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

[Faiblesse Des Sens]

Are you saying that this is my point? My point was that the Zelda storyline was never cool, and that caring about such a simple story has had a backlash on the fans who cared in the first place. I strongly believe that if you care about story in a Zelda game, you are doing it very, very wrong. Think back to how simple the series started.

[Johnny]

I think... Well, I think a few things.

 

I think that it's not the fans fault if Nintendo writes plot holes.

 

I think it's not the fans fault if Nintendo refuses to admit to those plot holes.

 

I think at the point where Nintendo releases their own analysis of their writing, it is their own decision to do so, unless someone pointed a gun at them and told them to do it. Sure, some fans wanted it, but others (like me) would have rather they didn't.

 

I think that the existence of Nintendo's own interpretation of it doesn't ruin the stories in the individual games at all, and they should be as fully enjoyable as they were before.

 

And, crucially, I think you're being a dick trying to tell people what they can and can't enjoy and care about.

 

[Faiblesse Des Sens]

I think that it's not the fans fault if Nintendo writes plot holes.

 

I think it's not the fans fault if Nintendo refuses to admit to those plot holes.

 

I think it's the fans faults when they take simple stories and try to connect things that aren't connected. In a sense, the fans are created the plotholes, because they're the ones who (at first) tried to make a plot out of the entire series rather than individual games and the few games each one connects to.

 

 

I think at the point where Nintendo releases their own analysis of their writing, it is their own decision to do so, unless someone pointed a gun at them and told them to do it. Sure, some fans wanted it, but others (like me) would have rather they didn't.

Personally I'm surprised they did it. I'm sure they thought "why not?" They seem to take this far less seriously than the fans.

 

 

I think that the existence of Nintendo's own interpretation of it doesn't ruin the stories in the individual games at all, and they should be as fully enjoyable as they were before.

I think it's funny you even word it that way. "Nintendo's own interpretation." Do you realize how insane that sounds?

 

 

And, crucially, I think you're being a dick trying to tell people what they can and can't enjoy and care about.

 

I see it as a matter of overall problems with gamers on the Internet. You spend way too much time overanalyzing the tiniest things and blow them out of proportion. I have a problem with that. I've always had a problem with that. This applies to everything, not just talking up a simple storyline, but to news, events, quotes, everything. It's sad. We could be talking about much better things. This is why people look down on gamers. It does not have to be this way. Gaming communities should not have to be viewed this way.

 

Anyways, imagine if someone tried to do this with Mario? I would use Final Fantasy as an example, but people are crazy enough to try and connect those...

[Johnny]

You're just being a hater. I don't usually get the opportunity to say this, but you need to lighten up. The Zelda timeline stuff is all just for fun. The only people here taking it super-seriously are the ones trying to tell us we're wrong for having fun with it. Don't assume people approach serious stuff with the same attitude they approach this.

[madbassman39]

 

I see it as a matter of overall problems with gamers on the Internet. You spend way too much time overanalyzing the tiniest things and blow them out of proportion. I have a problem with that. I've always had a problem with that. This applies to everything, not just talking up a simple storyline, but to news, events, quotes, everything. It's sad. We could be talking about much better things. This is why people look down on gamers. It does not have to be this way. Gaming communities should not have to be viewed this way.

 

Anyways, imagine if someone tried to do this with Mario? I would use Final Fantasy as an example, but people are crazy enough to try and connect those...

 

I think if this is your true opinion, then why are you on a game forum? That's what we do here, talk about games and think about how they connect in one way or not. It's more like a hobby.

 

People don't over think this stuff because they think its important, to some people its a hobby. Is working on an out dated car a waste of time? How about building models? Or what about painting? Those are practically using the same idea. I see it as a creative outlet, or a hobby if you will, to think about how the Zelda games all link (ooh Link!) together. If this ruins the game for you, then you need to stop going to forums like this because you enjoyment is so easily influenced by those that like to think deeper into the plot of games.

 

I think Nintendo's time line is indeed an interpretation of the Zelda timeline, and not a factual timeline. Why? Because the games were never made to connect in any way (aside from the few direct sequels), and because Nintendo funded and owns the Zelda franchise, doesn't mean they are the sole creators of the Zelda series.

[Mr. GOH!]

FBD: If you hate this conversation, why are you having it?

[Faiblesse Des Sens]

I think if this is your true opinion, then why are you on a game forum? That's what we do here, talk about games and think about how they connect in one way or not. It's more like a hobby.

 

Plenty of the discussion here I find to be enlightening. Some of it I find to fit what I just said. This forum is certainly a lot better than others.

 

 

I see it as a creative outlet, or a hobby if you will, to think about how the Zelda games all link (ooh Link!) together. If this ruins the game for you, then you need to stop going to forums like this because you enjoyment is so easily influenced by those that like to think deeper into the plot of games.

 

It doesn't ruin the game for me because I was never in the boat that took it this far in the first place.

 

I think Nintendo's time line is indeed an interpretation of the Zelda timeline, and not a factual timeline. Why? Because the games were never made to connect in any way (aside from the few direct sequels), and because Nintendo funded and owns the Zelda franchise, doesn't mean they are the sole creators of the Zelda series.

 

To me, that just sounds like an excuse to keep toying around with it, when Nintendo themselves are indeed saying something solid about what is going on here. Personally, I wish they said "there is no timeline, no shut up." But obviously, that would cause more rage than even the worst timeline imaginable.

[VicariousShaner]

http://www.joystiq.com/2011/12/24/the-official-legend-of-zelda-timeline-isnt-entirely-official-ye/#continued

 

I think everyone that isn't FDS will find this a bit interesting.

 

FDS, perhaps if you don't like discussing Zelda continuity, you should not be in a Zelda continuity thread.

[Mal]

I don't follow this stuff closely but assuming that Zelda universe will ever end... how the hell are they going to end it!? Three separate endings, two, or one where all three combine again?

 

I'm sort of with FDS on wishing there were no official timeline since this effectively seals the timeline and makes it a mess to work with*. However, it finally gives Nintendo something concrete to work with for a story, no matter how messy.

 

*No matter which one you choose, something will be wrong with the timeline to someone and it can be pretty legitimate. Also, less discussion may be had after you folks are done with examining this official timeline. Boo. I love reading the arguments.

---

I was doing a read over again and I noticed that 4 Swords happens twice. Wut.

Again, messy to work with...

Different 4 Swords games. I forgot... but still.

Edited December 26, 2011 by MaliciousH

[CorgiShinobi]

Turns out, in the same book, that there's a "disclaimer" of sorts by Eiji Aonuma about the timeline.

 

http://wii.ign.com/articles/121/1215984p1.html

 

To summarize, "We've always focused on the gameplay, so setting these games in an order is always going to have inherent contradictions."

[Faiblesse Des Sens]

[Johnny]

Don't you get it? That's part of the appeal for a lot of us. That it doesn't fit very well. You're mocking the very thing that makes it such an interesting mind-puzzle.

Are you so blindly hateful that you have to keep coming in here to act like a jerk?

[Waldorf and Statler]

@Malicious: Nobody said the Zelda timeline HAS to have a final event. Unless there's a god damn big hylian of a motherfucking bomb dropped on the universe, obliterating the entire planet, nobody is saying it has to end. This game's reality doesn't follow our own, so nobody said they have to keep to this timeline to keep some of the medieval feeling to it.

 

In fact, modernization is existent in the Spirit Tracks game and others. They can make a game after the last one in the current timeline, and even make a whole separate branch from there. Unless I missed something in the book or a statement from a Nintendo rep saying the last events in the official timeline are the last events that will occur in this game.

[TCP]

After hearing about this timeline, reading Aonuma's disclaimer, I think they should just admit that they never thought of the timeline till Ocarina. It goes Skyward Sword --> Ocarina then to Majora's Mask and Twilight Princess, and from the adult timeline Wind Waker and it's spinoffs. Those are the only games where they obviously attempted to fit things together. As far as I am concerned, the Oracle games, the original NES and SNES games, Minish Cap, etc are great games, and maybe you can force them in there somewhere, but obviously after Ocraina was the only time they took a timeline seriously, and that's sort of the center piece where everything else is based off.

[CorgiShinobi]

Pretty much, TCP. Even with Ocarina, it continued the tradition of receiving a direct sequel, and then dropping it from there like Legend of Zelda and Link to the Past before it. It however held in itself a split timeline, and whenever there's talk of time travel, a timeline is bound to be brought into discussion.

[Mal]

@Malicious: Nobody said the Zelda timeline HAS to have a final event. Unless there's a god damn big hylian of a motherfucking bomb dropped on the universe, obliterating the entire planet, nobody is saying it has to end. This game's reality doesn't follow our own, so nobody said they have to keep to this timeline to keep some of the medieval feeling to it.

 

In fact, modernization is existent in the Spirit Tracks game and others. They can make a game after the last one in the current timeline, and even make a whole separate branch from there. Unless I missed something in the book or a statement from a Nintendo rep saying the last events in the official timeline are the last events that will occur in this game.

I mean ending as in ending the Zelda world(s) in a way other than Nintendo stop making Zelda games for whatever reason or your scenario. Actually, maybe "ending the Zelda world(s)" is a bad phrase, perhaps an ending to having a Link come back to save the day or ending to let that game universe rest in piece.

 

Also I never said they have to keep it medieval or they can't modernize. I don't think I even implied that. Nintendo can do it however they like but I just want to see an ending since Nintendo came out with a timeline. There is a beginning to this so there has to be an end. Doesn't have to be the whole world blew up or they realize that they are not real but something in the spirit of this:

 

 

 

[TCP]

I don't think Nintendo would just stop making Zelda games. And if they did, it's because the games aren't selling AT ALL, in which case they wouldn't wrap the series up, they'd just leave it to die.

[TheMightyEthan]

I don't think there has to be an end of any kind. I mean, I'm sure that in 20,000 years there won't still be Zelda games being made, but that doesn't mean it ever has to really be ended.

[Faiblesse Des Sens]

How would it end and how would an ending even work thematically? To me, it seems like the structure relies on a new link, a new ganon, a new zelda, sprinkled throughout time. It would be odd to have a final zelda, link, and ganon.

[TheFlyingGerbil]

Wouldn't it end by Link and Zelda finally sealing/destroying Ganon permanently? I think Ganon knows he keeps coming back but I don't think the other two do? So it would be quite cool if just before his end he said something like 'you've doomed yourselves too. mwahaha...'

 

Even then though, that wouldn't necessarily mean the end of the series as the games don't follow on chronologically. Plus we still haven't had anythjing set in the great war or whatever it's called - the one referenced at the start of skyward sword.

[Faiblesse Des Sens]

Yes, we all know how it would end, but given how the story is more so to give the game a basic structure more than to actually mean anything it'd be pointless. Go back to the roots of the series and think about it. Though you do bring a good point up about how it doesn't necessarily have to be the end of the series.

[Yantelope V2]

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?

 

Well, I feel prophetic now. Anyway, I guess one question got answered.

 

Also, I missed that little disclaimer Eiji Aonuma made about the timeline but I take that as small validation that the timeline was never a primary concern for the creators.

Edited January 23, 2012 by Yantelope V2

[Waldorf and Statler]

I kept hoping we'd forge the sword in skyward sword.

 

sadly....

[TheMightyEthan]

Me too, WAS, me too.

[TheFlyingGerbil]

This may be of interest to some people.