I’ve always thought the Zelda timeline was pretty straightforward and didn’t see many contradictions. But I’ve noticed quite a few people seem to dislike it or find it confusing. Why do so many fans have negative opinions about the Zelda timeline? Is it because certain parts don’t make sense or feel forced? I’d love to understand the reasons behind this criticism.
8 Answers
There’s also a sense that the timeline contradicts itself in places — like the Zora and Rito existing at the same time doesn’t make much sense, or the origin stories clashing between games. Nintendo sometimes changes or retcons lore between entries, which frustrates fans who want a strict continuity.
A lot of the criticism comes from the “fallen hero” or “downfall” timeline branch. Fans feel that since we never actually get to play a game where Link fails or dies, it feels like Nintendo just made that up to connect some of the games. It seems a bit forced and less meaningful because it’s never explored in-game. But honestly, some fans think it’s an interesting idea that Link could sometimes lose, making the story feel more realistic.
Yeah I get why some people want the heroes to always win, but I find it refreshing that Link could fail. Makes the world feel more real and stakes more genuine.
Some people dislike the timeline because they think it’s retrofitted to silence fan debate. It feels like Nintendo created it only after years of fans arguing about where each game fits, so some folks feel it was made up just to appease fans rather than being part of the original plan.
Some fans feel like the timeline feels disrespectful to the classic games because everything gets forced into one big timeline that splits starting at Ocarina of Time. They especially don’t like the downfall split, arguing it doesn’t really make sense without the time travel element that causes the other splits. It feels a bit like an alternate universe slapped onto the story rather than a natural progression.
The timeline can feel unnecessarily complicated, and many fans think Nintendo doesn’t really care that much about making all the games fit perfectly. The games are designed for gameplay first, the story often comes later. Trying to piece together a flawless timeline from that is like trying to fit Mario games into one big story — it’s just not what Nintendo intended.
Yeah, I believe it’s mostly gameplay first and story second for Zelda too. The timeline is a fun addition but not 100% nailed down by the developers themselves.
It’s mostly that some fans find the timeline confusing or hard to understand, and instead of trying to get it, they just dismiss it as nonsense. People often parrot popular opinions that it was an afterthought or never made sense without really digging into it. But honestly, it’s not that complicated once you watch a good explanation video or read up on it a little.
Honestly, part of the problem is that some fans want lore spoon-fed to them like a detailed encyclopedia with zero ambiguity. Zelda’s story changes between games and is meant to be mysterious and sometimes vague, not tightly woven every time. This obsession with perfect lore consistency often causes more frustration than fun.
Yeah, people want a solid lore bible, but Zelda’s always been more about the gameplay and atmosphere than strict story continuity.
And then you have content creators milking every little detail from the Hyrule Historia, which just stokes the demand for perfectly explained lore. But it was never that strict to begin with.
There’s also people who find parts of the timeline just thrown together, especially the games in the downfall timeline. It sometimes feels like the story connections are barely there and not very well thought out. I’m not a timeline expert myself, but I find it fun to read others’ discussions on it.
Those inconsistencies are frustrating. It makes it tough to take the timeline seriously when the story elements don’t line up perfectly.