I've fallen down a deep hole.

I was watching an updated version of Gametrailer's Legend of Zelda Timeline and learned that Nintendo introduced a 3rd timeline in which Link was NOT successful in defeating Ganon in Ocarina of Time. Now, I can understand the other 2 timelines.

A) The Child Link Era - This is the timeline in which Ocarina of Time Link is returned his original time (him as a child) and warns Zelda and the King about Ganon's plans and they seal him away. This led to a series of games that take part where, basically, the defeat of Ganon in his tower as Adult Link never happened because Child Link stopped him. This timeline spawns the games Majora's Mask, Twilight Princess and The Four Swords.

B) The Adult Link Era -This is the timeline in which Adult Link defeated Ganon in his tower (the end of Ocarina of Time), was sent back to his proper timeline (child Link) but time continued to progress after he left. This led to a series of games that take part in a universe where the Hero of Time is real (most noticeable in The Wind Waker).

C) Now, according to Hyrule Historia, the official Zelda timeline as issued by Nintendo, there was also a 3rd timeline that occurred at the end Ocarina of Time, The Fallen Hero timeline. This is a timeline in which Ganon slays Adult Link during the finale of Ocarina of Time and obtains the Triforce, but is sealed away by the 7 Sages.

What I don't understand is if timeline C was ever portrayed or hinted at before it's reveal in Hyrule Historia? It just feels kind of random. I understand that prior to it's reveal, people were struggling to figure out the where the games that are now considered part of The Fallen Hero Timeline (A Link to the Past, The Oracle Series, Link's Awakening, A Link Between Worlds, The Legend of Zelda and The Adventure of Link) fall in the original 2 timelines. I believe it's stated that these games were harder to piece together because they claimed that Ganon at one point had the Triforce, while in the other games you were trying to prevent him from collecting it.

Honestly, I've only played Ocarina of Time, and that was 15 years ago. I just find all this split timeline stuff interesting and learning of this 3rd Fallen Hero timeline kind of kills it for me unless there's a justified reason for it being there other than "We needed to make something up so it'd all make sense."

I love everything about Hyrule Historia except for the Fallen Hero timeline crap. Like, I don't really wanna play games that take place in a timeline where OoT Link just died. That's just stupid. I hope the Wii U one doesn't take place in this timeline.

Considering how the games are made and then fit into the timeline after (at least the earlier games), I don't think there's really a good reason for it. I mean, if you're already going to have parallel timelines/universes, adding another potential scenario doesn't seem that egregious. I remember reading that they've been using this timeline for a while, so it's not like they just pulled it out of their ass just to have something to put in the Historia. It has no bearing on any of the games in that timeline anyway.

I don't know, I personally enjoy continuity in game series so I think that scenario is plausible enough to tie it together for me.

If they're going to put out a timeline for a scenario where Link loses, then there could be splits in every single game. Every single moment. It is a pretty random. It just exists as a timeline for all the games that don't fit.

I think had they really thought about this, they should have created an elaborate game over for Ocarina of Time 3D during the Ganon fight if you lose to make a timeline like this make more sense.

In another timeline Link tripped on the ladder on his way down to meet Saria, broke his neck, and never even left the forest. That's the real Fallen Hero story.

I really can't see why you would care that in one timeline Link died.

I always found the timeline idea entirely uninteresting. It'd be like trying to link Final Fantasy games for me. I prefer to just think of Zelda as a mythical story. Every game is just someone telling the story.

I thought the first chronological game in the series was The Minish Cap.

Yeah, same here. Trying to shoehorn in a timeline actually does the series a disservice, I think. Notwithstanding the arbitrary nature of the split, just the fact that the geography of Hyrule changes so drastically between games makes it really hard for me to believe that OoT Hyrule is somehow the same as ALTTP Hyrule or original LoZ Hyrule. On top of that, the way that Hyrule's mythology and history has been retconned, re-retconned, and re-re-retconned over the course of the series just reinforces my disinterest. As far as I'm concerned, every Zelda game takes places in a separate world that share common elements and have their own legends of past heroes, whether they were actually "real" or not.

@kasaioni: Skyward Sword precedes it. Hyrule doesn't even exist yet.

Isn't the Fallen Hero thing just the timeline of Link never going forward in time to stop Ganon? Either way it is pretty dumb. The other two make sense though.

The connection between OoT, MM, and TWW always made sense to me. As well as the connection between the Oracles games. Even when TP connected to ALttP, it was all fine. I think now though it is just too much to rope them all together in a forced way. I always preferred the storybook style that Skyward Sword enforced that there is just this (somewhat loose) destiny that binds them all to be repeated indefinitely one way or another. Essentially to have the same story retold for generations in different ways, in different places, and so on. I prefer the ambiguity.