semiconscious
Member
canoneers of the world unite! we have nothing to lose but our ability to differentiate between which aspects of fictitious content are completely fictitious, & which aren't...
-
Hey, guest user. Hope you're enjoying NeoGAF! Have you considered registering for an account? Come join us and add your take to the daily discourse.
Yes, there is a Zelda timeline. Why on earth does this bother people so much?
- Thread starter Zuo
- Start date
D
Deleted member 1159
Unconfirmed Member
No shit. The OP asked a question and I gave the answer from my perspective. Congrats you cracked my code
SmokedMeat
Gamer™
What’s so great about LoZ is that you can put the characters in all sorts of settings, with new gimmicks and art style because they’re largely individual games and not part of a giant timeline.
Are there sequels in the same universe? Of course.
Are they all part of some big timeline? Of course not.
Are there sequels in the same universe? Of course.
Are they all part of some big timeline? Of course not.
Big Baller
Al Pachinko, Konami President
Never cared for the timeline lol.
Soodanim
Gold Member
The curse you mentioned confirms a timeline if nothing else, I'm glad you brought that up. With just SS and OOT exisitng it necessitates a timeline of some description. That isn't to say everything fits cleanly into it, but one absolutely exists nonetheless.
SS lays the groundwork, meaning anything following the curse trio has to be connected back to it.
OOTc is followed by MM, where the same Link fights a different antagonist, confirming it's not just the same old retelling.
OOTa is followed by TP, where a different Link learns from a previous Link, confirming the connection between different Links.
That's not even counting the rest of the explicit connections. Post #30 details OOT-WW, for example.
You could make an argument for the games that aren't direct sequels being the same story that have no definitive place in the timeline because enough of the series was made to stand near enough alone, but given the connections that do exist the only reasonable claim is that we don't know where they fit in the timeline, not that they are just the same story retold. Dismissing all of the above because the reincarnation is just the player is - to put it bluntly - complete and utter waffle. You can headcanon what you like, and power to you if that makes you happy, but when it directly contradicts the games themselves it counts for nothing in a conversation about actual canon.
If Zelda is the same story retold then so is pretty much every series with a sequel, forget established series of events and silly things like different characters and events. Resident Evil? Assassin's Creed? Definitely just the same story retold each time, you just have to ignore all of those pesky details that make them different.
You know Nintendo wanted to move away from it when they set a game 10,000 years after anything else and essentially soft-rebooted by making the timelines converge. That's clear for all to see. And maybe there's a decent argument for 2 timelines, not 3. Even OP said it's not perfect, and I don't think anyone claims it is. But the timeline exists.
Zuo
Member
What you described in your first paragraph is a timeline
I don't fault anyone for not buying that _all_ the Zelda games are connected, but more and more people seem to be of the opinion that no Zelda games are connected and that Nintendo never thought of such things before. You can say that Nintendo didn't put a lot of effort into connecting all the Zelda games, but what's _way_ more remarkable is that Nintendo never did anything to completely disentangle any game from the common thread. Unlike Final Fantasy or Tales of games for example, almost all Zelda games share the same game world and background stuff. Nintendo would be stupid not to embellish and economize on that
And there are many reasons for not even giving a fuck instead of being mad about it:
- There is an undeniable overlap between Zelda games with the least amount of continuity and Zelda games with the least amount of story
- Making it official that they all share the same universe (really what the timeline boils down to) is a way cooler and more elegant solution than decanonizing a bunch of games and having them float around in an arbitrary limbo
- That's kinda what they did with the "The Hero is Defeated" split anyway, so nothing even really changes
TheDreadBaron
Member
No I don’t care if people want to make up their own timeline for fun, it’s more about the attitude of needing to fit every zelda game into a grand timeline where they don’t belong and insist it’s retroactive canon. Sure there are some connections in some games, and that’s where it should end officially. There should be room for fans to speculate with wild theories that are never given an official blessing.No one claims there are no inconsistencies (many of which are by design to maintain for themselves the freedom and absolute focus on making a fun game). A lot of inconsistencies also can be explained away with the fact that, as people in this thread pointed out, Zelda stories are "legends"
No one posted any "convoluted explanations" here. Saying this just makes it look like you have a preconceived opinion and take the timeline more seriously than the people who are fine with it
Personally, I don't even understand how someone can love Wind Waker while denying that it takes place after Ocarina of Time. So much of WW's sense of sublimity and emotional frission comes from the fact that it's OoT's world and characters that had all that shit happen to them because "we" were sent back into our timeline at the end of OoT and that even Ganondorf "covets" that old world. I vividly remember how almost everyone loved this about WW, too. And none of that is convoluted
The problem with your argument is that all the somewhat complex Zelda games fit together quite nicely (OoT, MM, WW, TP and SS being the centerpiece of the timeline), and all the Zeldas that don't seem to fit in anywhere are the 2D ones that have very simple stories. No one needs to disingenuously string any lore together if they don't enjoy it. And as mentioned in the OP, most of the black sheep also have their own little timeline that makes it even easier to see them in isolation... Or does it really bother you this much that the stupid acid dream Link has in LA takes place sometime after ALttP and a bazillion years after OoT? Maybe you people really care more about the timeline than the people who don't mind it
Last edited:
Zuo
Member
Who even gives you that attitude? Almost all the timeline conversations are characterized by snarky negativity. I've never seen any of those timeline tyrants who derail Zelda threads and insist that "Link's Awakening is after Ocarina of Time and you are dumb if you disagree" or something like that. I'm not even a huge believer in "just ignore it", but this timeline stuff really doesn't warrant 1% the shit it gets
Though I will admit that I think denying all continuity between even OoT, MM, WW (and the DS games), TP and SS is pretty silly, and that's sadly becoming more and more the tenor. That said, have a screenshot of the Master Sword communicating with Link almost 15 years before Skyward Sword
Last edited:
Woopah
Member
It's that there are connections in some games, it's that pretty much every game has a connection to another (though some connections are stronger than others).
And so because every game has a connection to at least one other game, that's what makes the timeline exist.
Happosai
Hold onto your panties
Even with this, a time line doesn't matter. I was waiting for OP to bullet it out formatted rather than drop a couple URLs.Could at least show the right one and not just two games.
At the end of the day the timeline is insignificant since most games are separate adventures with separate Links/Zeldas.
tomato shrub
Member
At this point I'm assuming that the "THIS NEVER EXISTED" brigade simply hasn't played many Zelda games. No, there isn't a masterplan. No, it isn't a priority for the developers.
But like half of this series consists of direct sequels to something else. An undeniable fact. Many of these direct sequels with very different plots, which makes that "same story retold" claim also factually wrong.
OoT-MM-WW-PH-ST alone is a line with 4 straight sequels. Not through abstract easter eggs, but by clearly saying it out loud.
Also it wasn't fans that started this. Miyamoto et al invented the reincarnation plot device to connect the games after Zelda 2. If it wasn't for that, these games' stories perception could've gone the way of Final Fantasy and Dragon Quest, which started around the same time
But like half of this series consists of direct sequels to something else. An undeniable fact. Many of these direct sequels with very different plots, which makes that "same story retold" claim also factually wrong.
OoT-MM-WW-PH-ST alone is a line with 4 straight sequels. Not through abstract easter eggs, but by clearly saying it out loud.
Also it wasn't fans that started this. Miyamoto et al invented the reincarnation plot device to connect the games after Zelda 2. If it wasn't for that, these games' stories perception could've gone the way of Final Fantasy and Dragon Quest, which started around the same time
Power Pro
Member
it's only unnecessary because they keep fucking it up. I don't understand why it's so hard for companies to maintain a continuity. It makes things feel like they have weight. When you can just toss it up to not mattering in the next game, I start to lose interest, especially when it's the same fucking story over and over.
killatopak
Gold Member
Timeline doesn’t matter in this case because they retcon shit anyway.
kunonabi
Member
The games have distinct connections more than they don't. The problem is Nintendo keeps trying to tell the Imprisoning War story and screwing it up which cause some things to not line up the way they should. Even then things work pretty well as long as you do the downfall timeline off of the Minish Cap and ignore Nintendo's ridiculous 4 swords adventures placement.
Honestly it's not until totk where it feels like Nintendo actively resents the timeline.
Honestly it's not until totk where it feels like Nintendo actively resents the timeline.
Dirk Benedict
Gold Member
Adventure of Link disrespecting the timeline.
Astral Dog
Member
Yes,there is s Zelda timeline(s) yes its fun to speculate about it,but at the end of the day it doesn't matter much, the intention is to keep repeating the same events over and over in a never ending loop
I was a little dissapointed with the latest game tbh, while fans were hoping Breath of the Wild would be placed far in the future, Nintendo went in a different direction rather than connect Breath of the Wild with previous games, it exists only in its own universe, Ganondorf essentially has the same backstory as OoT be he is a different being.
There is still lots of fun references for longtime fans,but not coherent placement in the 'timeline'
I was a little dissapointed with the latest game tbh, while fans were hoping Breath of the Wild would be placed far in the future, Nintendo went in a different direction rather than connect Breath of the Wild with previous games, it exists only in its own universe, Ganondorf essentially has the same backstory as OoT be he is a different being.
There is still lots of fun references for longtime fans,but not coherent placement in the 'timeline'
FoxMcChief
Gold Member
Because thinking is hard for most.
Zuo
Member
Indeed. Miyamoto is on record saying that they prioritize making a fun game over avoiding story inconsistencies by a wide margin, so I don't think a lot of people are under any illusions. It's still fun to connect the dots (or even discuss inconsistencies) and imagine that it's somewhat intentional
Something random I just remembered about Zelda TP is that Ganondorf doesn't have the Triforce of Power in it. Ganondorf already has the ToP in Wind Waker, though. That's because he got it in Ocarina of Time
He doesn't have it in TP because TP is in the timeline where Link is sent back in time, warns Zelda and Ganondorf never gets to invade the Sacred Realm. TP's Ganondorf ToP only activates when he's about to die (thanks to the glitch in the matrix that is Demise). And I guess the "divine prank" could even mean Link being sent to a separate timeline while having the Triforce of Courage
Last edited:
Woopah
Member
Indeed. Miyamoto is on record saying that they prioritize making a fun game over avoiding story inconsistencies by a wide margin, so I don't think a lot of people are under any illusions. It's still fun to connect the dots (or even discuss inconsistencies) and imagine that it's somewhat intentional
Something random I just remembered about Zelda TP is that Ganondorf doesn't have the Triforce of Power in it. Ganondorf already has the ToP in Wind Waker, though. That's because he got it in Ocarina of Time
He doesn't have it in TP because TP is in the timeline where Link is sent back in time, warns Zelda and Ganondorf never gets to invade the Sacred Realm. TP's Ganondorf ToP only activates when he's about to die (thanks to the glitch in the matrix that is Demise)
Exactly. When events in one game directly effect events in another (as often happens in Zelda) it requires a timeline to make sense.
Flutta
Banned
There’s no timeline. Get over it. Same hero saves the same princess just told in different ways. That’s why this timeline crap doesn’t make sense and why Nintendo choose to remake the story over and over and over again. It’s much easier than to make a complex never ending story that spans over decades.
It’s like saying Mario games have a timeline…
It’s like saying Mario games have a timeline…
TYRiAX
Member
The Zelda timeline is something I would care about when I was a kid, but now I have enough going on in my life for me to care, I just enjoy the game. Like its still cool as hell in Wind Waker when you submerge and see the flooded remains of Hyrule, without needing to know what the specific game/timeline that Hyrule is from.
Zuo
Member
There obviously is. Whether it's good or consistent is another question. Though the question this thread poses is why it bothers people like you so much
You make it sound like the timeline is some complex conundrum wrestling with takes a lot of time, when the truth is that Wind Waker's intro literally rubs it in your face that the story takes place after OoT. Stubbornnly jumping through mental hoops to deny the continuity is probably the more arduous task
But that's the impression I usually get from timeline deniers and still my only explanation for why the timeline evokes so much scorn. There are at least two groups of people who seem to believe that the timeline is somehow complicated and hate it for that reason; a) Zelda players who want to enjoy the games to their fullest without having to watch some nerdy videos, and b) Zelda haters who want nothing less than Zelda games to be seen as "complex"
The continuity between OoT, MM, WW (and its sequels), TP and SS doesn't only make the games more ejoyable but is also extremely obvious and easy to understand, though. And most of the 2D games have so little story that it shouldn't even matter to you whether there is a timeline or not
kiphalfton
Member
Dr. Wilkinson
Member
Since Nintendo designs Zelda games out of concepting and prototyping out new gameplay ideas vs “where in the timeline should we begin work on this new Zelda game,” to me I just don’t care. It’s an afterthought for them. And they literally are the ones who make the games. So why does anyone care is a great question.
If every game followed neatly after OoT and then they added in prequels and it was always the same Link I could see where it would be interesting. But it’s a different Link in each game. Do people play modern Zelda games for the story? I feel like the enjoyment for the games come from exploration and puzzle solving. I stopped thinking Zelda stories were interesting after Wind Waker.
If every game followed neatly after OoT and then they added in prequels and it was always the same Link I could see where it would be interesting. But it’s a different Link in each game. Do people play modern Zelda games for the story? I feel like the enjoyment for the games come from exploration and puzzle solving. I stopped thinking Zelda stories were interesting after Wind Waker.
Last edited:
Woopah
Member
It would be much easier yes, but making a complex never ending story that spans over decade is what Nintendo went with.There’s no timeline. Get over it. Same hero saves the same princess just told in different ways. That’s why this timeline crap doesn’t make sense and why Nintendo choose to remake the story over and over and over again. It’s much easier than to make a complex never ending story that spans over decades.
It’s like saying Mario games have a timeline…
The difference is that Nintendo's developers never intended Mario to have a timeline. But they intended Zelda to have a timelinr since the 80s.
People don't have to care about the timeline, but it's existence is a fact. It would be like claiming that Metroid doesn't have a timeline.
Last edited:
Woopah
Member
It depends on the game. Some start with a gameplay mechanic and the story gets added in later. But as another example, the first N64 Zelda was always intended as a prequel to a Link to the Past.
Likewise I don't think its a coincidence that the 2nd DS Zelda is a sequel to the 1st DS Zelda.
Last edited:
Muffdraul
Member
The people who created Zelda games just did whatever the fuck they wanted. Zelda 2 was a direct sequel. ALttP was more or less a reboot. LA was a gaiden. OoT was a reboot. WW was a sequel to every game that came before. SS was a prequel to every game before. It seemed like they eventually felt the need to stick to a timeline to pacify the angry nerds in the fanbase, but way too late in the series. And they didn't do a particularly good job. Usually vague plot references at best.
Last edited:
Thabass
Member
The made the timeline official when the Hyrule Historia came out. Anyone saying otherwise is wrong or uninformed.
The thing about the timeline is that its unnecessary to enjoy the games. You don't need to the timeline to enjoy the lore of any Zelda game. It's just a fun thing to think about.
The thing about the timeline is that its unnecessary to enjoy the games. You don't need to the timeline to enjoy the lore of any Zelda game. It's just a fun thing to think about.
Last edited:
Dr. Wilkinson
Member
But like. Literally every game other than those two are what I’m describing. What you’re describing is the exception to the rule.
You used n64 era Zelda’s as an example, which is also what I used as occasion when story was important. But it is clearly not anymore. And Spirit Tracks was an expedited game made quickly to get a second Zelda on DS, I doubt the games development mandated at the outset it had to be a direct sequel, because the story was so important. It probably just made things easier.
Last edited:
There has never been anything more irrelevant than the notion of a Zelda ‘timeline’.
I am so fucking tired of gamers going on about ‘lore’. Fuck, games are not primarily vehicles for stories and im sick of this ever-worsening obsession with story in games.
FUCK the Zelda timeline. I never want to hear about it, ever. If you mention a Zelda timeline, you are a baby (regardless of age).
The games stand alone as repeated legends and myths.
Fuck the timeline and fuck this obsession with story.
I am so fucking tired of gamers going on about ‘lore’. Fuck, games are not primarily vehicles for stories and im sick of this ever-worsening obsession with story in games.
FUCK the Zelda timeline. I never want to hear about it, ever. If you mention a Zelda timeline, you are a baby (regardless of age).
The games stand alone as repeated legends and myths.
Fuck the timeline and fuck this obsession with story.
Last edited:
Dr. Wilkinson
Member
Aggressive post, but I agree in principle.
Why would these games need to maintain a continuity?
This is a madness that has gripped you.
IDKFA
I am Become Bilbo Baggins
It doesn't bother me. I just don't understand why it needs a timeline and why people fap themselves raw over it..
Honestly, why do grown adults want Zelda, which is fun, whimsical game designed for children, to have a complex timeline and deep lore?
It's just some elf kid bashing shit with a sword. It doesn't need to be more complex than that.
Honestly, why do grown adults want Zelda, which is fun, whimsical game designed for children, to have a complex timeline and deep lore?
It's just some elf kid bashing shit with a sword. It doesn't need to be more complex than that.
Happosai
Hold onto your panties
It doesn't need to be aggressive. There are many of these super fans of the Zelda franchise who get really deep into the lore. I honestly don't think the timeline matters at all as long as you're enjoying the games. Any fandom in the video game universe as old and popular as LoZ will have this though. If a timeline really mattered, then the authors of the games (writers) over the years would have made it point to publish. Think about Metal Gear, we get a very skewed but a timeline none-the-less a timeline. Kojima himself never disagreed with this to be just lore but it coming about had a lot to do with fandom around the franchise. Not comparing MGS to LoZ as we can tell clearly a lot more went into the writing of MGS 1 - 4. Adding the OG Metal Gear games was more of where the fandom came in to try making sense of things.
My point, you could play MGS and timeline will probably come up as question just from 1 - 2. With LoZ...people will just play it and never ask these questions. Nor will most care for timeline or lore.
Woopah
Member
It varies a lot. For something like Skyward Sword, Minish Cap or Link Between Worlds, it's timeline placement would have been thought about fairly early on since it impacted the story and design.But like. Literally every game other than those two are what I’m describing. What you’re describing is the exception to the rule.
You used n64 era Zelda’s as an example, which is also what I used as occasion when story was important. But it is clearly not anymore. And Spirit Tracks was an expedited game made quickly to get a second Zelda on DS, I doubt the games development mandated at the outset it had to be a direct sequel, because the story was so important. It probably just made things easier.
Whereas for the Oracle games they won't have thought about the timeline placement much at all.
Last edited:
Zuo
Member
Because most of it seems irrational to me
Dr. Wilkinson
Member
Aonuma basically echoes what I said already in his recent interview that people are all in an uproar about. But essentially he confirms what I said, which we all already know anyway, basically that Nintendo‘s design teams when they make Zelda care more about new gameplay ideas than they do about where things fit in a timeline, and that’s generally how they approach the games. Which is also how they approach games in all of their series.
Swagballs717
Member
You can count on one hand the amount of Zelda games that are directly connected to another game in the series. They're all mostly standalone so it doesn't really matter which timeline they're in or what order they occur.
Zuo
Member
True, but it matters for some games
Knowing it's actually supposed to be the same rather than just some reference (see all the stuff in BotW) carries a lot of weight. You're already emotionally embedded, there is built-in context and weight to things. Obviously not the same roller-coaster ride of emotions that you encounter when revisiting your old home or school or running into your old teacher (rather than just a person reminding you of them), but it's that principle. Dark Souls 3 tried enacting the same feeling with Anor Londo
The timeline and how he is that one constant in a (literal) sea of ever-changing variables is also what makes Ganondorf a special villain and what made many people fall in love with the character for the first time in Wind Waker, coveting a place and people the game doesn't even show in cutscenes because he's self-evidently talking about OoT
Denying something so obvious about the Zelda games is actually a rather new phenomenon, and I believe it's mostly either a) Zelda fans who fear they have to play all the games to understand everything (you obviously don't), and b) Zelda haters who believe the timeline is this "complex" thing that they don't feel comfortable ascribing to Zelda. There are many prime examples of the latter in this very thread. This post
reads like, "ZELDA IS SIMPLE. STOP SAYING ZELDA ISN'T DUMB AND SIMPLE. YOU ARE A STUPID CHILD IF YOU DO. AAAAAAAAAHHH!" And it takes 10 seconds to find that this user doesn't like Zelda and Nintendo very much
Not saying these aren't 100% acceptable opinions, but it would be silly to deny this context when asking where the hate for the timeline comes from
DelireMan7
Member
Similar things for the Soulsborne game.
I personally think that Demon's Souls, Dark Souls 1/2/3 and Bloodborne are in a similar universe or "timeline". Somehow some people are incredibly offended by that and try to prove me wrong.
The fact is "I don't care". I appreciate the games like that, and it doesn't affect their appreciation of the game.
I never went to deep into Zelda's lore and timelines, but I really like the idea of the parallel timeline for them.
I personally think that Demon's Souls, Dark Souls 1/2/3 and Bloodborne are in a similar universe or "timeline". Somehow some people are incredibly offended by that and try to prove me wrong.
The fact is "I don't care". I appreciate the games like that, and it doesn't affect their appreciation of the game.
I never went to deep into Zelda's lore and timelines, but I really like the idea of the parallel timeline for them.