm glad I inspirited you Mel, but I'm going to have to respectfully disagree with you. Does Nintendo take the timeline as seriously as we do? No.

Does Nintendo take caution to make sure that each new bit of plot doesn't contradict previous "canon"? No.

Is there an existing timeline which completely ties all the games together? At this point, probably not.

But I still believe Aonuma is good on his word when he says he is doing what he can to bring ALL the games together and clarify their connections.

For the ones who still didn't believe in zelda timeline, read this post that i've wrote:

http://blopa.werules.com/?p=1329&lang=en

The image on this zeldainformer post was maked by me lol! I'm famous!

FYI, there isn't even any hard evidence NOA Denounced the timeline. A random youtube person read off what he claimed was an email response to his timeline. It's ironic, since NOA has never responded to the hundreds, maybe thousands, of timeline emails they get a year. Even ones made into videos never got a response...

but magically, this guy gets a response that denounces them? To me, it's a power play for attention. The youtube user just wanted to be known by claiming official word on something that would garner attention. Destructoid, GoNintendo, all the major gaming blogs picked it up.

What i am saying is, it's wrong for us to even think NoA said there wasn't one to begin with. I am willing to bet everything I got it was completely fabricated for attention.

Moving on from that, I don't really feel that the timeline is a fundamental building block of this site. It did help build the Zelda theorizing community, but most of our articles don't even touch base on hte timeline, and it's rarely even discussed in our theorizing boards.

I'll give it credit for sparking the theorizing community, not for creating this site.

@ Nate

The Bombers were primarily Zelda Theorists to start with. I don't quite follow how they aren't responsible in some way for gaining the website attention over the years.

Its not the timeline alone which I felt help the foundation of ZI. When people hear timeline, they automatically think Zelda Theorizing revolves around that alone. Well, there is such a thing as Storyline Theorizing - yeah, you don't hear that term anymore. That's what the beginning Bomber articles were primarily focused on; things within the storyline/s of two or more games that have legitimate parallels to compare and contrast.

So my point is that, even if Miyamoto and/or Aonuma confirmed or unconfirmed the timeline's existence, the true theorists would still find unanswered questions to theorize about. This website has already established that the Bombers can write things that are not about storyline or geared towards the Zelda Theorizing community. That should go without saying... So I know what Mel is trying to do here. He's just not handling it gently as should be.

Theorists should be left alone to indulge in as much lore as they want so long as they stay healthy about it. They deserve that no matter how many people think they're wasting time.

I just look at it like the tales series or the FF series. Each game has recurring characters and themes but in the end most of the games arent really connected. And it might just be me but I find it really hard to believe in a timeline when the main character Effs around with it so much ;>_>. But like I said its just my take on it. Other people can spend their time researching Link and Zelda and it wont make me lose sleep. Besides Its those people who spend sleepless night who have supported the LoZ series the most. So thx you guys.....but just try to get some sleep very now and then...

I've seen that response before, and their conclusion that there is no timeline is a complete non-sequiter. Plus Aonuma says there is a timeline.

Based upon these hard facts, I conclude that there is a timeline.

And what if we enjoy analyzing a new game from a timeline perspective? Why should we follow your arbitrary, illogical, and wrong views?

I do hope the author certainly expected that he was going to get...attacked like this; any other reaction expected, if not that, is pure lunacy. And it is quite ballsy, telling a site about theorizing to sit down and shut up over the very thing it was founded upon.

I really don't care whether or not people believe in a timeline, personally. As they say, "There is your truth, my truth, and the real truth." I don't understand how people can take the word of an anonymous member of Nintendo of America and run with it (a company known for its bad translations and the like), but whatever. Until it comes straight from the horses' mouths (i.e., either Miyamoto and/or Aonuma) - this commentator will continue to believe in a timeline.

No, the main problem I take with the entire discussion is this statement: "Just enjoy the game, enjoy the story, enjoy the experience." If theorizing is considered a part of the experience, and you're telling the general populace this is a stupid move, why then, make this statement? The implication here is that people who apparently 'waste their time' (not your exact words, but this is the core meaning of your article) theorizing will never gain anything. Perhaps this is true, but you were arguing about 'fun.' People very well manage their lives, and also Zelda theorizing; they go to jobs, have spouses and family, have children and the like. And they still manage to find time for this. To tell them that their hobby is 'pointless' and a 'waste of time' (again, not your own words) amounts to nothing because, in the end, people will continue to do it. So a bigger question is, to all the anti-timeline theorists - what do you get out of this? Stifling creativity is never intelligent and doesn't breed any good discussion. If we were to simply stop Zelda theorizing, we'd have nothing to talk about anymore; it'd be just like - "Hey this [insert new Zelda title] is great/mediocre/bad." "Yeah." We would certainly discuss parts of the game that came out, and ones that will come out, and ones that have already come to pass, but nothing new would ever be discussed then.

Or, to put it much more simply, if Zelda timeline theorizing is a waste of time, why do you waste your time telling people they're wasting their time?

@Table:

It isn't really fair to judge the entire site by one article. Surely by now you realise that any articles we write are of our own opinion, and not that of the site as a whole. ;)

Similarly to Erimgard, I am going to have to disagree. While there have been countless instances where NoA or the creators themselves have made statements that completely contradict the idea of the Zelda timeline working (eg. Miyamoto accidentally said WW was the first game once...), they are just that, mistakes.

Aonuma has said that there is a timeline, and that he wants to forms connections between all the games. That is good enough evidence for me to believe that the creators have an intended timeline.

Yes, theorising is an obsession for some (me included), and people can take it too far. But that's the fun of it all, to look into all the possibilities of how the games connect with each other, or even with external sources, no matter how slim or improbable those connections are.

So while there are people who believe that the timeline is bollocks (which is fine, it is a justifiable opinion), people who do enjoy theorising and do enjoy making timelines shouldn't be phased by articles like this at all. Just keep doing what you enjoy. If you enjoy playing Zelda games, then keep playing. If you enjoy theorising and forming timelines, then keep researching the games. If you enjoy writing about how Link must have banged Malon in OoT or how Tingle is in fact Ganondorf, then keep writing about that.

idc what anyone says, im still going to believe theres a timeline.

"Nintendo makes the Zelda games outside of the constraint of a chronology"

There's one glaring omission from this article that makes the whole thing seem pretty stupid. While the writer points out that there are certain confirmed arcs like OoT/MM, he fails to mention the larger issue at hand: every Zelda since Ocarina of Time, with the the exception of the Oracle titles (and Miyamoto had next to nothing to do with the scenarios of those games) has been connected! Thanks to the split timeline, OoT/MM/WW/TP/PH/ST are all chronologically related to each other! And, I haven't played much of the Four Swords series but isn't that allegedly connected to the main series as well? My point is, and the point that so many people to miss, is that you only run into problems when you try to connect pre-OoT Zelda to post-OoT Zelda. It's not that there is no continuity within the pre-OoT games: Zelda II does take place in the same universe as the original Legend of Zelda after all, and Link's Awakening could be the follow-up to any of the Zelda games. But when Link to the Past was made for the SNES any sense of chronology that was there was thrown out of the window because it was, in effect, practically a reimagined, enhanced version of the original game. To be blunt, it would be impossible to connect the classic Zelda games to the OoT and Four Sword timeline games without the creation of a game(s) that would bridge them all together!

Matt, he's not necessarily wrong. He has a strong point. You think when they are making a game they go "so where does this fit in the timeline?"

No, it's a total afterthought, and has zero effect on the game being made. Part of me wonders if most of you commenters even bothered to read the whole article:

"Of course, we will always look at new games with timeline placements in mind, but don't make that all you do. When you play Spirit Tracks, Zelda Wii and any other games to come, don't look at it from a timeline perspective. Don't play Spirit Tracks for the first time and analyze every detail of how it contradicts its placement of post Phantom Hourglass, or how it fits it. Just enjoy the game, enjoy the story, enjoy the experience."

He is not saying to not think there is a timeline, or to try to place games, he is saying to put that thought aside for a bit and just appreciate the game itself, without judging timeline placement elements. Enjoy the game, come to the timeline stuff later.

Man, some of you guys overreact way too much. He didn't say their "isn't a timeline", or told us to "stop making timelines", he is saying step away from them now and then to enjoy Zelda for what it is.

I agree with the above user completely.

And honestly, I feel like some of you wouldn't be over reacting if you weren't obsessed with the time line and theorizing. I doubt the creators think about it half as much.

I'd also like to point out that I agree heavily on one issue:

When playing Spirit Tracks for the first time, it can take away from the gaming experience to analyze each and every detail in order to come up with "timeline" clues (which may or may not be false projections of evidence based on personal bias) instead of just enjoying the game.

Personally, I know it will be hard to do so, though, as I've gotten so accustomed to analyzing details in the Zelda series.

@ Nate

Some people (like myself) will cling to Zelda Theorizing as their sole purpose for playing the games. Theorists look forward to new games because its an exciting time to wait and see if theories will get confirmed. Some might find that sad, but I'd be damned if someone is going to tell me I ought to change.

I strongly disagree with Mel downplaying the complexity of the hobby, and therefore introducing it to the casual fanbase the way he did. Good theories are produced by good research (and availability of canon resources for that matter).

Theorists make their Zelda experience, and the Theorists keep it.

If that's how you feel historian, then more power to you. Honestly, if you can't enjoy the game for what it is, then how do you know if it's even a good game? Seems to me you play them more for the interest of theorizing them for the quality of the game itself. Honestly, I have been theorizing awhile but that's not why I play Zelda games.

They are fun, I grew up on them, and they always entertain me. Theorizing is what entertains me when I am done playing the games.

Which is why I'm done playing the games for what they are in other aspects not related to storyline. I've convinced myself to generally be content with all the games. That doesn't mean I'm capable of disliking or liking certain (new) themes of the series, I just tolerate Nintendo's shit for the sake of Zelda Theorizing purposes.

Timeline or not. I feel deeply about my stance because their should be debate, for the sake of debate, if people enjoy doing this hobby.

Edit:

incapable*

I never gave much attention to timelines, anyway. There are some sequels, like OoT and MM. I don't mind Zelda not having a timeline. I enjoy each game as a story told on its own, you know?
But yeah, watching people look for the "true" timeline was fun, heh.

Imo the timeline is like this (with of course differents links throughout the games)
The child one:
MC - OOT/ MM - TP - FS - FSA - ALTTP
(Link 1 MC/OOT/MM/TP, Link 2 FS-FSA-ALTTP)
the Adult one :
MC - OOT / TWW - PH - ST
(Link 1 MC/OOT (return to childhood), Link 3 TWW-PH, Link 4 ST)

Others games can fit in so many ways that it's impossible to find a exact timeline anyway, if there's even one
(The triforce is found several times, but we can suppose that Oracles games + LA (not in the right order, LA is possibly before Oracles, as the game can fit all spots of all timelines anyway, but it's maybe the very end of a timeline (sea/apocalyse/Link alone on the sea after that))
(Zelda 1 and 2 can fit many spots too, we cannot say for sure where they fit because of the lack of information)

I think it's fun to suppose that there's indeed a timeline, and since we have still many games to go, everything can change ;)
As long as Nintendo don't stop the Legend, it's useless to expect a official timeline.