@DiscoGentleman: It's not my opinion, but my observation. It wasn't until Wind Waker that Nintendo started to think about the possibility of a timeline. Games released before WW, and even some after, were never made with a timeline in mind. The position within the timeline is irrelevant for the game as well, there's little story that overlaps the entire franchise and it doesn't affect individual games.
From what we can tell; before the official timeline was revealed, there were multiple fan-made versions of the timeline (all turned out to be wrong). That alone tells us that it's impossible to tell when the games took place, apart from the direct sequels. So even if we had Zelda U, right now, it would still be impossible to tell when the game happened during the timeline. Knowing, or hoping, where Zelda U falls in the timeline is therefore trivial, because it tells us absolutely nothing about the game.
It's true that the timeline wasn't official until the book, but it is quite clear that Twilight Princess and Wind Waker were always intended as distant sequels to Ocarina of Time, that Ocarina of Time was intended as a loose prequel to Link to the Past, and that Skyward Sword was a prequel to everything.
And then Majora's Mask is a direct sequel to Ocarina of Time. And Phantom Hourglass and Spirit Tracks are direct sequels to Wind Waker. And the Oracle games and Link's Awakening are direct sequels to Link to the Past.
The timeline was all but laid out before Hyrule Historia. All the book did was draw a chart and piece together the few remaining games that had no other connections.
Besides, all the ones that count as real Zelda games by our patriarch Haru were officially connected before HH.
This just in, everyone: caring about the Zelda timeline or its associated lore is trivial and not allowed.
Please close your windows, turn off the lights in your home, sit in the dark and stop enjoying it.
Morpheel lol right? Idgi.
Good job turning my argument into a hyperbole. I never said it isn't allowed, nor did I ever say that its associated lore is trivial.
They probably haven't decided when the game takes place, and we know little to nothing about the game, so personally I think the discussion about when the game is going to take place is futile, but if you want to discuss this, feel free to do so.
And if anyone wants to get technical, here's an official statement from Hyrule Historia, the only source that confirms the current timeline: ''This chronicle merely collects information that is believed to be true at this time, and there are many obscured and unanswered secrets that still lie within the tale. As the stories and storytellers of Hyrule change, so, too, does its history. Hyrule's history is a continuously woven tapestry of events. Changes that seem inconsequential, disregarded without even a shrug, could evolve at some point to hatch new legends and, perhaps, change this tapestry of history itself.''
"Disclaimer: We can and will add more games to the timeline as they're made available and reserve the right to move the existing games around as we see fit."
Actually, even before the time line, more games had direct sequels besides Zelda 1.
A Link to the Past has all three GB(C) games as direct sequels, Ocarina of Time has Majora's Mask, The Wind Waker has both DS games.
All of those are examples of "sequels" that could've quite plausibly had their lore contrived after the project was already completed. The simple test in my mind is just: would the "sequel" be equally as good if its "prequel" was deleted from history (and your memory)? In nearly every example of a Zelda sequel, the answer to that is yes. In fact, a lot of the lore connection between those games are almost deliberately made to be incongruous to their former selves (e.g happy mask salesman, skull kid, linebeck)
This just in, everyone: caring about the Zelda timeline or its associated lore is trivial and not allowed.
Please close your windows, turn off the lights in your home, sit in the dark and stop enjoying it.
This just in, everyone. Disagreement will assumed to be 10x as extreme as it was so I look correct.
Also, for the sake of discussion, where do you hope the new game falls in the timeline?
I'm hoping it falls either sometime between Skyward Sword and Ocarina Of Time; or Child Timeline, post Twilight Princess. I feel like there's a lot of creative freedom, particularly in the latter, to introduce brand new themes and antagonists.
Nice gif. And I hope Zelda U is a Twilight Princess AND Hyrule Warriors (combat) successor.
If this Zelda is going to be more open and less linear, a Twilight Princess 2.0 is already out of the question. I assume it's going to be a completely different game in that sense. Like what Skyward Sword was, but hopefully better...
From what we can tell; before the official timeline was revealed, there were multiple fan-made versions of the timeline (all turned out to be wrong).
To be fair the fan-made versions didn't think that Nintendo would pull the "Fallen Hero" copout.
In all honesty it works for the game series. You just don't like the possibility of Link falling in the last battle.
I don't like it because they pulled the concept out of of thin air so they could put the games that had minimal to no connection with OoT into one group (the Four Swords trilogy being exempt for whatever reason). It's not something that actually happens in OoT other than the player getting a standard game over, and now Nintendo has given itself the authority to pull the same stunt with any game in the series if they so please.
As far as open world goes, sandbox games still have guidance through the world. Even if Nintendo pulls another A Link Between Worlds, but on a larger scale, there's still going to be some gentle prods in the right direction. We would simply have more space to roam and to ignore the major story longer.
This is my biggest concern with open world games, they tend to lack direction to the point where I find myself checking the map every 5 seconds. Having a huge sandbox to play around in and go wherever you want is great and all but if the level design doesn't give you any hints in terms of paths and landmarks it can be very hard to tell what direction to go in. Hopefully the level design is clever enough to alleviate this problem.
From what we can tell; before the official timeline was revealed, there were multiple fan-made versions of the timeline (all turned out to be wrong).
To be fair the fan-made versions didn't think that Nintendo would pull the "Fallen Hero" copout.
In all honesty it works for the game series. You just don't like the possibility of Link falling in the last battle.
Yeah... no; your purported objective truth is quite disagreeable to me. The whole Hyrule Historia / parallel timelines thing was just a huge, overly-elaborate retcon. There's no reason all of the games couldn't just be on the same timeline with the origin Skyward Sword set up.
The simple test in my mind is just: would the "sequel" be equally as good if its "prequel" was deleted from history (and your memory)?
Doesn't always work. There are some great works of fiction that are indeed direct sequels, but don't rely on information in previous stories to tell their own.
You can watch The Godfather Part II without watching the first movie and understand everything that's happening on the screen. There's no information given to you that would not make sense without having the context of the first movie beforehand. That said, you should absolutely watch the first movie because it's phenomenal, possibly my favorite of all time.
So Anakin kneels before Monster Mash and pledges his loyalty to the graveyard smash.
Forums
Topic: The Legend of Zelda: Breath of the Wild
Posts 3,061 to 3,080 of 15,166
Please login or sign up to reply to this topic