For a long time, the Zelda timeline was a mystery to all gamers, with signals and pointers in various games that indicated a rough chronology. Fans of the games debated which games fitted where, and sometimes whether there was even a timeline at all! Then, in 2011 with the release of an official Zelda book (or tome judging by its size and weight), an official timeline was revealed to gamers. It turns out that the timeline didn’t have the single split that spawned two different timelines, as some had hypothesized. There were actually three branches of the timeline! However, is the timeline actually that important? And will Nintendo release an update with a definitive answer on where Breath of the Wild features in the timeline?
THIS ARTICLE CONTAINS SPOILERS
If we look at the first three Zelda games, things are pretty simple. There’s The Legend of Zelda on NES. This is followed by its direct sequel, Zelda 2: The Adventure of Link, also on NES. Then, A Link to the Past released on the SNES in 1991, which was billed as a prequel to the original Legend of Zelda (the manual for the game and Nintendo Power claimed the game was a prequel, but Shigeru Miyamoto, legendary Mario and Zelda creator, cleared any doubts on this in 1998). Link’s Awakening then released on the Game Boy in 1993. Link’s Awakening theoretically could go anywhere given its setting and ending, but it’s generally thought of as occurring directly after A Link to the Past. Now, things are fairly simple at the moment, purely because there are not many games involved. But you can already see what a convoluted mess this is going to turn out to be.
From my understanding of the early days of Zelda, Miyamoto was focused on delivering innovative, unique gameplay experiences. As time went on, Zelda picked up more and more story elements. The Zelda world itself began to have increasingly more detailed touches with each passing game, and this helped to tell the story. Yet, the story was never the primary focus of development. In a 2017 interview with IGN, Miyamoto revealed the Zelda story being not as important as gameplay.
In terms of the actual timeline, Miyamoto gave this controversial statement for the Nintendo Power Issue 116 magazine during the launch of Ocarina of Time.
“Ocarina of Time is the first story, then the original Legend of Zelda, then Zelda II: The Adventure of Link, and finally A Link to the Past. It’s not very clear where Link’s Awakening fits in–it could be anytime after Ocarina of Time.”
This caused much debate amongst fans, as A Link to the Past was thought of as a prequel. A Link to the Past released just after I was born, so I can’t confirm what the consensus was at the time firsthand, but I know of this argument from the 2008 Zelda community forum discussions. It seems possible that Nintendo of America actually got A Link to the Past’s place in the timeline wrong since Miyamoto directly contradicts Nintendo Power in the quote. Ocarina of Time is a key game in the evolution of timeline theories since it is where hypothesized splits in the timeline occur.
Splitists vs Linearists
Back in the 1990s and early 2000s, Zelda fans generally fell into one of two camps. Firstly, those that believed in a split timeline, and secondly those that believed in one linear timeline. The creation of the split was thought to have occurred at the end of Ocarina of Time when adult Link defeats Ganondorf and is sent back to his childhood. This created one reality where Ganondorf is defeated, Link has been sent back in time, and Zelda has the task of rebuilding Hyrule. The other reality is where Link is living out his childhood, with Ganondorf potentially still being a threat.
The linear timeline belief is definitely appealing at this stage, as it makes things more simple. However, a lot of evidence pointed to a split timeline, particularly when Zelda: The Wind Waker released. In this game, Ganondorf returned, having broken a seal on himself that imprisoned him in the sacred realm. This implied The Wind Waker was a sequel to Ocarina of Time and other story elements, such as the inclusion of a Great Deku Tree (which could be the Deku Sprout from Ocarina), added weight to the game being a sequel.
Official Timeline Reveal
In 2011, Hyrule Historia launched in most territories of the world. It was a large, well-presented, high-quality official book that contained a lot of new artwork, story secrets, and an official timeline. On page 69 of the book, there is a diagram showing the official canon timeline as of 2011. Zelda: Skyward Sword is the first game in the timeline. This is followed by Minish Cap, Four Swords, and then, Ocarina of Time. From Ocarina of Time, there are three branches. The Decline of Hyrule branch, where the hero is defeated, is the most surprising. Why include a scenario where the player dies in-game as a canon branch of the timeline?
I think the inclusion of this branch is for two reasons. First, it highlights the importance of Ocarina of Time to the series. And second, it allows the developers to wrap up any loose ends and create an (apparently) coherent timeline. In the “hero is defeated” branch, the games are A Link to the Past, Oracle of Seasons/Ages, Link’s Awakening, (NES) Zelda, and (NES) Zelda 2, appear in that order (please note that A Link to the Past is a prequel again).
Then, in the adult era branch (where there is originally no contemporary Link (since he has been sent back in time to live his childhood), we have Zelda: The Wind Waker, Zelda: Phantom Hourglass, and Zelda: Spirit Tracks (in that order). In this era, Ganondorf is sealed at the end of Ocarina of Time, but escapes his seal (and no Link appears), so Hyrule is flooded. Then, eventually, in Spirit Tracks, land is found, and a new society is formed.
The last branch of the timeline, the child era, is where Link has been sent back in time to live out his lost childhood. The era contains Zelda: Majora’s Mask, Zelda: Twilight Princess, and Zelda: Four Swords Adventures. This is what we know as canon up until the release of Hyrule Historia in 2011. So, that means technically, we have no confirmed place in the timeline for Zelda: A Link Between Worlds, Zelda: Breath of the Wild, and Zelda: Tears of the Kingdom. There are easter eggs and references to other games in the series in most Zelda games, even if they’re on different branches of the timeline.
This just makes things even more confusing. For example, in Skyward Sword there’s a reference to an ancient ocean (even though the game is meant to be at the start of the timeline). However, of course, this could be a different ocean from the one in The Wind Waker. Furthermore, in both Twilight Princess (with Ganondorf escaping his execution) and The Wind Waker (much of the Deku Tree backstory,) it is made clear that the games are related to, and are sequels, to Ocarina of Time. For me, the stories of Ocarina of Time and then Twilight Princess/Wind Waker are some of the best evidence for a clear timeline in the series.
Breath of the Wild and Beyond
With an official timeline release in 2011, there was initial relief that there was indeed a timeline, and that Nintendo considered these matters important in relation to The Legend of Zelda. There had always been jokes within the community that Shigeru Miyamoto or Eiji Aonuma, the lead game designer of the series, had a copy of the timeline locked deep in a vault somewhere, and only a select few would ever get to see it. Ironically, before 2011, this may not have been far from the truth.
Also around 2011, after the release of Skyward Sword, the developer announced that the next Zelda would be a revolution for the series and take the games in a new direction. This resulted in Zelda: Breath of the Wild releasing in 2017, and in terms of gameplay, Nintendo was true to its word, with the game being a seminal open world action RPG (and Nintendo’s first attempt at this kind of game). In terms of story, some would say that the game was disappointing, and the inclusion of voice acting certainly divided fans to an extent. Like many previous games in the series, the new game was full of references to previous Zelda games (with no obvious place in the timeline).
In a sequel book to Hyrule Historia, Breath of the Wild’s Master Works book, Aonuma explains that it is not specified in the game or in developer comments as to the exact position of Breath of the Wild in the timeline, as players find it fun to think and interpret the game’s place in the timeline in their own way.
“The books that have been released so far, such as Hyrule Encyclopedia, have revealed the Zelda series timeline. However, we’ve decided not to make it so clear for Breath of the Wild, and there’s a reason why.
This time, we saw a lot of users playing the game in their own way, which is something we were anticipating. They’re also having fun coming up with their own ideas about the story, based on the fragments we put in place.
If Breath of the Wild was confined to a timeline, then that placement would be correct and there wouldn’t be room for coming up with your own impressions, which would be boring.
That kind of speculation is something that we wanted to continue after playing the game, so we purposely decided not to make a statement about it. We’d like everyone to enjoy finding their own answers, in their own way.”
What we could take from this is that Breath of the Wild perhaps has a place in the timeline, but there’s no need to clarify it at this stage. It is often assumed that Breath of the Wild takes place long into the future (although I couldn’t find official confirmation of this), in comparison with the rest of the games in the timeline. The presence of advanced technology in the game could be a testament to this. However, that leaves an open question as to which branch of the timeline the game takes place in. Some have even hypothesized that the game reunites all three branches, somehow converging parallel universes.
So that we don’t have to explore the fields of metaphysics and quantum mechanics to investigate the twists and turns of the Zelda timeline, maybe we should just enjoy the games and stop worrying so much about the timeline, Aonuma has. Breath of the Wild is great (and so is its direct sequel, Tears of the Kingdom) and gives nods to various other games in the series.
As has been alluded to in this article, the developers don’t focus on storyline or timeline placement when developing Zelda games, but of course it is fun to believe that there’s a deeper meaning to Zelda games, and in some instances, I’m sure that is true, but we don’t need official confirmation to tell us that.
UPCOMING PRINT MAGAZINE!