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

[Johnny]

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

 

 

I am not overlooking it.

 

1) Miyamoto has been shown many times (as the quote you just pulled from the zelda wiki says) to not care about the timeline. He cares about the gameplay, not the story.

 

2) That the connections are badly done and confusing does not mean that they aren't there, or aren't canon.

 

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).

 

How do you explain the two other games that reference Ocarina of Time; LTTP and Twilight Princess?

[TheMightyEthan]

I included Twilight Princess in the super arc, and I'm not familiar enough with LttP to speculate there. However, I will say I follow the death of the author theory, and so regardless of what Word of God is, if I have an interpretation that I like better or makes more sense to me I'll go with that.

[Yantelope]

1) Miyamoto has been shown many times (as the quote you just pulled from the zelda wiki says) to not care about the timeline. He cares about the gameplay, not the story.

 

but that's exactly my point. The overall story isn't important. If it wasn't important to the creator then it probably shouldn't be overly important to me.

 

edit: Been reading that link Ethan and I don't think I personally ascribe to it.

Edited October 17, 2011 by Yantelope

[TheMightyEthan]

FUCK! Lost a long-ass post...

 

Summarized version: I don't 100% ascribe to it either, but for pure entertainment things like Zelda I'll go with whatever interpretation I like best and makes the most sense to me. So I might interpret little hints at connections between games either as easter eggs or that the games are thematically related without necessarily being one continuity. Bigger things like the backstories to TP and WW I interpret as meaning those are in the same continuity as OoT (or the split continuity, anyway), but small inconsistencies go to the "legend" idea that the story has evolved over time and may not be 100% consistent.

 

To me the only thing that's "canon" is what's actually contained within the work, and just because a creator interprets/intends it a certain way doesn't mean that that's the only valid interpretation. Not to say that creator intent can't be interesting or meaningful, it's just not dispositive.

[Johnny]

 

but that's exactly my point. The overall story isn't important. If it wasn't important to the creator then it probably shouldn't be overly important to me.

 

 

No god damn it Yantelope, that is not what you were arguing. You were arguing there is exactly 0 connection. Not that the connection isn't important. You can't just change your tune and pretend that that's what you've been saying all along.

 

Furthermore, Miyamoto is NOT the only creator. He doesn't care much, but other people on his team does. Eiji Aonouma seems to be in charge of that whole deal, judging from interviews with Miyamoto and Aonouma, where Miyamoto seems to refer to Aonouma when the timeline is being asked about.

 

I included Twilight Princess in the super arc, and I'm not familiar enough with LttP to speculate there. However, I will say I follow the death of the author theory, and so regardless of what Word of God is, if I have an interpretation that I like better or makes more sense to me I'll go with that.

 

That's all well and fine. I agree that what is in the games is the only completely solid "evidence" when trying to argue things like this.

 

As for A Link To The Past: It is my opinion that Ocarina of Time is expanding on what's seen in the intro for LTTP, and sort of a retcon. This leaves a few plot holes in regards to Ganon's plot thread throughout LTTP, but fewer than any suggested alternatives.

 

In the entirety of the Legend of Zelda, Ganon/Ganondorf has been the one near-constant character. It's always been the same guy, while it's been different Zeldas and Links. Tracing his story thread is in my opinion the most solid way to determine the connection between the different "arcs" in the franchise. Everything expands outwards from Ocarina of Time becuase that's Ganondorf's origin story. Any other game featuring him must take place after Ocarina of Time.

[CorgiShinobi]

I have to agree with Johnny in that if you must look to someone on the development side of things, it would be Eiji Aonouma. Miyamoto has a quote or two for Ocarina of Time, but that's about as far as he has gone to expound on anything "timeline" related. Before Twilight Princess finally debuted, there were a number of interviews with Aonouma about the game's relation to Ocarina of Time. They obviously weren't very detailed, but a connection was made.

Edited October 18, 2011 by Atomsk88

[Yantelope]

@Johnny, There are some games that are clearly connected and there are some that aren't. I just mean that I don't think it matters as each game stands alone just fine without ever playing any other Zelda game. When I said there was no connection at all I wasn't completely serious as I poitned out how some games are clearly connected. The overall point remains though that I don't see any purpose in trying to tie all the games together as clearly there's no possible way to do it without making up crazy theories.

 

Anywho, if you care to piece it all together that's fine by me but I personally love the games but have no interest in trying to make them all fit together in one big story arc.

Edited October 18, 2011 by Yantelope

[Johnny]

How's the split timeline theory crazy? It feels quite unfair of you to belittle the reasoning I'm using without backing it up. Developer intent seems to matter to you, and the split timeline theory has been acknowledged by the developers... Wether they originally intended it, that's now what they are themselves calling canon.

 

Honestly, why are you even posting in this thread if you're not interested? You're just coming off as a troll.

[Thursday Next]

I agree with Yant for the most part. There's a couple of Zelda's that clearly run back to back, OoT and MM being a pertty good example, but generally I view them like Final Fantasy games. There's some key carry overs but they are mostly separate stories. Or the same story told in different ways; namely that the hero Link saves the Princess Zelda from some calamity that threatens to engulf the world.

 

Doesn't Zelda not know who Link is pretty much every time they meet? Is she some sort of super aloof Marie Antoinette, who can't tell one peasant from another? Or is she supposed to be like River Song and keeps meeting Link before she met him?

[Cyber Rat]

I think it's more various realities of comic book heroes like Spider-Man than the Final Fantasy games. I don't see how the Split Timeline Theory is crazy, you've had that kind of stuff outside of video games for quite a while. I'm not a fan of the franchise and haven't played too Zelda games many, but I always thought it was more of a "different realities" rather than "reset button".

Edited October 18, 2011 by Cyber Rat

[Johnny]

I agree with Yant for the most part. There's a couple of Zelda's that clearly run back to back, OoT and MM being a pertty good example, but generally I view them like Final Fantasy games. There's some key carry overs but they are mostly separate stories. Or the same story told in different ways; namely that the hero Link saves the Princess Zelda from some calamity that threatens to engulf the world.

 

Doesn't Zelda not know who Link is pretty much every time they meet? Is she some sort of super aloof Marie Antoinette, who can't tell one peasant from another? Or is she supposed to be like River Song and keeps meeting Link before she met him?

 

The Links in different games are (with a few exceptions) completely different, unrelated people. The Zeldas are also not the same person. It's explained in Zelda 2 (or rather, Zelda 2's manual) that it's tradition for the princesses of Hyrule to be named Zelda.

Wind Waker's intro talks about a previous boy hero clad in green who defeated Ganon. This is the Hero of Time - the Link from Ocarina of Time*.

Twilight Princess, roughly halfway through, explains what happens to Ganon after the "child" ending of Ocarina of Time.

I don't know what more to say, if the games directly talking about events that transpired in other games, or the word of the developers themselves, do not convince you.

 

*I am aware I said it was the link from A Link To The Past in my post on the first page. That was dumb of me, and I will revise that post later.

[Thursday Next]

So if the Zeldas are different and the Links are different can I assume the Ganon's are different too? If so what's the point of the continuity? What's continuous about it? Why isn't it called the Legends of Zeldas?

 

The different Zelda's, different Links make this seem more like a group of unconnected stories rather than a single continuous arc. The only difference between Zelda and FF is that FF changes the world and the principal characters while keeping the moogles, chocobos and what not, while LoZ keeps pretty much the entire cast from one iteration to the next.

 

A lot of the connections seem to be retcons in my opinion and any continuity feels really crowbarred in.

[Johnny]

You would be wrong to assume that Ganon's are different. But you would already know that if you had actually read this massive two-page thread.

[Thursday Next]

"Ganon/Ganondorf has been the one near-constant character. It's always been the same guy, while it's been different Zeldas and Links."

 

It's not clear what you mean when you say he's "near" constant. Of course, you would already know that if you weren't actually being a massive two-page dick about it.

 

Y'know what, you're clearly quite invested in LoZ having a continuity, I'm not, so I'm just gonna bow out of this thread and keep playing them as stand-alone titles (barring obviously linked titles like OoT and MM).

[Yantelope]

Johnny, you're taking this a bit personally maybe? I don't think any of us were here are trying to attack or belittle you.

Edited October 18, 2011 by Yantelope

[TheMightyEthan]

I've always thought the Links and Zeldas are different incarnations of the same person. So the Link and Zelda in TP or WW aren't really the same people as from OoT, but they are the reincarnations of those people. They're not the same "person" but they're the same metaphysical being (soul, spirit, whatever).

 

*Edit* - But my understanding is that Ganon is always the same actual person, that he never really dies, at most he gets reduced to a near powerless spirit, kind of like Sauron or Voldemort.

 

*Edit Edit* - Seriously Chrome, you recognize "Voldemort" as being a word, but not "Sauron"?

[Masonvrocks]

I think even that's false Ethan. I haven't played the whole game but I've seen things on Youtube where the spirit or something of the Hero of Time teaches TP Link certain moves or something like that.

[CorgiShinobi]

I think even that's false Ethan. I haven't played the whole game but I've seen things on Youtube where the spirit or something of the Hero of Time teaches TP Link certain moves or something like that.

.....

 

You mean the Hero's Shade? Like, a few people believe it might be a previous Link, but it's mainly because they take certain phrases like "bloodline" and "my child" literally. With "my child," it's a form of endearment, much like an older gentleman saying "my boy." If anything, the Hero's Shade in just the mentor/sensei character that teaches the new Link powerful sword techniques.

 

EDIT: As for Zeldas and Links, well, it's confusing...

 

Past Zeldas have been blood related, and as previously mentioned, "Zelda" is a tradition. Think back to Tetra in Wind Waker. Spoiler Alert, but she is that generation's Zelda. A few other Zeldas, like say Twilight Princess' Zelda don't necessarily have any context other than, "Hey, you're in Hyrule Castle!"

 

Link, well, Link is actually just a default name if you really want to think about this. The way I've seen it is that whenever evil would arise, a hero would be ready and able to conquer the new foe. Someone who is worthy to wield the Master Sword, or in some cases, be able to fuse with the Triforce of Courage. Also, in some cases it seems like any one Link would have difficulty in beginning a relationship and having any descendants. Perhaps it's possible, but one really shouldn't think that hard on how Zelda and Link arise would each occasion.

Edited October 19, 2011 by Atomsk88

[Johnny]

@Yantelope: I just get tired of arguing with people who provide no arguments and clearly doesn't know jack shit on the subject.

 

@TheMightyEthan: Once again, there is actually nothing in the games to suggest that it's the case.

 

@Mason: I'm not convinced either way with the hero's shade thing. It's too ambigious what it could mean.

 

@Atomsk88: Yep, that's pretty much how I view the Links as well.

[Yantelope]

@Yantelope: I just get tired of arguing with people who provide no arguments and clearly doesn't know jack shit on the subject.

 

[Saturnine Tenshi]

I used to be a stalwart Nintendo fan. You know, until the whole "Let's cease with the quality video games and instead focus on forcing every novelty of our novelty devices into our software." And as colossal a Zelda fan as I was, I can't say I ever saw the whole issue of continuity as anything more than a tenuous connection of red yarn by folk who had to preserve the idea of games being canon. I mean, really. I'd love for there to be some timeline, but everything released is either nebulous or so poorly connected that to suggest a timeline makes me feel bad for the franchise and its creators.

[Johnny]

That's the problem, though, isn't it? Even though it's bad (and in some places, it's REALLY bad...), examining certain parts of the games - particularly Ganondorf's story thread - leaves little doubt that the games are connected. That it's badly done doesn't mean it isn't there.

[Saturnine Tenshi]

Yeah, I know. It's just... I can't insist on it because that's like insisting Half-Life's plot would hold water. Sometimes, it's just better to ignore it. I try(ied) to approach the Zelda titles as individual releases.

[TheMightyEthan]

@TheMightyEthan: Once again, there is actually nothing in the games to suggest that it's the case.

Sure there is, like the fact that the various Link's all seem to be The One True Hero, with the power to wield the Master Sword (or do some other specific magical thing), or that many of them are compatible with the Triforce of Courage, or in TP's case Link comes pre-loaded with the ToC, so to speak. Or that Zelda often comes pre-loaded with the Triforce of Wisdom.

 

Now, I'll agree there's nothing to suggest this is more likely than the Zeldas just being descended from the royal family and given a traditional name, and the Links just being some random guy who happens to be worthy, but there's not really anything that refutes it either, or makes it any less likely than that interpretation.

 

As for the Hero's Shade, it's not really clear in the game what exactly he is, but I took it to be some kind of spirit that maybe guides the Hero but isn't necessarily a past Hero. My other idea would be that it really would be a past Link, in which case it's Link's past self teaching his current self things, but doesn't rule out the reincarnation. Kind of like the Avatar in Avatar: The Last Airbender.

[TheFlyingGerbil]

This explains everything you need to know about Ganon's reappearance.