Shigeru Miyamoto, after Ocarina of Time was released was asked "Where do all the Zelda games fall into place when arranged chronologically by their stories?" and gave an answer suggesting that he saw Link to the Past as taking place after the original games:"Ocarina of Time is the first story, then the original Legend of Zelda, then Zelda II: The Adventure of Link, and finally A Link to the Past. It's not very clear where Link's Awakening fits in--it could be anytime after Ocarina of Time."
This is out of mouth of Miyamoto himself, which is woefully inaccurate, since it's called Link to the Past and is even refuted on the back of LTTP's box, which the AVGN even talks about. This is evidence that the powers-that-be don't give nearly enough thought about how things should be properly ordered and don't know what they're talking about.
Further, for a Game Over in OOT to be canon is crap. If that were the case, every single Zelda game should start divergences in the timeline to include each Link's death. -.- WEAK. If that's true, there should be an official BTTF timeline that people consider canon where Doc is visibly bummed in the gob.
Skyward Sword HAS to come before Minish Cap. Link's silly hat or not, Minish Cap features the Hyrule Royal Family. Skyward Sword clearly shows that the monarchy, as well as Hyrule itself, has NOT been established. And I'm sorry, the placement of the Hyrule Royal Family is FAR more important than an article of clothing. After all, we thought that Link's tunic had its origins in Ocarina of Time, but that's obviously not the case.
In Skyward Sword, each major area is physically separated from each other. It is likely, therefore, that such a castle and family exists, yet is never visited. After all, the Gorons are seen to exist yet they don't live in the sky. It's not absolutely necessary for one to be royalty to have been
chosen as the Goddess' vessel
. Further, Hyrule Field is not visited in Skyward Sword, and it surrounds/borders the castle in other games. That doesn't mean Hyrule Field doesn't exist, it just means you never have the opportunity to get there.
This is out of mouth of Miyamoto himself, which is woefully inaccurate, since it's called Link to the Past and is even refuted on the back of LTTP's box, which the AVGN even talks about. This is evidence that the powers-that-be don't give nearly enough thought about how things should be properly ordered and don't know what they're talking about.
Further, for a Game Over in OOT to be canon is crap. If that were the case, every single Zelda game should start divergences in the timeline to include each Link's death. -.- WEAK. If that's true, there should be an official BTTF timeline that people consider canon where Doc is visibly bummed in the gob.
In Skyward Sword, each major area is physically separated from each other. It is likely, therefore, that such a castle and family exists, yet is never visited. After all, the Gorons are seen to exist yet they don't live in the sky. It's not absolutely necessary for one to be royalty to have been
chosen as the Goddess' vessel
.
Okay, I've been an AVGN fan for a long time, but this is one instance where he's completely, ABSOLUTELY WRONG. A Link to the Past is titled thus because it links to the PAST. That's why I get annoyed when the AVGN says, "I can't imagine anything coming before the only game with PAST in the TITLE!" It has past in the title because it links to the past of the legend, in this case, the Imprisoning War.
And the beginning of Skyward Sword CLEARLY says that the humans, which would have formed the basis of Hyrule's Royal Family were all gathered onto the rocks sent skyward. The Gorons, Kikwis, Parellas, Mogmas, and the little Robots remained on the Surface to aid the Goddess in her fight. No humans. So no Royal Family.
And I personally have nothing against the divergent timeline where Link fails. I've been a fan of multiple timelines thanks to Star Trek, and I have no problem believing that Ganondorf might have decided that Link was too much trouble to deal with and took advantage of the young lad's weakness when he invaded the Sacred Realm.
Okay, I've been an AVGN fan for a long time, but this is one instance where he's completely, ABSOLUTELY WRONG. A Link to the Past is titled thus because it links to the PAST. That's why I get annoyed when the AVGN says, "I can't imagine anything coming before the only game with PAST in the TITLE!" It has past in the title because it links to the past of the legend, in this case, the Imprisoning War.
That's what he's saying. He's disagreeing with when Miyamoto said LTTP comes after Zelda 2. I'm using it as an example to point out how Nintendo isn't a reliable source to use when determining the chronological order of Zelda games.
That's what he's saying. He's disagreeing with when Miyamoto said LTTP comes after Zelda 2. I'm using it as an example to point out how Nintendo isn't a reliable source to use when determining the chronological order of Zelda games.
The character of
young Impa, who protects Zelda after she comes to the surface
is never seen as ever having lived in the sky and is human.
Personally, as many questions as the timeline released answers, it raises even more, and to me, is not necessarily going to stay the same. If they set the timeline in stone, then they hurt themselves. That being said, I'm definitely seeing potential in the periods between Skyward Sword and Minish Cap, and several instances in the three divergent timelines. Heck, we still have a whole new Hyrule to explore thanks to Spirit Tracks.
Impa is a member of the Sheikah tribe by her own admission, and her tribe is sworn to protect the Goddess. She was set in place to be able to help the reincarnated Goddess on her journey. Now, this makes me believe that the Sheikah eventually become the protectors of the Royal Family because of the connection to Zelda. Either the Skyloftians or their descendants start the Royal Family, with another Zelda as their princess, and being descended from the Goddess, the Sheikah protect her.
Here's an odd theory of mine, related to the Oocca. Perhaps they evolved from the Loftwings. After all, the Loftwings do not reappear and I personally can't think of another way to reconcile their disappearance from the world of Zelda and the appearance of the Oocca.
I'm not actually a huge fan of LTTP. I just don't see what the fuss is.
Nostalgia goggles help, I never had a SNES growing up but one of my friends did and we spent hours puzzling out LTTP. (hey, when you're 10 the puzzles can be pretty challenging) For me, I've never really gotten into any of the '3D' Zelda games, no matter how much I love the fishing game in OoT. Never even played Twilight Princess, though I hear it has a pretty good fishing game too...
I don't like that people place Skyward Sword before Minish Cap. In Minish Cap, it is established where the design of Link's hat comes from. In Skyward Sword, such a hat already exists. Also, in Minish Cap the Master Sword is never mentioned.
As much as I've bitched about the timeline, I actually don't see this as an issue. The Minish Cap established where the design of that Link's hat came from. We've seen Link's signature green clothes explained in all sorts of ways, whether he's just wearing what all the other Kokiri wear, he's wearing clothes inspired by the ancient hero for his birthday, the clothes of the hero magically appear on him, or there's no explanation at all. And as for the Master Sword...
Games the Master Sword appears in
A Link to the Past
Ocarina of Time
Oracle of Ages
Oracle of Seasons
The Wind Waker
Twilight Princess
Skyward Sword
Games the Master Sword does not appear in
The Legend of Zelda
The Adventure of Link
Link's Awakening
Majora's Mask
Four Swords
Four Swords Adventures
The Minish Cap
Phantom Hourglass
Spirit Tracks
Not only is the second list longer, but several of those games are direct sequels to games that include the Master Sword. Sure, the Master Sword is a huge deal in Hyrule, but that doesn't mean that it's a plot point in every game that takes place there*.
*or Koholint, or Termina, or Labrynna, or Holodrum, or the World of the Ocean King, or New Hyrule...
Further, Hyrule Field is not visited in Skyward Sword, and it surrounds/borders the castle in other games. That doesn't mean Hyrule Field doesn't exist, it just means you never have the opportunity to get there.
That's dangerous territory you're treading into. Hyrule's geography is nearly as big a point of argument as the Zelda timeline.
Technically the Master Sword is in LOZ because the old dude says "Master using it and you can have this sword". I reckon that's where the title came from.
But the swords in The Legend of Zelda are canonically known as the Wooden Sword, the White Sword, and the Magical Sword, and they look nothing like the Master Sword.
Because it hadn't been conceived yet. Just like a timeline was never conceived, because there was no idea the series would last this long. Nobody planned that far ahead.
And really, there is no timeline because they've made up most of the series on the fly.
Yeah, that's how I was starting to feel before the "official" timeline came out. The games make vague references to each other that imply a timeline, and some of them are directly connected, but for the most part, they just seem to be thematically similar games with mostly isolated timelines. Hell, it's practically the only explanation as to why any game with a legendary hero only makes reference to one legendary hero, instead of the several Links who have passed into legend.
And on a completely random note, I'm a little surprised that they never made a game about the hero who originally wielded the Picori Blade. I'm not entirely certain, but I think he's the only Link the series has mentioned without featuring him in a game.
I still refuse to accept (any) Link's death as a possible timeline divergence.
There is no other Zelda game but OOT where this is apparently considered; no Zelda game either implicitly or explicitly refers to the death or failure of any chosen hero (aside from Wind Waker which mentions failure to appear at all, not failure to succeed); and the only reason why there was a 2-timeline fork in the first place was because of OOT's epilogue's time travel.
Zelda doesn't use Star Trek quantum theory about parallel dimensions. In Star Trek, anything that can happen does happen in alternate quantum dimensions. To use such logic with Zelda games to create a divergence in the timeline which is in no way connected to time travel is just grasping at straws. If OOT didn't use time travel, there would be no divergence at all. However, since there is time travel, at least there is a valid reasoning behind the divergence. Creating a third divergence out of the blue when none is necessary or otherwise alluded to in any way annoys me.
You can't just add an unrelated, out of place logic to the timeline just to make it easier on yourself. One might as well apply Bill & Ted logic to Back to the Future (or vice versa) or Star Trek logic to Frequency.
I still refuse to accept (any) Link's death as a possible timeline divergence.
There is no other Zelda game but OOT where this is apparently considered; no Zelda game either implicitly or explicitly refers to the death or failure of any chosen hero (aside from Wind Waker which mentions failure to appear at all, not failure to succeed); and the only reason why there was a 2-timeline fork in the first place was because of OOT's epilogue's time travel.
Zelda doesn't use Star Trek quantum theory about parallel dimensions. In Star Trek, anything that can happen does happen in alternate quantum dimensions. To use such logic with Zelda games to create a divergence in the timeline which is in no way connected to time travel is just grasping at straws. If OOT didn't use time travel, there would be no divergence at all. However, since there is time travel, at least there is a valid reasoning behind the divergence. Creating a third divergence out of the blue when none is necessary or otherwise alluded to in any way annoys me.
You can't just add an unrelated, out of place logic to the timeline just to make it easier on yourself. One might as well apply Bill & Ted logic to Back to the Future (or vice versa) or Star Trek logic to Frequency.
I hate that they did it, and I have an explanation I would've preferred, but I know why they did it. Back when Ocarina of Time was created, they made it as a prequel to A Link to the Past, to show the Imprisoning War described in the game's backstory. But they changed a few things. For example, the six "Wise Men" became the Sages in Ocarina of Time, and seeing as they weren't all men, ALttP GBA actually changed this.
What they couldn't change was that the ALttP backstory described this as a war, between the Knights of Hyrule and Ganon, with no mention of the Hero of Time. Since this is at best a second hand historical account and more likely a legend handed down by word of mouth, it's perfectly acceptable that it deviates from the truth to some degree, and is really more accurate than it should be, and I feel that this is the intention with which Ocarina of Time was created.
However, when it came time to do the timeline, someone (who was paying far more attention at this point than when they placed Four Swords) realized that the account in A Link to the Past didn't line up with what happened in Ocarina of Time. The only way that they found they could reconcile A Link to the Past's backstory with Ocarina of Time was to have the Hero of Time open the Sacred Realm to allow Ganon in, then die at some point before defeating him, leaving it open for the Knights of Hyrule to have their war and battle Ganon into the Sacred Realm.
So yes, I know exactly what they did and exactly why they did it, and I think that it's bullshit. Oh, and speaking of...
THE HERO'S TRIAL IS THE BIGGEST PIECE OF BULLSHIT I'VE EVER HAD TO ENDURE IN THIS SERIES.
I was just dying to say that. Anyway, also timeline related, it also annoys me that they bothered to split the timeline so that both the child and adult timelines follow to their separate conclusions (which I've always hated to no end, particularly as it invalidates the logic in things like Magic Beans, which you do in the past to affect the future, and to a larger extent all of Oracle of Ages), and then by lumping many of the games that would've gone in the child timeline into the death timeline, they made the child timeline entirely pointless. Four Swords Adventures could've gone at the end of any timeline with little to no problem, and Majora's Mask could've easily gone into the past of the adult timeline to explain why Link never returned. The "official" child timeline is entirely pointless.
That's because people expected that they would give us a timeline that we could look at and say "oh, that makes sense". Not this ridiculousness.
Also, as I'm playing The Wind Waker right now, I'm wishing I had an old TV to play it on. Somehow, it looks so much more fuzzy on my new TV.
Edit: I've just realized that the Sleeping Zelda presents a problem in any timeline, unless we do accept that the Royal Family was naming girls Zelda before it was required to do so. From what I've gathered, Skyward Sword presents an issue with this, but it's been a problem as far back as A Link to the Past. I had always accepted that the Sleeping Zelda probably predated the entire series. What I always overlooked when considering this was that the reason Zelda was put to sleep in the first place was her brother's lust for the Triforce of Courage. Which was in the possession of the Royal Family, and placed in the Great Palace by the King of Hyrule. And remained there until Link claimed it in The Adventure of Link. Which means that the earliest the Sleeping Zelda could possibly appear in the timeline would be after the last game to include the Triforce before The Legend of Zelda. Which means that there's likely only one Zelda in the series that comes after the Sleeping Zelda.
So yeah, way to go with the empty gesture, Prince Hyrule.
Also, as I'm playing The Wind Waker right now, I'm wishing I had an old TV to play it on. Somehow, it looks so much more fuzzy on my new TV.
You are either using component (red, green, blue) cables for Wii or S-Video for GameCube, aren't you? If you are using composite video (one yellow) you need to go out and buy proper cables right now.
I played Twilight Princess on my nephew's Wii on Christmas Day, and dang if it wasn't fuzzy as heck. I went out and bought him component cables for his Wii on Monday because I couldn't stand it.
You are either using component (red, green, blue) cables for Wii or S-Video for GameCube, aren't you? If you are using composite video (one yellow) you need to go out and buy proper cables right now.
I played Twilight Princess on my nephew's Wii on Christmas Day, and dang if it wasn't fuzzy as heck. I went out and bought him component cables for his Wii on Monday because I couldn't stand it.
No, I don't own a component cable for the Wii or an S-Video cable for the GameCube. My new TV doesn't even have S-Video (one set of shared component/composite jacks, coaxial, and two HDMI), and I've never had a use for component cables before now. Besides, component cables were too expensive for me before Rather Dashing showed me Monoprice earlier tonight. Unfortunately, I placed my order for an HDMI cable for my 360 before I found out they had Wii component cables on there, and I don't really feel like paying for shipping again so soon, even if it is dirt cheap. Edit: I'm so damn weak. Bought the cable.
At least I have an avenue for cheap Wii component cables. Even though I do have a GameCube model with a component output, a cable for it is ludicrously expensive.
Oh, and if when I do hook up my Wii via component, I'll have to unplug the red and blue plugs any time I want my TV to let me use my SNES, N64, GameCube, or DVD player. This is already in practice with the component cable my cousin gave me for the 360, which I'm using until my HDMI cable gets here.
No, I don't own a component cable for the Wii or an S-Video cable for the GameCube.
That's why it's fuzzy.
You should know that you can buy an octopus cable (one that plugs into various consoles including Wii) that has component video, or a similar S-Video octopus cable which supports Gamecube/N64/SNES, from Wal-mart or GameStop for ~$15.
Also, when you do get decent cables, you should change your Wii's TV Resolution setting to "EDTV or HDTV (480p)". Seriously, you may think it won't make much difference to do these things, but it really does. Even my Super Nintendo gets way better clarity of picture with an S-video cable, and you can even see the difference on a CRT TV.
EDIT: It's true that cables for the "Digital Out" port on the GameCube are extremely rare and expensive, but you don't really need to pay out the nose for Component cables when S-Video is cheap and works just fine.
Again, if any of you are using one yellow composite video cable for any of your consoles, I pity you. You really need to have better than that.
when I do hook up my Wii via component, I'll have to unplug the red and blue plugs any time I want my TV to let me use my SNES, N64, GameCube, or DVD player. This is already in practice with the component cable my cousin gave me for the 360, which I'm using until my HDMI cable gets here.
What you need then is a video switch box which supports Component, S-Video, and/or HDMI.
I hate that they did it, and I have an explanation I would've preferred, but I know why they did it. Back when Ocarina of Time was created, they made it as a prequel to A Link to the Past, to show the Imprisoning War described in the game's backstory. But they changed a few things. For example, the six "Wise Men" became the Sages in Ocarina of Time, and seeing as they weren't all men, ALttP GBA actually changed this.
What they couldn't change was that the ALttP backstory described this as a war, between the Knights of Hyrule and Ganon, with no mention of the Hero of Time. Since this is at best a second hand historical account and more likely a legend handed down by word of mouth, it's perfectly acceptable that it deviates from the truth to some degree, and is really more accurate than it should be, and I feel that this is the intention with which Ocarina of Time was created.
However, when it came time to do the timeline, someone (who was paying far more attention at this point than when they placed Four Swords) realized that the account in A Link to the Past didn't line up with what happened in Ocarina of Time. The only way that they found they could reconcile A Link to the Past's backstory with Ocarina of Time was to have the Hero of Time open the Sacred Realm to allow Ganon in, then die at some point before defeating him, leaving it open for the Knights of Hyrule to have their war and battle Ganon into the Sacred Realm.
So yes, I know exactly what they did and exactly why they did it, and I think that it's bullshit. Oh, and speaking of...
THE HERO'S TRIAL IS THE BIGGEST PIECE OF BULLSHIT I'VE EVER HAD TO ENDURE IN THIS SERIES.
I was just dying to say that. Anyway, also timeline related, it also annoys me that they bothered to split the timeline so that both the child and adult timelines follow to their separate conclusions (which I've always hated to no end, particularly as it invalidates the logic in things like Magic Beans, which you do in the past to affect the future, and to a larger extent all of Oracle of Ages), and then by lumping many of the games that would've gone in the child timeline into the death timeline, they made the child timeline entirely pointless. Four Swords Adventures could've gone at the end of any timeline with little to no problem, and Majora's Mask could've easily gone into the past of the adult timeline to explain why Link never returned. The "official" child timeline is entirely pointless.
But in Ocarina of Time, the knights still could have been involved in an imprisoning war in child link's time because they had to deal with Ganon. Couldn't they? Also...
Unfortunately, I placed my order for an HDMI cable for my 360 before I found out they had Wii component cables on there, and I don't really feel like paying for shipping again so soon, even if it is dirt cheap. Edit: I'm so damn weak. Bought the cable.
Does anyone know if the Japanese manual for Zelda 2 has the same backstory for the sleeping Zelda? I mean, until I read about that back-story, I always assumed that she was the Zelda from the first game... I personally always check that kind of thing if I can, and when discrepancies occur, I defer to the original Japanese. For example, the US Link to the Past manual says that the Master Sword was forged during the Imprisoning War. By all accounts, that would be impossible. However, the Japanese manual says that the Master Sword was forged ages ago. And with Ocarina of Time already claiming the blade to be legendary and
Skyward Sword showing how it was made into the Blade of Evil's Bane
, we're obviously supposed to believe the original Japanese.
It's true that cables for the "Digital Out" port on the GameCube are extremely rare and expensive, but you don't really need to pay out the nose for Component cables when S-Video is cheap and works just fine.
With no S-Video port on my TV, the yellow composite cable is the best I can do for the SNES, N64, and my standalone DVD player. Component is only an option on the GameCube if I can get my hands on a cable, and I'd still have to unplug the two plugs to make my TV enable composite mode, I would just need to add a second switch box for component video to handle the GameCube and Wii. And really, the only thing I own that can output via HDMI is my 360, so with a vacant HDMI port on my TV, a switch box for that isn't necessary.
But in Ocarina of Time, the knights still could have been involved in an imprisoning war in child link's time because they had to deal with Ganon. Couldn't they?
Finally got Skyward Sword last night! I managed to get the last pre-order controller + game bundle probably in the city. And I didn't even pre-order. The guy who pre-ordered it never came in to pick it up for over a month. They gave him another couple days and he still didn't get it, so my brother (who works at Toys R Us) went in with me last night and picked it up.
Now I have two copies because we can't find the receipt for the other one.
I finally completed Skyward Sword last night, and I have to say the final boss was pretty awesome. BUT, for some reason the motion controls went a bit weird. In the second half of the battle, I couldn't maneuver my sword unless I swung first, meaning I couldn't charge up a skyward strike quickly enough before I was knocked down by the boss. FRUSTRATING.
I finally completed Skyward Sword last night, and I have to say the final boss was pretty awesome. BUT, for some reason the motion controls went a bit weird. In the second half of the battle, I couldn't maneuver my sword unless I swung first, meaning I couldn't charge up a skyward strike quickly enough before I was knocked down by the boss. FRUSTRATING.
I have noticed that you can't charge your sword if you're holding your shield in front of you (which Link does after a shield bash). After you use your sword, Link holds his shield to the side.
what's wrong with the other one?I have noticed that you can't charge your sword if you're holding your shield in front of you (which Link does after a shield bash). After you use your sword, Link holds his shield to the side.
Easiest way to take care of that is to either release or activate Z-Targeting.
Bingo. I have my Wii hooked up to my new TV (which is bigger than my old one, but I have it set to 4:3 and it's behind the old one) and my GameCube hooked to the old one, with the GCN-GBA cable running from the Wii to the Game Boy Player. I also have my two Wavebird receivers set one channel apart so I can just turn the dial on the same controller to switch between the two.
Wow did I find this thread too late I feel like I could make a reply to each and every one of the 398 comments that came before this one (and yes, I read them all), but alas I'll restrain myself.
Yes, yes, good god yes get the cables! All that fuzziness will be gone and the games will look exactly like they should. I've been playing through Wind Waker on my HDTV and it looks STUNNING!
Comments
Further, for a Game Over in OOT to be canon is crap. If that were the case, every single Zelda game should start divergences in the timeline to include each Link's death. -.- WEAK. If that's true, there should be an official BTTF timeline that people consider canon where Doc is visibly bummed in the gob.
In Skyward Sword, each major area is physically separated from each other. It is likely, therefore, that such a castle and family exists, yet is never visited. After all, the Gorons are seen to exist yet they don't live in the sky. It's not absolutely necessary for one to be royalty to have been
Okay, I've been an AVGN fan for a long time, but this is one instance where he's completely, ABSOLUTELY WRONG. A Link to the Past is titled thus because it links to the PAST. That's why I get annoyed when the AVGN says, "I can't imagine anything coming before the only game with PAST in the TITLE!" It has past in the title because it links to the past of the legend, in this case, the Imprisoning War.
And the beginning of Skyward Sword CLEARLY says that the humans, which would have formed the basis of Hyrule's Royal Family were all gathered onto the rocks sent skyward. The Gorons, Kikwis, Parellas, Mogmas, and the little Robots remained on the Surface to aid the Goddess in her fight. No humans. So no Royal Family.
And I personally have nothing against the divergent timeline where Link fails. I've been a fan of multiple timelines thanks to Star Trek, and I have no problem believing that Ganondorf might have decided that Link was too much trouble to deal with and took advantage of the young lad's weakness when he invaded the Sacred Realm.
That's what he's saying. He's disagreeing with when Miyamoto said LTTP comes after Zelda 2. I'm using it as an example to point out how Nintendo isn't a reliable source to use when determining the chronological order of Zelda games.
The character of
Personally, as many questions as the timeline released answers, it raises even more, and to me, is not necessarily going to stay the same. If they set the timeline in stone, then they hurt themselves. That being said, I'm definitely seeing potential in the periods between Skyward Sword and Minish Cap, and several instances in the three divergent timelines. Heck, we still have a whole new Hyrule to explore thanks to Spirit Tracks.
Here's an odd theory of mine, related to the Oocca. Perhaps they evolved from the Loftwings. After all, the Loftwings do not reappear and I personally can't think of another way to reconcile their disappearance from the world of Zelda and the appearance of the Oocca.
The golden era intrigues me due to a lack of games in it.
Welp, I know what I'll be downloading when I get my 3DS on Thursday...
Nostalgia goggles help, I never had a SNES growing up but one of my friends did and we spent hours puzzling out LTTP. (hey, when you're 10 the puzzles can be pretty challenging) For me, I've never really gotten into any of the '3D' Zelda games, no matter how much I love the fishing game in OoT. Never even played Twilight Princess, though I hear it has a pretty good fishing game too...
As much as I've bitched about the timeline, I actually don't see this as an issue. The Minish Cap established where the design of that Link's hat came from. We've seen Link's signature green clothes explained in all sorts of ways, whether he's just wearing what all the other Kokiri wear, he's wearing clothes inspired by the ancient hero for his birthday, the clothes of the hero magically appear on him, or there's no explanation at all. And as for the Master Sword...
Games the Master Sword appears in
A Link to the Past
Ocarina of Time
Oracle of Ages
Oracle of Seasons
The Wind Waker
Twilight Princess
Skyward Sword
Games the Master Sword does not appear in
The Legend of Zelda
The Adventure of Link
Link's Awakening
Majora's Mask
Four Swords
Four Swords Adventures
The Minish Cap
Phantom Hourglass
Spirit Tracks
Not only is the second list longer, but several of those games are direct sequels to games that include the Master Sword. Sure, the Master Sword is a huge deal in Hyrule, but that doesn't mean that it's a plot point in every game that takes place there*.
*or Koholint, or Termina, or Labrynna, or Holodrum, or the World of the Ocean King, or New Hyrule...
That's dangerous territory you're treading into. Hyrule's geography is nearly as big a point of argument as the Zelda timeline.
And really, there is no timeline because they've made up most of the series on the fly.
And on a completely random note, I'm a little surprised that they never made a game about the hero who originally wielded the Picori Blade. I'm not entirely certain, but I think he's the only Link the series has mentioned without featuring him in a game.
There is no other Zelda game but OOT where this is apparently considered; no Zelda game either implicitly or explicitly refers to the death or failure of any chosen hero (aside from Wind Waker which mentions failure to appear at all, not failure to succeed); and the only reason why there was a 2-timeline fork in the first place was because of OOT's epilogue's time travel.
Zelda doesn't use Star Trek quantum theory about parallel dimensions. In Star Trek, anything that can happen does happen in alternate quantum dimensions. To use such logic with Zelda games to create a divergence in the timeline which is in no way connected to time travel is just grasping at straws. If OOT didn't use time travel, there would be no divergence at all. However, since there is time travel, at least there is a valid reasoning behind the divergence. Creating a third divergence out of the blue when none is necessary or otherwise alluded to in any way annoys me.
You can't just add an unrelated, out of place logic to the timeline just to make it easier on yourself. One might as well apply Bill & Ted logic to Back to the Future (or vice versa) or Star Trek logic to Frequency.
I hate that they did it, and I have an explanation I would've preferred, but I know why they did it. Back when Ocarina of Time was created, they made it as a prequel to A Link to the Past, to show the Imprisoning War described in the game's backstory. But they changed a few things. For example, the six "Wise Men" became the Sages in Ocarina of Time, and seeing as they weren't all men, ALttP GBA actually changed this.
What they couldn't change was that the ALttP backstory described this as a war, between the Knights of Hyrule and Ganon, with no mention of the Hero of Time. Since this is at best a second hand historical account and more likely a legend handed down by word of mouth, it's perfectly acceptable that it deviates from the truth to some degree, and is really more accurate than it should be, and I feel that this is the intention with which Ocarina of Time was created.
However, when it came time to do the timeline, someone (who was paying far more attention at this point than when they placed Four Swords) realized that the account in A Link to the Past didn't line up with what happened in Ocarina of Time. The only way that they found they could reconcile A Link to the Past's backstory with Ocarina of Time was to have the Hero of Time open the Sacred Realm to allow Ganon in, then die at some point before defeating him, leaving it open for the Knights of Hyrule to have their war and battle Ganon into the Sacred Realm.
So yes, I know exactly what they did and exactly why they did it, and I think that it's bullshit. Oh, and speaking of...
THE HERO'S TRIAL IS THE BIGGEST PIECE OF BULLSHIT I'VE EVER HAD TO ENDURE IN THIS SERIES.
I was just dying to say that. Anyway, also timeline related, it also annoys me that they bothered to split the timeline so that both the child and adult timelines follow to their separate conclusions (which I've always hated to no end, particularly as it invalidates the logic in things like Magic Beans, which you do in the past to affect the future, and to a larger extent all of Oracle of Ages), and then by lumping many of the games that would've gone in the child timeline into the death timeline, they made the child timeline entirely pointless. Four Swords Adventures could've gone at the end of any timeline with little to no problem, and Majora's Mask could've easily gone into the past of the adult timeline to explain why Link never returned. The "official" child timeline is entirely pointless.
Also, as I'm playing The Wind Waker right now, I'm wishing I had an old TV to play it on. Somehow, it looks so much more fuzzy on my new TV.
Edit: I've just realized that the Sleeping Zelda presents a problem in any timeline, unless we do accept that the Royal Family was naming girls Zelda before it was required to do so. From what I've gathered, Skyward Sword presents an issue with this, but it's been a problem as far back as A Link to the Past. I had always accepted that the Sleeping Zelda probably predated the entire series. What I always overlooked when considering this was that the reason Zelda was put to sleep in the first place was her brother's lust for the Triforce of Courage. Which was in the possession of the Royal Family, and placed in the Great Palace by the King of Hyrule. And remained there until Link claimed it in The Adventure of Link. Which means that the earliest the Sleeping Zelda could possibly appear in the timeline would be after the last game to include the Triforce before The Legend of Zelda. Which means that there's likely only one Zelda in the series that comes after the Sleeping Zelda.
So yeah, way to go with the empty gesture, Prince Hyrule.
You are either using component (red, green, blue) cables for Wii or S-Video for GameCube, aren't you? If you are using composite video (one yellow) you need to go out and buy proper cables right now.
I played Twilight Princess on my nephew's Wii on Christmas Day, and dang if it wasn't fuzzy as heck. I went out and bought him component cables for his Wii on Monday because I couldn't stand it.
No, I don't own a component cable for the Wii or an S-Video cable for the GameCube. My new TV doesn't even have S-Video (one set of shared component/composite jacks, coaxial, and two HDMI), and I've never had a use for component cables before now. Besides, component cables were too expensive for me before Rather Dashing showed me Monoprice earlier tonight. Unfortunately, I placed my order for an HDMI cable for my 360 before I found out they had Wii component cables on there, and I don't really feel like paying for shipping again so soon, even if it is dirt cheap. Edit: I'm so damn weak. Bought the cable.
At least I have an avenue for cheap Wii component cables. Even though I do have a GameCube model with a component output, a cable for it is ludicrously expensive.
Oh, and if when I do hook up my Wii via component, I'll have to unplug the red and blue plugs any time I want my TV to let me use my SNES, N64, GameCube, or DVD player. This is already in practice with the component cable my cousin gave me for the 360, which I'm using until my HDMI cable gets here.
You should know that you can buy an octopus cable (one that plugs into various consoles including Wii) that has component video, or a similar S-Video octopus cable which supports Gamecube/N64/SNES, from Wal-mart or GameStop for ~$15.
Also, when you do get decent cables, you should change your Wii's TV Resolution setting to "EDTV or HDTV (480p)". Seriously, you may think it won't make much difference to do these things, but it really does. Even my Super Nintendo gets way better clarity of picture with an S-video cable, and you can even see the difference on a CRT TV.
EDIT: It's true that cables for the "Digital Out" port on the GameCube are extremely rare and expensive, but you don't really need to pay out the nose for Component cables when S-Video is cheap and works just fine.
Again, if any of you are using one yellow composite video cable for any of your consoles, I pity you. You really need to have better than that.
What you need then is a video switch box which supports Component, S-Video, and/or HDMI.
But in Ocarina of Time, the knights still could have been involved in an imprisoning war in child link's time because they had to deal with Ganon. Couldn't they? Also...
Funniest damned edit ever.
EDIT: Now for the original reason I was going to post: New Zelda gashapons from Japan!
With no S-Video port on my TV, the yellow composite cable is the best I can do for the SNES, N64, and my standalone DVD player. Component is only an option on the GameCube if I can get my hands on a cable, and I'd still have to unplug the two plugs to make my TV enable composite mode, I would just need to add a second switch box for component video to handle the GameCube and Wii. And really, the only thing I own that can output via HDMI is my 360, so with a vacant HDMI port on my TV, a switch box for that isn't necessary.
This is also true.
Now I have two copies because we can't find the receipt for the other one.
what's wrong with the other one? I have noticed that you can't charge your sword if you're holding your shield in front of you (which Link does after a shield bash). After you use your sword, Link holds his shield to the side.
Easiest way to take care of that is to either release or activate Z-Targeting.
I have been wanting to do this for YEARS.
Yes, yes, good god yes get the cables! All that fuzziness will be gone and the games will look exactly like they should. I've been playing through Wind Waker on my HDTV and it looks STUNNING!
Yeah, that's what I meant. I understand that GameCube component cables were rare but thankfully you can find Wii ones at most electronic stores