(12-24-2011, 12:01 AM)LordVador Wrote: [ -> ]Now the most interesting could be future games : where will they take place in this chronology? Another parallel story? 
That's up to debate. We just have to wait and see I think. But from my point of view, the timeline A which ends on Adventure of Link looks pretty much done. Ganon is killed for good in there, though, on the other timelines, he's just sealed in some way. I think the next game happening after Four swords adventures, on timeline B, is more likely.
Yes let's wait and let's hope they don't forget this "official timeline" in future scenarios
I think the only reason nobody figured out this timeline is because nobody would think of making an alternate branch for if link fails in ocariana of time....because....well.....he doesn't. In the actual game link doesn't fail, so why would we think of making a timeline for that? At the end of ocarina of time there are only two possible realities, ganondorf taking over and future link killing him, or link warning everyone about ganondorf as a child (after being sent back by zelda) and stopping him then. So nintendo still needs to explain to us why a third reality exists where link fails to defeat ganondorf, considering there are only two sets of events. I suppose you can consider the events where link has to go back and do things as child link (beneath the well and spirit temple) to create alternate realities where future ganondorf is left undefeated. But then that would mean more than 1 reality where that happens (in this case 2). I suppose you could then consider oracle of ages and oracle of seasons to be those two realities, but nintendo had originally planned to have three oracle games, so I really doubt they put that much thought into it. With the exception of that third branch the rest of the timeline is identical to the commonly accepted dual split timeline.
I think this is a better version (essentially an elaboration of nintendos timeline):
![[Image: 1324690492464.png]](http://i112.photobucket.com/albums/n189/NaturalViolence/1324690492464.png)
It seems i've been hazardously playing up and down the timeline, i've gone front and back at least 3 times, time to set the record straight
(12-24-2011, 09:03 PM)NaturalViolence Wrote: [ -> ]But then that would mean more than 1 reality where that happens (in this case 2). I suppose you could then consider oracle of ages and oracle of seasons to be those two realities, but nintendo had originally planned to have three oracle games, so I really doubt they put that much thought into it.
Dunno about the oracles part. They're meant to be a sequel to each other, no matter the order which you play then, not standalone games. If they were different dimensions, how come Link travels from Ages/Labrynna to Seasons/Holodrum? If he travelled from one dimension to another, then there would be two links in one of the games, which isn't possible. By quantum physics, if two copies, from different dimensions, of the same person were to coexist in one dimension, both would be destroyed, or at least one of them. There can be only one in each.
In my opinion, the spirit temple quest just created another timeline identical to the lens of truth one. They're identical, because there's only one change: Link disappears. Nothing more. The oracle games are supposed to happen in one timeline only. Also, both games/dimensions fusing together into Link's awakening makes no sense. The two games are too different from each other because they happen on different continents, so, if Holodrum is supposed to be Labrynna's parallel world, Link's awakening would had be different in each game dimension. It's easier to pass a tornado through a junkyard and assemble a full working, functional spaceship than two complete different dimensions to assemble a same reality later on.
(12-24-2011, 02:29 AM)LordVador Wrote: [ -> ] (12-24-2011, 02:07 AM)ExtremeDude2 Wrote: [ -> ]I haven't played much zelda, so I guess I should play them in order now 
I encourage you to and first ones are not the worst (even if they could look outdated)
There is also the question as to which time line to follow first XD
(12-27-2011, 12:39 AM)ExtremeDude2 Wrote: [ -> ] (12-24-2011, 02:29 AM)LordVador Wrote: [ -> ] (12-24-2011, 02:07 AM)ExtremeDude2 Wrote: [ -> ]I haven't played much zelda, so I guess I should play them in order now
I encourage you to and first ones are not the worst (even if they could look outdated)
There is also the question as to which time line to follow first XD
Haha
not false. If you wanna try old (but good) games follow the first one
Nah, for me probably because b is the most interesting set imo. o_O
(12-27-2011, 01:51 AM)Zee530 Wrote: [ -> ]Nah, for me probably because b is the most interesting set imo. o_O
Yes but old-school players like me will say A
)