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:
The Legend of Zelda: Breath of the Wild – Creating a Champion said:
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!