AnonymousSpeed

"The Zelda Timeline is Dumb" Discussion

Recommended Posts

So @Dragoncat wore some orange pants and now we're here because of this sequence of events:

Spoiler
2 hours ago, Hawkwing said:

Also, you have the Hyrule Historia? Nice.

1 hour ago, Dragoncat said:

And yep! I use it as a thing to put my paper on when I draw. It works good. I hope someday there's more added to it, because there have been and will be more Zelda games.

1 hour ago, Hawkwing said:

Agreed. Both in it making a good book to write on and for there to be another Historia in the future. I love the sheer amount of concept art the game has, and I don't mind the focus on Skyward Sword as it's my favorite game in the series Storywise. And reading through the timeline is fun.

Speaking of the timeline, I never understood how people found it confusing. One timeline went on when Link was sent back as a child at the end of Ocarina of Time, the timeline in the future kept going. And one started when you lost the fight with Ganondorf. It's a simple as that.

1 hour ago, AnonymousSpeed said:

Dude, the Zelda timeline is dumb.

Not in the "it doesn't align with my personal fan theory" way, but in the "it's a stupid idea to even try way." The 'official timeline' is only there because there are fans who care enough about it to buy the book for the timeline- it's fanservice of the highest non-sexual degree. The games are clearly not designed with any intention of fitting together into a larger world or universe- at least until Skyward Sword (not sure about Breath of the Wild). Trying to fit pieces to different puzzles together is a doomed endeavor, and since not letting previous entries restrict the setting/tone/lore/whatever of your fantasy adventure game is called "good game design philosophy," the idea will always be doomed, so long as the developers of the Zelda games keep their focus in the right place.

The Zelda timeline is dumb.

1 hour ago, Dragoncat said:

Wow, harsh much? I think it's great to include lore like this, but I guess to each their own.

1 hour ago, AnonymousSpeed said:

Yes, and deservedly so. The Zelda timeline is only slightly better than trying to create a fan theory about how Middle Earth and whatever George R.R Martin writes about are in the same universe as Grand Theft Auto: San Andreas*. The only thing that makes it understandable is that they have the same series name, which still doesn't give much actual reason to assume they're all in the same universe. I mean, isn't, like, every Final Fantasy game in its own universe? I don't actually play Final Fantasy but that's the impression I get- sure, it reuses a lot of the same tropes and plot elements, but the games don't need to be artificially forced into a single continuity where they don't belong.

*- To be fair, Tolkein's Middle Earth is supposed to exist in some twisted version of the real world but the point stands.

58 minutes ago, Dragoncat said:

I explain it as the Zelda games all take place thousands of years in between each other, so of course the world is going to change, but there will always be an incarnation of Demise's hatred for the Hyrule people, and thus there must always be a Link and a Zelda to deal with it, as stated in Skyward Sword. Now of course not all the Links are going to be born with the name Link, because it's impossible for parents to know their child's destiny at birth, but yeah. I say each Link was born with a regular name and is only "Link" when it's clear he's the chosen one. So TP Link might be, idk, Brayden or something. "Link" is more of an earned title. The first Link in SS was Link though, or maybe to fit lore better he should have a name inspired by a type of bird (Groose = grouse + goose for example) and so should Zelda but meh.

Regardless I respect your opinion and see your point but we'll have to agree to disagree.

51 minutes ago, Hawkwing said:

It's probably because there's always a Link, almost always a Hyrule, and almost always a Zelda. Why would there be different universes if they keep reusing the same elements so blatantly? It's also because several games are actual sequels to each other, and are specifically stated to be in the same world, only several years (although it's often centuries) later. Nintendo puts gameplay first, hence why the story's don't align as well as if they were preplanned, but calling the whole thing "dumb" simply because each game doesn't always have the exact same setting every time doesn't sound any smarter.

Sorry if that last part came of as harsh, and I do agree that the Zelda series isn't as well-thought out with it's lore as some other series are. But simply because each game's setting is so different doesn't mean it's automatically "dumb". Heck I'd call one of the series strengths being how different yet similar each world is.

Middle Earth is actually a name for the World of the People for the Anglo-Saxons And I had to replay the game 1066 to remember that.

 

Now then, back "on topic," let us discuss if a Zelda timeline is a good idea.

I'll address @Hawkwing's last post because I had more to say about it...that's it, really.

I'd also like to start by saying that it might be "canon" that there's one timeline, my point is mostly that it's unnecessary and shouldn't be the case.

51 minutes ago, Hawkwing said:

It's probably because there's always a Link, almost always a Hyrule, and almost always a Zelda. Why would there be different universes if they keep reusing the same elements so blatantly?

They re-use a lot of the same tropes, but so do the Final Fantasy games. Marvel does the same things with its intellectual property: Spider-Man and his villains all do their thing in New York. That's true of the Sam Raimi movies, the Mark Webb movies, the new one I didn't see, the original comics, and the numerous cartoon series. Provided, those mostly adaptations of the comics, but the point remains that reusing tropes and having overarching themes doesn't mean "same universe."

Now, I could be wrong and correct me if I am, but going back to Final Fantasy, those are all distinct worlds that share elements like having four crystals of the elements and airships and summoners and a dude named Cid.

Provided, I think those two cases have different universes all existing in the same multiverse, but that still puts them in separate "timelines/worlds."

Look at all the works of fiction based on mythology- they reuse tons of the characters and other elements, but as much as the idea of "continuity" is lost on myth, these works are clearly not in the same reality as the original myths.

 

51 minutes ago, Hawkwing said:

It's also because several games are actual sequels to each other, and are specifically stated to be in the same world, only several years (although it's often centuries) later.

Yeah, but there's also a Final Fantasy X 2 and probably better examples of direct sequels in series where not all of the games have to be connected.

Before Awakening came out, I would have argued Fire Emblem was a case of that, but Awakening did so...I'm down an example. I'm sure other examples exist.

 

51 minutes ago, Hawkwing said:

Nintendo puts gameplay first, hence why the story's don't align as well as if they were preplanned, but calling the whole thing "dumb" simply because each game doesn't always have the exact same setting every time doesn't sound any smarter.

51 minutes ago, Hawkwing said:

But simply because each game's setting is so different doesn't mean it's automatically "dumb". Heck I'd call one of the series strengths being how different yet similar each world is.

It is true that Nintendo has a gameplay first policy, and I'm sure we'll both agree that's a good thing. Furthermore, I have no problem with the games having different settings (and do forgive me if I'm misreading what you're saying there), that's good and dandy and I'm glad the developers aren't usually restricting themselves to a specific lore or world map.

That's where my complaint with the idea of a "Zelda Timeline" comes in though. If you aren't going to restrict yourself to one continuous universe and it's honestly better if you don't, why would you even need something like an official timeline?

In that case, it would just be better to make whatever kind of Zelda game you want and not worry about how it fits into continuity unless what you want to make is a sequel of some kind. If you aren't going to worry about the continuity and instead create mostly separate experiences that, while using the same tropes, aren't dependent on each other- what's the point of having an all-inclusive continuity at all?

I mean, look. No one tries to fit Hyrule Warriors or the CDi games into the timeline. I don't think, at least. I haven't followed the discussion in a while, but I used to be a big fan of it. I get that it's fun, I don't have a problem with fan theories, but it really isn't useful and doesn't really deserve to exist in any official capacity. What if they released some crazy experimental Zelda game that absolutely contradicted all the other games in a way that made them impossible to reconcile? That should be an option to the developers, because the gameplay ideas (which come first) might be really good. What these cases tell us is that something doesn't have to fit into one big universe all because it's an official Zelda game.

Anyway, I haven't played Breath of the Wild so maybe it completely ignores all of this junk and unofficially validates my perspective through silence.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Yeah, good idea making a separate topic. 

Also I wore:

  • Orange Halloween pajama pants
  • Blue space cat T shirt
  • One light gray sock
  • One reddish pink sock

And I don't think I need to go into my underwear *shot*

On topic, I think some Final Fantasy games are sequels/prequels. Crystal Chronicles is the best example and really the gist of what I'm familiar with when it comes to FF. Crystal Bearers has some locations left over from the original FFCC and takes place millennia after it. Ring of Fates and Echoes of Time take place before the original. Not sure about My Life as a King and My Life as a Dark Lord.

So I guess it's really up to whatever you want to believe, I can see where you're coming from but I choose to accept the Zelda timeline.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
23 minutes ago, AnonymousSpeed said:

I mean, look. No one tries to fit Hyrule Warriors or the CDi games into the timeline.

They aren't canon, that's why.

Quote

What if they released some crazy experimental Zelda game that absolutely contradicted all the other games in a way that made them impossible to reconcile?

They'd probably make the game with the Timeline in mind, so that it wouldn't contradict all the other games.

Edited by NinjaMonkey

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Come oh great Devourer of Time! Sever the links of absurdity, make each legend an island onto itself!

When Miyamoto began making the first Zelda, he certainly wasn't thinking "Do I put this game before Breath of the Wild, or after Twilight Princess? Actually, I'm going to put it on separate timeline before ALttP- no after OoT in bad outcome for it".

 

I'm in the anti-timeline camp, thoroughly so.

  1. When the Legend of Zelda began doing real timelines, it was with Ocarina of TIme, which was supposed to be the Imprisoning War of ALttP's lore.
  2. But then came Wind Waker which changed this, it is directly dependent on OoT's outcome in the game. 
  3. Yet the real problems began with TP, it did not have to be on a separate split timeline from WW. Why did they have to do this?  I can't deny a love for the Hero's Shade, but they could have done this without the OoT split.
  4. Afterwards comes Skyward Sword, which was supposed to be a prequel to everything- albeit one which features in its lore a Link BEFORE the present one, thereby undermining its claim. It also invented Hylia and directly added the concept of reincarnation to the franchise, both of which I have problems with.
  5. And then Nintendo goes back to its already hairbrained OoT split and adds a third outcome, choosing to revive their formerly dumped plan of making OoT the Imprisoning War.

And of this ignores games Link's Awakening, the Oracle duology, the entire Four Swords trilogy, Triforce Heroes, and the NES duo, none of which are required to belong anywhere.

I'm fine with OoT-MM, WW-PH-ST, I'm okay with small all direct sequels and Four Swords, and I can accept OoT-WW as well. Likewise, I've appreciated small lore additions over time, like OoT inventing the Golden Goddesses, Oracle of Ages inventing three symbols, and then WW making those symbols into the Goddess Symbols. But constructing an enormous timeline that tries to weave together things which weren't really made to fit together and which even when Nintendo tries to do so, fit together only halfheartedly at best. 

 

What does it add? Having the OoT triple split? What does having FSA in the same timeline as TP add? Nothing is added really. The games don't display strong connections, only little easter eggs most of the time. These Hyrules aren't the same. The Trials franchise of Nihon Falcom all takes place in the same world, each game adds to the same one physical place. Hyrule's geography is always being spliced together anew- where the Dark Realm did Akkala come from? And when places show up again, we aren't getting different views of the same Death Mountain, they're wholly different volcanoes.

 

...

 

Let each game, or small set of games, be its own legend. It's own tale of a Link, perhaps a Zelda, and perhaps a Ganondorf. Let all savor each story on its own, let each pick their favorites. Let each imagine them unfettered by bonds, these are but yarns after all, time real has no sway on how one places them, nor do others.

If Rito and Zora coexist, the best thing to say is simply this is not the tale of the Hero of the Winds, nor of that hero's past or future. No Link recalls their prior feats, the courage of each, is their courage alone, their wisdom not derived from a collective mind, but from genius singular, and their power too, be but the power of one, save for when the Sages, Princess, and others too do offer their aid.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Zelda is unquestionably my #1 favorite game series, and I think the timeline is dumb, and for the reasons you guys have already listed.

7 minutes ago, Interdimensional Observer said:

Let each game, or small set of games, be its own legend. It's own tale of a Link, perhaps a Zelda, and perhaps a Ganondorf. Let all savor each story on its own, let each pick their favorites. Let each imagine them unfettered by bonds, these are but yarns after all, time real has no sway on how one places them, nor do others.

The funny thing is, as a legend, it makes sense that the stories don't necessarily add up, like with legends in real life. One could think of it like some of the games are actually supposed to be the same story, having been warped over the years by different storytellers into multiple stories.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I don't care

The games are fun, that's all that matters

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

On the subject of Final Fantasy, the games are more interconnected than one may think at first.

FFIV The After Years reveals that the first six numeral games all take place in the same universe. Different planets, but same world/universe. This is revealed since The Creator states he has surveyed many planets, and houses specimens or copies of them from those... and it turns out to be bosses form I to VI (skipping IV, of course). Now keep in mind, this detail was removed from the remake of the game (the bosses from other FF games, not the one about surveying other planets and collecting specimens from them), so who knows if it's still canon.

There was also suplemental info in an Ultimania guide, the one from FFX-2 I believe, that states thatthe people from Spira would eventually develop space travel, and a group would eventually colonize another planet, that would end up being the one the events of VII takes place on. In fact, they hint out that VII's Shinra, and X-2's Shinra, is not a coincidence they have the same name (surname, for the VII Shinras).

There's probably other stuff I'm forgetting about, but those two cases should be solid.

Edited by Acacia Sgt

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 hours ago, AnonymousSpeed said:

 

Anyway, I haven't played Breath of the Wild so maybe it completely ignores all of this junk and unofficially validates my perspective through silence.

 

2 hours ago, Interdimensional Observer said:

When Miyamoto began making the first Zelda, he certainly wasn't thinking "Do I put this game before Breath of the Wild, or after Twilight Princess? Actually, I'm going to put it on separate timeline before ALttP- no after OoT in bad outcome for it".

Incidentally, though Breath of the Wild hasn't been officially stated to be in any one timeline as far as I know(though my Zelda knowledge is admittedly a touch behind), there's a Game Theory video with some ok evidence that's worth a look even if you don't like the timeline idea, that almost made me think they had the timeline being this convoluted planned from the start - it brings up a couple little things I hadn't realized, like the fact that every Link from the Failed Timeline has a yellow stripe on his cap. Ultimately meaningless, yes, but still cool little things that make you appreciate the amount of homework they must do with each new Zelda game to insure that it could actually be fitted into a reasonable place on the Timeline if it ever needed to be expanded.

On-Topic, as someone who actually likes the concept of alternate dimensions running roughly parallel to one another branching from a specific point based on the outcome, I have no real issues with the Zelda Timeline. Heck, Fire Emblem even did something similar to this with Lucina's concerns for her life post-Awakening and the request made to Anankos during Hidden Truths - just because Lucina and the group left their future, that didn't necessarily make that future nonexistent, and Anankos' acknowledgement of the request and the supposedly-spawned-from-thin-air Fell Brand backs up the idea that the ruined future still existed. I do, however, understand people's issues with that particular way of running a timeline(hence the lack of fanfics centered around the left-behind ruined future), so I see where you guys are coming from.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Is making a timeline dumb? No. Were the games not built with being part of a larger universe in mind? Yes.

While several Zelda games are sequels to each other, some more direct than others, they all have their own self-contained story. Gameplaywise, this makes it easy for anyone, veteran or newcomer, to jump into a Zelda game and enjoy for what it is in it's own right. In the timeline, this just means that Nintendo can put two games near each other chronologically and not worry about one story affecting another too much. That, and even if there was no timeline, Nintendo will always add call-backs and references to previous games, no matter the series.

...

For the record, I was originally just commenting that I found it strange that people found the timeline confusing. The timeline split is a simple as the future setting in the Ocarina of Time continuing on even as Link was sent back to the past, while another one continued with said Link continuing his adventures in Majora's mask and beyond. It's not that hard to wrap one's head around, especially when there are much, much more complicated examples of time travel and alternative universes out there.

I suppose another thing that I didn't really imply well in my original comment was that calling the whole timeline business "stupid" when there really isn't much harm in fan speculation was something I took some issue with. People can take it too seriously, of course, but calling it inherently "dumb" for people to try to link references or try to see how the games set in different periods of the same world just comes of as... condescending, I guess. Agree to disagree, of course, but while Nintendo will probably never build a game with the Zelda Timeline in mind, it's also not something they pulled out of their a-- and mindlessly put together.

Also, does anyone else know of the web game 1066? I noticed it was mentioned in the original post as the term "Middle Earth" was used before Tolkien.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
4 hours ago, AnonymousSpeed said:

Anyway, I haven't played Breath of the Wild so maybe it completely ignores all of this junk and unofficially validates my perspective through silence.

Pretty much how it goes. It doesn't attempt to establish anything beyond being post-OoT, and the past game references are just there for the fun of it. Anouma's direction of the games focuses on concepts (sea travel, playing as a wolf, etc) which then are used as a central aspect of the story, as opposed to the other way around.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Hawkwing said:

I suppose another thing that I didn't really imply well in my original comment was that calling the whole timeline business "stupid" when there really isn't much harm in fan speculation was something I took some issue with. People can take it too seriously, of course, but calling it inherently "dumb" for people to try to link references or try to see how the games set in different periods of the same world just comes of as... condescending, I guess. Agree to disagree, of course, but while Nintendo will probably never build a game with the Zelda Timeline in mind, it's also not something they pulled out of their a-- and mindlessly put together.

This. We could also say the people calling it "dumb" are taking it too seriously, because theories and fanfic are fun. At least to me.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

While I honestly think the timeline in Hyrule Historia is the best timeline that could have been written then, I think the idea of the timeline could be ignored and nothing would have been lost.

So, I'm fine with it but it wasn't something I ever thought over until I heard it wasa thing. Now, a unified FE timeline on the other hand.......

7 hours ago, Acacia Sgt said:

FFIV The After Years reveals that the first six numeral games all take place in the same universe. Different planets, but same world/universe. This is revealed since The Creator states he has surveyed many planets, and houses specimens or copies of them from those... and it turns out to be bosses form I to VI (skipping IV, of course). Now keep in mind, this detail was removed from the remake of the game (the bosses from other FF games, not the one about surveying other planets and collecting specimens from them), so who knows if it's still canon.

I haven't played the after years, but everything I hear seems to hint it was a horrible idea. Am I wrong to think that?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

On the subject of the Zelda timeline, I think it's fine the way they did it. At least it's just a trident-shaped continuity instead of a ball of yarn or something, heh.

1 hour ago, Dayni said:

I haven't played the after years, but everything I hear seems to hint it was a horrible idea. Am I wrong to think that?

You mean not playing being a horrible idea? Well, it depends. If you don't mind the repetition of certain elements from the original IV, the sequel is enjoyable. I found it so, but also don't mind that it's more or less like playing IV all over again. It's unique enough, at the least.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I never cared about the Zelda timeline but it got really dumb when they said BotW takes place at the end of all three timelines. Even though in-game dialogue only references the Child Link timeline.

Ah whatever, still a better timeline than the clusterfuck that is the Kingdom Hearts timeline.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
12 hours ago, Interdimensional Observer said:

And of this ignores games Link's Awakening, the Oracle duology, the entire Four Swords trilogy, Triforce Heroes, and the NES duo, none of which are required to belong anywhere.

Not going to comment much on this, but I'm pretty certain Link's Awakening has always followed the events of Link to the Past.  It was released following LttP, and the Nightmare transforms into enemies Link fought previously, including Agahnim and Ganon from LttP.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Okay maybe the timeline might be a little dumb, but I think people have a lot of fun piecing together this stuff from the breadcrumbs the developers always leave, and theorizing and such. It's harmless fun, and I don't think it's ever come at the expense of the quality of the game, right?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 10/11/2018 at 11:11 PM, Johann said:

The funny thing is, as a legend, it makes sense that the stories don't necessarily add up, like with legends in real life. One could think of it like some of the games are actually supposed to be the same story, having been warped over the years by different storytellers into multiple stories.

That'd be pretty meta.

 

22 hours ago, Acacia Sgt said:

On the subject of Final Fantasy, the games are more interconnected than one may think at first.

Ah, thank you for the knowledge my friend. Are those two provided examples at least separate? As a curiosity, mainly.

 

21 hours ago, Hawkwing said:

For the record, I was originally just commenting that I found it strange that people found the timeline confusing. The timeline split is a simple as the future setting in the Ocarina of Time continuing on even as Link was sent back to the past, while another one continued with said Link continuing his adventures in Majora's mask and beyond. It's not that hard to wrap one's head around, especially when there are much, much more complicated examples of time travel and alternative universes out there.

I'm going to be a technical timmy here and ask why you have a "the hero fails" timeline split after Ocarina and only after Ocarina, but that's more a specific complaint that a comment on the general idea.

 

21 hours ago, Hawkwing said:

I suppose another thing that I didn't really imply well in my original comment was that calling the whole timeline business "stupid" when there really isn't much harm in fan speculation was something I took some issue with. People can take it too seriously, of course, but calling it inherently "dumb" for people to try to link references or try to see how the games set in different periods of the same world just comes of as... condescending, I guess.

20 hours ago, Dragoncat said:

This. We could also say the people calling it "dumb" are taking it too seriously, because theories and fanfic are fun. At least to me.

10 hours ago, ChefGuevara said:

Okay maybe the timeline might be a little dumb, but I think people have a lot of fun piecing together this stuff from the breadcrumbs the developers always leave, and theorizing and such. It's harmless fun, and I don't think it's ever come at the expense of the quality of the game, right?

Oh hai Chef.

I concede a little here- fan theories can be fun and are generally harmless, but that doesn't make them intelligent theories or conceptually good ideas.

While the Zelda timeline wasn't completely invented by fans, but you can't deny the importance of fan theories in how the Hyrule Historia timeline was constructed or in the fact that they even put the timeline in at all. I think we've all agreed that a timeline was never a massive concern for the developers. So, even if it's harmless, it's certainly not impotent.

I don't have a problem with easter eggs or references as long as "the timeline" doesn't become something obstructive- we've all expressed that we agree on that. I just don't think a timeline offers any benefit at that point.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
14 minutes ago, AnonymousSpeed said:

Ah, thank you for the knowledge my friend. Are those two provided examples at least separate? As a curiosity, mainly.

What do you mean by separate?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
4 minutes ago, Acacia Sgt said:

What do you mean by separate?

Like, is FF6 in the same world as FF10 or something?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 minutes ago, AnonymousSpeed said:

Like, is FF6 in the same world as FF10 or something?

Ah, that. No, both cases are separate. In which case, I through VI share a universe; and a separate one houses VII and X.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
7 hours ago, AnonymousSpeed said:

I'm going to be a technical timmy here and ask why you have a "the hero fails" timeline split after Ocarina and only after Ocarina, but that's more a specific complaint that a comment on the general idea.

To throw us a curveball and subvert expectations.

Timeline-wise, it excuses why Ganon had to be sealed by the sages in the Link to the Past. And taking a look at the Timeline again, it more or less says that nearly ever game after a Link to the Past (Links Awakening, which is the same Link as the one in the Link to the Past, the Oracle games, and then the original two Legend of Zelda games) has the villians attempt (and mostly succeeding) to "resurrect Ganon".

I would also say that Nintendo thought that the Ganondorf or Ganon battles in Ocarina of Time were difficult enough that someone dying to them wasn't all that far fetched, even if I never actually loss the boss fight myself (I've technically died to the former once, but being able to capture faeries in bottles in a wonderful mechanic). Although if that were the case, then Demise would have prevented the entire Zelda continuity form existing in the first place, given how long it personally took me to beat him.

7 hours ago, AnonymousSpeed said:

I concede a little here- fan theories can be fun and are generally harmless, but that doesn't make them intelligent theories or conceptually good ideas.

While the Zelda timeline wasn't completely invented by fans, but you can't deny the importance of fan theories in how the Hyrule Historia timeline was constructed or in the fact that they even put the timeline in at all. I think we've all agreed that a timeline was never a massive concern for the developers. So, even if it's harmless, it's certainly not impotent.

I believe it mostly came about from the worlds being so similar to each other that it be more questionable to wonder why each game would be it's own world. Why keep having the land be called Hyrule? Why keep having a Link and Zelda and Ganon? Why have the triforce be present a good chunk of the time? This would appear as a lazy rehash if they were all separate worlds, while the games being set at different points in time in the same world makes more sense. Nintendo had also said that an official timeline existed before the Hylure Historia was released, so fans did have something to speculate about.

7 hours ago, AnonymousSpeed said:

I don't have a problem with easter eggs or references as long as "the timeline" doesn't become something obstructive- we've all expressed that we agree on that. I just don't think a timeline offers any benefit at that point.

As said earlier, the timeline isn't something Nintendo places a lot of importance on. First and foremost, they'll focus on the gameplay. However, they also remember that they made an official timeline, and that people really enjoy it. Making an intentionally contradictory or obstructive game storywise would be shooting themselves in the foot for no reason at all.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 hours ago, Hawkwing said:

To throw us a curveball and subvert expectations.

But subverting expectations for the sake of subverting expectations is kind of silly.

The point of my being a technical timmy is that you can get a game over in every Zelda game, not just Ocarina of Time.

I didn't address the specific points about how it works in the timeline because I was hoping to keep my argument more general.

 

3 hours ago, Hawkwing said:

I believe it mostly came about from the worlds being so similar to each other that it be more questionable to wonder why each game would be it's own world. Why keep having the land be called Hyrule? Why keep having a Link and Zelda and Ganon? Why have the triforce be present a good chunk of the time? This would appear as a lazy rehash if they were all separate worlds, while the games being set at different points in time in the same world makes more sense.

I'd disagree. It doesn't really make more sense, because then you take on the burden of making the consistent and explaining why thinks have changed compared to the previous game, and if you have no explanation or you explanation in insufficient, then it makes less sense.

I'd also argue against having them be different settings being lazy. Reusing tropes for the setting each time works perfectly fine, I'd say it's an interesting way to create a series identity and I don't think it breaks suspension of disbelief for fictional settings to have many of the same tropes. I don't think people question why so many separate universes in fantasy video games have similar magic systems, or why Mega Man Battle Network also has a guy called Mega Man like Mega Man classic, because those aren't very useful concerns. The world and story themselves aren't negatively affect by the reuse of these elements, at least not inherently.

 

3 hours ago, Hawkwing said:

As said earlier, the timeline isn't something Nintendo places a lot of importance on. First and foremost, they'll focus on the gameplay. However, they also remember that they made an official timeline, and that people really enjoy it. Making an intentionally contradictory or obstructive game storywise would be shooting themselves in the foot for no reason at all.

I feel like we're playing tennis a little bit here.

Sure, there is a timeline. Sure, people like it. They focus on making a good game (unless you don't like Zelda games, which some don't), and that's a good focus. That still doesn't make a timeline a beneficial thing to have.

I don't expect them to make a contradictory game just for the sake of making a contradictory game- it would be less silly than subverting expectations for its own sake but still silly. Imagine, for example, they wanted to make a game which had a premise incompatible with the timeline, because the neat gameplay mechanic they thought of results in an interesting but contradictory plot element. I don't think they should prevent themselves from making that game. You know? And if it's not going to guide your lore all that much and it doesn't really improve many of the games to know they exist in the same universe, then there really isn't a point.

TL;DR Nintendo might have been thinking about this timeline thing for a while, but I'd still say it's not a good idea.

Sorry if I get a bit longwinded or sound a bit snappy. I like arguments, so I sometimes get a bit to into them.

Edited by AnonymousSpeed

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, AnonymousSpeed said:

But subverting expectations for the sake of subverting expectations is kind of silly.

The point of my being a technical timmy is that you can get a game over in every Zelda game, not just Ocarina of Time.

I didn't address the specific points about how it works in the timeline because I was hoping to keep my argument more general.

Nintendo probably knew that it was a prevalent theory that the timeline split with the adult and child eras of Ocarina of Time. By throwing in a third timeline we're one Link lost would be a twist they knew few people would see comming. It helps that in the "hero defeated" timeline, Ganon was resurrected repeatedly, while he only came back once in the other timelines and was killed off for real in both games (Twilight Princess and Wind Waker).

1 hour ago, AnonymousSpeed said:

 I'd disagree. It doesn't really make more sense, because then you take on the burden of making the consistent and explaining why thinks have changed compared to the previous game, and if you have no explanation or you explanation in insufficient, then it makes less sense.

While I wouldn't call it inconsistent, I do agree that the series pretty much adds and removes species and other elements at will. In real life, this is probably because Nintendo abandons or expands upon ideas at will. At least this has some excuse in the games themselves, as some of the games are several centuries apart, while others take place in a different setting (such as Link visiting different islands in Phantom Hourglass than he did in Wind Waker).

1 hour ago, AnonymousSpeed said:

l'd also argue against having them be different settings being lazy. Reusing tropes for the setting each time works perfectly fine, I'd say it's an interesting way to create a series identity and I don't think it breaks suspension of disbelief for fictional settings to have many of the same tropes. I don't think people question why so many separate universes in fantasy video games have similar magic systems, or why Mega Man Battle Network also has a guy called Mega Man like Mega Man classic, because those aren't very useful concerns. The world and story themselves aren't negatively affect by the reuse of these elements, at least not inherently.

So why would taking place at different times in the same world be any different? Aside from direct sequels, each game every game is several decades if not centuries apart. The world map, characters, temples, etc. change enough that each game is unique.

I'm also not saying that having settings share elements with each other is a bad thing. Far from it. However, The Legend of Zelda series is frequently, though not always, set in a land called Hyrule. There is almost always a Zelda. There is always a Link. The series has frequently had direct sequels to each other since the beginning. Why is there a need for a majority of the games to be set in unique universes, when having all the games set on the same world is possible?

1 hour ago, AnonymousSpeed said:

I feel like we're playing tennis a little bit here.

Sure, there is a timeline. Sure, people like it. They focus on making a good game (unless you don't like Zelda games, which some don't), and that's a good focus. That still doesn't make a timeline a beneficial thing to have.

I don't expect them to make a contradictory game just for the sake of making a contradictory game- it would be less silly than subverting expectations for its own sake but still silly. Imagine, for example, they wanted to make a game which had a premise incompatible with the timeline, because the neat gameplay mechanic they thought of results in an interesting but contradictory plot element. I don't think they should prevent themselves from making that game. You know? And if it's not going to guide your lore all that much and it doesn't really improve many of the games to know they exist in the same universe, then there really isn't a point.

Appropriately, some Zelda bosses play a lethal version of the game. There's a reason Zelda tennis doesn't sound all that interesting.

It may not be beneficial (agree to disagree there) but how exactly is having a timeline actively harming the series?

As for contradictory games, Nintendo already states that stuff like Links Crossbow Training, the CDI games, Tingles game, etc. is non-canon. Also, what would this "contradictory game" that you bring up look like? Chances are, they would realize early on if something wouldn't work within this world they've created, and then make the necessary changes to fix this. The people at Nintendo aren't idiots.

1 hour ago, AnonymousSpeed said:

Sorry if I get a bit longwinded or sound a bit snappy. I like arguments, so I sometimes get a bit to into them.

Heck, I'm not one of the more gung-ho supporters of the timeline. I just find it to be a fun read that makes logical sense. There are better examples of alternative universes and having several game be connected to each other, but The Legend of Zelda's most certainly isn't a bad one.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
9 hours ago, Pull My Devil Trigger said:

nintendo fans were a mistake

So was penicillin.

 

9 hours ago, Hawkwing said:

I'm also not saying that having settings share elements with each other is a bad thing. Far from it. However, The Legend of Zelda series is frequently, though not always, set in a land called Hyrule. There is almost always a Zelda. There is always a Link.

Yeah, but there are stories about like Space King Arthur where there's a Space Excalibur and a Space Knights of the Round Table. While that's a bit more exaggerated, because the nature of the setting is far more distinct, the idea remains that legends (of Zelda) can be reinterpreted in distinct ways.

I'd honestly argue having all these Links and Zeldas actually makes a single universe a sillier idea- not all impactful people in history are named Napoleon Bonaparte.

 

9 hours ago, Hawkwing said:

The series has frequently had direct sequels to each other since the beginning. Why is there a need for a majority of the games to be set in unique universes, when having all the games set on the same world is possible?

The converse could also be asked- why do games without direct plot connections need to be in the same world?

Besides, once you'd thrown in alternate timelines and all that jazz, how wildly different is the idea of them simply being different realities?

 

9 hours ago, Hawkwing said:

It may not be beneficial (agree to disagree there) but how exactly is having a timeline actively harming the series?

I admit I can't say it has. I don't know a lot about the behind-the-scenes work of Zelda game development, so what effect the timeline has had on these games isn't something I can say.

Also, "agree to disagree" is probably an accurate prediction of how this whole elongated argument will end.

 

9 hours ago, Hawkwing said:

As for contradictory games, Nintendo already states that stuff like Links Crossbow Training, the CDI games, Tingles game, etc. is non-canon. Also, what would this "contradictory game" that you bring up look like? Chances are, they would realize early on if something wouldn't work within this world they've created, and then make the necessary changes to fix this. The people at Nintendo aren't idiots.

My definition of "canon" and "non-canon" isn't "what one of the creators or the company said is or isn't the case, even when something definitive doesn't exist in the work itself," which may help explain these different perspectives we have.*

The Nintendo people aren't idiots, but they aren't uncreative either. We've agreed that gameplay (and to speak more completely, a quality product which stands on its own) comes first, so if the timeline isn't compatible with a solid idea, then it should be disregarded, such as these "non-canon" games have done.

 

9 hours ago, Hawkwing said:

Heck, I'm not one of the more gung-ho supporters of the timeline. I just find it to be a fun read that makes logical sense. There are better examples of alternative universes and having several game be connected to each other, but The Legend of Zelda's most certainly isn't a bad one.

Better =/= Good.

Don't get me wrong, have fun and all, but if I were some important Zelda game making person, I would let it stay a fan theory. This is where that asterisk from above comes in- "why would you even argue about the timeline's existence if the official book doesn't mean all that much to you?" I don't think it's a useful artistic decision.

* -> See above

***

So yeah. Having a good day, at least? I hope I'm not eating up too much of your time in this thread- there are probably things you might rather do so sorry about that.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now


  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.