Did you doubt it?

You know, there are fans and Fans.

But I agree with you, replaying older games or just moving onto something completely different is a better way to waist spend our time.

RolStoppable said:
Additional timelines are the license to do whatever the developers feel like. Hooray for creative freedom!



Exactly what I was going to say. For a long running series like this a structured storyline would eventually run the series into a wall.

I thought that maybe after the first couple of games they tried to come with a solid narrative to explain the possibilities of upcoming games in the franchise.  I guess I was wrong ¬_¬

Zelda Wii U in the 4th Timeline confirmed.
Not that anyone should care, anyway.

Everyone needs to stop taking this seriously and actually check the source.

The timeline theories don't really impact the games themselves, or that's how i overlook how things like Death Mountain mysteriously move around every couple hundred years. It's just fun to envision how it all fits together

If you take anything too seriously, it stops being fun, but extensive timeline theorying is fun enough in its own right.

The 4th timeline seems to give them license to make games without Ganon.

I feel like Metroid could benefit from that kind of treatment. If only, if only...

This timeline stuff doesn't ruin Zelda for me, but I would have preferred it if Nintendo had just stated that most Zelda games are not connected. While there are a few direct sequels, the main titles have nothing to do with each other. Link is just the name of the Hero, Zelda is the name of the princess, and Hyrule is the name of the world. Nintendo could have called the series Adventures in Hyrule and had different character names for each game and they would have been just as good.

I always treated them as separate realities. Kind of like reboots. Smashing them together doesn't seem to satisfy anyone.

meh dont care if or how they are connected just gimmie zelda wii u and an old school zelda maybe on 3ds or wii u eshop