Spoiler The Legend of Zelda series timeline and lore discussion thread, post-TotK (full series open spoilers)

[WestEgg]

The Legend of Zelda series, encompassing 20 original mainline games, has one of the most discussed and speculated upon internal histories in all of video games. Every new game that is released adds a new wrinkle to this, some providing answers to speculated events, and some raising several new ones. With the release of the most recent entry, The Legend of Zelda: Tears of the Kingdom, there is now much to discuss about how this game, along with is predecessor The Legend of Zelda: Breath of the Wild, fit into the overall series continuity.

For general spoiler discussion of Tears of the Kingdom, please use our spoiler thread.

Please note, this thread will obviously contain spoilers for The Legend of Zelda: Tears of the Kingdom as well as the full series in general. I highly advise to not read further if you have not yet completed the game.

There are quite a few interesting timeline and lore developments that Tears of the Kingdom raises. Most importantly:

• The nature of this game's version of Ganondorf
• The revelation of Hyrule's founding by King Rauru and Queen Sonia
• The Depths and what the ruins and treasure found there mean.

From what I've gathered, perhaps the most contentious piece of discussion is when the past Hyrule depicted in the game takes place, with two potential explanations, both with their own merrits. One is that the past depicted is the true original founding of Hyrule, which would have followed the events of Skyward Sword and preceded the events of Minish Cap and Ocarina of Time. The second is that this was the founding of this particular iteration of Hyrule rather than the original kingdom, and thus the past depicted may have happened much later in the timeline.

 

[WestEgg]

I haven't fully caught up on one has been discussed and argued in the main spoiler thread, but I'll say that my reading on the game was that the past depicted in Tears of the Kingdom was not the original founding of Hyrule, for a few reasons:

• As Hyrule depicted in the past is the same world seen in the present, this leads me to believe that the Depths themselves are the remains of further past versions of Hyrule. It's very clear that Gorons, Gerudo, and Zora inhabitted these areas at one point, and being the place in the game you find treasure from past games supports this idea to me.
• The Rito Sage's presence calls into question how the Rito in general fit into Hyrule's History. Wind Waker gives the explanation they evolved from Zora, but given the presence of Zora in this setting, and that the Rito are very different than those seen in Wind Waker, I've long felt that WW and BotW Rito were likely unrelated, different species. In either case though, I don't believe the Rito were present at earlier points in Hyrule's history.
• I don't buy that Ganondorf could reincarnate during the period in which he was sealed under Hyrule. Furthermore, a stone tablet you find in Hyrule Castle indicates that the castle itself was placed there to keep the imprisoning chamber sealed. That would mean that every iteration of Hyrule Castle is the same as this one if this really was the original founding of Hyrule, which I do not see as likely.

Consequently, it also seems pretty clear to me that the Imprisoning War of this game and the Imprisoning War of Link to the Past's backstory are different events.

 

[Tye]

Oh boy, a Zelda timeline thread! Guess I’ll repost/add on to what I wrote about my take on TotK’s timeline placement in the spoiler thread here:

Leading up to the release I believed that BotW and TotK took place on the Child Timeline, then thought that it had to somehow be the Downfall Timeline after learning that the Imprisoning War is mentioned, until finally realizing that no, actually, this has to be an entirely new timeline altogether. The question is, is it supposed to connect to one of the other timelines in some way, or is it just supposed to be its own separate continuity entirely?

I personally believe (and hope) that it’s the former, with this game taking place in a branching timeline from Skyward Sword. Specifically, the timeline where Ghirahim intervenes and disrupts Hylia’s plan by taking Zelda back in time to Hylia’s era to revive Demise there and Link defeats him, seals him away in the Master Sword, and then leaves to his original timeline—as opposed to the timeline that Link returns to where Demise was already eradicated by the Triforce. This would be a timeline where Demise was already destroyed in the distant past, so the full events of SS would have no reason to happen, with Hylia not becoming mortal and her chosen hero having no quest to fulfill or even exist in the first place, so it would make sense for things to eventually play out very differently. The main issue being that SS’s time travel is kinda…weird and contradictory to itself at times, sometimes presenting itself as a closed loop but not always, and honestly just thinking about it makes my head hurt, lol. But inconsistencies with time travel aside (that was also a thing in OoT to a degree, after all), BotW/TotK would fit into that timeline very well. It’s also essentially a blank slate timeline for the developers to do whatever they want with, which seems to be exactly what’s happing now with BotW/TotK.

It explains why Hylia is seemingly still around as a goddess in BotW/TotK despite becoming mortal in SS, for example; rather than choosing to become mortal thousands of years later in an effort to use the Triforce to completely eradicate Demise, Demise is instead defeated early by Link with the Master Sword, so Hylia could have stayed a goddess in that timeline, though weakened—possibly bound to the Goddess Statue? I always thought it was weird that Hylia was apparently still around as a goddess in BotW since that shouldn’t be possible after she became mortal in SS…but BotW/TotK taking place in a timeline where she didn’t become mortal finally explains that!

It could also somehow explain the weirdness of the Triforce in BotW/TotK, because it would have presumably stayed hidden in that timeline…and somehow found its way into the bloodline of the Royal Family (similar to how it’s thought that the Triforce was actually hidden within Link the whole time in SS), though its true nature left unknown. That would explain why the Triforce is never mentioned and this timeline’s parallel of OoT has no conflict over the Triforce, but the Secret Stones instead. And in a way, it would essentially replace Zelda carrying the bloodline of Hylia and having the Light Force in this timeline, as the Triforce would fill that role within Zelda instead while Hylia remains a goddess.

And since the Master Sword would have already been forged by Link in this timeline (and left behind when Link returned to his original timeline), the origin of the Master Sword and references to Fi are all covered, too, without the full events of SS having to have taken place in this timeline, which would also explain why the name Zelda was thought to have not been a thing in the era of Hyrule’s founding, outside of TotK’s time-displaced Zelda. Zelda, and probably Link as well, would have never came to exist on Skyloft in this timeline, which could explain why Rauru, whose OoT counterpart is implied to be connected to Zelda’s father from SS (likely as a descendant), is of Zonai origin in this timeline instead of Hylian, because the Royal Family lineage would be different in this timeline without SS Zelda’s existence. Also, we have no idea how much longer the people of Skyloft would have stayed in the sky in this timeline, so it could be that Hyrule was founded much later (perhaps exactly parallel with OoT in the original timeline?), and that might explain the Zonai’s presence and co-founding of Hyrule with the Hylians.

Also, while they go unnamed, I assume the masked ancient sages from TotK’s Imprisoning War have the same names as their OoT counterparts (as Rauru does); Darunia, Ruto, and Nabooru. (Not sure about the Rito; could be Medli as Vah Medoh seems to get its name from, but since the Rito sage is male I’m not so sure; I guess Mido is another possibility, as a name originating from Zelda II like the other OoT sages and thought to have potentially been meant to be the Sage of Wind at one point in OoT’s development?) That would explain the mentions of Ruto and Nabooru despite the events of OoT clearly not taking place in this timeline, and it would also explain the designs and names of the Divine Beasts from BotW, since they’re clearly meant to be based on TotK’s ancient sages in canon given their designs match their masks. Urbosa states that Vah Naboris is named after Nabooru, and the names of the others clearly reference the sages Darunia, Ruto, and Medli/Mido, but rather than being the characters from OoT (and possibly one from TWW, for some reason), it makes much more sense for these sages that are referenced to actually have been TotK’s Imprisoning War sages after all.

I guess the one big question is…what’s up with the Zonai in the other timeline(s)? Why don’t they seem to have been around at all? Though a lot of the designs from the Four Swords trilogy games, particularly The Minish Cap, do bear a striking resemblance to Zonai designs, like the eye symbol that’s commonly associated with Vaati (but not exclusively, as it’s also used for ancient artifacts unrelated to Vaati like the Dark Mirror), so perhaps they were still around there in some capacity… Maybe they became the Oocca? I’ve seen a theory that they could have potentially been the Twili as well, or at least some of them.

 

[Starphanluke]

I just genuinely hope (and for now, choose to believe) BotW and TotK are a full reboot. The endless paragraphs trying to explain how and why they could possibly fit into the pre-existing timeline only cement that for me. This story works best as a fresh start, with only nods and references to previous games. TotK in particular feels like a retelling of some of the major events of Ocarina of Time, Skyward Sword and A Link to the Past. The story and "lore" of this game is worsened if you have to consider that another Gerudo Ganondorf will eventually come alone while this one is still locked under the castle the whole time. That there's another, completely different Rauru who also happens to be the Sage of Light holed up in the Sacred Realm while this one is founding Hyrule. That the early Hyrule founders just... don't know about the Master Sword.

And the whole "it's a new, different Hyrule" doesn't work either, because the legends of the old Hyrule (references to previous games) exist, meaning some memory of that Hyrule does too. Sonia and Rauru are the founders of the first and only Hyrule.

So to me, it just serves the story they're telling best if BotW and TotK are separate. The rest of the games are legends told in this new game world. But in my mind, this Link and Zelda are the first and only ones to exist by the time of BotW. Any other Heroes and Princesses that arose over the years to fight the Calamity were completely separate characters (there is a VERY late-game item to support this, but I won't spoil it yet).

Edit: to expand further a little of what I mean by "the other games are the legends told in this new game world," when Zelda is in the past, she speaks of a hero named Link who will come to defeat the Demon King. The Sages all hear of the name and the story, and probably spoke of it to their respective people. Over time, the legends of the other games build around the information Zelda spilled during the past in this game. The Zonai's place in the legends is diminished, because they're gone.

 

[WestEgg]

I just genuinely hope (and for now, choose to believe) BotW and TotK are a full reboot. The endless paragraphs trying to explain how and why they could possibly fit into the pre-existing timeline only cement that for me. This story works best as a fresh start, with only nods and references to previous games. TotK in particular feels like a retelling of some of the major events of Ocarina of Time, Skyward Sword and A Link to the Past. The story and "lore" of this game is worsened if you have to consider that another Gerudo Ganondorf will eventually come alone while this one is still locked under the castle the whole time. That there's another, completely different Rauru who also happens to be the Sage of Light holed up in the Sacred Realm while this one is founding Hyrule. That the early Hyrule founders just... don't know about the Master Sword.

And the whole "it's a new, different Hyrule" doesn't work either, because the legends of the old Hyrule (references to previous games) exist, meaning some memory of that Hyrule does too. Sonia and Rauru are the founders of the first and only Hyrule.

So to me, it just serves the story they're telling best if BotW and TotK are separate. The rest of the games are legends told in this new game world. But in my mind, this Link and Zelda are the first and only ones to exist by the time of BotW. Any other Heroes and Princesses that arose over the years to fight the Calamity were completely separate characters (there is a VERY late-game item to support this, but I won't spoil it yet).

Edit: to expand further a little of what I mean by "the other games are the legends told in this new game world," when Zelda is in the past, she speaks of a hero named Link who will come to defeat the Demon King. The Sages all hear of the name and the story, and probably spoke of it to their respective people. Over time, the legends of the other games build around the information Zelda spilled during the past in this game. The Zonai's place in the legends is diminished, because they're gone.

I understand where you are coming from, but honestly can't get behind this. If there is one piece of hard continuity the game wants to drill home, it's that the Master Sword is Fi from Skyward Sword, the theme use, sound effect use, communicative glow, it's extremely blatant, and it would be weird to only have continuity with Skyward Sword, when Skyward Sword itself wants to anchor itself as the origin story for all preceeding games.

I don't see anything wrong with a new Hyrule, heck the prior games had already confirmed that happening once with Spirit Tracks. We're talking timelines of tens of thousands of years, heck the time from the prior calamity to the one in BotW is about as much time as has passed from the end of the stone age to the modern day in reality.

 

[Tye]

I just genuinely hope (and for now, choose to believe) BotW and TotK are a full reboot. The endless paragraphs trying to explain how and why they could possibly fit into the pre-existing timeline only cement that for me. This story works best as a fresh start, with only nods and references to previous games. TotK in particular feels like a retelling of some of the major events of Ocarina of Time, Skyward Sword and A Link to the Past. The story and "lore" of this game is worsened if you have to consider that another Gerudo Ganondorf will eventually come alone while this one is still locked under the castle the whole time. That there's another, completely different Rauru who also happens to be the Sage of Light holed up in the Sacred Realm while this one is founding Hyrule. That the early Hyrule founders just... don't know about the Master Sword.

And the whole "it's a new, different Hyrule" doesn't work either, because the legends of the old Hyrule (references to previous games) exist, meaning some memory of that Hyrule does too. Sonia and Rauru are the founders of the first and only Hyrule.

So to me, it just serves the story they're telling best if BotW and TotK are separate. The rest of the games are legends told in this new game world. But in my mind, this Link and Zelda are the first and only ones to exist by the time of BotW. Any other Heroes and Princesses that arose over the years to fight the Calamity were completely separate characters (there is a VERY late-game item to support this, but I won't spoil it yet).

Edit: to expand further a little of what I mean by "the other games are the legends told in this new game world," when Zelda is in the past, she speaks of a hero named Link who will come to defeat the Demon King. The Sages all hear of the name and the story, and probably spoke of it to their respective people. Over time, the legends of the other games build around the information Zelda spilled during the past in this game. The Zonai's place in the legends is diminished, because they're gone.

My post right above yours explains how it can easily work by branching off the original timeline while also essentially being being a fresh start—because it’s branching off from the very first game in the timeline and even then most of that game’s events wouldn’t play out the same in this timeline. And sure, it’s a lengthy post because I like to be thorough and I’m trying to explain it in depth to people, but you don’t need “endless paragraphs” to explain it because ultimately it’s rather simple—it’s the timeline that Link left in Skyward Sword after defeating Demise in Hylia’s era. That’s it. It explains things that couldn’t otherwise be explained without huge unfounded assumptions, like Hylia somehow still being a goddess in BotW/TotK, and it just fits. There’s no need for BotW/TotK to be a completely separate continuity, because there’s already an option that works very well that’s directly connected to the original timeline.

 

[Pokemaniac]

There basically seem to be two main possibilities. Either the details of the Imprisoning War have been retconned again, and the early Hyrule we see in this game is a kingdom rebuilt after being thoroughly destroyed by Ganondorf in OoT (how that version of Ganondorf was taken out TBD) or this is a new, pre-OoT branch of the timeline (which has preferably taken the rest of downfall with it, since OoT never set that up super well to begin with).

 

[Dardan Sandiego]

Zelda's relationship to time has always been quite wonky even before BotW because it’s evidently of secondary concern to the developers and I think attempts to fit everything into one neat package are ultimately futile. I definitely think that they try to fit newer games into the grand mythos but they are still bound to contradict older titles in some fashion, sometimes due to choices that aren't necessarily motivated by lore.

The only way the events in the Zelda series make "sense" to me is if they are either cyclical or on an infinite timeline, endlessly reoccurring with some differences. Events depicted in BotW and TotK, even the past stuff, takes place so far removed from many of the previous games that only echoes of it remain in the present age, in names, imagery and some items that have survived.

 

[Apopheniac]

I'll be honest, I didn't realize people were still trying to reconcile BotW into the lore of previous Zelda games after we got TP and WW races in the same game. TotK rolling out a new origin story for the founding of Hyrule seems like it should've been the end of this thought exercise. You could roll with "well it's been so long that everything changes conveniently so everything works out," but then what's the point? There's no real insight gained, it's filing off the edges of the square peg until it fits in the round hole. Who cares if the game is technically a sequel to Four Swords Adventures or Zelda II if all the relevance to past games in BotW/TotK is in callbacks devoid of context?

The developers spelling out an official timeline around the release of Skyward Sword, to me, reads like it was as far as they wanted to go with tying the series under one chronology. The 3D entries prior to Breath of the Wild revolving around the shenanigans of Ocarina of Time is both relevant to their own respective stories and indicative of their place in the metanarrative of Zelda's progression as a series, and BotW breaking from the explicit structure of its noncontiguous search action forebears while remaining reverent to their aesthetics and ideals is exemplary of its own status in the franchise's history. Why should the game that broke the 20-year-old Zelda mold be subject to the mold's orbit in determining its own sense of place?

 

[Tye]

I'll be honest, I didn't realize people were still trying to reconcile BotW into the lore of previous Zelda games after we got TP and WW races in the same game. TotK rolling out a new origin story for the founding of Hyrule seems like it should've been the end of this thought exercise. You could roll with "well it's been so long that everything changes conveniently so everything works out," but then what's the point? There's no real insight gained, it's filing off the edges of the square peg until it fits in the round hole. Who cares if the game is technically a sequel to Four Swords Adventures or Zelda II if all the relevance to past games in BotW/TotK is in callbacks devoid of context?

The developers spelling out an official timeline around the release of Skyward Sword, to me, reads like it was as far as they wanted to go with tying the series under one chronology. The 3D entries prior to Breath of the Wild revolving around the shenanigans of Ocarina of Time is both relevant to their own respective stories and indicative of their place in the metanarrative of Zelda's progression as a series, and BotW breaking from the explicit structure of its noncontiguous search action forebears while remaining reverent to their aesthetics and ideals is exemplary of its own status in the franchise's history. Why should the game that broke the 20-year-old Zelda mold be subject to the mold's orbit in determining its own sense of place?

Again, there’s another options besides “completely new, separate continuity” and “so far in the future that past game events don’t matter” that both directly ties into the original timeline and offers a clean slate for the devs to work with, giving reason for the founding of Hyrule to be completely different, races to have evolved differently, etc.—the timeline split from Skyward Sword that I’ve detailed a few posts back. It fits BotW/TotK incredibly well.

Until BotW and TotK, every Zelda game has been given a clear place on the timeline—and outside of OoS/OoA and FSA, and the Downfall Timeline reconnecting ALttP and the games that follow it which seemed to be a product of FSA’s story being drastically changed mid development, every game’s placement was made pretty clear around the release of each game, so it’s not like it’s some big retroactive thing either like people like to believe—so I find it incredibly hard to believe that they’ve suddenly abandoned that now after officially revealing the full timeline and continuing to update it and feature it on their website.

Nintendo clearly is wanting to preserve some mystery about BotW/TotK’s exact timeline placement because they’ve realized it fuels speculation and some people find joy in that, and perhaps they hadn’t even fully decided on it themselves during BotW’s development, but after TotK it seems extremely clear to me that this is a timeline in which some of Skyward Sword’s events happened (at the very least, the Master Sword was forged) but with some major differences (like Hylia still being a goddess), and everything after that seems to be completely different, and conveniently there’s already a timeline split that sets up for literally all of this, so I can’t imagine the Aonuma/Fujibayashi not making use of that, especially considering that Skyward Sword was the last 3D Zelda game before they made BotW and both BotW and TotK make explicit references to Skyward Sword.

 

[WestEgg]

So, shifting way from timeline but something that seems pretty massive lore-wise and seems relatively underdiscussed...

What's up with them Secret Stones?

Like, Ganondorf getting just one put him at a power level higher than what we've seen him with the Triforce of Power. I get that they amplify one's abilities, and we can probably infer based on his appearance that the incarnation of Demise that is a part of Ganondorf is what was amplified, but still. That seems like a pretty massive power boost. Given the whole draconfication thing and the Zonai's connection to/ possible worship of the dragons, the stones have something to do with the dragons, but the dragons themselves are mentioned to be servants of Hylia, who is said to be a lower level of Goddess than the creation trio and by extension the Triforce, so the power scaling is a bit out of whack.

 

[Apopheniac]

Until BotW and TotK, every Zelda game has been given a clear place on the timeline—and outside of OoS/OoA and FSA, and the Downfall Timeline reconnecting ALttP and the games that follow it which seemed to be a product of FSA’s story being drastically changed mid development, every game’s placement was made pretty clear around the release of each game, so it’s not like it’s some big retroactive thing either like people like to believe—so I find it incredibly hard to believe that they’ve suddenly abandoned that now after officially revealing the full timeline and continuing to update it and feature it on their website.

The lore of the 3D Zelda games prior to BotW were defined by their relation to OoT, which is the only reason the timeline bears any coherence. Why should we consider BotW and TotK of that ilk when their whole ethos is breaking the paradigms of OoT and its nephews while paying homage? "Until BotW and TotK" is the key phrasing here; that this new duology doesn't use OoT as its lodestar ought to mark it as aberrant, not another doting pair of agnates eagerly awaiting confirmation.

 

[MMXZero]

I'm sticking with the child timeline. There are way to many references for that timeline that simply can't be handwaved by saying it's a reboot or a new Hyrule.

 

[Mango]

My genuine want is to take Rauru at his word and say he truly is the first King of Hyrule. The era immediately following Skyward Sword and the establishment of Hyrule is a blank slate as far as the timeline is concerned and the Great Plateau, going off of BOTWs map which largely feels like both the most definitive Hyrule and also the Hyrule that fits best with Skyward Sword geographically speaking, is largely in the exactly right position for it to be more or less where the Sealed Temple once stood. We can see this not only due to the placement of the Temple of Time in both BOTW and ToTK, but also in regards to the fact that it's to the west of the Spring of Courage (Skyview Spring) and a Lake Floria (a name only used in Skyward Sword and BOTW/ToTK) both located in Faron, so it's very easy to see when taking those into account that Rhoams words in BOTW about the Great Plateau being the birthplace of the Kingdom holds a lot of water not only for ToTKs story but for the timeline as a whole, as if there's anywhere Skyward Sword Zelda and Link would settle after the credits it would be the only location that holds: sentimental value due to Impa, the Triforce, and a ton of lumber, fresh water, and flora/fauna.

Thus from Skyward Swords perspective to BOTWs, prior to ToTK, it made logical sense to assume that the original Kingdom of Hyrule, the one featured in all of the games, was founded and originally had its capital located in the Faron Region. This not only made logical sense but subsequently explained a lot of inconsistencies with the region, namely how through areas like the Sacred Grove from Twilight Princess and the Forest Temple in OOT, there was always a weird sense of a once greater amount of people living there than what the nature of the region implied, what with the former being a series of ruins that feel like they belong to a much larger complex and that existed around the ToT, and the latter being what many have concluded to be some sort of abandoned military fortress/holy sanctuary.

This Zeltik theory and his conclusion about the Forest Temple being a entrance to the Sacred Realm is why I think it's from the earliest days of the Kingdom:



So ultimately I've always assumed the history of the early Kingdom was:

SS Link and Zelda settle on the surface in the Faron Region around the giant Hylia Statue and the Sealed Temple -> their descendants start a community -> the knowledge of the Triforce still being relatively fresh causes the era of Chaos, so Rauru is forced to build the Temple of Time and seal off the Sacred Realm -> perhaps due to damages from the era or simply just the desire to grow, Hyrule moves north and takes the ToT with them -> the relatively small Hyrule we see in Minish Cap would thus be the newly founded captial to the north.

And...honestly ToTK if not for a myriad of issues would work perfectly in being slotted into that. The era before the new Imprisoning War would be shortly after the Era of Chaos but before the move North, and the change in location could easily be assumed to have happened because of the new Castle that they had to build over ToTK Ganondorf. The Era of Chaos in fact could be why the Zonai seem to have been wiped out, and since we know this Rauru is the first King and we see a ToT in the location that would fit where the Sealed Temple might once had been, it's not at all a stretch to say that this Rauru and OOT Rauru are the same and that they both are the reason the Sacred Realm is sealed, with the Master Sword of the era acting as a key that can't be removed untill OOT, and thus would explain why no Hero could show up to face ToTK Ganondorf. It works really well...if it weren't for:

• The Gerudo of the era are clearly BOTW Gerudo. They weren't meant to have pointed ears this early in the timeline. This could perhaps be a oversight or perhaps you could argue that the era featured in ToTK is very close to the founding of the Gerudo tribe and thus they aren't as genetically distinct from Hylians as they are in OOT, since all human races spawned off of Skyward Swords Hylians, but both are a bit of a stretch. I'd be willing to buy the genetic difference idea if it weren't for the Twinrova cameo, as neither Kotake nor Konume should have pointed ears, so again it's an issue. Tho not a major one admittedly.
• Ganondorf himself. Ganondorf doesn't make a ton of sense existing before OOT. Given the different histories tho I'm 100% willing to believe he's a newdorf, but placing one before OOT feels weird, and contradictory. The two biggest issues tho are him being sealed for the whole timeline and the plaque in Hyrule Castle that explains that the castle is designed to keep him sealed. Both of these would mean that there's been two dorfs for the whole timeline and that the castle has never changed, which raises a lot of issues. In both the Adult Timeline and the Downfall Timeline, the castle is destroyed, full-stop, in the adult half of OOT, meaning unless it was rebuilt in the same location, any game following this must have a new castle, and since it was destroyed than you'd think that would awaken ToTKdorf. There's no real good solution to this as even at the end of TP the castle is destroyed, so I'm just gonna headcanon that OOT Ganondorf is a reincarnation of TotKdorf, but without any memories, and so long as OOTdorf is alive and kicking the ToTKdorf corpse is just an empty corpse, and thus only becomes a threat again once OOTdorf is permanently killed. Hell, perhaps TotKdorf is the progenitor of the round ears of the Gerudo if we want to get speculative. In fact going further off the speculative deep end, the Castle being partially destroyed by OOTdorf in TP could have awakened TotKdorf following OOTdorfs death at the end of the game and thus could explain why we see a new reincarnation right after this in FSA.
• The era looks vastly different from anything we've seen. This is a minor issue but the era of TotKs backstory is visually not that compatible with OOT. This honestly just boils down to the ToT itself, as it's clearly not OOTs ToT. There's not much issue here I just think it's weird.
• The Temple of Time in ToTK doesn't mesh well with the Temple of Time Rauru created in OOT. The biggest issue is that the ToT in OOT was founded to seal the Sacred Realm, with the Master Sword as a key, and to then stay there on the ground. The Temple of Time we see in ToTK, doesn't seem to have much purpose besides being a large building that was once on the Great Plateau but then later after the New Imprisoning War raised into the sky for ToTK Link to find. It being raised into the sky makes it very hard for it to be the ToT that was used to Sealed the Sacred Realm, and I honestly don't have a solution for this. The only possible headcanon I can come up with is that the ToT in the sky is just the building of the Temple itself and somehow after Rauru gave his life to seal Ganondorf, Mineru and Zelda somehow managed to separate the building from the seal on the Sacred Realm and lift the building into the sky. The Sacred Realm seal would later have the OOT temple build over it and then moved. This is all highly speculative, but I'm working with crumbs here.

So really it's so close to fitting, and if that's where it does take place than it provides a lot of fun speculation and theory crafting, but reconciling ToTK with OOT just feels hard to do. But, with my headcanoning and speculation in place I think I'm gonna settle with this and just assume ToTK does in fact show us the first true king. There's even a fun theory someone brought up on Zelda Universe Forums about how the Zonai may in fact be the people who built the City in Sky, and that the Japanese text Shad from that game says never mentions the Oooca and that it's possible the Oooca are just inhabiting ancient Zonai ruins in the sky. I like that idea a lot because the goofy ass canon in TP definitely looks similar to the goofy Zonai stuff in ToTK. Also I don't think the Rito matter. They clearly aren't the same Rito from Wind Waker, so I'm fine just assuming they're the "true" Rito and the ones in Wind Waker just adopted the name. Heck I already headcanoned that the word "Rito" is just a Hylian word for bird or something bird-like so I think it works better than trying to assume it has to connect to Wind Waker somehow.

As for a post Skyward Sword split, it's not impossible but there's no evidence for it tbh.


So TLDR:

I want to believe the game is showing us the earliest days of Hyrule as a whole not a new Hyrule and I think the timeline goes as such:

Skyward Sword -> Link and Zelda settle in Faron -> a large surface settlement is grown in Faron -> The knowledge of the Triforce which isn't sealed yet causes many wars including the Interloper War, and thus the Era of Chaos kicks off -> The Zonai descend and help end the Era of Chaos largely being wiped out in the process -> Rauru builds the Temple of Time sealing off the Sacred Realm with the Master Sword, becomes the first King for this and founds the Kingdom of Hyrule, marrying Sonia whom is a direct descendant of Skyward Sword Zelda -> ToTK Ganondorf having been born to a very early version of the Gerudo tribe seeks to overthrow Hyrule because he's heard of a potential unimaginable power somewhere in the Kingdom -> TotK Sealing War -> Zelda and Mineru send the ToT into the Sky, with a new building being built over the Sacred Realm seal/Master Sword it once housed -> A new castle is built in the north to watch over ToTKdorfs seal, the Kingdom moves north to be beside the castle -> Minish Cap backstory -> Minish Cap -> TotKdorf gives up and reincarnates -> Hyrulean Civil War -> OOT -> so on

 

[takriel]

The Phantom Ganon armor does mention alternate dimensions (at least in German), so that's something to take into account I guess.

 

[Tye]

The lore of the 3D Zelda games prior to BotW were defined by their relation to OoT, which is the only reason the timeline bears any coherence. Why should we consider BotW and TotK of that ilk when their whole ethos is breaking the paradigms of OoT and its nephews while paying homage? "Until BotW and TotK" is the key phrasing here; that this new duology doesn't use OoT as its lodestar ought to mark it as aberrant, not another doting pair of agnates eagerly awaiting confirmation.

What?? First of all, why ignore the 2D Zelda games and separate them from the 3D games? What sense does that make at all? They’re all Zelda games, and the connections between them have been coherent since the beginning.

TAoL was a direct sequel to TLoZ. ALttP was a prequel to TLoZ/TAoL, expanding on the Triforce and Ganon’s origins, and LA was a direct sequel to that. OoT was a direct sequel to ALttP/LA, based on ALttP’s backstory; of course, this one ended up not matching up exactly with ALttP’s Imprisoning War, but at the time the explanation for that would have been that, in what would become known as the Child Timeline, after Link warns the Royal Family of Ganondorf’s plans and leaves Hyrule, Ganondorf still manages to launch an attack on Hyrule later but in a different way despite the Royal Family being warned, with no hero around to stop him this time—TP would later change that, but FSA was seemingly going to be the solution as a new prequel to ALttP, with both games being in development at the same time, though FSA’s story ended up undergoing major changes midway through development, possibly being the reason why the Downfall Timeline was conceived instead. Anyway, then MM was a direct sequel to OoT’s Child Timeline. OoS/OoA were a direct sequel/prequel to each other, and the first Zelda game made by a third party, seemingly designed to be as self-contained as possible, though they would have had to take place sometime after ALttP; I think these may be the only Zelda games to not have a set timeline placement originally, which would explain why Nintendo has switched between them taking place between ALttP and LA with the same Link and sometime after ALttP/LA with a different Link, because they could kinda fit in either place (though the latter makes more sense overall, with Zelda not recognizing Link in OoS/OoA). Then TWW was a sequel to OoT’s Adult Timeline. FS was stated to be the earliest tale in the Zelda series at the time, making it predate OoT, which made sense as the game didn’t feature the Triforce, Master Sword, or Ganon and wasn’t a side story with an existing Link. FSA was a sequel to FS, seemingly meant to take place in OoT’s Child Timeline as a setup for ALttP’s Imprisoning War which the Adult Timeline wasn’t compatible with, but as explained the story ended up being changed and simplified at Miyamoto’s request; as a result, it could no longer connect to ALttP, with the Downfall Timeline being conceived to fix that (and it does a fine job at that), but stays on the Child Timeline after TP (which is the only place it really fits, anyway). After that, TMC was a prequel to FS, and became the new earliest game in the timeline. TP was a sequel to OoT’s Child Timeline. PH was a direct sequel to TWW. ST was a sequel to TWW/PH. SS was a prequel to the entire series, putting it before TMC. ALBW was a sequel to ALttP/LA, placed after OoS/OoA and before TLoZ/TAoL. TFH was a direct sequel to ALBW.

And that’s it. Like I said, prior to BotW and TotK (the timeline placement for which Nintendo has intentionally been vague about, which makes sense after TotK because its backstory was able to come as a big surprise as a result, and Nintendo intentionally misdirected us by dropping familiar names like the Imprisoning War, OoT characters, etc. that ended up being not at all the same things we thought they should be), literally every Zelda game except OoS/OoA has always had a clear timeline placement relative to other games in the series, with FSA and the specifics of the Downfall Timeline prior to the Hyrule Historia being the only real instances of “incoherence” which were resolved with the official reveal of the full Zelda timeline. I don’t understand how anyone could deny that without being ignorant of the history and context of the series. The connections have always been there—not just with the 3D games, and not just in relation to OoT. OoT did become a core of the timeline due to it being the source of the split timeline, of course, so it’s natural that more games are going to directly link to it, but that in no way means that a game that doesn’t have direct connections to OoT isn’t part of the same continuity, as a game that takes place in a timeline split before OoT would naturally not feature OoT as we know it—instead, TotK’s backstory features events similar yet clearly different to OoT, obviously meant to parallel it.

I'm sticking with the child timeline. There are way to many references for that timeline that simply can't be handwaved by saying it's a reboot or a new Hyrule.

What references are there that can’t be explained by a timeline split from SS resulting in a different history of Hyrule with some events still playing out similarly but different at the same time (like the OoT parallels in TotK)? I say this as a firm believer in BotW taking place on the Child Timeline prior to playing TotK. As much as I was in favor of the Child Timeline, the context of TotK makes it abundantly clear to me that this game must take place in a previously unexplored timeline, with the SS timeline split making the most sense and explaining things that a Child Timeline placement had no answers for (like Hylia still being a goddess in BotW/TotK when she specifically gave up her godhood by becoming mortal in the main timeline of SS).

 

[Mango]

That wall of text I just wrote gave me a epiphany. If this isn't a new Hyrule BOTW must be on the Child Timeline. ToTK makes it clear that the castle was built to house ToTKdorf, in both the Downfall and Adult Timelines, the castle is fully destroyed by OOTdorf, how this doesn't awaken ToTKdorf is up for debate, but the castle is 100% gone even the ground beneath it possibly the TotK plaque too. The Child Timeline is the only timeline where it doesn't ever get fully destroyed, it even largely looks the same from TP -> FSA -> BOTW, so if the events are in the past before OOT, they inadvertently wrote themselves into a corner and gave us a placement.

 

[Linkstrikesback]

Nintendo clearly is wanting to preserve some mystery about BotW/TotK’s exact timeline placement because they’ve realized it fuels speculation and some people find joy in that, and perhaps they hadn’t even fully decided on it themselves during BotW’s development, but after TotK it seems extremely clear to me that this is a timeline in which some of Skyward Sword’s events happened (at the very least, the Master Sword was forged) but with some major differences (like Hylia still being a goddess), and everything after that seems to be completely different, and conveniently there’s already a timeline split that sets up for literally all of this, so I can’t imagine the Aonuma/Fujibayashi not making use of that, especially considering that Skyward Sword was the last 3D Zelda game before they made BotW and both BotW and TotK make explicit references to Skyward Sword.

You just described a new, completely separate continuity.

There's no alternative timeline that could be created anywhere from the events from skyward sword. It's one, single, stable time loop. If it happened differently, it's a different continuity, there's not really much reason to namedrop a whole bunch of things only to have them be completely different things otherwise.

The master sword is still there, but it doesn't even really bare resemblance to how it worked in any of the previous games. The fact that the blade can heal itself and how it is strengthened are completely different to how it behaves in any of the previous games. Neither did the triforce in BOTW for that matter. In fact, that anyone can hear Fi in the master sword at all is hammering the point home that the events of forging the master sword were very different to those shown in SS, because there fi explicitly says she's going to sleep forever, which obviously is not the case of whatever inhabits the master sword in BOTW/TOTK where it actively intervenes in both games.

They couldn't have been more on the nose (without just outright saying it because they still need to sell hd remasters to pad the release schedule down the line) that BOTW/TOTK is intended as a complete continuity reboot. They very explicitly spell out that events of the previous continuities didn't happen as they did in what previously occurred with the detailed imprisoning war, which we know happened in the LTTP segment of the timeline and was very much a completely different event.

That wall of text I just wrote gave me a epiphany. If this isn't a new Hyrule BOTW must be on the Child Timeline. ToTK makes it clear that the castle was built to house ToTKdorf, in both the Downfall and Adult Timelines, the castle is fully destroyed by OOTdorf, how this doesn't awaken ToTKdorf is up for debate, but the castle is 100% gone even the ground beneath it possibly the TotK plaque too. The Child Timeline is the only timeline where it doesn't ever get fully destroyed, it even largely looks the same from TP -> FSA -> BOTW, so if the events are in the past before OOT, they inadvertently wrote themselves into a corner and gave us a placement.

It can't be the child timeline either because Hyrule castle literally moves between OOT and TP.

 

[Tye]

As for a post Skyward Sword split, it's not impossible but there's no evidence for it tbh.

It’s technically a mid-SS split (considering SS takes us to the distant past of Hylia’s era, which is where the timeline would split from) that’s shown in game, and the evidence for BotW/TotK taking place there is that TotK’s founding of Hyrule doesn’t appear to mesh well with the original timeline, for reasons that you pointed out in your post and more. I also believe that the game wouldn’t be showing us clear parallels of OoT—while clearly not being OoT as we know it—and reusing terms like the Imprisoning War but for completely different things unless it was meant to be implied that this a different timeline where Hyrule’s history is different from the timeline we knew before. Additionally, one thing that can’t be explained in the previous timeline is how Hylia is somehow still a goddess in BotW/TotK despite becoming mortal in the original timeline. There’s also the fact that TotK seems to imply that there weren’t other Links in BotW/TotK’s timeline (assuming BotW’s amiibo/DLC gear isn’t supposed to be canon in TotK, which is kind of ambiguous, but it already doesn’t make sense that stuff from all three timelines appears with those so it’s either not canon as was the case in BotW, or events similar to those past games also took place in this new timeline, with heroes spoken of in legend, but whether those heroes actually existed—and if so, if they were actually a Link or someone else entirely—is unclear; the only other hero we know of for sure is the hero from 10,000 years ago, who is a Zonai and may not even be a Link at all), and possibly not even other Zeldas (at least not during or before the founding of Hyrule, since it’s said in TotK that, aside from the time-displaced Zelda, it was believed that the name Zelda didn’t exist back then), and this would make sense in the timeline that Link left in SS, because there would be no need for Hylia to become mortal or for her chosen hero to exist in SS’s time then in that timeline since Demise was already defeated for good in the distant past and the Master Sword was already forged and left behind (which also would be the only real explanation for how the Goddess Sword AKA “White Sword of the Sky” could exist in TotK alongside the Master Sword if those items are supposed to somehow be canon, interestingly).

Also, before the Downfall Timeline was officially revealed, there was no real evidence for it either, yet it became a thing regardless. And before TWW was released, OoT’s Adult Timeline wasn’t really considered for anything either as no games took place on it until then. This could very well be that same kind of moment for the SS split.

Also, while I admire the effort to make sense of Hyrule’s geography and points of interest across the timeline (as I once was really into that myself, too), it’s unfortunately never going to match up nicely. It just doesn’t work. That’s just one of the things you have to chalk up to video game logic; the world design is dictated primarily by the game experience and only secondarily by the story. An attempt is made to make some things match up, but many things are drastically changed—major mountains and rivers impossibly shift location, regions (like Lanayru) are inexplicably moved to the opposite side of the map, the Lost Woods, Temple of Time, and Master Sword’s locations switch around between games in ways that don’t add up at all, etc. I also liked to believe that the Great Plateau was where Skyloft fell and where the Sealed Temple once stood, but the Forgotten Temple (which has even more evidence going for it being the original Sealed Temple), among other things, really throws a wrench into that theory, especially after TotK; I guess it’s not impossible that it was moved somehow, but there’s an awful lot of moving of geographical locations required in order to completely make sense the changes to Hyrule between games.

 

[AtomicZach]

I think what people are forgetting about the "Ganondorf is sealed beneath the castle" is that Ganondorf isn't sealed like one level below the castle. He's like buried deep under the castle. Like the prologue area you start in is like 20 stories down and you go deeper than that. It wouldn't be impossible for him to be there even if Ganondorf just tore the whole thing down because it goes deeper than the foundation.

 

[WestEgg]

I think what people are forgetting about the "Ganondorf is sealed beneath the castle" is that Ganondorf isn't sealed like one level below the castle. He's like buried deep under the castle. Like the prologue area you start in is like 20 stories down and you go deeper than that. It wouldn't be impossible for him to be there even if Ganondorf just tore the whole thing down because it goes deeper than the foundation.

My impression of the beginning of the game is that the whole are you are in has crashed further into the depths during the upheaval and was initially much closer to the surface. You see Ganondorf fall away like Zelda as everything begins to crumble.

 

[Tye]

You just described a new, completely separate continuity.

There's no alternative timeline that could be created anywhere from the events from skyward sword. It's one, single, stable time loop. If it happened differently, it's a different continuity, there's not really much reason to namedrop a whole bunch of things only to have them be completely different things otherwise.

The master sword is still there, but it doesn't even really bare resemblance to how it worked in any of the previous games. The fact that the blade can heal itself and how it is strengthened are completely different to how it behaves in any of the previous games. Neither did the triforce in BOTW for that matter. In fact, that anyone can hear Fi in the master sword at all is hammering the point home that the events of forging the master sword were very different to those shown in SS, because there fi explicitly says she's going to sleep forever, which obviously is not the case of whatever inhabits the master sword in BOTW/TOTK where it actively intervenes in both games.

They couldn't have been more on the nose (without just outright saying it because they still need to sell hd remasters to pad the release schedule down the line) that BOTW/TOTK is intended as a complete continuity reboot. They very explicitly spell out that events of the previous continuities didn't happen as they did in what previously occurred with the detailed imprisoning war, which we know happened in the LTTP segment of the timeline and was very much a completely different event.

SS isn’t one single, stable time loop, though. It seems to present itself as such, but the more you examine it the less things add up—there are multiple types of time travel and their effects on the timeline that are completely inconsistent with each other. Some things, like Impa’s bracelet and Zelda in her crystal seal, are shown to have always been present, while others, like the Tree of Life and the Master Sword in the Sealed Temple, only appear after the actions to make them exist have happened in the past. Then there’s the Timeshift Stones, which are a whole confusing mess of their own. And the whole plot with Demise ends up being one big paradox. I’m not sure a good explanation exists to make sense of all this, but the best I’ve come up with is that the stuff that presents itself as a clean loop, like the sealed Zelda and Impa’s bracelet, were all part of Hylia’s divine plan and therefore predestined to happen, while the things that occurred due to Ghirahim’s meddling and taking Zelda back in time, which wasn’t accounted for, were not predetermined and therefore create a timeline split, resolving the paradoxes. It’s not like OoT didn’t already have inconsistent time travel before it, after all, and that still created a timeline split despite not all of its time travel being treated as such.

What you believe to be an indication of them abandoning the previous continuity, I see as an indication that they’re simply following a new branch of the existing timeline. The alternative is much less satisfactory or believable to me. And as it was brought up earlier, they’ve used OoT as a core reference point for the timeline up through SS since that game featured time travel and was the reason for the split timeline in the first place, so it makes complete sense to me that now, after SS, they would instead look to that game for a new timeline branch to explore as they did post-OoT, since SS also allows for that. I mean, they already made a new timeline branch post-BotW with AoC, after all (regardless of that game’s canonicity, since its story was still crafted with oversight from the Zelda team), so it’s not like they’re opposed to utilizing new timeline branches with BotW/TotK.

 

[AtomicZach]

My impression of the beginning of the game is that the whole are you are in has crashed further into the depths during the upheaval and was initially much closer to the surface. You see Ganondorf fall away like Zelda as everything begins to crumble.

I don't think so because you have to go even deeper to reach Ganondorf and I think that's where that platform fell. I think everything above it is relatively where it was earlier. Plus given how layered the area above it is and that has like two "dive deep" areas with walls, I think they were down there originally.

Though it does pose a question of why Ganondorf was down there to begin with.

 

[Linkstrikesback]

. I mean, they already made a new timeline branch post-BotW with AoC, after all

Yeah, because they don't care about the timeline at all. They clearly think it was a mistake to even try to canonise it given the fact that they immediately started trying to distance themselves from it with the next major new game that wasn't a direct sequel, because it's nothing but a noose on their necks and they don't want to waste time thinking about it. We even got a new book around BOTW that changed the timeline around from the first version because even they don't really know or care about how its set up and they deliberately left Botw out of it.

They're never going to bring it up again because it's nothing but a hindrance to the stories they could tell. That you're having toy grasp at 'maybe it's a timeline where they changed everything from the very start!' to desperately make it work is self defeating. There's no difference between that and a completely separate continuity at all.

 

[Gingerbread Man]

Lots of interesting points to address here! I'll write a more detailed post later but I wante to address:

@Tye
I find your explanation fascinating, and it addresses the minor plot hole of Hylia statues, but it is too convoluted, and SS is told as a closed time loop. The internal logic and the details may be contradictory, but that's what the game wants to be. You can summarise the OoT split as "Remember the ending scene at the Ranch, where everyone celebrated? Years later, WW happens. Remember Young Link and Young Zelda? MM happens, then TP". Even without the other games, OoT already showed two endings. The Downfall is a way less elegant split, but at least it is simple: "what if Link dies?". The SS splits you are proposing required the knowledge of half of SS plot, and it is nowhere hinted in-game. There is nothing strictly against it, but I don't think it fits the developers' intent.

The existence of at least another Link has also been repeatedly hinted at by recollecting the history and the legends of Ruto by the Zora ("the Hero of Legend" is a historical figure in BotW and TotK accounts, in Champion's Balland a "Hylian swordsman" falling in love with a Zora princess is mentioned). Creating a Champion also 100% states that Ruto fought alongside Link. Of course, CaC could be (partially) non-canon now, but, again, the developer's intent at least at the time of BotW release are clear. Worth nothing that TotK adds another Zora table and another reference to the "Hero of Legend".

They couldn't have been more on the nose (without just outright saying it because they still need to sell hd remasters to pad the release schedule down the line) that BOTW/TOTK is intended as a complete continuity reboot. They very explicitly spell out that events of the previous continuities didn't happen as they did in what previously occurred with the detailed imprisoning war, which we know happened in the LTTP segment of the timeline and was very much a completely different event.

From Creating a Champion and Aonuma interviews, we know they intended BotW as a distant sequel to OoT. They included multiple references to Ruto and Nabooru and to SS (even remaking some key places from SS). It is "so long after OoT" that its branch doesn't matter, but it is after OoT. I also think that TotK is pretty clear about where its flashbacks take place.

Rauru is repeatedly called "the First King of Hyrule". It is said multiple times Rauru and Sonia founded Hyrule. The official timeline puts the Foundation of Hyrule between SS and MC. In MC there are no Triforce and no Master Sword, just like in TotK past, and the Hylians got the help of the Picori, some people from the Sky just like the Zonai. The Picori brought the Hylian a powerful artifact unrelated to the Triforce, called the Force, which is what Vaati, the main villain, is after, just like Ganondorf with the Secret Stones (also, look at the triangles pattern on Rauru's dress -- they might or might no references to the Force, but I admit this can be a coincidence). And we also have younger versions of Koume and Kotake, who are canonically 400 years old in OoT.

TotK past fits really well in a very early era of Hyrule, where the knowledge about the Triforce was lost. I take the game at face value when it tells me "Foundation of Hyrule" and it mostly works. Of course, there are some mysteries and issues here and there (what is the relationship between OoT!Rauru and TotK!Rauru? Why has TotK!Rauru the mask of an owl? What is the relationship between TotK!Ganondorf, OoT!Ganondorf and Calamity Ganon? What is TotK!Ganondorf during buried under the castle during every other game in the series?), and some of them are fascinating.

The two Imprisoning Wars are two different events, with some elements in common (Ganondorf becoming Ganon, the Seven Sages, a magical McGuffin, and, well, the Imprisoning) and everything else around them different. If this seems too much far-fetched, think about the World Wars. Our world saw two very similar wars, around the same age, both involving Germany invading Poland, the key coalition of USA+UK+French+Russia fighting Germany and its allies, USA playing a vital role but entering the War later, Italy entering the War one year later and betraying Germany at the very beginning/at the very end.

They are awfully similar events, down to some details, and in a Middle Age era without much recorded history (at least on the Hylians' part), they may very much be remembered as the same event. We never saw what happened after Link dies in OoT (well, yes, the Game Over screen), all we know of ALTTP Imprisoning War is what ALTTP tells us. Maybe some details of the Triforce Imprisoning War got conflicted with the Secret Stones Imprisoning War.

We also already have another Imprisoning War -- FSA. FSA story matches 90% of ALTTP Imprisoning War. It's an Imprisoning War in all but name.

 

[MMXZero]

What?? First of all, why ignore the 2D Zelda games and separate them from the 3D games? What sense does that make at all? They’re all Zelda games, and the connections between them have been coherent since the beginning.

TAoL was a direct sequel to TLoZ. ALttP was a prequel to TLoZ/TAoL, expanding on the Triforce and Ganon’s origins, and LA was a direct sequel to that. OoT was a direct sequel to ALttP/LA, based on ALttP’s backstory; of course, this one ended up not matching up exactly with ALttP’s Imprisoning War, but at the time the explanation for that would have been that, in what would become known as the Child Timeline, after Link warns the Royal Family of Ganondorf’s plans and leaves Hyrule, Ganondorf still manages to launch an attack on Hyrule later but in a different way despite the Royal Family being warned, with no hero around to stop him this time—TP would later change that, but FSA was seemingly going to be the solution as a new prequel to ALttP, with both games being in development at the same time, though FSA’s story ended up undergoing major changes midway through development, possibly being the reason why the Downfall Timeline was conceived instead. Anyway, then MM was a direct sequel to OoT’s Child Timeline. OoS/OoA were a direct sequel/prequel to each other, and the first Zelda game made by a third party, seemingly designed to be as self-contained as possible, though they would have had to take place sometime after ALttP; I think these may be the only Zelda games to not have a set timeline placement originally, which would explain why Nintendo has switched between them taking place between ALttP and LA with the same Link and sometime after ALttP/LA with a different Link, because they could kinda fit in either place (though the latter makes more sense overall, with Zelda not recognizing Link in OoS/OoA). Then TWW was a sequel to OoT’s Adult Timeline. FS was stated to be the earliest tale in the Zelda series at the time, making it predate OoT, which made sense as the game didn’t feature the Triforce, Master Sword, or Ganon and wasn’t a side story with an existing Link. FSA was a sequel to FS, seemingly meant to take place in OoT’s Child Timeline as a setup for ALttP’s Imprisoning War which the Adult Timeline wasn’t compatible with, but as explained the story ended up being changed and simplified at Miyamoto’s request; as a result, it could no longer connect to ALttP, with the Downfall Timeline being conceived to fix that (and it does a fine job at that), but stays on the Child Timeline after TP (which is the only place it really fits, anyway). After that, TMC was a prequel to FS, and became the new earliest game in the timeline. TP was a sequel to OoT’s Child Timeline. PH was a direct sequel to TWW. ST was a sequel to TWW/PH. SS was a prequel to the entire series, putting it before TMC. ALBW was a sequel to ALttP/LA, placed after OoS/OoA and before TLoZ/TAoL. TFH was a direct sequel to ALBW.

And that’s it. Like I said, prior to BotW and TotK (the timeline placement for which Nintendo has intentionally been vague about, which makes sense after TotK because its backstory was able to come as a big surprise as a result, and Nintendo intentionally misdirected us by dropping familiar names like the Imprisoning War, OoT characters, etc. that ended up being not at all the same things we thought they should be), literally every Zelda game except OoS/OoA has always had a clear timeline placement relative to other games in the series, with FSA and the specifics of the Downfall Timeline prior to the Hyrule Historia being the only real instances of “incoherence” which were resolved with the official reveal of the full Zelda timeline. I don’t understand how anyone could deny that without being ignorant of the history and context of the series. The connections have always been there—not just with the 3D games, and not just in relation to OoT. OoT did become a core of the timeline due to it being the source of the split timeline, of course, so it’s natural that more games are going to directly link to it, but that in no way means that a game that doesn’t have direct connections to OoT isn’t part of the same continuity, as a game that takes place in a timeline split before OoT would naturally not feature OoT as we know it—instead, TotK’s backstory features events similar yet clearly different to OoT, obviously meant to parallel it.


What references are there that can’t be explained by a timeline split from SS resulting in a different history of Hyrule with some events still playing out similarly but different at the same time (like the OoT parallels in TotK)? I say this as a firm believer in BotW taking place on the Child Timeline prior to playing TotK. As much as I was in favor of the Child Timeline, the context of TotK makes it abundantly clear to me that this game must take place in a previously unexplored timeline, with the SS timeline split making the most sense and explaining things that a Child Timeline placement had no answers for (like Hylia still being a goddess in BotW/TotK when she specifically gave up her godhood by becoming mortal in the main timeline of SS).

BotW makes clear reference to Ruto being a sage and Urbosa looks up to Nabooru for her actions in the past. The Divine Beasts are also named after them as well.


Creating a Champion also states that Calamity Ganon is OoTGanondorf, which only makes sense if Nintendo is being really loose with the definition of reincarnation.


Another thing I would like to point out for people on the "new Hyrule" train is how the Goddess Hylia is still a relevant religious figure for the people in Hyrule and all of the iconography such as the royal family crest is still used despite the Zonai influence.

 

[Brock Reiher]

I've got my bets on this all being deep at the end of the child time line. I can see arguments for other placements but maybe one day the great sea dried up and the aliens came down to colonize what was left.

That wall of text I just wrote gave me a epiphany. If this isn't a new Hyrule BOTW must be on the Child Timeline. ToTK makes it clear that the castle was built to house ToTKdorf, in both the Downfall and Adult Timelines, the castle is fully destroyed by OOTdorf, how this doesn't awaken ToTKdorf is up for debate, but the castle is 100% gone even the ground beneath it possibly the TotK plaque too. The Child Timeline is the only timeline where it doesn't ever get fully destroyed, it even largely looks the same from TP -> FSA -> BOTW, so if the events are in the past before OOT, they inadvertently wrote themselves into a corner and gave us a placement.

Not if the "past" is also in the adult timeline

Adult timeline is the only one where Ruto is a sage, where there's a great Deku tree, and where there are Rito.

 

[Gingerbread Man]

I've got my bets on this all being deep at the end of the child time line. I can see arguments for other placements but maybe one day the great sea dried up and the aliens came down to colonize what was left.

Adult Timeline is the only placement I'm actively against. It goes against the ending of WW. Old Hyrule, with its myths, legends, and history, should stay buried under the ocean.

 

[AtomicZach]

Another thing I would like to point out for people on the "new Hyrule" train is how the Goddess Hylia is still a relevant religious figure for the people in Hyrule and all of the iconography such as the royal family crest is still used despite the Zonai influence.

That one actually is pretty easy to explain. Queen Sonia was originally a Priestess before becoming Rarau's queen and as a Priestess served as a Royal Advisor to him. So it seems that the Zonai also worshipped Hylia (although given that there's a giant goddess statue in the Temple of Time, that really shouldn't be that big of a surprise).

 

[Brock Reiher]

Adult Timeline is the only placement I'm actively against. It goes against the ending of WW. Old Hyrule, with its myths, legends, and history, should stay buried under the ocean.

It did but the ocean went away

That would ruin the story a little bit but I doubt they'd let that get in the way. I would say the main timeline it can't be is Downfall.

 

[SirShorse]

We can't forget that Aonuma himself said BOTW (and by extension so is TOTK) takes place after Ocarina of Time, that's about the only official word we have on placement. So anything funny happening pre-OOT is off the table.

 

[Gingerbread Man]

We can't forget that Aonuma himself said BOTW (and by extension so is TOTK) takes place after Ocarina of Time, that's about the only official word we have on placement. So anything funny happening pre-OOT is off the table.

Well, BotW and TotK are after OoT, but the flashbacks in TotK can 100% be pre-OoT.

 

[MMXZero]

I would like everyone including Nintendo to explain this.



Also, why isn't Zelda a brown skinned goat person if she's related to Sonia and Rauru.

 

[Hauke_von_Arding]

It did but the ocean went away

That would ruin the story a little bit but I doubt they'd let that get in the way. I would say the main timeline it can't be is Downfall.

Why CAN'T it be downfall? For me downfall makes the most sense in many ways.

 

[SirShorse]

The issue of BOTW & TOTK's timeline placement is just a ploy by Nintendo to drive all Zelda fans to despise timeline discussion and speculation, to ultimately destroy the Zelda timeline forever.

 

[Mango]

It can't be the child timeline either because Hyrule castle literally moves between OOT and TP.

Based on what? Are you referring to the new placement of the Temple of Time in Twilight Princess? Because to me it makes way more sense to just assume the ToT was moved before OOT to sit alongside the new castle, and then after Ganondorf tried and fail to take over the Sacred Realm in the Child Timeline moved back or at least moved to a similar location to where it was before being moved to Castle Town. That to me makes more narrative sense and works better than having to explain the radically different geography between the two games if we assume the ToT never moved.

It’s technically a mid-SS split (considering SS takes us to the distant past of Hylia’s era, which is where the timeline would split from) that’s shown in game, and the evidence for BotW/TotK taking place there is that TotK’s founding of Hyrule doesn’t appear to mesh well with the original timeline, for reasons that you pointed out in your post and more. I also believe that the game wouldn’t be showing us clear parallels of OoT—while clearly not being OoT as we know it—and reusing terms like the Imprisoning War but for completely different things unless it was meant to be implied that this a different timeline where Hyrule’s history is different from the timeline we knew before. Additionally, one thing that can’t be explained in the previous timeline is how Hylia is somehow still a goddess in BotW/TotK despite becoming mortal in the original timeline. There’s also the fact that TotK seems to imply that there weren’t other Links in BotW/TotK’s timeline (assuming BotW’s amiibo/DLC gear isn’t supposed to be canon in TotK, which is kind of ambiguous, but it already doesn’t make sense that stuff from all three timelines appears with those so it’s either not canon as was the case in BotW, or events similar to those past games also took place in this new timeline, with heroes spoken of in legend, but whether those heroes actually existed—and if so, if they were actually a Link or someone else entirely—is unclear; the only other hero we know of for sure is the hero from 10,000 years ago, who is a Zonai and may not even be a Link at all), and possibly not even other Zeldas (at least not during or before the founding of Hyrule, since it’s said in TotK that, aside from the time-displaced Zelda, it was believed that the name Zelda didn’t exist back then), and this would make sense in the timeline that Link left in SS, because there would be no need for Hylia to become mortal or for her chosen hero to exist in SS’s time then in that timeline since Demise was already defeated for good in the distant past and the Master Sword was already forged and left behind (which also would be the only real explanation for how the Goddess Sword AKA “White Sword of the Sky” could exist in TotK alongside the Master Sword if those items are supposed to somehow be canon, interestingly).

Also, before the Downfall Timeline was officially revealed, there was no real evidence for it either, yet it became a thing regardless. And before TWW was released, OoT’s Adult Timeline wasn’t really considered for anything either as no games took place on it until then. This could very well be that same kind of moment for the SS split.

Also, while I admire the effort to make sense of Hyrule’s geography and points of interest across the timeline (as I once was really into that myself, too), it’s unfortunately never going to match up nicely. It just doesn’t work. That’s just one of the things you have to chalk up to video game logic; the world design is dictated primarily by the game experience and only secondarily by the story. An attempt is made to make some things match up, but many things are drastically changed—major mountains and rivers impossibly shift location, regions (like Lanayru) are inexplicably moved to the opposite side of the map, the Lost Woods, Temple of Time, and Master Sword’s locations switch around between games in ways that don’t add up at all, etc. I also liked to believe that the Great Plateau was where Skyloft fell and where the Sealed Temple once stood, but the Forgotten Temple (which has even more evidence going for it being the original Sealed Temple), among other things, really throws a wrench into that theory, especially after TotK; I guess it’s not impossible that it was moved somehow, but there’s an awful lot of moving of geographical locations required in order to completely make sense the changes to Hyrule between games.

I get what you're saying but I just don't see it. Firstly Skyward Sword is clearly meant to be a closed loop. There are problems with its time travel but I'm more willing to handwave them than try to make sense of them with a new split. Basically when Ghirahim went into the past he unleashed Demise and this was always supposed to happen. Link leaves the Master Sword, and than Impa just hides it somehow till the end of the game. I mean she put up a invisible wall to prevent her side of the whole forest from flooding I think she can probably hide a sword. The only real issue is the tree of life, but I think it being specifically located in and only in the Sealed Temple leaves some wiggle room to say that traditional time rules may not apply to the Sealed Temple. We see that the realm Demise is in is outside of time so perhaps so too is the Sealed Temple

As for the problems this creates for BOTW, the only issue I'll give you is Hylia, but I'm not sure it means much. Hylia is Skyward Sword Zelda, once she regained her memories the only difference between the two really just boils down to a lack of powers, and since we've seen there's some form of an afterlife in Zelda, it's highly likely that the messages of the goddess Link can receive from the statues in BOTW/ToTK are just Hylia/SS Zelds speaking from the afterlife. Moreover, the sudden resurgence in her popularity among Hyrule is weird, I'll give you, but it's not unbelievable. For one she didn't exist as a concept before Skyward Sword, and prior games didn't really show off much of the religion of Hyrule anyways, so it's possible she's always existed in Hyrules culture, just off-screen, that or the people of Hyrule wanting know more about their past, which is part of BOTWs narrative, became aware of her again at some point and her relevance resurfaced. Finally the Amiibo weapons, regardless of how canon they are, trying to make sense of them in any context is a headache. The idea that they're all myths that just somehow managed to be 100% accurate to real events on a separate branch is just as tough for a sale as trying to treat all references to past games as equally canon to this Hyrule. Personally I'm partial to the idea that the ancient Sheikah became so advanced that they gained knowledge of the other timelines and sought to celebrate the history of the timelines by creating a bunch of replicas which over time the replicas were lost and the stories that went alongside them became conflated with history. Also there are other Links and Zeldas in this version of Hyrule. Impas speech in BOTW mentions that in each age the hero and princess appeared to stop Calamity Ganon.

Now as for the downfall Timeline. It was created out of necessity because the backstory of ALttP couldn't fit into OOT, the two other splits were always part of the story of OOT and made sense from the day OOT came out, as the ending of OOT is and has always been about Link changing history, the intent has always been to create a split. The intention behind Skyward Sword however seems to be that it's a closed loop, they wanted the game to be the origin story and thus created it as one, no splits included, so any split coming off of it is speculative.

Finally, while I'll agree that geography is inconsistent in Zelda it is not in BOTW. BOTW is the first Zelda game to feel like they actively tried to create a definitive Hyrule, one that would make sense for all other Hyrules, and when the games want to reference something or imply something is another thing, it's clear as day. Take the Ranch Ruins for example, it isn't in my opinion the same ranch from OOT but the effort to make it a reference to OOT is undeniable. The same plays into how they consistently references or show Fi still being in the sword, or more importantly the Sacred Springs which look ripped directly from Skyward Sword. When BOTW wants to reference something it does so in a clearcut fashion. Ergo the idea that the Forgotten Temple is the Sealed Temple has never held weight imo. It's too big, it's in the wrong spot, it's only vaugely similar in design to the Sealed temple, and the only piece of evidence it must be the sealed Temple is the Giant Hylia statue which could have easily been moved since we already have evidence of giant statues being moved in this version of Hyrule via the Right Heroines.

Not if the "past" is also in the adult timeline

Adult timeline is the only one where Ruto is a sage, where there's a great Deku tree, and where there are Rito.

The intro to Majora's Mask seems to imply the events of the future OOT Link prevented were passed on as a legend by the Child Timeline Royal Family. The Deku Tree is harder to explain but it's possible a sprout was always gonna sprout seven years later regardless of the timeline, tho I may be forgetting something. The Rito are the easiest to explain imo as I don't think they're the same as WW Rito, and if they are different they could have existed this whole time off-screen.

 

[Brock Reiher]

Why CAN'T it be downfall? For me downfall makes the most sense in many ways.

Ganondorf isn't defeated by Link and the sages mainly. I would also say art style changes, like how there aren't old style Zora.

 

[WestEgg]

I would like everyone including Nintendo to explain this.



Also, why isn't Zelda a brown skinned goat person if she's related to Sonia and Rauru.

Sonia is almost certainly a descendant of SS Zelda, as all Zeldas are called out by Demise’s curse to share the Blood of the Goddess. Given Rauru and Mineru are apparently the last of the Zonai, any of Sonia’s kids would have wed Hylians. Zonai genetics may also be recessive in children with Hylians, just as Gerudo genes appear to be dominant.

 

[Tye]

Yeah, because they don't care about the timeline at all. They clearly think it was a mistake to even try to canonise it given the fact that they immediately started trying to distance themselves from it with the next major new game that wasn't a direct sequel, because it's nothing but a noose on their necks and they don't want to waste time thinking about it. We even got a new book around BOTW that changed the timeline around from the first version because even they don't really know or care about how its set up and they deliberately left Botw out of it.

They're never going to bring it up again because it's nothing but a hindrance to the stories they could tell. That you're having toy grasp at 'maybe it's a timeline where they changed everything from the very start!' to desperately make it work is self defeating. There's no difference between that and a completely separate continuity at all.

Lol, what? They made a new timeline because they don’t care about the timeline? What sense does that make? If they truly didn’t care then they wouldn’t have even made any attempt to make sense of it by making a timeline split in the first place. The AoC timeline exists so that there can be a version of BotW’s backstory from 100 years prior that has a happy ending, because the original version of events wouldn’t make for a satisfying player experience. But to do this, they actually explained it in-universe—even if AoC ultimately isn’t strictly canon to the main series—via an alternate timeline created by Terako’s time travel. They wouldn’t have even bothered if they didn’t care about the continuity of the games. Yes, the developers would rather be unrestricted by previous games so they have more freedom, but they’ve been utilizing split timelines for that very purpose for years now, and a split from SS would give them the blankest slate to work with yet. If they didn’t care about the timeline and their current stance was to abandon it entirely, they wouldn’t have it proudly displayed on their official website, with it having just been updated to included TotK—separated from the rest along with BotW as has been the case for years now, but Aonuma has made it clear that that’s intentional for now as they want fans to be able to speculate about its placement, and he wouldn’t say that if it wasn’t supposed to connect at all; BotW and TotK are clearly supposed to fit somewhere, but Nintendo isn’t wanting to officially reveal exactly where yet, and a previously unexplored timeline split would be a very good reason for that. CaC’s provided timeline doesn’t overwrite the existing one, either; it just limits itself to BotW/TotK’s relative timeline.

And my theory isn’t a desperate grasp, it’s a realization that came to me naturally through playing TotK and having a deep understanding of the Zelda timeline. And there’s very much a difference between that and a completely separate continuity, because it’s still very much connected to the original continuity. To suggest otherwise means that the other timelines are more or less the same thing, too, because ultimately TMC and FS aren’t really referenced by other games aside from FSA, so it’s just SS and part of OoT that are relevant to the three original timelines, while in my proposed theory for BotW/TotK’s new timeline it’s only part of SS that’s relevant. So really, you’re effectively only losing out on about a game and a half compared to the other times, which really isn’t much different at all, yet without OoT it does allow for a lot more narrative freedom.

@Tye
I find your explanation fascinating, and it addresses the minor plot hole of Hylia statues, but it is too convoluted, and SS is told as a closed time loop. The internal logic and the details may be contradictory, but that's what the game wants to be. You can summarise the OoT split as "Remember the ending scene at the Ranch, where everyone celebrated? Years later, WW happens. Remember Young Link and Young Zelda? MM happens, then TP". Even without the other games, OoT already showed two endings. The Downfall is a way less elegant split, but at least it is simple: "what if Link dies?". The SS splits you are proposing required the knowledge of half of SS plot, and it is nowhere hinted in-game. There is nothing strictly against it, but I don't think it fits the developers' intent.

I wouldn’t call the Hylia issue just a minor plothole, because it’s a pretty major thing given it’s the whole point of SS’s plot and is supposed to provide context for Zelda’s powers throughout the entire series. To then ignore that entirely with the very next 3D Zelda game and inexplicably make Hylia a goddess again in BotW makes no sense, especially when before BotW it was assumed that the reason why Hylia isn’t mentioned as a goddess along the likes of Din, Nayru, and Farore in the other games is because she’s no longer a goddess by the end of SS. Rather than believe that they just fucked up, I find it more compelling to believe, after having the context of TotK, that it’s an intentional choice to reflect the timeline these games take place in—one in which Hylia is still a goddess.

And it’s not really convoluted at all. SS’s time travel may be, but the timeline itself is very simple—it’s the timeline where Demise is defeated in Hylia’s era with the Master Sword. There’s a completely different series of events surrounding Demise in that timeline compared to the original timeline of SS—in the original, Hylia managed to temporarily seal Demise but was weakened in battle, so she devised a plan to be reborn in the future as a mortal alongside her chosen hero to be able to use the Triforce to be rid of Demise for good. She relied on Impa to help her carry out this plan, instructing her to use the Gate of Time to travel to the future and assist her in her awakening within the mortal Zelda, take her back in time so that she can keep the seal on Demise, and have the chosen hero temper his spirit by forging the Master Sword so that he can use the Triforce to eradicate Demise in the future. And that was supposed to be the end of it, but when Ghirahim intervenes, history is changed. He takes Zelda back to the past after she releases her seal, uses her to revive Demise in that era, and Link follows to face Demise and defeat him, sealing him within the Master Sword. So in this timeline, Demise isn’t sealed by Zelda and eradicated by the Triforce—his body is destroyed by Link and his residual consciousness is sealed within the Master Sword to decay over time instead. They can’t be the same timeline, because otherwise Demise has two contradictory sealings/revivals and defeats. Impa even notes early on that there’s a disturbance in Hylia’s plans, that being Ghirahim. Hylia, as a goddess, was able to use her divine powers to devise a predestined plan, but Ghirahim’s interference was unforeseen and resulted in a change in predetermined history.

So yes, explaining the whole of SS may be kinda convoluted, but that’s how the developers designed it, and all you really need to know is that there’s a timeline in SS where Demise is revived and defeated differently in Hylia’s era, and that’s the timeline BotW/TotK would then follow. If you’ve played the game, it should be rather simple, though the nature of the game’s time travel itself and its inconsistencies is another story, but that’s irrelevant to being able to understand where the timeline splits from. It splits from an observed period in history that’s shown in game, and is also at the end of the game like OoT’s split. It’s really much more simple than you make it out to be, and is more tangible than the Downfall Timeline since it’s actually shown in game. And I’m not sure why you claim that having to know half of SS’s plot makes it more complex, because the same is true of OoT’s timeline split, because that won’t make sense out of context either. Expecting you to have actually played the games to understand the greater context of the series is, like, a normal thing, lol.

The existence of at least another Link has also been repeatedly hinted at by recollecting the history and the legends of Ruto by the Zora ("the Hero of Legend" is a historical figure in BotW and TotK accounts, in Champion's Balland a "Hylian swordsman" falling in love with a Zora princess is mentioned). Creating a Champion also 100% states that Ruto fought alongside Link. Of course, CaC could be (partially) non-canon now, but, again, the developer's intent at least at the time of BotW release are clear. Worth nothing that TotK adds another Zora table and another reference to the "Hero of Legend".

From Creating a Champion and Aonuma interviews, we know they intended BotW as a distant sequel to OoT. They included multiple references to Ruto and Nabooru and to SS (even remaking some key places from SS). It is "so long after OoT" that its branch doesn't matter, but it is after OoT. I also think that TotK is pretty clear about where its flashbacks take place.

BotW makes clear reference to Ruto being a sage and Urbosa looks up to Nabooru for her actions in the past. The Divine Beasts are also named after them as well.


Creating a Champion also states that Calamity Ganon is OoTGanondorf, which only makes sense if Nintendo is being really loose with the definition of reincarnation.

Okay, so, I’ve already covered the Ruto and Nabooru stuff in a previous post:

Also, while they go unnamed, I assume the masked ancient sages from TotK’s Imprisoning War have the same names as their OoT counterparts (as Rauru does); Darunia, Ruto, and Nabooru. (Not sure about the Rito; could be Medli as Vah Medoh seems to get its name from, but since the Rito sage is male I’m not so sure; I guess Mido is another possibility, as a name originating from Zelda II like the other OoT sages and thought to have potentially been meant to be the Sage of Wind at one point in OoT’s development?) That would explain the mentions of Ruto and Nabooru despite the events of OoT clearly not taking place in this timeline, and it would also explain the designs and names of the Divine Beasts from BotW, since they’re clearly meant to be based on TotK’s ancient sages in canon given their designs match their masks. Urbosa states that Vah Naboris is named after Nabooru, and the names of the others clearly reference the sages Darunia, Ruto, and Medli/Mido, but rather than being the characters from OoT (and possibly one from TWW, for some reason), it makes much more sense for these sages that are referenced to actually have been TotK’s Imprisoning War sages after all.

Also, it’s my understanding that Creating a Champion is by the same publisher and writers as the Hyrule Historia, The Legend of Zelda: Encyclopedia, etc.—that is, not being entirely written by Nintendo, and with many things being extrapolated on by the writers from what Nintendo has provided them. Anything outside of the timeline should be taken with a grain of salt because it’s not set in stone, and even the timeline has undergone one minor change. But nothing I said really contradicts what’s said in CaC, either. For example, this is what CaC says about Ruto:

According to Zora history, during the Era of Myth there was a Zora princess named Ruto who awakened as a sage and saved the world alongside the chosen hero. The Divine Beast of water is named “Ruta” in her honor.

Assuming the Sage of Water from TotK’s Imprisoning War is indeed named Ruto as I explained above, this all makes sense. Everything the Imprisoning War sages did was in an effort to help Link save the world in the future, and that much was known to them by Zelda, the Sage of Time. So while it was across time, they all were technically saving the world together, and it makes sense for the legends to tell it as such. And, of course, Vah Ruta being named after Ruto makes the most sense if Ruto was the Imprisoning War’s Sage of Water, because the mask she wore is specifically what Vah Ruta’s design is based on.

And the bit about a Zora princess falling in love with a Hylian swordsman from Mipha’s Diary doesn’t name the Zora as Ruto nor does it call the Hylian Swordsman the hero of legend, so we can’t say that that’s definitely talking about Ruto and Link. It’s probably just a nod to OoT, but not meant to be referring to those exact events.

Though, yes, CaC’s description of Ganondorf does mention a hero of legend with the Master Sword, and while he does ultimately face him in TotK and is told of him just prior to his sealing by Rauru, it doesn’t exactly match up with what CaC says. But, again, this was before TotK, and nothing in BotW itself states that, so CaC’s canonicity regarding this may be in question. And really, as already pointed out, that doesn’t make sense anyway, because that would seem to be referring to OoT Ganondorf which TotK’s is most certainly not.

Another thing I would like to point out for people on the "new Hyrule" train is how the Goddess Hylia is still a relevant religious figure for the people in Hyrule and all of the iconography such as the royal family crest is still used despite the Zonai influence.

See, but that’s weird in any of the existing timelines, because Hylia shouldn’t be a goddess anymore after SS in the original timeline anyway!

 

[Tye]

I get what you're saying but I just don't see it. Firstly Skyward Sword is clearly meant to be a closed loop. There are problems with its time travel but I'm more willing to handwave them than try to make sense of them with a new split. Basically when Ghirahim went into the past he unleashed Demise and this was always supposed to happen. Link leaves the Master Sword, and than Impa just hides it somehow till the end of the game. I mean she put up a invisible wall to prevent her side of the whole forest from flooding I think she can probably hide a sword. The only real issue is the tree of life, but I think it being specifically located in and only in the Sealed Temple leaves some wiggle room to say that traditional time rules may not apply to the Sealed Temple. We see that the realm Demise is in is outside of time so perhaps so too is the Sealed Temple

As for the problems this creates for BOTW, the only issue I'll give you is Hylia, but I'm not sure it means much. Hylia is Skyward Sword Zelda, once she regained her memories the only difference between the two really just boils down to a lack of powers, and since we've seen there's some form of an afterlife in Zelda, it's highly likely that the messages of the goddess Link can receive from the statues in BOTW/ToTK are just Hylia/SS Zelds speaking from the afterlife. Moreover, the sudden resurgence in her popularity among Hyrule is weird, I'll give you, but it's not unbelievable. For one she didn't exist as a concept before Skyward Sword, and prior games didn't really show off much of the religion of Hyrule anyways, so it's possible she's always existed in Hyrules culture, just off-screen, that or the people of Hyrule wanting know more about their past, which is part of BOTWs narrative, became aware of her again at some point and her relevance resurfaced. Finally the Amiibo weapons, regardless of how canon they are, trying to make sense of them in any context is a headache. The idea that they're all myths that just somehow managed to be 100% accurate to real events on a separate branch is just as tough for a sale as trying to treat all references to past games as equally canon to this Hyrule. Personally I'm partial to the idea that the ancient Sheikah became so advanced that they gained knowledge of the other timelines and sought to celebrate the history of the timelines by creating a bunch of replicas which over time the replicas were lost and the stories that went alongside them became conflated with history. Also there are other Links and Zeldas in this version of Hyrule. Impas speech in BOTW mentions that in each age the hero and princess appeared to stop Calamity Ganon.

Now as for the downfall Timeline. It was created out of necessity because the backstory of ALttP couldn't fit into OOT, the two other splits were always part of the story of OOT and made sense from the day OOT came out, as the ending of OOT is and has always been about Link changing history, the intent has always been to create a split. The intention behind Skyward Sword however seems to be that it's a closed loop, they wanted the game to be the origin story and thus created it as one, no splits included, so any split coming off of it is speculative.

Finally, while I'll agree that geography is inconsistent in Zelda it is not in BOTW. BOTW is the first Zelda game to feel like they actively tried to create a definitive Hyrule, one that would make sense for all other Hyrules, and when the games want to reference something or imply something is another thing, it's clear as day. Take the Ranch Ruins for example, it isn't in my opinion the same ranch from OOT but the effort to make it a reference to OOT is undeniable. The same plays into how they consistently references or show Fi still being in the sword, or more importantly the Sacred Springs which look ripped directly from Skyward Sword. When BOTW wants to reference something it does so in a clearcut fashion. Ergo the idea that the Forgotten Temple is the Sealed Temple has never held weight imo. It's too big, it's in the wrong spot, it's only vaugely similar in design to the Sealed temple, and the only piece of evidence it must be the sealed Temple is the Giant Hylia statue which could have easily been moved since we already have evidence of giant statues being moved in this version of Hyrule via the Right Heroines.

Agree to disagree on SS, I guess. I’m not gonna repost what I just said in my last post above this one but to me it’s pretty obvious that there’s an unexplored timeline split in SS. I was 100% on it being a closed loop for years, until I replayed it when SSHD released, after which I was much less sure about it being a completely closed loop. At that time I was even wondering if it might somehow be supposed to connect to BotW, but I shrugged it off at the time in favor of the Child Timeline as I had been in favor of since BotW’s release, though the context of TotK brought me back to it much more seriously than before.

And yeah, I agree that the BotW DLC/amiibo gear is a headache to try to make sense of, and I don’t really lean towards it being canon despite its appearance within the base game of TotK, though if there have been previous Links in my proposed timeline split from SS, one explanation could be that similar (but different) events to the other games took place in the enormous gap of time between Hyrule’s founding and BotW/TotK’s present, with heroes and legends mirroring those other games. That would explain all the little references to games across all timelines within the world’s locations and all, too. Or they could just be neat references not meant to be thought too much about. That’s what I had always believed, but the idea that BotW/TotK may be an entirely different timeline makes me question things there a tiny bit now.

My confusion over whether or not there really are multiple Links in BotW/TotK’s timeline is because TotK now makes it seem like this Link may have been the only one, because events relating to BotW/TotK Link that are set in motion during the founding of Hyrule aren’t fulfilled until waaaaaaaaay further in the future, well over 10,000 years, and while BotW some mentions of past heroes of legend, TotK seems to avoid that entirely (aside from BotW DLC/amiibo gear), and we finally see that the hero from 10,000 years ago was actually a Zonai, making us question whether that was just a Zonai version of Link or not a Link at all.

And yeah, BotW has more explicit location references than past Zelda games for sure, but it also has many that are just wildly out of place, like Spectacle Rock being on the complete opposite side of the map from where it usually is at Death Mountain. And the Forgotten Temple has a lot more going for it being the Sealed Temple than just the Goddess Statue (which is said to be the original Goddess Statue):

 

[MMXZero]

but that’s weird in any of the existing timelines, because Hylia shouldn’t be a goddess anymore after SS in the original timeline anyway!

That's misrepresenting the entirety of Skyward Sword and it's backstory. Hylia was a Goddess and was worshipped by the people of the surface and Skyloft and eventually Hyrule. Giving up her divinity wouldn't change the established religion that her people followed or believed in.

 

[Tye]

That's misrepresenting the entirety of Skyward Sword and it's backstory. Hylia was a Goddess and was worshipped by the people of the surface and Skyloft and eventually Hyrule. Giving up her divinity wouldn't change the established religion that her people followed or believed in.

Not really, because prior to BotW, the implication from SS seemed to be that the explanation for why Hylia, this hugely important goddess to Zelda lore, goes completely unmentioned alongside the likes of Din, Nayru, and Farore in other games is because she no longer existed as a goddess by those times. That’s always seemed like the obvious implication to me, at least. Yes, the out of universe reason is because the concept of Hylia hadn’t been conceived yet, but SS offered an in-universe explanation, too.

But regardless of whether people still worshipped her as a goddess or not, the fact is that she absolutely isn’t a goddess anymore after SS—yet we see her acting as one in BotW and TotK through the Goddess Statues. This shouldn’t be possible at all, and the only way it can make sense within the same continuity is if BotW/TotK exist in a timeline split from before Hylia became mortal, which conveniently exists within SS, and BotW/TotK neatly fit on that very timeline.

 

[AtomicZach]

Not really, because prior to BotW, the implication from SS seemed to be that the explanation for why Hylia, this hugely important goddess to Zelda lore, goes completely unmentioned alongside the likes of Din, Nayru, and Farore in other games is because she no longer existed as a goddess by those times. That’s always seemed like the obvious implication to me, at least. Yes, the out of universe reason is because the concept of Hylia hadn’t been conceived yet, but SS offered an in-universe explanation, too.

But regardless of whether people still worshipped her as a goddess or not, the fact is that she absolutely isn’t a goddess anymore after SS—yet we see her acting as one in BotW and TotK through the Goddess Statues. This shouldn’t be possible at all, and the only way it can make sense within the same continuity is if BotW/TotK exist in a timeline split from before Hylia became mortal, which conveniently exists within SS, and BotW/TotK neatly fit on that very timeline.

It could be a variety of reasons. Heck, we know other beings other than Hylia can use the Goddess statues to speak to link (the Bargainer statues) so it might not even be Hylia but rather one of the three main goddesses speaking through her.

 

[Tye]

It could be a variety of reasons. Heck, we know other beings other than Hylia can use the Goddess statues to speak to link (the Bargainer statues) so it might not even be Hylia but rather one of the three main goddesses speaking through her.

Why would the game mislead us like that and provide absolutely no hint or answer to who it is if it isn’t Hylia? Why make it a Hylia statue if it’s supposed to be one of the other goddesses instead? Hylia is fairly prominent in BotW, after all, and the Sheikah monks mention her at every shrine and are said to have been blessed with her sight. Were they all lying or being deceived, too? Sure, it’s not impossible for there to be some explanation, but that would be much more convoluted and unnecessary than simply placing the games in the timeline where it just naturally makes sense and meshes well with everything else, too.

 

[AtomicZach]

Why would the game mislead us like that and provide absolutely no hint or answer to who it is if it isn’t Hylia? Why make it a Hylia statue if it’s supposed to be one of the other goddesses instead? Hylia is fairly prominent in BotW, after all, and the Sheikah monks mention her at every shrine and are said to have been blessed with her sight. Were they all lying or being deceived, too? Sure, it’s not impossible for there to be some explanation, but that would be much more convoluted and unnecessary than simply placing the games in the timeline where it just naturally makes sense and meshes well with everything else, too.

I mean, it doesn't really make sense to pull another time branch unless it was to clear up all the annoying inconsistencies either. Maybe Hylia somehow got her divinity back despite being around as Zelda. Maybe Hylia is both now divine and mortal. I just feel like going "it's another timeline branch" is premature at this stage given that most people haven't even done any of the side adventures that do go into the lore of the Zonai. Especially since a lot of this proof seems to be "well it wasn't in X game" or "the map isn't 100% accurate according to X game" when those haven't really mattered in the long run anyways.

 

[Jersh]

I see it didn't take long to get the "why won't people who enjoy Zelda timeline theorizing stop doing it" posts as always lol

I'm playing with fire by being in this thread as I haven't beaten the game, but I figured seeing all of the Dragon's Tears would suffice for most of the discussion and by skimming it seems I was right.

I don't have that much to add right now, other than that I'm disappointed in how they've finally seemed to give in and just start willingly contradicting things. Reasonably, it wouldn't have taken that much work to have an Imprisoning War that fit better with the past games that reference it, or just... not name drop it. But they didn't go that route. (And on that note, it's weird af to call back to that name when the events described are explicitly something else. What's the point?)

The Zonai practically fading from memory when one was literally the first King of Hyrule is not a notion I'm thrilled about either. It's... illogical, and maybe things will change with the events after the fourth region, but I'm honestly not sure what Rauru being the first king (or a king at all) accomplishes. It hasn't really added anything to the story, as far as I can tell.

So, shifting way from timeline but something that seems pretty massive lore-wise and seems relatively underdiscussed...

What's up with them Secret Stones?

Like, Ganondorf getting just one put him at a power level higher than what we've seen him with the Triforce of Power. I get that they amplify one's abilities, and we can probably infer based on his appearance that the incarnation of Demise that is a part of Ganondorf is what was amplified, but still. That seems like a pretty massive power boost. Given the whole draconfication thing and the Zonai's connection to/ possible worship of the dragons, the stones have something to do with the dragons, but the dragons themselves are mentioned to be servants of Hylia, who is said to be a lower level of Goddess than the creation trio and by extension the Triforce, so the power scaling is a bit out of whack.

It could've been neat if the design of the Secret Stones called back to the Sages' Medallions from OoT, implying their power was always linked to the Zonai - especially since Nintendo seems to be insisting the Zonai predate Hyrule and were critical to its founding. Done right, the implications with the Sages' symbols appearing in Hylia's Temple in SS could've been interesting, too.

But instead they're this weird other thing that have supposedly been there the entire time and are seemingly stronger than most things in the Zelda universe? It's definitely strange.

 

[MMXZero]

Why would the game mislead us like that and provide absolutely no hint or answer to who it is if it isn’t Hylia? Why make it a Hylia statue if it’s supposed to be one of the other goddesses instead? Hylia is fairly prominent in BotW, after all, and the Sheikah monks mention her at every shrine and are said to have been blessed with her sight. Were they all lying or being deceived, too? Sure, it’s not impossible for there to be some explanation, but that would be much more convoluted and unnecessary than simply placing the games in the timeline where it just naturally makes sense and meshes well with everything else, too.

The Sheikah monks mention Hylia because they have always been her servants and know Zelda is her reincarnation.

It also sounds like you haven't done a very specific quest that involves the Great Plateau and The Depths since it's revealed that the Goddess statues aren't actually Hylia or any of the Goddesses speaking through them.

 

[AtomicZach]

Something just occurred to me, I think we've actually seen the new ability of the Master Sword before. This game states that the Master Sword can heal itself and that it will gain strength if bathed in Sacred Power. Retroactively, it would explain the properties of the Master Sword in A Link to the Past.

A Link to the Past happens after the Downfall timeline and the timeline where Ganon defeats and kills the Hero of Time. The swords resting place in the Lost Woods, in a place that probably is filled with Sacred Power. This is admittedly guesswork but if we assume the Master Sword was damaged during the final failed duel between the Hero of Time and Ganondorf similiar to how the blade was damaged in BotW, than that would explain why the untempered Master Sword is so weak when fighting the Demon King Ganon, requiring a spin attack to damage him. However, aLttP is also the game that allows you to upgrade the Master Sword. The first is leaving it with a Blacksmith, which initially doesn't seem like it would fit but in ALBW, we find that you need "Master Ore", which appears as a yellowish crystal. The second way we empower the sword in aLttP is with a Great Fairy, something that would absolutely be "bathed in Sacred Power". It also is what allows the player to deal damage to Ganon without using a Spin Attack.

 

[MMXZero]

Something just occurred to me, I think we've actually seen the new ability of the Master Sword before. This game states that the Master Sword can heal itself and that it will gain strength if bathed in Sacred Power. Retroactively, it would explain the properties of the Master Sword in A Link to the Past.

A Link to the Past happens after the Downfall timeline and the timeline where Ganon defeats and kills the Hero of Time. The swords resting place in the Lost Woods, in a place that probably is filled with Sacred Power. This is admittedly guesswork but if we assume the Master Sword was damaged during the final failed duel between the Hero of Time and Ganondorf similiar to how the blade was damaged in BotW, than that would explain why the untempered Master Sword is so weak when fighting the Demon King Ganon, requiring a spin attack to damage him. However, aLttP is also the game that allows you to upgrade the Master Sword. The first is leaving it with a Blacksmith, which initially doesn't seem like it would fit but in ALBW, we find that you need "Master Ore", which appears as a yellowish crystal. The second way we empower the sword in aLttP is with a Great Fairy, something that would absolutely be "bathed in Sacred Power". It also is what allows the player to deal damage to Ganon without using a Spin Attack.

In Skyward Sword you turn the Goddess Sword into the Master Sword by bathing it in sacred flames from the Golden Goddesses. In Wind Waker you restore it's power by helping the sages at the two temples.

Tears of the Kingdom is the only time where the Master Sword is broken in half and needs a lengthy recovery though.

 

[Tye]

I mean, it doesn't really make sense to pull another time branch unless it was to clear up all the annoying inconsistencies either. Maybe Hylia somehow got her divinity back despite being around as Zelda. Maybe Hylia is both now divine and mortal. I just feel like going "it's another timeline branch" is premature at this stage given that most people haven't even done any of the side adventures that do go into the lore of the Zonai. Especially since a lot of this proof seems to be "well it wasn't in X game" or "the map isn't 100% accurate according to X game" when those haven't really mattered in the long run anyways.

Why wouldn’t it make sense? The reason is the same as it was for OoT—to provide more options for storytelling. They made good use of OoT’s timeline splits and explored all of them pretty well in the time between OoT and SS. And with SS being another major Zelda title that features time travel with the potential for a timeline split, it would make perfect sense for them to now explore that in the 3D Zelda games after SS. Plus, like, they literally just made a new timeline branch with AoC recently. That one was totally created out of nowhere, of course, while the SS split is at least something that’s already an observable event in game.

And I dunno what you’re talking about with those examples, because I’m not talking about map comparisons for my theory at all, and it’s not about things being or not being in a game but rather the history shown in TotK not really being compatible with the the original timeline plus the game very much hinting that its Imprisoning War and the events leading up to it are supposed to be a mirror of OoT’s events on the original timeline. And if it’s a different timeline, then the only place that really makes any sense for that to branch from is SS. And then there’s stuff like the Hylia thing which is a big inconsistency that shouldn’t exist and doesn’t really make sense otherwise.

The Sheikah monks mention Hylia because they have always been her servants and know Zelda is her reincarnation.

It also sounds like you haven't done a very specific quest that involves the Great Plateau and The Depths since it's revealed that the Goddess statues aren't actually Hylia or any of the Goddesses speaking through them.

They specifically mention having been blessed with her sight, though. Clearly she still exists and is operating as a goddess in some sense.

And I haven’t done that one personally yet, no, but my partner has done it so I’m aware of it and I know the gist of it. Is that not just specific to that one statue, though? Surely the implication isn’t that all of the Goddess Statues are taken over by these bargainers?

And regardless of the Goddess Statues’ exact relation to Hylia, we know Hylia still exists as a goddess otherwise not just from the Sheikah monks, but also from the Horned Statue which specifically names the Goddess Hylia as the one who trapped them in the statue.