November 4, 2011 at 5:53 PM #951
So, with the upcoming new Zelda soon upon us, here’s an age-old question that I don’t think there’s been a thread on before– Do you believe there is a real Zelda timeline where all the games fit into some kind of chronological order?
Nintendo claims there is one, but of course, they won’t release it, which….makes no sense. What purpose does it serve to keep it a secret? Fan intrigue can be fun, but even so… However, I find the notion of one to be highly dubious to begin with, because it just doesn’t totally add up to think Nintendo has that kind of plan for this series. I definitely don’t think Nintendo intended a real one from the very beginning.
There are a few games that clearly follow a chronological order; the first two NES games, plus ALttP you could call one ‘trilogy.’ A second trilogy clearly consists of ‘Ocarina, TWW and TPH. However, I do not believe these two ‘trilogies’ connect with each other into a 6-game storyline; there are too many discrepencies. And then, every other game outside these ‘trilogies’ doesn’t seem to have a real place anywhere at all. I also completely reject the notion that Nintendo created two timelines, and place games in each one wherever they feel like placing one. While Nintendo has said that the timeline basically did sever in ‘Ocarina at the end of that game, that’s one thing; it’s another that Nintendo would continue to place games in one line or the other for….no real evident reason. It just doesn’t seem to be that kind of a series. Given that each game is its own story that usually has very little to do with any of the other games, it would make even less sense to do that. I could be wrong, but unless Nintendo corrects me by explaining why and how I am wrong, I reject that idea.
I personally believe, like I said, each game is its own story and really doesn’t usually have much to do with many of the other games. I look it from the standpoint of each game is like its own ‘legend’ in itself; there are some similarities and references to past stories, but they don’t totally add up because such is the way of legends. Nintendo seems to make more call-backs to other games, as opposed to trying to create a ‘master storyline.’ I personally don’t think it makes sense any other way. But you know, since the games are just plain fun to begin with, I also find that I don’t care anyway. I’ll just play the games and not worry about it!
What do you think, though?November 7, 2011 at 5:50 PM #6370
I wish there was one and that we could make a big story out of it all but who knows. I don’t think they planned very well they just did the best game they could at each momment. With the new games other things open to debate. One of the new trailers shows the Windfish… which makes me wonder if Links Awakening was really a dream…November 7, 2011 at 7:25 PM #6371
This is where I personally have been the most confused; it seemed that Nintendo did actually try to make some sort of definitive, continuity timeline at first, but the more games they made, the less likely that seems to be. I admit that was one of the things that turned me off about ‘Ocarina, and I didn’t like it as much; I was originally disappointed that Nintendo didn’t exactly align the game into the supposed place in continuity it evidently had. I realized that Nintendo wasn’t doing that afterall, and I didn’t like that. After awhile though, I accepted it, decided I didn’t care, and take each game as it is, which I was doing anyway (and ‘Ocarina just didn’t end up as one of my favorites, anyway), and accept each game more like its own ‘legend’. I’m fine with that now.
If we’re thinking of the same thing, I think I’ve seen the trailer you mentioned. I’m….not sure if that is supposed to be the Windfish or not. They look similar, but I’m still not sure. We’ll see soon, I guess!November 8, 2011 at 3:24 AM #6375
which makes me wonder if Links Awakening was really a dream…
A dream, yes, but doesn’t mean it didn’t happen. The Wind Fish was real and was being attacked by a nightmare. Needing help, Link astral projected into the dream. Being an earth guardian, the Wind Fish staying asleep was detrimental to the world.November 8, 2011 at 3:12 PM #6377
Oh that’s right. I remember now Mr. K.
Spoiler (Select text to view):
* When Link wakes up on the water you can see the Windfish. *November 10, 2011 at 4:50 PM #6386
Has Nintendo agreed that the time line split in Ocarina of Time?November 10, 2011 at 6:43 PM #6387
i mean the zelda storyline isnt really decipherable to me. All i know is Ocarina and Majora’s Mask are directly related, same with Zelda 1 and Adventure of LinkNovember 10, 2011 at 7:27 PM #6388
Well Majora’s Mask Link is the kid Link from Ocarina of Time. And the world saved by adult Link is the world in Windwaker, Phantom Hourglass and Spirit Tracks.
This is if Nintendo agrees to the split timeline. Which I think they should because the intro to Windwaker mentions the Hero of time that came out of nowhere to help.November 10, 2011 at 7:44 PM #6389
Essentially, yes; Eiji Aonuma said many years ago that ‘Ocarina has ‘two endings;’ one where Link is an adult, and one where he is a child. That is indeed how the game basically ends, really.
He reaffirmed this in a later interview, as well. This still doesn’t mean that Nintendo is still running the series from this standpoint, and that they just….I don’t know, decide which ‘timeline’ they want to throw the next game into without much real rhyme or reason, especially when, from the context of each game itself, it really doesn’t matter anyway.
But then again, he’s also stated that The Wind Waker takes place ‘parallel’ to The Ocarina of Time, instead of after, so there’s…only one way that would make any sense. Despite this, I just don’t fully buy it. Even if this is the real case of what Nintendo is doing, it doesn’t make much sense, and like I said, when you actually get into playing the games, it doesn’t end up mattering to begin with. Since the ‘timeline,’ whatever it is or is not, is never the real focus of any game, then who cares, anyway? Besides, a ‘split timeline’ still doesn’t explain other inconsistencies that Nintendo had created before/during ‘Ocarina. Thus, my viewpoint of, if Nintendo actually is keeping a ‘master timeline,’ they’re, uh, not doing a very good job, and again, it doesn’t matter, in the long-run.
Aonuma had also stated that the presence of a real timeline is not always clear, “due to the poor translation protocols in the 1990s and the constant debate over what counts as being canonical,” thus, “the publicly available information is disputed and may not be reconciled any time soon.” Uh, no, sorry, Aonuma. I think the real reason why things are so muddied is because that’s how Nintendo keeps making games. I suppose, for all I know, things got lost in translation somewhere along the way that could shed more light on the matter, but that really seems to be unlikely. That information would be posted everywhere, and it sure doesn’t seem to be.November 10, 2011 at 10:14 PM #6390November 15, 2011 at 6:41 AM #6409
Nintendo had atime line printed at one point on the US Nintendo Power site, they were asked to remove it by NoJ. Nintendo doesn’t have a mapped out time-line of the series, most theroies regarding time lines come from fans and what little bit the devs have throw at us regarding game placement on a line.November 15, 2011 at 2:54 PM #6410
It seems to me that they really have no time line but are afraid to admit it :ONovember 16, 2011 at 4:33 AM #6411
Actually, Miyamoto has said that the order the game logos appear in the LoZ collector’s edition Gamecube game is the timeline. Though it does not make sense.November 16, 2011 at 4:11 PM #6413
It seems Miyamoto gets confused quite a bit when questioned about the games. Just because he created the game it doesn’t mean he’s aware of every tiny detail of things. So yes he could actually be wrong in many things.
I’ve always found the first Zelda to be in in a desolate Hyrule where everything is destroyed and in ruins. Hence the need of the second game to take place north of the continent. I wonder if anyone else thinks this way and places it at the end of the line.November 17, 2011 at 4:45 PM #6430
You’re not the only one to think so, no. I think there are other people who definitely do consider the last two games to be near the end of the timeline, if one exists.
….Sigh…Or rather, the end of one timeline. Remember that in The Wind Waker, Hyrule was completely wiped out in a Biblical-style flood. Logic would tell you TWW and TPH would have to be at the end of….whatever timeline those games are in, supposing Nintendo is actually putting all these games in one timeline or the other. Seeing as how this is a fantasy series, I…guess there could be a way that hasn’t been covered yet that would ‘unflood’ Hyrule, but that’s getting ahead of ourselves, and besides…how lame would that be?
Like I explained, the way I generally look at at least part of the series is that the NES and SNES games go together pretty well, and form a ‘trilogy,’ if you will, so yeah, in there, the NES games are the last two games. A second ‘trilogy’ that does not connect well enough to this first one would be ‘Ocarina, TWW and TPH. These two separate ‘trilogies’ seem to fit best with each other, but not into the other ‘trilogy;’ they just don’t, as there are too many discrepencies.
Ugh, it’s reasons like this that it’s just best not to think about it a lot. D:
You must be logged in to reply to this topic.