Fun Club Which is the most far-fetched Zelda theory out of these two?

[Irene]

The Legend of Zelda is a franchise that seems to sit on an endless trove of lore and information ripe for theorising - as has been evident by the countless theories, videos and essays concerning Zelda that has emerged over the decades. So many, in fact, that Zelda theory is something you can make a career out of.

Some are cool. Others maybe a bit of a reach. Some of them, though, really stretches things. Below are two that has caught my attention recently, and inspired me to this thread.



Link is dead in Majora's Mask - this one is known since a while ago. When entering Termina, Link is traveling to four regions, to rid them of evil, and free trapped spirits. It's said that these four areas, together with Clock Town, represents the five stages of grief - denial, anger, bargaining, depression and acceptance.



Breath of the Wild is a simulation - a more recent one, entertaining the idea that Link is still asleep in the Shrine of Resurrection during the game, with the entirety of Hyrule being one big simulation designed by the Sheikah.

 

[Phosphorescent Skeleton]

Neither are real or interesting. Why would either one be true? Why would they make a game with one story, but secretly have it be something else? Just seems like a misundering of subtext and doing a deep reading of a text. I hate fan theories.

 

[Clov]

The craziest theory is the idea that the original NES Zelda takes place in a world where OoT Link died. And this theory's an official one!

 

[7threst]

Not sure if it's canon or a fan theory, but I loved that thing how the knight in Twilight Princess who teaches you skills is supposed to be the OoT Link after he passed away.

 

[Nickle]

Every time a new Zelda is about to come out, there are always people theorizing that the game's plot is going to involve crazy time travel shenanigans that spans the entire Zelda timeline and brings back every side character from every old Zelda game. Then we always end up getting a relatively simple plot that's just about the good guy defeating the bad guy. It's not that these theories are bad or stupid, it's just that Zelda stories are always pretty tame on the surface, so it's unlikely that they will ever come true. Most of the world building and lore in Zelda games happens though subtle NPC discussions and environmental design, not the plot.

But the actual worst Zelda theory is the idea that the Zelda timeline was made up by Nintendo in 2009 to appease fans. I'm sure at least one person will drive by post about how the timeline isn't real and the devs have never paid attention to it.

 

[Kartina]

The greatest Zelda theory ever made is that The Legend of Zelda Windwaker story is actually about making the sequel to Ocarina of time and the burden on the developers to follow up miyamoto's work.

 

[Clov]

But the actual worst Zelda theory is the idea that the Zelda timeline was made up by Nintendo in 2009 to appease fans. I'm sure at least one person will drive by post about how the timeline isn't real and the devs have never paid attention to it.

I dunno. I feel that back in 1986 when they released the original Zelda, Miyamoto wasn't planning out the events of Ocarina of Time and thinking "This Famicom Disk System game I'm working on takes place after this game, but ONLY if the Link in that game dies". It seems like a silly way to connect the games to each other after the fact.

 

[Phosphorescent Skeleton]

Every time a new Zelda is about to come out, there are always people theorizing that the game's plot is going to involve crazy time travel shenanigans that spans the entire Zelda timeline and brings back every side character from every old Zelda game. Then we always end up getting a relatively simple plot that's just about the good guy defeating the bad guy. It's not that these theories are bad or stupid, it's just that Zelda stories are always pretty tame on the surface, so it's unlikely that they will ever come true. Most of the world building and lore in Zelda games happens though subtle NPC discussions and environmental design, not the plot.

But the actual worst Zelda theory is the idea that the Zelda timeline was made up by Nintendo in 2009 to appease fans. I'm sure at least one person will drive by post about how the timeline isn't real and the devs have never paid attention to it.

Never got the appeal of the Zelda timeline or playing the games for the plot. Not the intresting imo. Basically the same thing everytime.

 

[Terrell]

Dunno about far-fetched, but the weirdest one I ever heard was that Demise was no pre-existing evil force that transcended time to capture the Goddesses' power as Skyward Sword suggests, but a created evil as a direct result of the Goddesses creating the Triforce in the first place, and the Zelda games are basically forcing Hylia's descendants (though a recurrently reincarnated Zelda) to find and name her Hero to clean up the Goddesses' mess (the reincarnations of Demise) that she was entrusted to deal with by guarding their sacred creation.

 

[Christo750]

I don’t think I’ve ever heard the BOTW one. The Majora’s Mask one was always interesting to me.

 

[Starphanluke]

Every time a new Zelda is about to come out, there are always people theorizing that the game's plot is going to involve crazy time travel shenanigans that spans the entire Zelda timeline and brings back every side character from every old Zelda game. Then we always end up getting a relatively simple plot that's just about the good guy defeating the bad guy. It's not that these theories are bad or stupid, it's just that Zelda stories are always pretty tame on the surface, so it's unlikely that they will ever come true. Most of the world building and lore in Zelda games happens though subtle NPC discussions and environmental design, not the plot.

But the actual worst Zelda theory is the idea that the Zelda timeline was made up by Nintendo in 2009 to appease fans. I'm sure at least one person will drive by post about how the timeline isn't real and the devs have never paid attention to it.

This this this.

 

[Erimgard]

But the actual worst Zelda theory is the idea that the Zelda timeline was made up by Nintendo in 2009 to appease fans. I'm sure at least one person will drive by post about how the timeline isn't real and the devs have never paid attention to it.

I think it's fair to say Miyamoto cares very little for an overall chronology, but I don't know how anyone can deny that Aonuma was very intentionally building story connections between all his major games.

 

[Deleted member 2181]

I dunno. I feel that back in 1986 when they released the original Zelda, Miyamoto wasn't planning out the events of Ocarina of Time and thinking "This Famicom Disk System game I'm working on takes place after this game, but ONLY if the Link in that game dies". It seems like a silly way to connect the games to each other after the fact.

Nobody has ever said that this was how it was.
How it was:
They made Zelda. They made a sequel to Zelda. They made a prequel to Zelda. They made a prequel to that prequel. But that game's ending didn't end up matching properly. So they gave it an ending that hinted at a time paradox and then they gave it three different direct sequels, two of which explicitly contradicted each other (as well as the backstory of the earlier prequel). On purpose. Then they made a game set at the very beginning, and a game set at the very end.

The real absurdity is that people believe the above couldn't happen, which would mean that, for example, Wind Waker isn't a sequel to Ocarina of Time, despite, you know, it being very obviously a sequel to Ocarina of Time that deals with the events at the end of that game.

 

[Serif]

But the actual worst Zelda theory is the idea that the Zelda timeline was made up by Nintendo in 2009 to appease fans. I'm sure at least one person will drive by post about how the timeline isn't real and the devs have never paid attention to it.

This and any iteration of "every story is a retelling of one legend so there's no intended continuity".

Yes, every single Zelda game is some variation of the Hero's Journey. Literally even direct sequels between games have the Hero's Journey motifs (in both Wind Waker and Phantom Hourglass, the same exact Link must answer the call to action to save a world from a demonic entity and rescue a princess etc.).

That doesn't exclude continuity. Star Wars is another example. A New Hope <-> Phantom Menace <-> Force Awakens share so many similar story beats that they are basically retellings, especially ANH and TFA. But it's obvious that some events happened before others, multiple characters appear between these stories, etc.

They showed in the ending of Ocarina of Time that two different worlds spawned after Zelda played the Ocarina and sent Link back to his childhood. Majora's Mask, Wind Waker, Skyward Sword and Twilight Princess are consciously built upon this. This is all laid out in the actual plot of the games, with deliberate references to the Hero of Time, featuring the same Ganondorf, and referencing explicit events.

... the issue was always the other games and seeing where they fit in, lol. But it's been fun to theorize about it. Sometimes it feels like people are deliberately talking down to others who have fun exploring other aspects of the games.

Everyone who does timeline speculation knows that the developers prioritize gameplay and world design over 100% lore consistency. Trying to generalize and say "the developers don't care about it and neither should you" is annoying because it's either flat-out wrong in some cases, or just making assumptions - as if the developers themselves aren't fans who also theorize. Like the Hero's Shade being the Hero of Time, it was a fan theory with clues originally to suggest it, flat out confirmed later on. It's not an essential fact to know, but it adds color to the world.

 

[Erimgard]

I dunno. I feel that back in 1986 when they released the original Zelda, Miyamoto wasn't planning out the events of Ocarina of Time and thinking "This Famicom Disk System game I'm working on takes place after this game, but ONLY if the Link in that game dies". It seems like a silly way to connect the games to each other after the fact.

That's a pretty big strawman

What 20+ movie, game, etc franchise EVER plans out that far ahead? Caring about the plot doesn't mean you write decades of plot before putting anything out. Come on.

 

[Raccoon]

that breath of the wild theory is an interesting way to reconcile the fact that the game is entirely indifferent to the rest of the zelda series

 

[Clov]

Nobody has ever said that this was how it was.
How it was:
They made Zelda. They made a sequel to Zelda. They made a prequel to Zelda. They made a prequel to that prequel. But that game's ending didn't end up matching properly. So they gave it an ending that hinted at a time paradox and then they gave it three different direct sequels, two of which explicitly contradicted each other (as well as the backstory of the earlier prequel). On purpose. Then they made a game set at the very beginning, and a game set at the very end.

The real absurdity is that people believe the above couldn't happen, which would mean that, for example, Wind Waker isn't a sequel to Ocarina of Time, despite, you know, it being very obviously a sequel to Ocarina of Time that deals with the events at the end of that game.

I have definitely seen people say that it was always the intention.

If you read what I said, you'll notice I haven't mentioned Wind Waker. I'm not sure why you're bringing it up. I'm saying that the idea of the original Zelda, Zelda II, etc being in some sort of timeline where Link dies in OoT is silly. I guess your Wind Waker example is, like you say, the real absurdity, since it doesn't have to do with what I'm saying.

That's a pretty big strawman

What 20+ movie, game, etc franchise EVER plans out that far ahead? Caring about the plot doesn't mean you write decades of plot before putting anything out. Come on.

All I'm saying is that the way it's connected to some large "timeline" is silly. And it is! Zelda 1 happens if Link dies in OoT? If Link dies in Majora's Mask instead, do we get the Tingle games? Does he end up in Cranky's Hall of Heroes after dying in ALttP?

I don't think I'll ever understand people who hold these aspects of the Zelda Timeline as some sort of sacred ideal.

 

[HockeyBird]

Dead, simulation, or dream theories are dumb because all you need is for a character to lose consciousness at any point to make the theory plausible. Ocarina of Time could all be a dream and Link is actually still asleep in his house.

 

[Deleted member 2181]

I have definitely seen people say that it was always the intention.

I can't speak to what you have or haven't seen, but I can assure you that the idea that the original Zelda was created with the intention of being part of some larger continuity has to be pretty fringe because I've never encountered it ever.

Whereas I have encountered "the timeline was made up and the games are not meant to connect" more than any other.
Ocarina of Time was made with the explicit intention to connect to Link to the Past, which was made with the explicit intention to connect to Legend of Zelda. To believe otherwise is to believe the developers were lying about this in 1997 for some reason.

 

[Clov]

I can't speak to what you have or haven't seen, but I can assure you that the idea that the original Zelda was created with the intention of being part of some larger continuity has to be pretty fringe because I've never encountered it ever.

Whereas I have encountered "the timeline was made up and the games are not meant to connect" more than any other.
Ocarina of Time was made with the explicit intention to connect to Link to the Past, which was made with the explicit intention to connect to Legend of Zelda. To believe otherwise is to believe the developers were lying about this in 1997 for some reason.

And none of this contradicts that the way the original Zelda has been placed in the timeline is just plain goofy! I'm not sure why you keep going to other connections (OoT to LttP) when I've been focusing on one of them (OoT to LoZ1).

Does BS Legend of Zelda Ancient Stone Tablets happen if NES Zelda Link dies?

 

[Serif]

And none of this contradicts that the way the original Zelda has been placed in the timeline is just plain goofy! I'm not sure why you keep going to other connections (OoT to LttP) when I've been focusing on one of them (OoT to LoZ1).

LttP is a prequel to LoZ. OoT was intended as a prequel to ALttP. OoT connects to the NES LoZ by way of OoT -> LttP -> ... -> LoZ.

The truth is they wanted OoT -> LttP -> LoZ to connect, but messed up the connection between OoT and ALttP. OoT was always meant to be the origin of Ganon as the Prince of Thieves Ganondorf, and how he transformed into Ganon, obtained the Triforce, and was sealed. Most of OoT did line up until the ending, where they ironically prioritized a different plot point of Zelda sending Link back to his time with his piece of the Triforce.

They did not intend to set the original LoZ and LttP in an alternate universe where Link died. The Downfall Timeline is a retroactive explanation. Plenty of folks call it goofy, I think it's fine. There's plenty of Alternate Universe storytelling across sci-fi and fantasy media.

Is there a world that takes place if Link dies in any game? Sure, but they haven't set any games in those alternate worlds. Nothing stops them from doing that. Give me a game set in a world where the Moon fell in Termina.

 

[Deleted member 2181]

And none of this contradicts that the way the original Zelda has been placed in the timeline is just plain goofy! I'm not sure why you keep going to other connections (OoT to LttP) when I've been focusing on one of them (OoT to LoZ1).

I'm doing my best to parse the argument that's being made here.
That the connection is goofy? Yes, obviously, because it was the developers trying to write themselves out of a continuity problem. It's an attempt to fix a plot hole, and that plot hole was necessary because it would have been fundamentally unsatisfying from a story perspective to play the backstory of Link to the Past exactly as described.
That the connection isn't intended? Well, yes, but actually no: Ocarina of Time was intended to be a prequel to Link to the Past, which was intended to a prequel to Legend of Zelda. That was the intention. The connection was intended, unfortunately, the connection didn't happen. And judging from the following games, it seems the intention of the developers became to keep the two as unconnected as possible and to not deal with the questions of continuity it raised.

Which brings us to,
That Link can die at any point and spawn a new timeline? Well, that relies on interpreting things that aren't explicitly stated.
Explicitly stated: The downfall timeline is one in which the Hero of Time is defeated.
Interpretation: The downfall timeline is caused by the Hero of Time being defeated.
There's other interpretations. I doubt anything will ever be confirmed regarding this and I doubt the developers have any hard answers. But the important part is, the hard answer isn't, "Link died, and that's what caused it". In fact, him dying to Ganondorf isn't even stated anywhere iirc.

 

[Hailinel]

The timeline spun out as a natural consequence of the extension of the timeline via prequels, with a consequential prequel being one that explicitly involves time travel. Time travel always makes things more complex when you dig into the aspects of multiple timelines, which were made explicit through Wind Waker and Twilight Princess branching off from the timeline split Ocarina of Time introduced.

Is the Downfall timeline's existence goofy? Yes, but it's no goofier than the existence of a timeline where the "averted" future turns into a flooded Hyrule where the Zora evolved into land-dwelling birds.

 

[Clov]

They did not intend to set the original LoZ and LttP in an alternate universe where Link died. The Downfall Timeline is a retroactive explanation. Plenty of folks call it goofy, I think it's fine. There's plenty of Alternate Universe storytelling across sci-fi and fantasy media.

Is there a world that takes place if Link dies in any game? Sure, but they haven't set any games in those alternate worlds. Nothing stops them from doing that. Give me a game set in a world where the Moon fell in Termina.

Yes, they certainly didn't intend it. It is retroactive, and as an idea, I think it's bad. A whole set of games that only take place after an event that only occurs if you get a game over? Glad that you're a fan, but I'm not!

I'm doing my best to parse the argument that's being made here.
That the connection is goofy? Yes, obviously, because it was the developers trying to write themselves out of a continuity problem. It's an attempt to fix a plot hole, and that plot hole was necessary because it would have been fundamentally unsatisfying from a story perspective to play the backstory of Link to the Past exactly as described.
That the connection isn't intended? Well, yes, but actually no: Ocarina of Time was intended to be a prequel to Link to the Past, which was intended to a prequel to Legend of Zelda. That was the intention. The connection was intended, unfortunately, the connection didn't happen. And judging from the following games, it seems the intention of the developers became to keep the two as unconnected as possible and to not deal with the questions of continuity it raised.

Which brings us to,
That Link can die at any point and spawn a new timeline? Well, that relies on interpreting things that aren't explicitly stated.
Explicitly stated: The downfall timeline is one in which the Hero of Time is defeated.
Interpretation: The downfall timeline is caused by the Hero of Time being defeated.
There's other interpretations. I doubt anything will ever be confirmed regarding this and I doubt the developers have any hard answers. But the important part is, the hard answer isn't, "Link died, and that's what caused it". In fact, him dying to Ganondorf isn't even stated anywhere iirc.

You're doing your best, yet you're writing paragraphs to in response to a very simple statement! It's frankly very easy to parse. You've even acknowledged it yourself here; the idea that the NES Zelda takes place in a world where OoT Link died is silly. It's very easy to parse if you simply read the statement for what it is!

Instead of that, what you seem to be doing is "Oh, if you think that, you must think this!" "Well technically the Hero of Time being defeated doesn't mean he died!" "Actually it HAD to be like this", and all sorts of silly things. All this spin, and for what? I think it would be a better look to simply embrace the fact that it's dumb and doesn't make much sense and leave it at that!

 

[Deleted member 2181]

"Well technically the Hero of Time being defeated doesn't mean he died!"

Nope, I'm saying we don't know why that split exists in-universe. We only know he was defeated in it, that's it.
They never gave an explicit explanation, and unlike the other two timelines, we didn't essentially see it come into existence at the end of Ocarina of Time.


Further, saying things like "you're doing your best" is pretty insulting. That's been a pretty consistent tone in your responses to me, I don't know if that's intentional or not, conscious or not. In an effort to head off further condescension from you, I'd ask you to at least reflect on a simple point:
Three different people, not just me, responded to your post with the same (mis)understanding. Clearly your statement wasn't as easy to parse as you thought it was.

 

[Clov]

Nope, I'm saying we don't know why that split exists in-universe. We only know he was defeated in it, that's it.
They never gave an explicit explanation, and unlike the other two timelines, we didn't essentially see it come into existence at the end of Ocarina of Time.


Further, saying things like "you're doing your best" is pretty insulting. That's been a pretty consistent tone in your responses to me, I don't know if that's intentional or not, conscious or not. In an effort to head off further condescension from you, I'd ask you to at least reflect on a simple point:
Three different people, not just me, responded to your post with the same (mis)understanding. Clearly your statement wasn't as easy to parse as you thought it was.

I am quoting your own words! I don't know why you are interpreting this as an insult.

I'm doing my best to parse the argument that's being made here.

Three people, including yourself, have not misunderstood my words. Three people have tried to argue against a very simple statement. I'll post it again!

It seems like a silly way to connect the games to each other after the fact.

I stand by this, and nothing I've seen has convinced me otherwise. You even acknowledged it yourself... but kept going for some reason.

 

[RealUncleNintendo]

I always see each entry as it’s own thing. Not really bothered by the time line and connection to other games. Always thought each game had its own story and they just redid it for the next entry.

 

[Phosphorescent Skeleton]

I don't think the Zelda games have much in thr way of plot, has always felt like a very minor aspect of the series. Don't see any necessity to connect them with a timeline, just seems like a huge waste of brainspace.

 

[Deleted member 2181]

I stand by this, and nothing I've seen has convinced me otherwise. You even acknowledged it yourself... but kept going for some reason.

I mean, nobody has argued that it isn't "goofy".
It just seemed that you thought that because it was stupid that meant it wasn't "real".

My remaining objection here is,
The thing you, specifically, are arguing is stupid, is a fan theory. The theory that the downfall timeline exists because Link is defeated is a fan theory, just like the idea that Link is dead in Majora's Mask, or that Link is in a simulation in Breath of the Wild.
Is it stupid? Yeah, kinda, in a way. I don't care, because I think it's better than having a weird plothole between Ocarina and Link to the Past, and it's better that they fuck up the timeline than make bad games.
If I DID care? I'd just subscribe to a different theory. There's plenty of other ones out there. The point is, the Zelda team have not explained it. They've just told you that that branch exists.

 

[Phosphorescent Skeleton]

I mean, nobody has argued that it isn't "goofy".
It just seemed that you thought that because it was stupid that meant it wasn't "real"

It isn't real, a writer made it up. And its stupid, not worth thinking about or acknowledging.

 

[Common Knowledge]

As someone with just a passing interest in the Zelda games' overarching timeline, I will say the people who shit on the the mere concept of people enjoying there being such a thing have far surpassed the timeline enthusiasts in their annoyance and smugness. Like several times over.

 

[Clov]

I mean, nobody has argued that it isn't "goofy".
It just seemed that you thought that because it was stupid that meant it wasn't "real".

My remaining objection here is,
The thing you, specifically, are arguing is stupid, is a fan theory. The theory that the downfall timeline exists because Link is defeated is a fan theory, just like the idea that Link is dead in Majora's Mask, or that Link is in a simulation in Breath of the Wild.
Is it stupid? Yeah, kinda, in a way. I don't care, because I think it's better than having a weird plothole between Ocarina and Link to the Past, and it's better that they fuck up the timeline than make bad games.
If I DID care? I'd just subscribe to a different theory. There's plenty of other ones out there. The point is, the Zelda team have not explained it. They've just told you that that branch exists.

I have acknowledged that it's "real". Look at my very first post in this thread, where I outright said that it's the official "theory", as in the official explanation. I'm not sure WHY you have made these kind of assumptions. Plenty of things can be real and also very, very stupid.

You're saying here that the idea that the NES Zelda happens because the hero is defeated is stupid, and I agree! But the Hyrule Historia says that the game happens if "The hero is defeated". I guess you can spin that any number of ways, but one seems the most obvious.

You're also saying now that you don't care if it's stupid. I find this hard to believe after all of this, all starting from a very basic statement.

Is there any point in continuing?

 

[MondoMega]

The fallen timeline branch is very silly; I don’t really see the harm in acknowledging that. There are an infinite number of ways they could’ve justified fitting the 2D games into the Child Timeline if they needed to fit it in somewhere. Even a third branch that isn’t the result of something so ridiculous sounding would be better if we really need an official timeline.

You’re fooling yourself if you think they had the timeline totally figured out at any point before Skyward Sword outside of certain obvious connections. They didn’t even have the timeline figured out then because after Hyrule Historia they decided to reverse the order of the Oracle games and Link Awakening; they’ve already retconned it! There’s also the fact that before they made a conscious decision to limit the story content of the game, Four Swords Adventures featured dialogue that firmly placed it after A Link to the Past; and now the two aren’t even in the same timeline at all.

The best decision they’ve made with the timeline recently is to forego it entirely for Breath of the Wild. It takes place nowhere in the timeline but also after every branch. That’s perfect seeing as it combines so many elements that only exist in some of the branches; it’s great that they don’t feel like limiting themselves even after establishing a “solid” timeline with Skyward Sword.

The thing you, specifically, are arguing is stupid, is a fan theory. The theory that the downfall timeline exists because Link is defeated is a fan theory

Damn, if Nintendo didn’t want people to think Link was defeated they probably shouldn’t be calling the timeline branch “The Hero is Defeated” on their official Zelda site. Massive blunder if true.

 

[Deleted member 2181]

You're saying here that the idea that the NES Zelda happens because the hero is defeated is stupid, and I agree! But the Hyrule Historia says that the game happens if "The hero is defeated". I guess you can spin that any number of ways, but one seems the most obvious.

It's the most obvious, I agree but it's not explicit. A little while ago I even googled, "why does the downfall timeline exist", which led me to endless threads on r/truezelda where the consensus seems to be, "we don't know in-universe/they're trying to fix a plot hole out-universe".
So my understanding - and I haven't read Hyrule Historia, I'll confess - is that it's officially unexplained.

 

[Phosphorescent Skeleton]

It's the most obvious, I agree but it's not explicit. A little while ago I even googled, "why does the downfall timeline exist", which led me to endless threads on r/truezelda where the consensus seems to be, "we don't know in-universe/they're trying to fix a plot hole out-universe".
So my understanding - and I haven't read Hyrule Historia, I'll confess - is that it's officially unexplained.

 

[Deleted member 2181]

You’re fooling yourself if you think they had the timeline totally figured out at any point before Skyward Sword outside of certain obvious connections.

I mean, maybe not totally, but Aonuma was talking about a split timeline back in the Twilight Princess days. I think they always had a vague idea of where a game would go, and they hit a snag when Ocarina didn't fit where it was supposed to, and, crucially, they didn't actually fix that snag. That doesn't mean, "oh they had no idea all along", it just means, they messed up.

 

[Luneth]

I have to say that I loved the story of BotW, but only when I started to read documents and talk with NPC's. The backstory of Zelda and her evolution in her behaviour to Link, and how they, for once, decided to use the knowledge about previous conflicts to anticipate the enemy and just got wasted is amazing and feel fresh in the series to me, a nice turn to the classic "hero who doesn't know yet he is the hero awakes". And the characters felt more real to me than in any other Zelda game.

I don't know why people keep saying the game has no story when imo is the one which kept me more engaged with discovering the plot. And has a lot of hints to past games. That moment with the sword in the last memory hit me hard in the feels.

We know that playability always comes first, but I think they care a lot about the story and its links to all the other games in the series. You just have to look for it.

 

[Clov]

It's the most obvious, I agree but it's not explicit. A little while ago I even googled, "why does the downfall timeline exist", which led me to endless threads on r/truezelda where the consensus seems to be, "we don't know in-universe/they're trying to fix a plot hole out-universe".
So my understanding - and I haven't read Hyrule Historia, I'll confess - is that it's officially unexplained.

Unfortunately, as Mondo has pointed out above, it is not unexplained. It's not just the Hyrule Historia; it's on the official website! The official explanation is in fact, Link is defeated in OoT which leads to the NES Zelda.

 

[Derachi]

the most outlandish Zelda theory is that there is an actual “Zelda timeline” or that the developers care about that at all

 

[Tye]

The fallen timeline branch is very silly; I don’t really see the harm in acknowledging that. There are an infinite number of ways they could’ve justified fitting the 2D games into the Child Timeline if they needed to fit it in somewhere. Even a third branch that isn’t the result of something so ridiculous sounding would be better if we really need an official timeline.

You’re fooling yourself if you think they had the timeline totally figured out at any point before Skyward Sword outside of certain obvious connections. They didn’t even have the timeline figured out then because after Hyrule Historia they decided to reverse the order of the Oracle games and Link Awakening; they’ve already retconned it! There’s also the fact that before they made a conscious decision to limit the story content of the game, Four Swords Adventures featured dialogue that firmly placed it after A Link to the Past; and now the two aren’t even in the same timeline at all.

The best decision they’ve made with the timeline recently is to forego it entirely for Breath of the Wild. It takes place nowhere in the timeline but also after every branch. That’s perfect seeing as it combines so many elements that only exist in some of the branches; it’s great that they don’t feel like limiting themselves even after establishing a “solid” timeline with Skyward Sword.

It may be a bit silly but it works surprisingly well, and that’s what matters. As others have said here, OoT was always meant to be a prequel to ALttP, but in the end the OoT’s story took a different direction that diverged from the backstory told in ALttP, which is what necessitated the Downfall Timeline in the first place. Sure, they could have done it another way…but I’m not sure what that would have been when the explanation given with the Downfall Timeline already works out so well. Basically, for OoT to still act as a prequel to ALttP, Link has to fail somehow, or another game has to take the place of OoT as ALttP’s prequel.

And as for the timeline having not been established from the beginning, that’s simply not the case for the majority of Zelda games. Prior to the full official timeline being revealed in the Hyrule Historia, the following timeline threads were all pretty much already 100% confirmed around the release of each respective game:

/—TWW/PH—ST​

SS—TMC—FS—OoT

\MM—TP​

OoT—???—ALttP/LA—TLoZ/TAoL

The only games that were really in question were OoS/OoA, which were likely not made with an exact timeline placement in mind in the first place given they were developed by a third party (and that might explain why Nintendo has already slightly changed their timeline placement once, because it was probably never set in stone to begin with), and FSA, which as you mentioned was very likely meant to be a prequel to ALttP (and was probably going to be the original plan of fixing the connection between OoT and ALttP) before its story was cut back and heavily altered.

I also don’t expect BotW’s current timeline “placement” to stand; I think TotK may make it clear which timeline it and BotW take place on and that’ll be reflected on the official timeline in time. I could be wrong there, but I think Nintendo may have just wanted to be vague about BotW to build up mystery and all, and it could also be that they just haven’t settled on exactly which timeline it’ll take place in; after all, there’s a massive 10,000+ year gap between it and the previous Zelda games, so an explanation could be made for any timeline, really, and maybe they just didn’t want to box themselves into any particular one too soon, especially if they were always intending to make a sequel (which I wouldn’t be surprised if that was the case, since it just makes sense to get more use out of the massive world that they already created for BotW). And most of the callbacks to past games across different timelines in BotW (like minor location names and such) are just that; callbacks, and are easy to explain away as just being simple references.

I dunno, I’m just someone who very much appreciates the timeline and loves that it exists. Knowing all these games are connected in the way they are makes the whole series a lot more interesting to me.

 

[Derachi]

How can Link be dead in Majora’s mask he runs around??? You can’t run if dead that’s just logic.

 

[Rareware]

Not sure if it's canon or a fan theory, but I loved that thing how the knight in Twilight Princess who teaches you skills is supposed to be the OoT Link after he passed away.

It is canon. He is the Hero of Time. And he lived a life of regret after saving Hyrule and never being recognized for his heroic deeds. It’s confirmed in Hyrule Historia.

 

[Serif]

the most outlandish Zelda theory is that there is an actual “Zelda timeline” or that the developers care about that at all

This is just incorrect as explained by the other posts in this thread.

 

[Phosphorescent Skeleton]

This is just incorrect as explained by the other posts in this thread.

Nah, its true.

 

[Rareware]

I don’t know what’s worse. People being offended over Nintendo making an official Zelda timeline or people outright hating the existence of Achievements and Trophies. The existence of all of which can literally just be ignored if you so choose. Let us who enjoy these have our dessert. You don’t have to partake.

 

[Serif]

Nah, its true.

Others have already explained the intended continuity between specific games. Continuity that is either explicitly verified in the games' text, or discussed by the developers themselves.

Both of these work against the idea that there is 'no timeline' and that the developers 'don't care'. Not prioritizing != not caring at all.

If you think the whole idea is a waste of brainspace, stupid, and not worth considering - as indicated by your earlier posts in the thread - then there's nothing I can do to convince you, specifically.

 

[Phosphorescent Skeleton]

Others have already explained the intended continuity between specific games. Continuity that is either explicitly verified in the games' text, or discussed by the developers themselves.

Both of these work against the idea that there is 'no timeline' and that the developers 'don't care'. Not prioritizing != not caring at all.

If you think the whole idea is a waste of brainspace, stupid, and not worth considering - as indicated by your earlier posts in the thread - then there's nothing I can do to convince you, specifically.

Well, I still don't think they care. Its just Link saving Zelda from Ganon everytime, this ain't exactly In Search of Lost Time. Hell, it ain't even Dragon Ball.

 

[Serif]

Well, I still don't think they care. Its just Link saving Zelda from Ganon everytime, this ain't exactly In Search of Lost Time. Hell, it ain't even Dragon Ball.

... do you think that I think these video game plots are comparable to novel or television stories?

Why does saying "these games are connected to each other" suddenly imply I think these are long-spanning epics with taut writing and numerous plot threads? Even the Mega Man and Castlevania games have continuity, and we all know their plots boil down to "Dracula/Wily is back, beat him".

We already know the developers prioritize gameplay and world design first. But if they truly did not care about continuity, they would not make explicit connections in the story of these games and then explain these connections in interviews. That is all I mean.

 

[7threst]

Well, I still don't think they care. Its just Link saving Zelda from Ganon everytime, this ain't exactly In Search of Lost Time. Hell, it ain't even Dragon Ball.

There of course wasn't a timeline to begin with seeing how LoZ was like Miyamoto's childhood in game form with the cave exploring and stuff. But I definitely believe Nintendo had at least some timeline and continuity in pace. Even in Zelda II. You can't keep up a series like this where it's constantly the same hero and the same world and the same princess and the same tri force and the same godessess etc etc and reinvent it from the ground up every game.

 

[Phosphorescent Skeleton]

You can't keep up a series like this where it's constantly the same hero and the same world and the same princess and the same tri force and the same godessess etc etc and reinvent it from the ground up every game.

You say they can't do that, and yet thats what they do almost everytime