http://kaylerain.wordpress.com/2008/04/05/zelda-time-line/#comment-328

I found this little gem whilst researching the topic for my own edification.
I found this guys' views agreeable until the last little bit. I felt the need to set him straight.

Some people just can't get the simplest of concepts.

::edit:: Oh yeah. It lands you on my post. Scroll up to read his. :nod:

So much junk to piece together, I'm not even going to try.

No, see its simple:

Four Swords
....|
....V
Minish Cap-->Ocarina of Time-->Wind Waker-->Phantom Hourglass
........................|
........................V
..............Majora's Mask
..............|
..............V
.......Twilight Princess
...............|
...............V
.......Link to the Past
...............|
...............V
...Four Swords Adventure
........|.......................|
........V......................V
Oracle of Ages<->Oracle of Seasons
.........|.......................|
.........|______._____|
......................|
......................V
.............Link's Awakening
...................|
...................V
............The Legend of Zelda
..............|
..............V
The Adventure of Link

That's the only timeline I've seen that makes sense.

But shouldn't Minish Cap be first?

I'm not a fan of the split timeline.

Spoilers from here on.

[spoiler]Okay, yeah, Link was sent back in time at the end of Ocarina, leaving no hero to tackle Ganon when he returned (as noted in Wind Waker). But the way I see it, the young link continued his adventures after being sent back, including the adventures of Majora's Mask. At some point, there were two Links existing simultaneously, the one still on his first adventure having been sent through time, the other continuing his adventures searching for Navi. And then it was back to the Navi-searching Link once the time-travelling one's adventure ended. When Ganon returned, the Navi-searching Link was still who-knows-where, and thus couldn't return in time to save Hyrule.

Of course, this would mean that the Hyrule ocean would've had to have been drained sometime after Wind Waker. Well, you kinda figure, if Hyrule could've been flooded to such a huge extent, it could've just as easily(?) been drained sometime later. And maybe we'll see how that happens in a later Zelda game.[/spoiler]

A good case can be made for that, and normally I'd agree, but my research on the topic turned up a surprising number of people who not only see the Four swords saga as cannon (I was not one of those truth be told, until I read that they actually have viable plots), but have evidence that places the first 4 swords game quite comfortably as the absolute EARLIEST Zelda game there can be. Any much earlier than that and we are talking about the times that Din, Fayore, Nayru were still creating Hyrule. According to what I've read, the Master Sword hasn't even been FORGED yet in Four Swords (the one that comes bundled with the GBA ALttP). Now I personally have yet to play through that one, so I can't confirm that, but the sources seem reputable.

The main problem with placing Minish Cap first is that if you do that, then Four Swords really doesn't fit any where else very well. The best alternate location is right before Four Swords Adventures, but that still leaves to many glaring plot holes. I placed it first in the continuity because A) that seems to be the consensus, and B) the evidence backs it up.

Hmm...
I think the split time line makes sense, [spoiler]and there weren't two Links at the same time. When Ganon was defeated and Link returned seven years to the past without touching the Master Sword, he wouldn't meet his older self since everything continued as if nothing happened. Possibly only him and Zelda knew what really happened (And sometimes I wonder if Zelda even remembered what happened/didn't happen)[/spoiler]

I'm kind of with Guar here. After watching the Zelda Retrospective, and having it plotted down... it seemed the most reasonable. I'm sure most of everyone has seen it by now, but if not: Here's the part were they discuss the timeline.

<object width="425" height="344"><param name="movie" value="http://www.youtube.com/v/RXN1BF65WjI&hl=en&fs=1"></param><param name="allowFullScreen" value="true"></param><embed src="http://www.youtube.com/v/RXN1BF65WjI&hl=en&fs=1" type="application/x-shockwave-flash" allowfullscreen="true" width="425" height="344"></embed></object>

It's also the best conclusion to show why Oracle of Seasons and Oracle of Ages happened at the same time.

@Guar:
[spoiler]I never said that the time traveling Link and the childhood living Link met. While the time traveling Link was still doing his mission, the one that already finished it and had lived his childhood was still somewhere outside the hyrulian kingdom.[/spoiler]

Now, as for the split timeline theory...
[spoiler]I never really considered the possibility that placing the sword and being sent back in time put you to before Link picked the sword out to begin with. I always assumed that he appeared after the fact. And I'm not sure I'm willing to accept the before theory.

However, that video brings up a point I had forgotten about. Even the first time I beat the game, it always did appear to me that when Link visited Zelda after the credits, Zelda's reaction was as though she had never seen him before, and the flashback in Majora's Mask seemed to support the theory. And actually, that's probably the biggest support for the split timeline theory right there.[/spoiler]

I like the idea that it's all one single timeline, better, 'cause it's The Legend of Zelda, a series of stories told generations upon generations down the line, and each new game is like a new scroll found by archaeologists, adding to the overall legend and new piece to the puzzle. And splitting it into two timelines sorta breaks apart the grand scale. But it's hard to deny the evidence.

[spoiler]It works because if it didn't you couldn't reconcile the fact that Ganondorf still hasn't entered the sacred realm when Link gets back from his future. If link got sent back to a point after he pulled it out, Ganondorf could have had the opportunity to enter, and thus not exist in Hyrule to be imprisoned at the end of OoT. [/spoiler]

He forgot CD-I. That timeline is not credible.

Who forgot CD-I? That retrospective? Nah, he mentioned it and then kindly discarded it... But he did mention how bad they were.

I'm lost. What works? Are you agreeing to the split timeline theory? If Link [spoiler]got sent back to a point after he pulled the sword out, how would that have resulted in Ganondorf not existing to be imprisoned at the end of OoT?[/spoiler]

Look. The sword is the seal on the sacred realm right?
So it stands to reason that if Link is being manipulated by Ganondorf to find the 3 seals to the door to the inner chamber, it should also stand to reason that Ganondorf is quietly tailing you (the player) at a distance waiting for you to pull that sword out so he can enter the sacred realm.
If Link gets sent back to AFTER he pulled the sword out, then Gannon would have already entered. Admittedly, if this was the case, then Ganon would have been sealed back in the sacred realm when the sword got put back, but we can chalk this discrepancy up to the fact that if the game developers had done that, not only would it have been uncompelling storytelling, but that would have made the game DAMN short. The point though is that he exists at the end of the game. There is no denying that. Could he have entered and then comeback out? I would think it unlikely given Ganondorf's motivations. Could he have simply not entered as soon as he got the chance? Debatable, I suppose. Was he simply too far away from the portal and couldn't make it in time? Plausible, but unlikely given that even as Gannondorf, he could disappear and reappear at will.
Really, the only explanation that makes any shred of sense is that as time flowed backwards, toward the moment of the swords removal from the pedestal, it purposely overshoots it so that as far as Hyrule is concerned, he never touches that sword.

I really think Miyamoto never thought this stuff through.

BUT, I digress, it was interesting to read everyone's takes.

You know, I honestly think you are right. I don't believe that there really IS an actual connection to every single zelda game.

Kind of like the Final Fantasy franchise. You know, different world... different time. But Zelda uses the same characters. And if that is true, the fact that we can piece them together is kind of awesome. Though I'm still going with split timeline. Even though ending on the GBC zeldas leaves me a bit... unsatisfied.

Admittedly, trying to piece the stories together is a pain, yet somehow fun at the same time. But when I'm playing games like Twilight Princess, I'm not paying attention to how it all fits in the overall legend, I'm focusing on the game individually. Really, the only games I look at as connecting are the games that actually reference each other. Those games being Ocarina, Majora and Wind Waker. And maybe to a lesser extent, Link to the Past (it referenced seven sages in the GBA game, but the original translation said "wise men", which would mean it's not referencing the seven sages in Ocarina).

The way I see it, maybe he didn't even care about it. Until fans started demanding for a connection.
But it is kind of fun to try and puzzle out the timeline, even if you are not thinking "when did THIS happened?" while actually playing.

Well, he was quoted as giving a timeline as far back as Ocarina. Not sure where the quote was. Speaking of which, I like how the Ocarina player's guide references the "Legend" part, by saying the story of Ocarina is "newly discovered by scholars". But this was probably just something made up by the guide's writers.