PixlBit

I always figured that the different Zelda games were the same story being told by different cultures, since each game has it's own style but is essentially the same plot. Having an "official" timeline takes away from the fact that the Zelda games all stand on their own and no previous experience with or knowledge of the series is necessary to be engaged in a tale that is completely self contained.

The existence of an "official" timeline doesn't bother me, but I wouldn't pay it too much mind. Nintendo didn't always have a plan to tie all the games together which is why it doesn't completely fit together. It's fan service that will serve as the basis of many a fanboy argument in the future.

Blasphemy. Link's Awakening clearly happens during Wind Waker.

I totally care about the Zelda timeline. I think Nintendo's always wanted to tie things together, but to me, makes a lot more sense. Ganon/Ganondorf has been around and defeated way too many times to be on just one timeline, so this makes sense.

Now, here's the question: Given how there's advanced technology early on in the timeline, and things seem less advanced as time progressed, which point on the timeline will Link become a space pirate of some sort?

I honestly don't see anything here that makes sense to me, and I'm a huge Zelda fan. All I see in this list is a bunch of "Ganon dies, Ganon is revived, Ganon gets sealed away, Ganon freed" Take in a deep breath and continue, "Ganon dies, Ganon revived, Ganon sealed away, Ganon freed"

I was introduced to the series with Ocarina, and when Majora's Mask's Termina and 3 Day system came along I realized that the timelines, Hyrule, and the Goddesses would no longer be any of my concern, I just love Zelda games. This attempt at a timeline is actually quite silly.

Zelda fans are one of the reasons I don't like Zelda games anymore. Sure, the first three games technically are linked, but after that it's just the same story again and again and again. Breath of Fire is the same way. Every game is about a blue-haired dragonborn named Ryu. He even encounters the same party members.

If Nintendo made these games different from one another, I might care more. Or if they rebooted and made each game a new adventure in the same Link's life, I might care. But they won't, so I don't.

Julian, I have one response:

LIIIIIIINK IIIIIIIIN SPAAAAAAAAACE!

You jest, but a futuristic Zelda done with a Phantasy Star aesthetic would be infinitely more interesting than another retread.

I always thought the Zelda games were all sequels and were done hundreds of years after the previous game's plot. It wasn't until I saw the AVGN video that I was even aware there was a timeline.

There's no timeline! It's like Nick said in this blog: this is all Nintendo mashing things together that weren't planned to go together because the fans think it's this big epic universe. It's not. The first game barely had a story. Back then, the concept of creating backstory and leaving hooks for sequels just wasn't there. As much as Konami tries to integrate those earlier Castlevania stories into the canon, you can pretty much throw out anything pre-SotN. I feel it's the same for Zelda, except you can throw out anything post-Link to the Past.

I honestly don't care if there is a timeline or not. Although I do find it interesting on how Nintendo is tying it all together. As long as they make great games, then I will continue to enjoy the series.

LIIIIIIINK IIIIIIIIN SPAAAAAAAAACE!

I second this idea.

Really? You Like that idea? Remember FF VIII IIIIIIIIN SPAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAACE and how much that sucked?

More importantly, apparently Link bit it at some point in Ocarina of Time. I have no memory of this. I remember being adult Link and baby Link, but not dead Link. Maybe he left that Re-dead mask on too long in Majora's Mask?

I agree, this is stupid. This shouldn't be cannon at all. You can't count a friggin Game Over screen as cannon when all you have to to is hit Continue