Awesomegames23
Irony
- Pronouns
- (He/Him)
I agree, I think it's safe to say the devs and Nintendo really only care about the games themselves, not what happens between or outside of the games (referring to the timeline).
-
Hey everyone, staff have documented a list of banned content and subject matter that we feel are not consistent with site values, and don't make sense to host discussion of on Famiboards. This list (and the relevant reasoning per item) is viewable here.
-
Do you have audio editing experience and want to help out with the Famiboards Discussion Club Podcast? If so, we're looking for help and would love to have you on the team! Just let us know in the Podcast Thread if you are interested!
Spoiler The Legend of Zelda series timeline and lore discussion thread, post-TotK (full series open spoilers)
- Thread starter WestEgg
- Start date
I agree, I think it's safe to say the devs and Nintendo really only care about the games themselves, not what happens between or outside of the games (referring to the timeline).
andipossess
Rattata
- Pronouns
- they/she
I think that runs counter to what Aonuma's said. IIRC, he mentions that he regrets that they've released an official timeline because it took away from the fandom's ability to speculate on the timeline. Therefore, I believe they allowed the connections in BotW and TotK to be convoluted and confusing to urge on more timeline discussion rather than to cut it off.
Mango
Eltit Motsuc
- Pronouns
- She, Her
I feel like honestly all BOTW has done is shut down timeline theorizing and speculation. Most of the speculation that's sprung forth surrounding BOTW is instead centered around elements of BOTW itself, most of which ToTK answered in a definitive way.
I just honestly wish they had given BOTW a concrete placement. Even if their intention is to "foster speculation and players imagination" I don't feel like that's been done at all, rather it feels like there's a blatant clear cut line that separates BOTW and now ToTK, and thus its Ganondorf as well, from the traditional timeline, and that line and separation only makes theorizing about BOTWs timeline placement all the more frustrating and unenjoyable compared to past games.
TotK now takes that further. I want to see Ganondorf in TotK and be happy that it's Ganondorf, the guy I've known since 1998, but that's clearly not Ganondorf, and there's no fun to be had speculation or imagining how this contradictory-dorf came to be, at least not compared to what fun could be had if they were the same.
I just honestly wish they had given BOTW a concrete placement. Even if their intention is to "foster speculation and players imagination" I don't feel like that's been done at all, rather it feels like there's a blatant clear cut line that separates BOTW and now ToTK, and thus its Ganondorf as well, from the traditional timeline, and that line and separation only makes theorizing about BOTWs timeline placement all the more frustrating and unenjoyable compared to past games.
TotK now takes that further. I want to see Ganondorf in TotK and be happy that it's Ganondorf, the guy I've known since 1998, but that's clearly not Ganondorf, and there's no fun to be had speculation or imagining how this contradictory-dorf came to be, at least not compared to what fun could be had if they were the same.
andipossess
Rattata
- Pronouns
- they/she
I'm having fun speculating about it. I just want something more concrete eventually, but it's sounding like we won't get that.
Jimmy Joe
Good ol' Jimmy Joe
- Pronouns
- He/Him
It's funny, because the Hyrule Historia also said it wasn't meant to be the definitive end-all, be-all timeline that meant there were no other way to string the stories together
Don't look to Nintendo to hand down stories to you; their timelines aren't very good, for one, and they don't want you to go without your own fun speculations, for two
As someone who does a lot of timeline speculation and has been doing so online since before the turn of the century, the BOTW era has been the most fun I've had with timeline arguments since before we managed to kill off all those damned Single Link Theorists
Don't look to Nintendo to hand down stories to you; their timelines aren't very good, for one, and they don't want you to go without your own fun speculations, for two
As someone who does a lot of timeline speculation and has been doing so online since before the turn of the century, the BOTW era has been the most fun I've had with timeline arguments since before we managed to kill off all those damned Single Link Theorists
Jimmy Joe
Good ol' Jimmy Joe
- Pronouns
- He/Him
Forgive me for the Double Post, but I'm going to quote page 68 of the Hyrule Historia:
Even in 2011, the book allowed that there was going to be stories that retroactively changed the history of Hyrule. And that's OK! They've been doing that since Ocarina of Time!
Also
I need to remind y'all that the Zelda Encyclopedia said that the world of Termina was a dream, I believe Skull Kid's dream? And I do not truck with that shit. Y'all can keep it, because I do not want it, and it's all the argument I think I could ever need for ignoring "official" lore interpretations, including timelines
Even in 2011, the book allowed that there was going to be stories that retroactively changed the history of Hyrule. And that's OK! They've been doing that since Ocarina of Time!
Also
I need to remind y'all that the Zelda Encyclopedia said that the world of Termina was a dream, I believe Skull Kid's dream? And I do not truck with that shit. Y'all can keep it, because I do not want it, and it's all the argument I think I could ever need for ignoring "official" lore interpretations, including timelines
OP
OP
- Pronouns
- he/him
Yeah, I also throw dream Termina straight in the trash. Zelda has already done the “it was a dream” premise, possibly the best example of it I’ve ever seen, in Link’s Awakening.
Mango
Eltit Motsuc
- Pronouns
- She, Her
The timeline being open to change is not the problem, the problem is the recent two games feeling like they're not connected at all. Every other main game from Nintendo, not Capcom, felt connected to a previous game. TP and WW feel and are connected to OOT, PH and ST are connected to WW, ALBW is connected to ALttP, MM is connected to OOT. Are there contradictions and is it overall a mess, yes, but they're still all connected, it still overall feels like a cohesive connected universe. BOTW felt like a soft reboot, TotK feels like a hard reboot.
Plus frankly it's just not fun to discuss a placement when there is no placement. It's not like placing the Oracle games or trying to understand where FSA should go, neither BOTW or TotK fit anywhere, both games are equally incompatible with any timeline, and without a answer any discussion eventually turns into a cyclical back and forth of overanalyzing random inconsequential throwaway lines or items or cameos, till eventually even the most stubborn individuals give up.
Discussing things like the Eight Heroines is fun, and is a testament to the world-building of BOTW, but trying to place it on any branch is fundamentally pointless.
Plus frankly it's just not fun to discuss a placement when there is no placement. It's not like placing the Oracle games or trying to understand where FSA should go, neither BOTW or TotK fit anywhere, both games are equally incompatible with any timeline, and without a answer any discussion eventually turns into a cyclical back and forth of overanalyzing random inconsequential throwaway lines or items or cameos, till eventually even the most stubborn individuals give up.
Discussing things like the Eight Heroines is fun, and is a testament to the world-building of BOTW, but trying to place it on any branch is fundamentally pointless.
Jimmy Joe
Good ol' Jimmy Joe
- Pronouns
- He/Him
I think you're not describing all Zelda games, but the Aonuma era of storytelling
Aonuma as a director cared a lot more about interconnected story than his predecessor, and his take on it is very different from his successor. Majora's Mask being a direct sequel to OOT might be chalked up to asset reuse and economy of time, but WW, Twilight Princess, Phantom Hourglass, etc all returning to the same well is a mark of how Aonuma preferred to do his storytelling
Fujibayashi's era seems more concerned with legends, grand sweeping tapestries of infinite antiquity, and stories that don't fit cleanly into timelines and play around with what we thought we knew about the games. The Oracle games, Minish Cap, Spirit Tracks, Skyward Sword, Breath of the Wild, and now Tears of the Kingdom, are all games that are focused more on the mode of treating the Legend of Zelda as a canvas on which to tell legends, which may or may not be precisely true when compared directly to each other
It's also worth noting that we're in a part of Fujibayashi's era where we're revisiting the themes and motifs of the earliest days of Zelda: Breath of the Wild is about the dark beast Ganon returning from a poorly understood banishment and seizing Hyrule, very much echoing the first game, while Tears of the Kingdom is about dealing with the fallout of the Imprisoning War where the Demon King Ganondorf was sealed away by ancient sages in the earliest days of Hyrule, which is basically A Link to the Past all over again
It's perfectly fine to prefer Aonuma's era of storytelling. A lot of people do, and for good reason! But that doesn't mean that you shouldn't, much less can't, try to engage with Fujibayashi's games. There's plenty to engage with! We're just returning to a much older era of timeline conversations, from back before Aonuma's interconnectedness ruled the day
Last edited:
andipossess
Rattata
- Pronouns
- they/she
I can't believe the devs didn't think about the lore because of the story that TotK tells. They know that Ocarina of Time and A Link to the Past are some of the most beloved games in the franchise with significant cultural cachet. There must have been meetings upon meetings of people deciding, "Is it a good idea for us to write a story that appears to directly contradict these beloved games?" You don't make a move that risky in a game this expensive that they spent half a decade on without talking to a lot of people about it.
TotK did not have to call this the Imprisoning War, but they did and that's interesting because why. They didn't have to establish Rauru as the first King of Hyrule, but they did so why.
They could have played this completely safe if they didn't want to waste energy on it, but they didn't, and I think that means they thought a lot about it.
TotK did not have to call this the Imprisoning War, but they did and that's interesting because why. They didn't have to establish Rauru as the first King of Hyrule, but they did so why.
They could have played this completely safe if they didn't want to waste energy on it, but they didn't, and I think that means they thought a lot about it.
Rareware
Like Like
Regarding Rauru in this game, I don’t think it’s coincidental or absurd to think that the Rauru we know in Ocarina of Time—who also happens to be a Sage of Light—is the same Rauru reincarnated.
D
Deleted member 2
Guest
I think it's clear after beating it that BotW and TotK aren't supposed to fit into a logical timeline with the rest of the series.
It's fine if people have fun trying to fit it in, of course, but the result is so convoluted and... absurdly silly in my opinion that I enjoy Zelda far more accepting that a universal timeline was not considered when creating the story on BotW and TotK
It's fine if people have fun trying to fit it in, of course, but the result is so convoluted and... absurdly silly in my opinion that I enjoy Zelda far more accepting that a universal timeline was not considered when creating the story on BotW and TotK
RobFox64tm
Rattata
- Pronouns
- he, him, his
I'm 100 percent convinced of a timeline split from Skyward Sword. Link goes back 100 years, defeats Demise, then goes back ahead 100 years to his proper time where the timeline as we knew it before BotW plays out. A new timeline from that past point leads to BotW and TotK where Link didn't exist in the same capacity, the Triforce remained hidden away, and Hylia never became human (Zelda instead inherited her powers from Rauru and Sonia). The one sticking point is the Master Sword; it would still be in the form of the Goddess Sword because the events that transformed it wouldn't have occurred. Still, it's the only explanation to how the story in TotK could be possible outside of the two new games being a complete retcon.
Rareware
Like Like
We see Zelda use the power of the Triforce in BotW. The tablets in Zora’s domain in BotW directly reference the events of Ocarina of Time. The Zonai have Triforce emblems on their clothing. The costumes and weapons you find in The Depths via the Old Maps explicitly state they were the actual items worn and used by the Heroes of their eras. In fact, it’s so specific it even makes sure to point out that Midna’s Helm is a replica, since the real one was destroyed in Twilight Princess.
So personally, I disagree wholeheartedly that a) this is a separate branch from Skyward Sword and b) that the Zelda team didn’t think any of this through.
My personal opinion is that the game does fit on one of the three timelines and it is most likely the child timeline as there seems to be a lot more references to that one then the others. So how does that explain the references to other things on the timeline on the map? How does it explain why costumes and weapons used by Link’s in all the timelines ended up here?
Imo, it all comes down to Sonia and/or Zelda. We know from the murals at the end of the game that everything that is happening has been foretold. So I believe that Sonia and/or Zelda, as the Sages of Time, used her/their powers to travel to other eras and retrieved the costumes and weapons, hid them away in the depths, and then created maps and spread them across the Sky Islands for future Link to find and retrieve so he could use them to help in his fight against Ganondorf. And no, I absolutely do NOT believe these are just mere Easter Eggs or such. As I said, they’re very specific in their explanations which rules that out completely, imo.
The time traveling to other eras may have also had some unintended consequences to the world, which caused some very minor convergences, such as names of places appearing on the map but are sometimes jumbled in their spelling. But these particular things could all also just be attributed to all of the same places and characters existing in the same timeline, but with slightly different variations.
Last edited:
Ryuusagi no hoshi
Piranha Plant
I have a kinda mind blowing thought.
What if the zora stuff talks about a OoT of this new skyward Sword timeline or better this imprisoning war it's this timeline OoT haha and it's revealed in the DLC or in a book that the name of the ancient sages are Nabooro, Darunia, Ruto and Mido or Medoh or something hahaha could you imagine what if that's the reason for the sages to be nameless and with masks.
Rareware
Like Like
I mean…. Yeah, I guess that’s possible. It’s all multiversal timelines where, just as we see with big movies like Everything Everywhere All At Once or the Marvel movies, it’s likely that very similar things could be happening on other timelines but play out in different ways.
Ryuusagi no hoshi
Piranha Plant
Yeah i mean it would be cool to "start clean" to future games.
Rareware
Like Like
I personally don’t want that though. I like the moment we’re having now where we just theorize about how things are, where they take place, etc. etc. It can be a little frustrating trying to piece it all together, but it’s also fun to think about. But ultimately, I want the official timeline placement. Even if officially that means it’s a reboot, I want to know it. They opened this can of worms when they officially revealed it all and they need to stick with it. There’s no closing that door now and I honestly don’t want them to. I like having the timeline. Gives me more enjoyment of the games.
Tye
All-around Nintendo enjoyer
- Pronouns
- they/them
Yes, this is exactly what I’ve been saying throughout this whole thread! I really believe this is what the game is implying, and have explained my reasoning for thinking such in length here across multiple posts.
byDoS
Tektite
Beat TotK last night. Just wanna say that while it is undoubtedly one of the best games I've ever played (maybe the best one), the game treats its own lore as an afterthought, which detracted my experience as a whole. But I think this apparent disregard for the lore is just a symptom of this game's artistic derangement.
BotW has something this game doesn't: artistic cohesion. The whole world seems to live the desolation left by the Calamity; the music is an expression of the simplicity bequeathed by it; as it is the main (and side) quests, the characters, the enviroment, the plots (and subplots), the map... everything makes sense in BotW. There's a cohesion in the way the game was fundamentally made that connects its different aspects, makes it a whole.
Although geographically bigger, mechanically better and fundamentally a better game, TotK is also understandably messier than BotW in almost every way, an inheritance left by the fact that it is a (maybe way to much of a) direct sequel, and not a game designed aesthetically and narratively in itself. Even if sometimes it seems intentional, the aesthetic difference of Depths-Land-Sky is an idiomatic expression of this inconsistency in tones, of this disarrangement of languages, and this is even carried over to the game's music, whose last anthem is a miscellany of intersecting, dissonant and embarrassed sounds.
TotK is a better game, but I found BotW to be a better understood (and constructed) experience.
One thing is for sure: they're both the best games I've ever played.
BotW has something this game doesn't: artistic cohesion. The whole world seems to live the desolation left by the Calamity; the music is an expression of the simplicity bequeathed by it; as it is the main (and side) quests, the characters, the enviroment, the plots (and subplots), the map... everything makes sense in BotW. There's a cohesion in the way the game was fundamentally made that connects its different aspects, makes it a whole.
Although geographically bigger, mechanically better and fundamentally a better game, TotK is also understandably messier than BotW in almost every way, an inheritance left by the fact that it is a (maybe way to much of a) direct sequel, and not a game designed aesthetically and narratively in itself. Even if sometimes it seems intentional, the aesthetic difference of Depths-Land-Sky is an idiomatic expression of this inconsistency in tones, of this disarrangement of languages, and this is even carried over to the game's music, whose last anthem is a miscellany of intersecting, dissonant and embarrassed sounds.
TotK is a better game, but I found BotW to be a better understood (and constructed) experience.
One thing is for sure: they're both the best games I've ever played.
Ryuusagi no hoshi
Piranha Plant
No, yeah i agree that's what i meant.
Make it a branched timeline from SS and be like a soft reboot and treat everything else like a legacy stuff like the fallen timeline was before.
So the timeline it's still canon and a outline in a way.
Built a more coherent future from SS, BotW and TotK.
Yeah i mean it does too much sense really.
SS HD and Aounuma's comments on it, the parallelism with OoT hell maybe the calamity from 10,000 ago it's is Oot moment with how the ancient hero has N64 Link's eyes or the hero evokes a Zonai that live after or during TotK past and is a Zonai and Hylian hybrid, the Master sword weird absence in the past because it didn't exist at that time and was still the goddess sword and later was created because the future one setting a precedent in the past because it was needed for the future being the same, all this because Demise was kill before all of SS were needed.
SS was a perfect loop before Ghirahim messed up everything after all.
All the races wird stuff and sheika and yiga wird stuff that doesn't make sense in the other timelines technology and all.
Hell Zelda is responsible of all the Sheika tech because the Pura pad and all that and when Zelda escapes with Sonia and Rauru looks like Sheika tech teleportation.
Demise curse not being all that direct, because it was divided.
And a lot more little stuff but we'll see.
D
Deleted member 2
Guest
They officially revealed BotW's place in the timeline already when they showed it disconnected from the rest of the timeline.
RobFox64tm
Rattata
- Pronouns
- he, him, his
Triforce iconography would still exist in the world, even if it was still hidden away in the silent realm, as it existed on the surface world of Skyward Sword. Also, Zelda's powers in BotW are hardly confirmed to be those of the Triforce; they could merely be the light powers inherited from Rauru. As for the items referencing other games in the series, yeah, I kind of think those are just easter eggs. I'd love to be wrong about that last one, but if this isn't a new branch, how do you explain the complete contradiction to how Hyrule was founded, or Ganondorf's origin story? I think the story runs parallel to the Ocarina timeline; some events and characters are in both, hence why they are referenced.
P.S. I realize that the forged Master Sword actually does exist in both timelines, as Link left it in the past at the end of Skyward Sword, so I'm even more convinced of the new branch.
D
Deleted member 540
Guest
Now that I've finished the game, I can check out this thread. As expected, there's chaos and I love it. I think of these timelines as oral traditions, not the quantum realities Worf was jumping between in that one episode with the Wesley cameo.
But on the Triforce question, Monster Maze had a theory that I think is great.
But on the Triforce question, Monster Maze had a theory that I think is great.
LegendHero
Tektite
No offense to anyone who believes it, but the reboot/completely alternate timeline theory requires too much arbitrary handwaving for me to subscribe to it. They changed the Zora Stone Monuments in this game from BotW so they could've used that as an opportunity to quietly remove any Ocarina of Time references or mention Ruto in a way that matches up with the Imprisoning War better. But instead they still mention her fighting alongside the hero of legend and Ruto confronting her foe up the waterfall above the domain, while making no mention of the Demon King or the King of Hyrule like every other account of the Imprisoning War. If all the items from past games were just contextlessly in mines and groves in the Depths I could see treating that as unimportant, but a lot of it is actually incorporated directly into side quests and side adventures and provided context, like the Evil Spirit set being sealed away because it's cloaked in otherworldly evil or Misko acquiring some of their treasures from other lands. They could've changed the descriptions of some of these items to have less of a connection to previous games, sometimes they did like with the Island Lobster Shirt, but they chose not to for a lot of them, like saying the Dark Tunic is a replica of a legendary hero's tunic or adding a line to the Dusk Bow's description about how it's been in the Royal Family for ages but still mentioning that it was used by a princess who fought beasts of Twilight. You have to dismiss a lot of things without any particular rhyme or reason to suggest that the implication is that nothing ever happened in this Hyrule besides the Imprisoning War and the Great Calamity from the tapestry.
Mango
Eltit Motsuc
- Pronouns
- She, Her
So thinking about it Zelda turning into the Light Dragon is a direct result of her actions in the present which lead to her actions in the past which lead to her actions in the present, how the hell is this supposed to work with a three way split timeline?
More importantly how is Age of Calamity supposed to have happened at all? Seriously I don't mind the whole time loop idea, and I guess thinking about it that's probably what the logo is meant to represent, but they could've thought it through a bit more than this.
More importantly how is Age of Calamity supposed to have happened at all? Seriously I don't mind the whole time loop idea, and I guess thinking about it that's probably what the logo is meant to represent, but they could've thought it through a bit more than this.
Ryuusagi no hoshi
Piranha Plant
All of that happened but different multiverse style, there you go.
I mean it's not that stretch.
Kinda like canon events in the new Spider-Man movie.
andipossess
Rattata
- Pronouns
- they/she
We could always be wrong about timeline position. If the memory scenes of TotK take place after the OoT timeline split, the time loop works without issue. There's probably some other way to explain it if Rauru's kingdom took place before the split, too, for someone more creative than me.
Also Age of Calamity is a non-canon what-if story, so whether it can happen or not was probably not an important parameter for what the TotK team was working with.
Starphanluke
Paratroopa
- Pronouns
- He/Him
Everyone just casually ignores this and it drives me crazy.
The main stories of Breath of the Wild/Tears of the Kingdom cannot work with the timeline. There are minor references to other games (glorified amiibo items, in-game "legends," etc.) but at their core, the Wild Duology are fundamentally incompatable with the timeline. And trying to make them fit makes the story of the games worse! I kind of can't fathom that people keep bringing up minor little things to prove a connection, when the big picture (including Nintendo's actual website) spells it out so clearly.
Edit for clarity: I think why this has really broken the fun of Zelda theory and speculation for me is that the past games we knew fit together. It was obvious. Piecing the lore together was fun. Here, people are so stuck on trying to fit a square peg into a round hole, that no one's actually focusing on the really cool new stuff in TotK we can speculate on. Or the unique ways it build out some of the mysteries introduced in BotW.
Last edited:
Gingerbread Man
Paratroopa
One can accept that the main story of BotW and TotK takes place so far after any other game in the series that pinpointing the exact placement in the timeline is impossible and, at the same time, speculating where TotK flashbacks take place and how Demon King Ganondorf, Calamity Ganon and the Ganon/dorf from other games in the series are related. There's no contradiction here.
And to be fair, TotK explicitly says that the flashback happens right after Hyrule Founding, and the official timeline places the foundation of Kingdon of Hyrule between SS and MC.
D
Deleted member 2
Guest
Of course there's a contradiction, there are tons of contradictions discussed in this very thread.
This is not what a broken connection in the timeline indicates. It doesn't indicate a large amount of time. Lengths of time are not indicated by the length of the line connecting them on the timeline. The timeline only shows the games' occurrences relative to one another, not the distance of time between two consecutive games.
The website literally showed a broken connection, with a jagged line, between Breath of the Wild and every other game on the timeline. No, this wasn't supposed to mean "and tons of time passed here", clearly it's supposed to mean it's not connected.
This is already explained by the Wild duology not being connected to the timeline of the rest of the games. It's simply an interpolation of events inspired by past games.
You can still keep trying to fit a square peg into a round hole, and that's totally fine. But just know it's still going to make the story worse, by including duplicate Ganondorfs, duplicate Hyrules, duplicate etc... and many other convoluted methods to bend the stories until they fit together.
I really wish the lore and story of BotW / TotK wasn't so overshadowed by this whole timeline speculation. It really sucks.
Jimmy Joe
Good ol' Jimmy Joe
- Pronouns
- He/Him
Could someone explain to me the problem caused by Zelda's time travel? I'm not seeing it; TOTK is a closed loop in a way that Skyward Sword failed to present itself
Age of Calamity fits fine, it's its own separate timeline splitting off from BOTW and requires no particular explanation. Hell, it even gives us our first hints about the main timeline version of Tulin showing up
Nintendo's "official" representations of timelines still aren't the arbiters of canon, and TOTK makes it very explicit within its own text that it takes place after the other games in the series, not totally removed from them
It's true that the timeline discussion dominates the lore conversation around this game, but I think that's just a consequence of putting "timeline" in the title and framing the thread as covering the entire series. The community has been like since since, like, 1998. When given the opportunity to string the games together we'll abandon all other modes of conversation.
You're right, though, that there are some things in TOTK that have enormous lore implications that aren't getting broguht up here because the mode we're applying to this conversation has nothing to do with them
Like the dark skeletons; my brain is on fire thinking about what it means that there are three dead creatures that are identical in size and build to the Demon Dragon
takriel
Wandering the Hylian Wilds
Just wanted to share this amazing piece by Alex Plant (LegendofLex) from a few years back:
Zelda Informer Timeline Number Two: The Legends Timeline - Zelda Dungeon
If you’ve followed my Hyrulean History Revisited articles, which started with an unpacking of the Unknown Wars and then proceeded to do the same for the Imprisoning War, you’ve probably figured out by now that my approach to the Zelda timeline is somewhat unorthodox compared to what most...
www.zeldadungeon.net
D
Deleted member 2
Guest
If it's the case that there's room for interpretation, then all the evidence points towards the conclusion that there is no logical linear connection to the other games, and BotW + TotK exists as it's own "canon", so to speak.
Those are Leviathan bones, not dragon bones. Totally different shape from the Demon Dragon
neon
garfield enthusiast
isnt one of them the wind fish lol
D
Deleted member 2
Guest
I don't know about the dark skeletons as I've only seen one so far, but yeah I believe one of the surface ones was implied to be the Wind Fish
Jimmy Joe
Good ol' Jimmy Joe
- Pronouns
- He/Him
You're looking in the wrong place. Look on your map; the skeletons are hundreds upon hundreds of meters long, far longer than the leviathans, and have skulls that look saurian rather than cetacean
Really look; those things are dragons, and they're vastly larger than Naydraa, Farosh, or Dinraal. The Gerudo Dark Skeleton winds a curving course from the Desert Coliseum to the edge of the map, and all of the skeletons are incomplete
Last edited:
Mango
Eltit Motsuc
- Pronouns
- She, Her
I actually don't think we're wrong. I don't think the game fits and I can't tell if it's supposed to fit or to be a retcon, but we have three major things:
-Kotake and Konume
-Death Mountain has smoke rings
-The text on Ganondorf's weapons, are unless I'm mistaken, OOT Era Hylian.
That said there's no issue if it's after OOT, but it feels basically impossible if it isn't. Moreover I've always maintained that Age of Calamity is non-canon, even tho TotK kinda slightly references it with Rhoams grave having a Royal Claymore, but regardless of it's canonicity it's the one game that 100% cannot work now.
TotKs Zelda's actions in the present result in her finding Rauru's Secret Stone which is the means through which she's sent back in time. Hee actions in the past result in her becoming the Light Dragon. If we place the backstory before OOT and thus before any split, than every split should have a Light Dragon, and thus every split must have BOTW/TotK and TotK Zelda finding Rauru's Stone.
This would mean every timeline must somehow lead to BOTW and TotK, and it also means the timeline in Age of Calamity which directly prevents the Calamity and thus prevents Zelda from finding Rauru's Stone and becoming the Light Dragon, cannot work.
----------------
About the separation on the website, I don't think it means much. We have Aonuma on record saying the BOTW is after OOT, and saying it's on the timeline but not actually placed on the timeline, so how exactly would you visually show that in any other way? The whole point of them making it vague was to give players the freedom to theorize and speculate how the games fit, and whether that worked or not, it's clear the from Aonumas words that the games aren't meant to not be part of the timeline, regardless of how they actually fit.
Jimmy Joe
Good ol' Jimmy Joe
- Pronouns
- He/Him
The thing for me is that other parts of TOTK also suggest that all timelines lead to TOTK. That's in the text of the game. It's text that some folks want to dismiss out of hand, but it's in there! There's multiple disparate elements in the game that suggest it sits at the end of a unified timeline, like BOTW but much more textual
Regarding this specific issue, though, I don't think it's a problem. The Zelda series is no stranger to time travel paradoxes, with the most famous one being the Song of Storms in Ocarina of Time and a bunch of bullshit in Skyward Sword. It's all just kind of there.
Here, to me, are the options, and there are probably more I'm not thinking of:
1. Zelda is an embodiment of the God of Time whose existence bookends all timelines and draws them back to herself
2. The timelines are unified in some other way
3. Some timelines don't have Zelda get Rauru's secret stone, and what we're seeing is the only timeline where she does
None of those are actually a problem! Hell, I don't think that Age of Calamity has a problem with this set of circumstances, either. The Calamity being unleashed 100 years ago is what cracked Ganondorf's prison, but the battle against the Calamity in AOC was much more destructive and wholly confined to Hyrule Castle, so there's also room for them to find Ganondorf's corpse a hundred years early in that timeline. It'd look different, but it could defintiely happen. And if it didn't, that's ok! Something else happened in that timeline, and Light Dragon Zelda came over from an alternate timeline, just like our boy Terrako. It's just how it works in that game
The thing about the rules of time travel in Zelda games: there aren't any. They're whatever fit the narrative of whatever sotry they're trying to tell in that moment
Mango
Eltit Motsuc
- Pronouns
- She, Her
@Jimmy Joe
The only one of those that work is number 2. Every action Zelda takes in the past is a direct response to the experiences she's lived through in the present. Every timeline must then have identical BOTWs and TotKs. Age of Calamity breaks this time loop, it makes the bootstrap impossible.
The only one of those that work is number 2. Every action Zelda takes in the past is a direct response to the experiences she's lived through in the present. Every timeline must then have identical BOTWs and TotKs. Age of Calamity breaks this time loop, it makes the bootstrap impossible.
balgajo
Koopa
Interesting to note that while Zelda had the secret stone of time when she swallowed it she became a light dragon instead a time one. Though I'm aware that they said the has two powers inside, time and light(probably due to triforce).
I'm wondering if Rauru is the first one to pass the triforce over this Hyrule royal lineage. He must went through some shit considering only him and his sister ended up being alive.
I'm wondering if Rauru is the first one to pass the triforce over this Hyrule royal lineage. He must went through some shit considering only him and his sister ended up being alive.
Jimmy Joe
Good ol' Jimmy Joe
- Pronouns
- He/Him
That's simply not true, though! All it requires is that Zelda goes back into the past from the TOTK timeline. It doesn't need to be a closed loop, though it is in TOTK. If Zelda goes back in time and there's another timeline split, she's now in two timelines, separated from the timeline that is her origin!
Again, just like Terrako in AOC.
There's no need for her to end up at the same place. She can be stranded in time. It's a thing that happens in Zelda games quite a lot! Hell, Rauru thoguht it had happened in this game, he was just wrong about how time travel worked in this specific instance
Mango
Eltit Motsuc
- Pronouns
- She, Her
Huh...I guess...you're right? My heads starting to hurt.
I guess the split itself would be like the world's being copied at that singular point in time, but any timeline that doesn't lead to TotK she just stays a dragon forever.
That's kinda f'd up. Even from TotK Link's perspective, as he technically didn't get "his" Zelda back if you really stretch it.
andipossess
Rattata
- Pronouns
- they/she
Alternate timeline duplicates don't exist unless you have the power to swap to other timeline branches without living through the split yourself, so it sucks for any Zeldas who are in different timeline branches, but they don't really matter to Link who is in one who got a Zelda back. Unless he plans to rescue every version of his Zelda in every branch of every timeline ever. Which, I mean it's Link so maybe he'd try.
Jimmy Joe
Good ol' Jimmy Joe
- Pronouns
- He/Him
It's always important to remember: there are no rules, and what rules there seem to be don't carry over between games. Things happen, but we can only work backward from seeing how they happen!
Also, for real, Zelda's a god of time for all intents and purposes, if you want to talk abotu the mechanism for the timelines converging then she's a pretty good one
Also, for real, Zelda's a god of time for all intents and purposes, if you want to talk abotu the mechanism for the timelines converging then she's a pretty good one
Jimmy Joe
Good ol' Jimmy Joe
- Pronouns
- He/Him
Now that I've gotten all that out of my system, there's two things I want to talk about:
1. Hylia's blood and the timeline of TOTK's past.
I do think it's significant that, although Sonia comes from the same bloodline as Zelda and is a priestess of Hylia, she doesn't possess Zelda's power over "light," or the power to banish evil. The reason I'm calling Hylia's power "light" and "the power to banish evil" instead of power over time is that that's how it's described in other games where Zelda has a power inherent to herself: Zelda's blessing in Skyward Sword is what makes the Master Sword capable of destroying evil, Zelda's body in Spirit Tracks has the power to destroy the demon king, the Light Force in Minish Cap, etc.
What I'm thinking is that even if Zelda and Sonia are related by blood, Sonia hasn't inherited the power of the blood of the goddess. This suggests to me that Sonia's time is set before the advent of the goddess in a human body, which would mean that the founding of Hyrule takes place before Zelda is born in Skyward Sword. Which, unless there is a contingent of humans living on the surface instead of in Skyloft, means that the war with Ganondorf might take place before the war with Demise?
Just something I'm mulling over.
2. What the Hell is with the Dark Skeletons?
The dark skeletons beneath the leviathans are not, themselves, levithans. They're kilometer-long monstrosities with saurian skulls, and have proportions roughly equivalent to the Demon Dragon that Ganondorf turns into.
So, uh, what the Hell are they? Are they demons who fought alongside Ganondorf in the Imprisoning War? Are they older than that? There are three of them—are they previous incarnations of the Naydra, Dinraal, and Farosh? Could they, themselves, be three previous Demon Kings? Are they fallen zonai? Are we looking at evidence of three previous entire cycles of a conflict like this one, where a Demon King—maybe even Ganon—rose, caused havoc, and was slain?
What does that mean for what the Depths are? Are the Depths themselves a repository for the detritus of conflicts in Hyrule, or even timelines once they begin to merge?
1. Hylia's blood and the timeline of TOTK's past.
I do think it's significant that, although Sonia comes from the same bloodline as Zelda and is a priestess of Hylia, she doesn't possess Zelda's power over "light," or the power to banish evil. The reason I'm calling Hylia's power "light" and "the power to banish evil" instead of power over time is that that's how it's described in other games where Zelda has a power inherent to herself: Zelda's blessing in Skyward Sword is what makes the Master Sword capable of destroying evil, Zelda's body in Spirit Tracks has the power to destroy the demon king, the Light Force in Minish Cap, etc.
What I'm thinking is that even if Zelda and Sonia are related by blood, Sonia hasn't inherited the power of the blood of the goddess. This suggests to me that Sonia's time is set before the advent of the goddess in a human body, which would mean that the founding of Hyrule takes place before Zelda is born in Skyward Sword. Which, unless there is a contingent of humans living on the surface instead of in Skyloft, means that the war with Ganondorf might take place before the war with Demise?
Just something I'm mulling over.
2. What the Hell is with the Dark Skeletons?
The dark skeletons beneath the leviathans are not, themselves, levithans. They're kilometer-long monstrosities with saurian skulls, and have proportions roughly equivalent to the Demon Dragon that Ganondorf turns into.
So, uh, what the Hell are they? Are they demons who fought alongside Ganondorf in the Imprisoning War? Are they older than that? There are three of them—are they previous incarnations of the Naydra, Dinraal, and Farosh? Could they, themselves, be three previous Demon Kings? Are they fallen zonai? Are we looking at evidence of three previous entire cycles of a conflict like this one, where a Demon King—maybe even Ganon—rose, caused havoc, and was slain?
What does that mean for what the Depths are? Are the Depths themselves a repository for the detritus of conflicts in Hyrule, or even timelines once they begin to merge?
