IGN posted an article that shows us the official Legend of Zelda Timeline. There was a blog about this a few days ago but it was not confimed. IGN says that it has been confirmed so I guess thats by Nintendo, so yeah after all of this time there it is!

Here is the article.

Thats pretty cool and a bit complicated.

This is supremely dumb- Ganon is revived/defeated/executed/reincarnated like a dozen times. It's a pretty awful retcon.

Next, Mario Bros. The people need to know!

@TooWalrus said:

This is supremely dumb- Ganon is revived/defeated/executed/reincarnated like a dozen times. It's a pretty awful retcon.

They explain all of this in Skyward Sword.

@DeeGee said:

@TooWalrus said:

This is supremely dumb- Ganon is revived/defeated/executed/reincarnated like a dozen times. It's a pretty awful retcon.

They explain all of this in Skyward Sword.

They explain all the post-Ocarina of Time parallel dimensions stuff? They're trying to convince us that they've had this planned all along, but I feel that if the convoluted way that A Link to the Past is tied to an un-successful play-through of Ocarina of Time was part of the plan, they would have mentioned that at some point before now. No, I think that's just an awful, unnecessary retcon (though all of the new pre-Ocarina Ganon origin stuff is just fine- I haven't been able to play Skyward Sword quite yet.)

That's confusing. So the timeline depends on whether or not the Hero of Time succeeds? I guess my personal timeline is the Hero of Time failure. I played the game to the end, but I never actually beat Ganon. My adolescent fingers couldn't take him down.

Even though I'm wearing a Zelda t-shirt as I type this sentence, this chart pretty much explains why I'll never get into the lore of the universe(s).

Why did they bother? I mean didn't everyone assume that the Zelda games were largely unrelated to one another in terms of chronology and only partially by universe?

Who created heaven and Earth? Is there a God in the Zelda series? 
These are questions the people need to know!

It exists because die hard Zelda fans have probably been talking about it for 20 years.

I don't like the idea of a third split.

Having an alternate timeline after Link was sent back in time makes sense, but how does the "Link dies" timeline come about? If we're just getting arbitrary alternate dimensions, what's to say the next game won't come out because Windwaker Link forgot to brush his teeth one day? Surely it means there can be any number of alternate versions now, making the whole idea of a timeline pointless.

Anyone hear anything if this book will be translated officially? I would love to have this book around, not only for the timeline stuff but for other cool facts like naming conventions etc. I really wish the Xenogears: Perfect Works was officially translated but never was..

@Vegetable_Side_Dish said:

Who created heaven and Earth? Is there a God in the Zelda series? These are questions the people need to know!

I pretty sure Ocarina of time explains this at the very beginning of that game. There is a whole sequence talking about Din, Nayru, and Farore making Hyrule.

@Inkerman said:

Why did they bother? I mean didn't everyone assume that the Zelda games were largely unrelated to one another in terms of chronology and only partially by universe?

Not really, you get little hints from past games in every new Zelda. Like the story of the hero of time disappearing at the beginning of Wind Waker or the spirit that trains Link in Twilight Princess, who one assumes is the Link from OoT.

@WinterSnowblind said:

I don't like the idea of a third split.

Having an alternate timeline after Link was sent back in time makes sense, but how does the "Link dies" timeline come about? If we're just getting arbitrary alternate dimensions, what's to say the next game won't come out because Windwaker Link forgot to brush his teeth one day? Surely it means there can be any number of alternate versions now, making the whole idea of a timeline pointless.

I think it's the only way they could make it work. You'll notice that all the games on that particular timeline are from the NES/SNES/GB era -- it's probably safe to assume that they'd only started to think about how they were all connected toward the end of that. So while all the others can fit together nice and neatly, they decided they weren't going to try to shoehorn the older games into a timeline that can't properly support them and made them part of a "Ganon succeeded" timeline instead. Really, I think a "Ganon succeeded" timeline is an acceptable branch. It's not really all that arbitrary, as it splits from one of the most important points in the timeline, where the major villain makes his appearance and rises to power. Hardly as random and arbitrary as "Link forgot to brush his teeth." Could they possibly abuse this in the future? Yeah, undoubtedly. But at least it gives them options, and as long as the games continue to be good, I honestly don't care if the timeline is a bit wonky. It doesn't hurt anything by existing, after all.

@BoG said:

That's confusing. So the timeline depends on whether or not the Hero of Time succeeds? I guess my personal timeline is the Hero of Time failure. I played the game to the end, but I never actually beat Ganon. My adolescent fingers couldn't take him down.

@WinterSnowblind said:

I don't like the idea of a third split.

Having an alternate timeline after Link was sent back in time makes sense, but how does the "Link dies" timeline come about? If we're just getting arbitrary alternate dimensions, what's to say the next game won't come out because Windwaker Link forgot to brush his teeth one day? Surely it means there can be any number of alternate versions now, making the whole idea of a timeline pointless.

Not quite, I'll let Maximum Taco of gamefaqs explain:

Zelda corrupted the timeline by sending Link back using the Ocarina. But 3 timelines are created based on the three travel points used in the game, 2 created by the sword and 1 by Zelda.

Time Junction 1: This is the point where the Master Sword takes Link whenever Link returns the sword to the pedestal and emerges as a child in the past. Which is after Link has met Zelda and collected the Goron's Ruby, and Zora's Sapphire, after Zelda as fled the Palace with Impa, after Link acquires the Ocarina of Time, and after Link has pulled the sword for the first time and opened the sacred realm.
Time Junction 2: This is the point seven years later where the Master Sword takes Link whenever Link draws the sword from the pedestal and emerges in the future as an adult.

Time Junction 3: This is the point Zelda sends Link to, before Link has met Zelda, before he collects the Goron's Ruby and Zora's Sapphire, before Zelda flees the Palace with Impa and before Link acquires the Ocarina.

When there was two connected Time Junctions (1 connected directly with 2, if Link disappeared from 1 he had to emerge in 2 and vice versa, he could always get to the other Junction as well, with no hindrances) there was no time travel paradoxes or discrepancies. But when Zelda creates a third junction point (and more than that a one way junction point), it removes the connections between the two Master Sword junctions. Link disappears from Junction 2 but instead of emerging in Junction 1 like he should, he emerges from Junction 3, meaning there is no Link in Junction 1 (so the events leading to ALTTP play out), and there is no Link in Junction 2 (so the events leading to WW play out), and the Link in junction 3 stops Ganondorf and leaves for Termina (so the events leading to MM and TP play out)
Since Link has no way of returning to Junction 1, the "Link Fails" timeline must occur where Link simply vanishes after pulling the Master Sword."

This is cool I guess for those that really care about the Zelda timeline. Like my crazy younger brother for example.

In GameTrailers' Legend of Zelda video retrospective years ago, they postulated a very similar "split" timeline, but only split in two (not three).

Since fans were crying out for it (and perhaps with less and less people caring about the franchise in recent years), perhaps Nintendo is throwing the timeline out now to try to get previous Zelda faithfuls interested in Skyward Sword.

@TooWalrus: Nooooooooooo really?(sarcasm)

lol

I'm totally with you on that. But hey, they gotta continue the series somehow.

Plus, they kinda(but not really) explained that in Skyward Sword. Something about Link, Zelda and Ganon are forever destined to fight to the eternity or something....

At least they justify it.

IT ALL MAKES SENSE NOW. That's pretty complicated.

@BoG said:

That's confusing. So the timeline depends on whether or not the Hero of Time succeeds? I guess my personal timeline is the Hero of Time failure. I played the game to the end, but I never actually beat Ganon. My adolescent fingers couldn't take him down.

Really? You couldn't just roll under his crotch? That's how I beat him. (Also, you have to use the Master Sword to beat him. Otherwise, the fight just goes on and on and on.)

When has Nintendo ever had good writers? Nintendo isn't paying a room full of writers to sit around, cooking up some elaborate fictional universe with an intricately detailed chronology. That takes years if you do it right (look at Tolkien), and that's not how video game fiction is created.

Each time they start creating a new Zelda, they just toss in a couple of super vague references/callbacks to other games in the series, just to keep fans happy. This timeline is a retcon, and doesn't seem any more valid than fan timelines, and it wouldn't surprise me if Nintendo forgets about this and accidentally invalidates this particular timeline within a game or two.

I still just don't get why an overall timeline matters to people. Continuity is pretty much the lowest priority in that series. Knowing how the games are ordered doesn't really inform you in any meaningful way. Each game works quite well on its own, and fills you in on enough fiction that things make sense. Even the obvious sequels (Majora's Mask to Ocarina of Time) don't really build on what was in the previous game. You could start literally anywhere in the series, and do just fine.

The series isn't going anywhere in particular. It's not going to have any final battle, anymore than Batman is ever going to suddenly conclude and just go out of print.

This timeline is crazy, it's like they just whipped it up just to have one.

I'm indifferent about the timeline, but I'm glad that they've said something about it. It is kind of cool that in this new 3rd split, where Ganon wins, Hyrule is clearly a continent in decline. The Link to the Past Hyrule is a little more backwards and run-down than Ocarina's, and it only gets more scattered and behind-the-times as that timeline goes on, to the point where the original NES games are practically wastelands.

Interesting. Didn't see the 3rd branch coming, but this is a decent way to tie the universe together. Looking forward to finding out what they do with the next game.

I don't like it. It doesn't work with the fan-fiction I was going to write.

I like the idea of a third split because nobody ever considered it. Even with thousands of fans deliberating over the timeline for over twenty years, they managed to devise a timeline that nobody could of predicted. Kudos Nintendo, you've made many fanboys squeal in agnoy this day.

For a better translated Timeline go here:

http://www.geekologie.com/2011/12/the-definitive-zelda-timeline-according.php

Shit, are we talking alternate timelines and parallel dimensions? Well, if you believe in relativity, no one event or decision can be more important than any other decision, so yes, there is an alternate timeline wherein Link doesn't brush his teeth, or doesn't get Biggoron's sword.

I HOPE WE GET TO SEE THESE WORLDS!!!

Wow, I totally missed this. Now I have the urge to go play them all in chronological order. Even more so considering I have yet to, and have been meaning to, play Skyward Swords.

Also here's a cool underrated video I found summarizing the chronology.