[SPOILERS] Legend of Zelda Continuity - SPLIT from 3D Zelda graphical styles

[Yantelope]

Lets all be honest here and just admit that LOZ is completely made up as it goes along and they're probably painted themselves into a corner but they're not ever going to admit it.

[CorgiShinobi]

Eh, I kinda consider it to be a "fanservice timeline." Connections can be made to a few games, whereas most games you have to intentionally let slide a few continuity errors.

 

In all seriousness, I doubt anyone behind a Zelda game cares at all for continuity. Most Zelda games are suppose to be self-contained stories that build upon previous gameplay elements, not so much other legends of other games. I think it's easy to say, on the development side of things, "Well, if you care, I guess you would put Zelda X before Y."

 

A suggestion more than chronological fact. When we do receive direct sequels, it's because a previous continuity could be extended. Many, many people loved Ocarina of Time, hence Majora's Mask "sequel." Cut out the Introduction (dimensional shift, Link's prior motive, etc), and you could have had a completely unrelated story to OoT. Almost like Link's Awakening: it feels like a sequel, but there's difference of opinion as to which Zelda game it descends from.

[Johnny]

That nobody cares on the zelda team is evidently not true, because most of the games contain hints as to where they would fit in a timeline with the other games.

 

It is however pretty clear to me that they do not intend to ever have it be obvious or set in stone. It's there for those fans that care, without intruding on the story for the fans that do not give a shit. I think, in general, it's pretty well-done.

[CorgiShinobi]

  On 10/14/2011 at 7:41 PM, Johnny said:

That nobody cares on the zelda team is evidently not true, because most of the games contain hints as to where they would fit in a timeline with the other games.

 

It is however pretty clear to me that they do not intend to ever have it be obvious or set in stone. It's there for those fans that care, without intruding on the story for the fans that do not give a shit. I think, in general, it's pretty well-done.

This is actually what I meant; sorry for the hyperbole.

 

It being not obvious or set in stone, that's a perfect description. I mean, I want to say it feels like there's no attention to detail, but there is detail... It just doesn't always seem to fit "right." It's kinda like the Sheikah crest in Twilight Princess. We know where it's from and who it belongs to... just not exactly sure how it should be applied to Twilight Princess.

 

EDIT: And with Link's Awakening again, there are those who put it directly after Link to the Past, but also those you put it after a sequence of the Oracle games.

Edited October 14, 2011 by Atomsk88

[Yantelope]

Capcom making Zelda games always bugged me.

 

I was actually very shocked when Wind Waker opened with a preface. It was a little strange to get so much backstory. I suppose that there was a preface to LTTP but it wasn't directly linking it to another game in the series.

 

 

 

Also, is anyone else bothered by the fact that the master sword is always just there? Why doesn't Ganon ever bother guarding it? Where did it come from?

Edited October 14, 2011 by Yantelope

[Johnny]

This post started as a reply to Yantelope above and... kind of got out of hand. I feel like such a nerd now.

 

I haven't played most of the games I will be talking about in ages, so if I'm wrong on anything, feel free to point it out. Also, consider this your spoiler warning.

 

As I see it, trying to pin-point exactly where every title fits is pretty futile, because some of them are so vague. Various sites and groups have tried to compile a complete timeline, and they always end up disagreeing on the finer points of games that do not directly reference each others.

 

What we know:

 

  Reveal hidden contents

• Minish Cap introduces Vaati, who was at that point an unknown figure. Both Four Swords games feature Vaati. Minish Cap is before the Four Swords saga.
  

• Four Swords Adventure features Ganon, who acquires the Trident that he is seen wielding in Link To The Past. Four Swords Adventure must take place after Ocarina of Time, but before A Link To The Past.
  

• Zelda 2 takes place immediately after Zelda 1
  

• Ocarina of Time was at the time of it's release the first game in the timeline.
  

• Wind Waker is directly followed by Phantom Hourglass, which is in turn followed by Spirit Tracks, albeit with a time jump.
  

• Twilight Princess
  in a way that does not fit with the adult ending.
  

• Oracle of Seasons/Ages deals with a rescurrection of Ganon, so they have to take place after one of the games where Ganon is slain. Ganon is then again slain at the end of the games. The Triforce is also at it's proper resting place, which is normally not the case.
  

• Skyward Sword takes place before everything else.
  

 

 

 

 

My interpretations. Read this entire section as an "In my opinion":

 

  Reveal hidden contents

• Ocarina of Time seems to be set during the intro to A Link To The Past. Inconsistencies can be attributed to Ocarina of TIme being developed later, and thus being a retcon.
  

• All the games that reference Ganon being locked inside the golden land/sacred realm has to take place in the adult timeline, because that's where Ganon was locked away.
  

• Twilight Princess takes place in the child timeline. Only the gods know of the Hero of Time, whereas he is common knowledge in the Adult timeline. The scene that references Ocarina of Time seems to describe what happened to Ganondorf after Link came back as a child and warned princess Zelda of what was going to happen.
  

• The argument that Minish Cap comes before all other currently released games is interesting, but is not supported by the rest of the Vaati saga, where Vaati turns out to be Ganon's puppet. Additionally, Minish Cap features moblins, who are usually Ganon's soldiers wherever they appear. Minish Cap could go anywhere before Four Swords/Adventure and A Link To The Past. If we place it after Ocarina of Time, however, where would it go?
  

• It would make sense to place Oracle of Ages/Seasons after A Link To The Past, and Link's Awakening after Ages/Seasons. The Oracle games requires Ganon to be defeated and the triforce at it's resting place, which fits LTTP. And if I recall correctly, the true ending of Oracles places Link on a boat like the one in the opening to Awakening.
  

• Wind Waker initially seems to reference Ocarina of Time, which would conflict with A Link To The Past, but Wind Waker speaks of a young boy defeating Ganon, which isn't how Ocarina of Time played out. Personally, I think the only way this fits at all (and even then, it takes a bit of pushing...) is if the events described in Wind Waker's intro is A Link To The Past, followed by Link not being present during the Link's Awakening. This Link can not make it back to Hyrule, because then Wind Waker's premise is fucked. Again.
  

• The more common theory about Wind Waker is that it takes place directly after Ocarina of Time. Aside from Ocarina of Time's link being an adult when he defeated Ganon, this completely fucks any other adult timeline games involving the triforce, ganon and the master sword, as two out of three of those are stuck at the bottom of the sea at the end. Unless Nintendo is planning to drain the sea in the future.
  

• Zelda 1 and 2 just doesn't really fit anywhere without problems. It does feature Moblins, and all other games that do seem to take place in the adult timeline, so this is probably somewhere around there as well. That is, if you accept the argument for Minish Cap being in the adult timeline.
  

• Skyward Sword is at the beginning because the timeline is at this point so fucked that it'd be hard to place it anywhere else
  

 

 

 

 

So if I were to actually draw up a timeline... *opens photoshop*

 

  Reveal hidden contents

 

 

 

 

 

 

I did not really want to have to deal with Oracles and Link's Awakening, but it's the only way that both Wind Waker and A Link To The Past can fit.

[CorgiShinobi]

I was about to post James Rolfe's (AVGN's) Zelda Timeline video as well.

 

The only Zelda games I have not played are Four Swords Adventure and most of Minish Cap. The copy of Minish Cap I had was faulty, so I couldn't get far because saving didn't always work. Still, I always hear people putting Minish Cap in the beginning, and Four Swords and Adventures right afterward.

 

I dunno, but it always feels weird to have Ocarina be close to an origin story. Then again, this is where we have Ganondorf and his powers increased through the Triforce of Power.

[Johnny]

The most common argument for putting Minish Cap in the beginning is that "it explains how link got his hat", which is to me a pretty silly reason.

Anyone putting Adventures before Ocarina can't actually have played the games considering Ganon is in Adventures.

[Faiblesse Des Sens]

Does anyone think that Nintendo themselves didn't have any of this thought out at all but have only mentioned when games take place in the timeline due to fans constantly bringing this sort of thing up?

[Johnny]

If that was the case, there wouldn't be story bits tying games together.

[P4: Gritty Reboot]

Yeah, someone suggested that above, FDS. I do believe they have a loose timeline, probably pretty close to what Johnny posted, but it's a little fluid it seems.

[Faiblesse Des Sens]

  On 10/15/2011 at 5:33 AM, Johnny said:

If that was the case, there wouldn't be story bits tying games together.

 

Because easter eggs are canon?

[Vargras]

  On 10/15/2011 at 5:15 AM, Faiblesse Des Sens said:

Does anyone think that Nintendo themselves didn't have any of this thought out at all but have only mentioned when games take place in the timeline due to fans constantly bringing this sort of thing up?

 

They ARE pretty terrible with timelines.

 

See: Metroid franchise.

[Johnny]

Having a character with the same name as a completely different character appear is an easter egg.

 

Having a

that explains what happened to ganondorf after the child ending of Ocarina of Time is not.

 

Making two games (The Four Swords saga) explaining where Ganon got the Trident is not.

 

Then making a prequel to those games explaining who the hell Vaati is, is not.

 

etc.

 

  On 10/15/2011 at 6:40 AM, Vargras said:

They ARE pretty terrible with timelines.

 

See: Metroid franchise.

 

This is mostly true. It sounds a lot like most of their games are developed first with a focus on the game itself, isolated from the rest of the franchise, and then having some context worked into at the end. For good and ill.

 

I don't take this zelda timeline stuff very seriously. It's just a fun exercise I run through my head sometimes when I'm bored, trying to figure out what fits into where. Like a sort of abstract puzzle that doesn't QUITE fit perfectly no matter what solution you throw at it.

[Faiblesse Des Sens]

  Quote

This is mostly true. It sounds a lot like most of their games are developed first with a focus on the game itself, isolated from the rest of the franchise, and then having some context worked into at the end.

 

Yeah, this is all I'm saying about it. Glad you're level-headed about all of this.

[CorgiShinobi]

There are Zelda games, while they can seem quite different, make references to other titles. For example, Wind Waker did talk about the Hero of Time, a.k.a. OoT Link. The Link in Wind Waker was then called the "Hero of Wind" in comparison.

 

Yet, then when you put more thought into it, you realize the games focus so much more of the gameplay than any obscure timeline. For example, again, Wind Waker would follow the Adult Link split timeline, yet Ganondorf never transforms into Ganon, and supposedly Zelda, the 8th Sage, has a child. With Twilight Princess, it follows the Child Link split timeline, yet Ganondorf does transform into Ganon. I guess you could say his powers became magnified in the Twilight Realm.

[Johnny]

I remember reading that the official explanation for Ganon in TP is that the twilight realm is actually the same thing as the golden/sacred realm. Which is kind of retarded, but there it is.

[madbassman39]

I guess this is continuity, but I hate that they changed Link to be right handed instead of left handed. I know the reasons why, because of the wii, but I still don't like it.

 

Having not played any major Zelda titles (Season on the GBC was the only game I played), I don't know much about link, but being left handed was one of his very notice-able traits that made him unique

[Yantelope]

My personal opinion is that it's an inside joke at Nintendo that there's actually no connection between any of the games and they try to keep it as ambiguous and confusing as possible. Really, there's no reason for an inter-game connection as one game has about as much impact on the next as a FInal Fantasy title. I honestly never realized people were trying to piece the games together into a timeline for a long long time. I always figured it was just the same story being retold in different ways over and over. I guess that's why I was so shocked at the backstory in Wind Waker as it was the only game (outside of the sidestory games LA and MM) which had some Link to any other games.

 

As an aside, I really want to go play some old Zelda games now that we've been talking about this. I think I'm gonna go play TP again.

[TheMightyEthan]

I think the Zelda series would be better described as a collection of arcs, and while games within an arc are related the arcs don't really bear any relationship to each other.

[Yantelope]

Yeah, that's probably a great way to describe it. That's how I always thought about it. I always figured the original and Zelda II were related. LTTP and LA were related. Oracle games are clearly related. OOT and MM are related and possibly OOT and WW are related.

[SixTwoSixFour]

I'm not the first to make this point, but... it's the Legend of Zelda, gentlemen. It's a legend. Every release is a different version of the same story, and through thousands of years of translator telephone, small elements have changed in various versions until only a few core threads remain the same- Ganon, Link, Zelda, the magical sword, the temples. The legends bleed into each other, details exchanged, references to each other. That's what I think.

[Johnny]

  On 10/17/2011 at 8:04 PM, Yantelope said:

My personal opinion is that it's an inside joke at Nintendo that there's actually no connection between any of the games and they try to keep it as ambiguous and confusing as possible.

 

Which is entirely contradicted by the games themselves and the developers.

 

  On 10/17/2011 at 8:13 PM, TheMightyEthan said:

I think the Zelda series would be better described as a collection of arcs, and while games within an arc are related the arcs don't really bear any relationship to each other.

 

How does this work? As you can see in my post above I find what I consider pretty clear evidence within the games themselves that the arcs are connected. Wind Waker is probably the most "in your face" about it out of all of them.

 

  On 10/17/2011 at 8:40 PM, SixTwoSixFour said:

I'm not the first to make this point, but... it's the Legend of Zelda, gentlemen. It's a legend. Every release is a different version of the same story, and through thousands of years of translator telephone, small elements have changed in various versions until only a few core threads remain the same- Ganon, Link, Zelda, the magical sword, the temples. The legends bleed into each other, details exchanged, references to each other. That's what I think.

 

It's quite true that it's a legend; it explains among other things why the hero always happens to be a guy in green clothes with similar equipment that is known as Link. If I were interested in glossing over Nintendo's plot holes, I would argue that it also excuses those. But that would just be an excuse not to think, as I see it.

However, once again, that each game is just a retelling of the same story is not supported by the games themselves.

[Yantelope]

I think you're overlooking the fact that even the developers themselves clearly don't understand the timeline.

 

"Confusion was caused over this title's placement when Shigeru Miyamoto stated in an interview that it occurred after the original (see Miyamoto Order). However, due to Miyamoto's admitted lack of interest or involvement in the Zelda timeline, many choose to brand it an honest mistake on his part, or a possible mistranslation resulting from Nintendo's poor translation practices of the 80's and 90's."

 

http://zelda.wikia.com/wiki/Timeline

[TheMightyEthan]

  On 10/17/2011 at 9:05 PM, Johnny said:

  On 10/17/2011 at 8:13 PM, TheMightyEthan said:

I think the Zelda series would be better described as a collection of arcs, and while games within an arc are related the arcs don't really bear any relationship to each other.

How does this work? As you can see in my post above I find what I consider pretty clear evidence within the games themselves that the arcs are connected. Wind Waker is probably the most "in your face" about it out of all of them.

I would consider Wind Waker to be part of the Ocarina of Time super-arc that also includes Majora's Mask, Twilight Princess, Phantom Hourglass and Spirit Tracks (and apparently Skyward Sword, though we'll see for sure when that game comes out).

 

*Edit* - Honestly it seems to me that they really only started trying to develop a cohesive overarching timeline around the development of Wind Waker, building off of Ocarina of Time, and so any ways that the older titles fit in are more shoehorn ret-cons than anything that was ever intended when they were made.