Well, Cred Forums, you can make a chronology better than this?

>first third of the entire game

Have you actually played Majora's Mask?

MM is Aonuma's worst 3D Zelda

This theory died with Link's Awakening and you know it

Oh it's fine to have one sequel like Link's Awakening, Majora's Mask, Spirit Tracks and whatnot. But basically anything involving Ganon is that same tale.

Don't care if Miyamoto caved to shitty fan theories, I don't believe in a Zelda timeline.

This theory was always the worst and 99% of my hate for it comes from my retard friend who would always correct people and spout it as fact, like he was some genius.

It was proven false.

So you're basically a flat-earther.

Just curious, but is there any fanbase that openly denies canon material the way the Zelda fanbase does

For an ultimately meaningless piece of entertainment media--yes I am because that's what allows me to enjoy it.

not really, i started it and immediately stopped because i disliked the combat. i asked here how long link would be in that form and another user said about 1/3rd of the game. i haven't bothered picking it back up

>Timeline ruins his enjoyment of the Zelda series

Exactly how does Wind Waker being a sequel to OoT negatively impact the experience?

How does it positively impact the experience?

Yeah, put Link Between Worlds in Child rather than Decline.

Adds a sense of attachment when the player sees Hyrule underwater and adds context to Ganondorf's actions in the game

Fucking this.
If anyone thinks it's the best one go shoot yourself. You're not fit to pass your genes on

The "canon" timeline killed any interest I had in Zelda lore.
I used to love theorycrafting with my friends about this shit, trying to connect the games in various ways and arguing why this is true and that is just a reference or if there's even connections in all of them.
My main gripe with it is there's a "fail" option in OOT.
If you, the player, lose in OOT, you die, there is no separate world that happens, no story.
You don't even get a "well you fucked up retard, now Ganon wins" screen, just a fucking death/gameover and have to try again.
One of my favorite things to talk about with OOT with respect to the timeline is how you have to travel in time in order to SUCCEED, not to lose.
If Link lost, in one of my headcanons, you just pull some time-magic and go back to when Link was alive, and now you "know" how to NOT play that fight.
If Link could fail in OOT, then where's all the scenarios where Link fails in literally every other game?
What happen when Link loses in OOA, or OOS? Those both have huge scenarios where if you lose it means world changing, and more interesting effects than "well fuck Ganon took over". Or what if you fail with Ganon in the Triwnrova plot, that's heaps more interesting than Ganon winning in OOT.
I don't really care what they do with the other two timelines, but the "fail" timeline just triggers me so fucking hard. Not even a smack in the face of the palyers, they took a damn tire iron through their skulls.

You're a deku only for maybe your first sitting, that if you're slow at the game.

This is damn good

The truth is a massive amount of fans can't digest the fact a timeline imply the defeat of Link aka the defeat of the player
That's all

>waah, I don't like the timeline because I can't tolerate the concept of losing

The whole third line is what got me to buy into the multiple timelines at all. It gives an even greater weight to the victories because there is an alternative to "the good guys always win." And even in the "Bad End" line, the heroes continue to struggle for a better tomorrow.

I don't get to post this enough

There is no timeline and the games don't link. Each version of Link is different and in no way related to any other Link.

Anything else is retarded and wrong.

It's not about losing.
It's about there not being ANYTHING in the game to even hint that there's a scenario where you could have lost.
They literally put that timeline for no good reason and nothing in the game gives any validity to it.
It's "you lost because I said so".
It's worse than retcons, it's worse than out-of-game lore, it's hamfisted and half assed.
They didn't even release a new version of OOT to add any implication that the defeat timeline could possibly be true.

>I haven't played this game so I'll just parrot what literally one other user said to me as the authoritative opinion
How much of a fucking faggot are you?

>It's about there not being ANYTHING in the game to even hint that there's a scenario where you could have lost.
What about every time you get a game over?

Like for real I don't care about any of this timeline wanking but it's not that hard to grasp.

Right, you get a game over.
You don't get anything saying "Ganon wins", you don't get any cutscene like in Metroid Prime 3, you don't get a dialogue in a black screen (or maybe with that fire effect) telling you how Ganon fucked up Hyrule.
It's just "game over" and you try again.
Nothing to validate there being any kind of world or timeline after your death.
This split only happened in OOT, and that's entirely because it's the most popular.
This split doesn't happen with ANY of the other games, yet you can "game over" in all of them too.

>Getting a GAME OVER screen
>Implying I have die in a Zelda

Look at this scrubs and laugh

Attachment to what? Hyrule?

It's much more interesting that a tropical islander culture tells the story that way because it's what they know.

>the only Zelda game that had implications of a Game Over timeline is shoved into the box of games Aonuma hates timeline that resulted from Link getting a Game Over in OoT
>the Zelda game that will never get a sequel in any way shape or form

It's like pottery

>This split only happened in OOT, and that's entirely because it's the most popular.

This.

You don't see ALttP timeline split with the dark world's future. You don't see Link's Awakening timeline split with Koholint still existing.

>MFW I just pretend there is no direct relation between any of the games and enjoy them anyways

If Wind Waker were the first Zelda game ever made, nobody would give a fuck seeing Hyrule washed away at the end

>This split only happened in OOT, and that's entirely because it's the most popular.
>This split doesn't happen with ANY of the other games, yet you can "game over" in all of them too.

Not having any games set in those timelines is not the same as those timelines not existing, user.

Why do the titles for NES and NES2 look so good
I think the squiqly handwriting and hard font capture the innocence and adventure of the two games

That's like saying
>mfw I just pretend the sky is green and the earth is flat and enjoy life anyways.

I mean, great, but why would you bother posting something that makes you look retarded?

What was Ganon's reasoning in WW anyways
I forgot because of how rad that fight was

>implying the shitty, tenuous, largely implied connections between most of the Zelda games is the same as something that the vast majority of the world agrees on

haha you got me

Fair enough.
So what evidence is there that there are any other timelines that just don't have a game?
OOA had two timelines, yet it only funneled into one timeline.
Why is that?
What if you failed in OOA, what happens there? Where is literally anything that shows, or even hints, that you failing means the time goes on?
Why is OOT the only game where a split, any number of splits, happens?
OOA and OOT are basically the same time shenanigans, yet one has 3 paths and the nother has one path.

>rad

>So what evidence is there that there are any other timelines that just don't have a game?

You said it yourself -- Nintendo says failing causes timelines to split and it wouldn't make sense for OoT to be the only one.

In all forms of fiction, if there isn't official confirmation one way or another then we go with common sense. Why would I need evidence when I support your claim that OoT isn't special? It would be the person claiming that failure causes splits in OoT and OoT alone that would need evidence.

>largely implied
>literally from the writer's pen.

That's like saying you don't believe in the ending of the Lord of the Rings.

Still better than Twilight Princess' boss fight

Miyamoto didn't write OoT

not according to the historia

>In all forms of fiction, if there isn't official confirmation one way or another then we go with common sense. Why would I need evidence when I support your claim that OoT isn't special? It would be the person claiming that failure causes splits in OoT and OoT alone that would need evidence.
Except there is.
We call it "canon".
LoZ is not an rpg with varying choices, it's has specific things which are canon and which are not.
They're picking and choosing what they want in order to make an "interesting" story, completely ignoring what should happen.
As shown by the canon timeline, there are NO splits aside from OOT, and for every reason OOT splits, OOA should split too.

Oracles are literally prequels to Link's Awakening, it's a no brainer.

I'm not sure what you meant by that shitpost, but Zelda writing is a group effort, and the group officially approved the timeline they presented.

oracles should still be in their real placement

in the box could be a separate timeline that goes MC -> FS -> FSA

Nostalgiafag detected

[Citation Needed]

You're a stupid faggot.

He wanted to bring back Hyrule and unflood the world.
He was a Gatsby, fighting for the past that the world has long since moved on from

>no actual justification or explanation from Aonuma or anyone else
>just "there's totally a master timeline and always has been you guys, we made a pretty picture of it so please believe us"

Tolkien is probably spinning in his grave. How can you possibly compare this half-baked drivel to the work of a man who created entirely superfluous Dwarven lineage charts purely for the sake of continuity? I'll care about the timeline when narrative connections are actually represented in the material.

>Implying WW and SS weren't based.
Get your shit together.

>Except there is.

Nintendo, as far as I'm aware, has never stated that the OoT split is the only split. Feel free to quote them if I'm wrong.

>As shown by the canon timeline, there are NO splits aside from OOT, and for every reason OOT splits, OOA should split too.

We are back to then. They have not stated that those timelines don't exist, they have just not made games set in those timelines.

If you can show me even once where Nintendo said "the OoT split is the only split" then I will 100% agree with you that their timeline is retarded -- until then they are following the exact same formula that every other series with a multiverse plot element follows: That the plot follows the interesting timelines/worlds but the many other timelines still exist in canon.

OoT so cancerous to Zelda that it literally destroyed the entire timeline.

Ocarina of Time Final Boss:
>almost pitch-black
>facing off against a terrifying behemoth who is only visible by its silhouette and malevolently glowing eyes
>enclosed by a ring of raging fire
>does not sound fucking constipated

Twilight Princess Boss Fight:
>brightly lit
>facing off against a constipated manlet
>enclosed by a wall of yellow shit???? seriously wtf is this
>sounds constipated as fuck

Explain why anybody enjoys this edgy piece of shit.

It's not like I'm saying it's good writing, I'm not even saying you should care about the timeline. I'm saying that you have brain problems if, like , you have to pretend that Nintendo never said anything about the timeline in order to enjoy the games.

>They have not stated that those timelines don't exist, they have just not made games set in those timelines.
That's a bulshit argument nd you know it.
We haven't seen Captain America in any of the games, but that doesn't mean he doesn't exist?
Or the Hulk?
Hell, we haven't seen Obama in the games either, does that mean he eixists there too?
If it's not either stated as such or shown in games/books/media, then it's not canon.
Plain and simple.
>If you can show me even once where Nintendo said "the OoT split is the only split" then I will 100% agree with you that their timeline is retarded -- until then they are following the exact same formula that every other series with a multiverse plot element follows: That the plot follows the interesting timelines/worlds but the many other timelines still exist in canon.
The timeline map is all I need.
There is NOTHiNG leading away from any of the games, no lines indicating other timelines.
The only canon timelines we know about are those leading to other games.
Show me ONE canon timeline hat doesn't lead to a game. Until then, the idea that there are other timelines that just don't happen to be set in a game is a theory at best.

>I'm saying that you have brain problems if, like , you have to pretend that Nintendo never said anything about the timeline in order to enjoy the games.

What's wrong with denying truth in order to enjoy one's self? Never played pretend?

I never even finished Twilight Princess, it was pretty boring imo and I hated every single wolf portion. The new one looks pretty fun though, I have to say.

I wrote both of those posts. I don't "have" to ignore them, I just choose to because I don't think that slapping the games on a page with no justification improves the experience in any way. If anything, I think it makes the stories slightly worse. It's not like it's some barrier to my enjoyment, don't be a sperg.

>The person who publicly posts about how he sticks his fingers in his ears going "I can't hear you, I can't hear you" is accusing me of being a sperg.

It's not like you said something sensible, like "I enjoy the series more when I ignore the timeline." I might enjoy life more believing the earth is flat, but I wouldn't publicly say so.

Reminder that Minish Cap is the best 2D Zelda and Twilight Princess is the best 3D Zelda

>How to give away you're underage: the post

You're a Deku for like, an hour (if you're slow) at the beginning of the game, and then off/on for the Swamp which is the second shortest area in the game, after the Bay. It's like, 1/8th of the game ~maybe~.

>Ocarina of Time Final Boss:>almost pitch-black>facing off against a terrifying behemoth who is only visible by its silhouette and malevolently glowing eyes>enclosed by a ring of raging fire>does not sound fucking constipated
Play the remake, none of this is truth

Why would anyone play a remake when the original was the way it was intended?

I wasn't talking about the remake, buddy :^)
What else did it fuck up?

To be fair, it did fix the Water Temple.

>the first games are at the end

How else would you explain everything being in a post apocalyptic and desolate state compared to other games?

>To be fair, it did fix the Water Temple.

All it did was add a new camera pan to a commonly missed key.

It also allowed you to equip the iron boots to a button so you didn't have to bring up the pause menu every time you wanted to sink or float.

That doesn't affect the temple's difficulty. Link's Awakening has you enter the menu constantly and it's a better game than OoT.

Shitty graphics.

I never said it affected the temple's difficulty, jackass.

>any Zelda better than the first 3D Zelda ever made

You're right. It doesn't affect the temple's difficulty. It affects the sheer frustration that is generated while playing the game.

>frustration

Stop getting mad at video games then.

>That doesn't affect the temple's difficulty.

No, but it affects the Temple's enjoyability.
It's an entire Temple dedicated to the worst "swimming" in the entire series.

> Link's Awakening has you enter the menu constantly

Yes, a crippling flaw of older handheld Zeldas.

>and it's a better game than OoT.

Nah.

ALttP and LA arguably hold up far better than OoT simply because it was the first 3D Zelda.

I don't understand what people see in OoT nowadays.

It was amazing when it was released because it was incredibly hyped and nobody had ever played anything like it. But now it's just an easy and slow exploration game with occasional odd map design and the most repetitive combat in any game I've played since. Seriously, Musou titles require more involvement of the player during combat than OoT does.

So why do you all defend it?

>stop having any emotional response at all to video games
>literally just push buttons until you get to the end

Negative emotional responses are the mark of an amateur. Learn from mistakes instead of getting mad, like chess or backgammon pros do.

Oh sorry I forgot, Zelda is hardly a game because it's impossible to lose.

>Titles proceed as normal until OoT.
>Split timeline occurs, however only into TP and WW
>The older, original games are their own continuity entirely, thereby eliminating the "failure timeline"

I don't know what they were thinking with that third timeline.

fuck you and kys already

I dont get why Nintendo felt the need to add a timeline.
I mean isnt the point of a Legend being a vague story retold over and over with slight variations? Why couldnt the idea behind Zelda being just that?

>kys

Who?

>It was amazing when it was released
Thats why
Imagine being a Zelda fan in the game playing all the 2D Zelda game then playing the very first 3D one.
It was a perfect transfer and was a pinnacle for Zelda for its time. The game has aged, but it can still be respected for that reason

>trying to create a timeline for a franchise that had literally no intention of creating an actual chronology

Most of Zelda is the same legend told and retold. It changes with the world and the times but it's the same legend at its core.

The Legend of Zelda is literally that.
A legend.

You're playing fiction within fiction.

The Hero of Time has other legends, but there is one main legend that all the people know him for, and that's the legend that gets retold across the ages.

There is no Zelda timeline.

I don't even like Zelda and I was able to figure this shit out. Why can't Zelda fans do it?

Fucking this.
Same goes with Mad Max.

>>trying to create a timeline for a franchise that had literally no intention of creating an actual chronology
Said no one ever, not even the developers themselves.

>nearly the entire franchise is a lot of rehashed ideas and themes and plotlines
>no real signs at a chronology outside of isolated direct sequels to specific games
>chronology only publicized after years and years of fans clamoring for one
Yeah, Miyamoto definitely had it all planned out.

Next you'll tell me Final Fantasy has a chronological order.

>Majora/Twilight interpretation of OoT ending (child Link goes back in time after defeating Ganon)
>Wind Waker interpretation of OoT ending (adult Link defeats Ganon and disappears) and it's sequels
>Everything else
Makes sense to me. The actual explanation for the third timeline is the only bullshit part. It should just be the technicality that Link has to go back in time at least one other time to complete the Spirit Temple, leaving the original timeline without Link before defeating Ganon.

I wish there was a modern game of adult link where at the end Hyrule is flooded, and works as a prequel to wind waker

So what happened when you were playing Wind Waker and went below the ocean? Did you go TRIGGERED and ignored everything until you returned to the surface?

I can't wait for Miyamoto to cave and make a Mario Historia considering all the autists who are clamoring for a Mario timeline.

Then we'll get to have this exact same thread again.

The world the legend is told in is reflected in the legend.

There's a reason the Greek gods lived on Mt. Olympus and not in Australia.

It doesn't make the legend part of the real history of the world.

If you want a real chronology, you could perhaps glean something from the world the legend takes place in, but the events explored in the legend are not real.

>it doesn't make the legend real

The difference is that in Wind Waker Zeus is chilling out in an island fortress plotting on how he can fuck the women of the world. So it's not a Legend anymore, it's fact.

Firstly I think you're losing me a bit with this extended metaphor
Secondly I don't see how that at all changes the reality of the story

We're hitting intense autism levels right now.

But Link's Awakening is a direct sequel to ALttP

It's usually better form to call a later game set before the last one a prequel rather than to call the older game a sequel.

I misread, point mostly stands. Oracles are a sequel to ALTTP and a prequel to LA.

...

Autism thread?

This...
This makes too much sense
Where does Canvas Curse fit in

I thought Oracles starred a different Link.

ALttP / Oracles / LA has the same Link

Same with Zelda

>ALttP ends with Link talking to the Triforce
>OoX opens with Link talking to the Triforce
>OoX ends with Link sailing away
>LA opens with Link caught in a storm while sailing

I remember reading somewhere that Etrian Odyssey connects to an SMT timeline somehow too.

Where does the defeat timeline fit into this

How can link win and lose at the same time

The third branch is a what-if scenario that isn't explored in Ocarina of Time itself.

The only reason it exists is because Aonuma made two direct sequels to Ocarina of Time, forgetting it was intended to be a prequel to A Link to the Past, and had to come up with an excuse to not retcon half the games out of the continuity.

Ah, okay. I thought I was missing something, but I guess not.

It's literally just an alternate universe, eh?

Because it doesn't seem fit to call it part of a "timeline" if it wasn't created by the whole time travel thing like the other 2

I agree it should be separated from OoT with a dotted line or something, but there is still a chronological 'timeline' if you follow the stories from SS to Zelda 2.

...

...

ok