Anyway, you've probably already all seen this, but I give you: The zelda timeline. (translated and made readable).
Timeline 1 deals with Ganondorf killing Link, timeline B with kid link and zelda tipping off the king (and ganon being arrested), and timeline c with ganondorf being sealed in the sacred realm and link being sent to the past. More here.
As found in the official "History of Hyrulia" book in japan.
I refuse this timeline. I'm going to make my own unified timeline.
I think it makes sense. I always supported the split timeline theory (heck, majora's mask and windwaker basically confirm it in their opening sequences). The "link fails" timeline is new to me, and I guess works. It seems to me as an attempt to shoe-horn in the older games, which probably had no planned timeline for them then. But I guess it makes sense.
The only reason they added on the bullshit "game over is canon" fork is because they took the prologue of A Link to the Past too literally. I prefer to think that Ocarina of Time is the Imprisoning War, and ALttP era historians either are working off a version of the legend that has become distorted over a centuries long game of Telephone or just downright don't believe one person could've sealed Ganon away, that it would take an army.
So even working under a split timeline, I still feel that the "Link dies" branch should be folded into the "OoT Future" branch.
Also, every timeline theory I've ever seen before now was that Link's Awakening Link was either Oracles Link or A Link to the Past Link. This is the first timeline I've ever seen that suggests that the Oracles take place between ALttP and Link's Awakening, and it really doesn't sit well with me. But then, Nintendo's never known what to do with the Oracle games. I've seen sources that think Oracle of Seasons canonically comes first, when the games themselves contradict this.
Oh, and the Four Swords trilogy. Wow, did they ever fuck that up. Four Swords is supposed to take place ages after The Minish Cap, not immediately after, and Four Swords Adventures is a direct sequel to Four Swords, not separated by centuries. If anything on this timeline proves to me that whoever assembled it didn't know what the hell they were doing, it's this.
I think that people are taking the "Link fails" timeline in the wrong direction. It can be as simple as the timeline as it continued with Link not returning from the Sacred Realm.
And that timeline is part of a book that's officially licensed by Nintendo. Take from that what you will.
I think that people are taking the "Link fails" timeline in the wrong direction. It can be as simple as the timeline as it continued with Link not returning from the Sacred Realm.
Zelda games made by Nintendo > Zelda book licensed by Nintendo
Seriously, every time I've ever heard official word on the timeline, I feel like the people who developed the games had nothing to do with the given timeline. Official or not, no correct timeline would put Four Swords and Four Swords Adventures so far apart.
The games are canon. Everything else is secondary, and I do mean everything.
Fuck yes. I will almost always take the source material over Word of God as canon in cases of contradiction. Especially in cases like this, where Word of God makes no goddamn sense.
Speaking of, I'm a little confused here, seeing as I hadn't heard of this book before this timeline shit came out. Is this just a book that's licensed by Nintendo or was it actually produced within Nintendo? This would make a huge difference.
Speaking of, I'm a little confused here, seeing as I hadn't heard of this book before this timeline shit came out. Is this just a book that's licensed by Nintendo or was it actually produced within Nintendo? This would make a huge difference.
Eiji Aonuma, producer for the series, helped develop it.
^That. I personally don't see anything blatantly wrong with the timeline but that's because I could care less where Four Swords and Four Swords Adventures go. Haven't played either one. And a third split is the only thing I can think of to reconcile all of the games.
^That. I personally don't see anything blatantly wrong with the timeline but that's because I could care less where Four Swords and Four Swords Adventures go. Haven't played either one.
Let me put it this way. What they did with Four Swords is as bad as if they had said "Ocarina of Time comes immediately after Skyward Sword, and Majora's Mask takes place hundreds of years later." It's a HUGE mistake that totally invalidates having a timeline at all.
Let me put it this way. What they did with Four Swords is as bad as if they had said "Ocarina of Time comes immediately after Skyward Sword, and Majora's Mask takes place hundreds of years later." It's a HUGE mistake that totally invalidates having a timeline at all.
It's been a while since I've played FSA, but I got the impression from playing it that it DID occur much later than minish cap. And from the original FS, it did seem a lot closer to the minish cap times (everything seemed newer, items that made you shrink etc.). Mind you, when I played FSA, I hadn't played FS, (indeed, I thought it was a remake of it!). I really need to play it again.
FSA was made as a direct sequel to Four Swords. If I recall (and will be able to confirm after I finish The Wind Waker), the opening of FSA confirms this.
i personally rarely put on the goggle just because the original was so great, so now i understand why everyone i know loves the games, but i never got into then (except for strongbad)
FSA was made as a direct sequel to Four Swords. If I recall (and will be able to confirm after I finish The Wind Waker), the opening of FSA confirms this.
The opening, at least from the YouTube video I watched, mentions the first fight with Vaati, obviously referring to The Minish Cap(though I don't recall Vaati kidnapping anyone in that one), then the second fight which is obviously Four Swords. Then it states: "And, for a time, the people of Hyrule believed that their land was safe."
I'm sorry, but "For a time" is just as vague as "Ages ago". Of course, vague is what the Zelda series does best.
If you'd played both games, it'd be hard for you to argue that making the games the way they did, while intending them to not feature the same Link as the protagonist would be downright misleading in a way the Zelda series has never been before.
Yes, "for a time" is pretty vague, but "ages ago" is vague in a way that it could mean nearly any length of time, but you know that it's a long time. "For a time" could even mean just a year, or even a month.
I think what gets me the most is the art style and Zelda's familiarity with Link. She doesn't really explain to Link what the Four Sword is or who Vaati is (see the Four Swords opening), and she sort of treats him like he's done the hero thing before. And this would be the first time that two Zelda games used the same art style without featuring the same Link as the protagonist, with the debatable exception of Link's Awakening and the Oracle games.
So yes, I admit, the distance between Four Swords and Four Swords Adventures isn't set in stone, but I still feel it's so heavily implied, it may as well be.
While that point is valid, considering that the opening of the game gives you the entire backstory of the Four Sword and Vaati, I personally would have gotten annoyed after reading all of that and then having Zelda tell me the exact same thing.
Except you've got it backwards. If Link needed to be brought up to speed, Zelda would've told him all that, and the opening wouldn't have had that narration. But because Link already was up to speed, Zelda didn't need to say it, so the narration was necessary for anyone who hadn't played Four Swords (which was a lot of people, considering how surprisingly difficult it was to get a co-op partner who also had a GBA and the game).
Either way, considering their reticence to reveal a timeline in the past, I'm surprised someone hasn't caught up to Miyamoto or Aonuma and said, "WTF man?!"
(which was a lot of people, considering how surprisingly difficult it was to get a co-op partner who also had a GBA and the game).
I've still never played Four Swords for that very reason. :mad: But since I bought it for portable Link to the Past, I guess it wasn't so bad. And now I have Link to the Past for the SNES, the GBA and the Wii. Three guesses what my favourite Zelda game is...
Either way, considering their reticence to reveal a timeline in the past, I'm surprised someone hasn't caught up to Miyamoto or Aonuma and said, "WTF man?!"
That brings up another good point. With this supposed "master document" that the public was never to see, I wouldn't be surprised at all if the timeline we got isn't from this document, but was actually assembled just for this book.
I've still never played Four Swords for that very reason.
If you have a 3DS, you can download the Anniversary Edition of Four Swords for free right now, and you can play using the new single player mode. Or you can try using VBA Link and play the original by yourself. Or you can buy a second copy of the game and force a friend to sit down and play with you.
I've still never played Four Swords for that very reason. :mad: But since I bought it for portable Link to the Past, I guess it wasn't so bad. And now I have Link to the Past for the SNES, the GBA and the Wii. Three guesses what my favourite Zelda game is...
I'm not actually a huge fan of LTTP. I just don't see what the fuss is. Mind you, it has been two years since I last played it (I got into the dark world, but then got bored), so maybe I'll like it more if I play it again. That's what happened with FSA, which I really hated to begin with.
So apparently the Skyward Sword remote bundle is MUCH more limited than I thought it would be. I would've at least expected them to keep it out until Christmas. Now it looks like it'll be damn near impossible to get my hands on without spending a ridiculous amount on eBay.
So apparently the Skyward Sword remote bundle is MUCH more limited than I thought it would be. I would've at least expected them to keep it out until Christmas. Now it looks like it'll be damn near impossible to get my hands on without spending a ridiculous amount on eBay.
Wow, that is surprising. But hey, at least you've got a shiny Zelda 3DS.
...all of my rage
Speaking of Skyward Sword, it topped ScrewAttack's Top 10 games of 2011 list. Very surprising since it's a list of fan votes, but then again, Zelda beat out Skyrim, Arkham City, and Assassin's Creed on G4's Video Game Deathmatch...and at least ScrewAttack's hosts didn't claim that the votes were cast by vindictive Zelda fans that were angry about Zelda being neglected from G4's award show.
I'm watching a couple auctions and I'll probably call up some smaller game stores (see: anything that's not Gamestop) tomorrow before the auctions end and see if any of them didn't get hit so hard. And if all else fails, I may just give up on it and invest in a black Wiimote Plus/Nunchuk/Classic Controller Pro set, instead of getting those in gold through Skyward Sword/Club Nintendo (or eBay if it doesn't hit stateside)/Goldeneye.
There is one other thing about that timeline that bugs me. It makes mention of the Tragedy of Princess Zelda I. I would assume that refers to the sleeping Zelda from Adventure of Link. Unless the Japanese back-story is different, wasn't she supposed to be an ancient princess from millennia past? The first princess of Hyrule?
Pretty much. Unless there was already a tradition of naming daughters in the royal family "Zelda" (which would sort of make the whole "prince's tribute to his sister" thing a really empty gesture), the sleeping Zelda should predate the entire series. Not the first princess of Hyrule, necessarily, but the princess shouldn't be named "Zelda" in any game that comes before her.
Edit: Holy crap, I know it's a translation, but the timeline image even calls it "The Tragedy of Princess Zelda I". If she's "the first", what about the five Zeldas (minimum) that came before her, according to this timeline?
Pretty much. Unless there was already a tradition of naming daughters in the royal family "Zelda" (which would sort of make the whole "prince's tribute to his sister" thing a really empty gesture), the sleeping Zelda should predate the entire series. Not the first princess of Hyrule, necessarily, but the princess shouldn't be named "Zelda" in any game that comes before her.
Edit: Holy crap, I know it's a translation, but the timeline image even calls it "The Tragedy of Princess Zelda I". If she's "the first", what about the five Zeldas (minimum) that came before her, according to this timeline?
Simple. It only became mandatory after the princess in question. There's nothing demanding each princess be named Zelda in the interim.
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.
Also in the timeline that just came out. I thought about that conundrum. I don't think the Master Sword is as big a problem as the hat is.
There's little chance for resolution since knights in the sky wear those hats and Skyward Sword is being angled as the origin for the rest of the series.
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.
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.
Comments
I believe so. And I believe it's only free for a short time.
Anyway, you've probably already all seen this, but I give you: The zelda timeline. (translated and made readable).
Timeline 1 deals with Ganondorf killing Link, timeline B with kid link and zelda tipping off the king (and ganon being arrested), and timeline c with ganondorf being sealed in the sacred realm and link being sent to the past. More here.
As found in the official "History of Hyrulia" book in japan.
I think it makes sense. I always supported the split timeline theory (heck, majora's mask and windwaker basically confirm it in their opening sequences). The "link fails" timeline is new to me, and I guess works. It seems to me as an attempt to shoe-horn in the older games, which probably had no planned timeline for them then. But I guess it makes sense.
So even working under a split timeline, I still feel that the "Link dies" branch should be folded into the "OoT Future" branch.
Also, every timeline theory I've ever seen before now was that Link's Awakening Link was either Oracles Link or A Link to the Past Link. This is the first timeline I've ever seen that suggests that the Oracles take place between ALttP and Link's Awakening, and it really doesn't sit well with me. But then, Nintendo's never known what to do with the Oracle games. I've seen sources that think Oracle of Seasons canonically comes first, when the games themselves contradict this.
Oh, and the Four Swords trilogy. Wow, did they ever fuck that up. Four Swords is supposed to take place ages after The Minish Cap, not immediately after, and Four Swords Adventures is a direct sequel to Four Swords, not separated by centuries. If anything on this timeline proves to me that whoever assembled it didn't know what the hell they were doing, it's this.
And that timeline is part of a book that's officially licensed by Nintendo. Take from that what you will.
Zelda games made by Nintendo > Zelda book licensed by Nintendo
Seriously, every time I've ever heard official word on the timeline, I feel like the people who developed the games had nothing to do with the given timeline. Official or not, no correct timeline would put Four Swords and Four Swords Adventures so far apart.
The games are canon. Everything else is secondary, and I do mean everything.
Speaking of, I'm a little confused here, seeing as I hadn't heard of this book before this timeline shit came out. Is this just a book that's licensed by Nintendo or was it actually produced within Nintendo? This would make a huge difference.
Played Skyward Sword today for five hours without realizing it.
^That. I personally don't see anything blatantly wrong with the timeline but that's because I could care less where Four Swords and Four Swords Adventures go. Haven't played either one. And a third split is the only thing I can think of to reconcile all of the games.
Let me put it this way. What they did with Four Swords is as bad as if they had said "Ocarina of Time comes immediately after Skyward Sword, and Majora's Mask takes place hundreds of years later." It's a HUGE mistake that totally invalidates having a timeline at all.
It's been a while since I've played FSA, but I got the impression from playing it that it DID occur much later than minish cap. And from the original FS, it did seem a lot closer to the minish cap times (everything seemed newer, items that made you shrink etc.). Mind you, when I played FSA, I hadn't played FS, (indeed, I thought it was a remake of it!). I really need to play it again.
Don't knock the nostalgia goggles! Everything looks SO much better when you're wearing them. Even better than the rose-tinted glasses I got last year.
Actually, I was more trying to imply something about the level of sophistication involved.
The opening, at least from the YouTube video I watched, mentions the first fight with Vaati, obviously referring to The Minish Cap(though I don't recall Vaati kidnapping anyone in that one), then the second fight which is obviously Four Swords. Then it states: "And, for a time, the people of Hyrule believed that their land was safe."
I'm sorry, but "For a time" is just as vague as "Ages ago". Of course, vague is what the Zelda series does best.
Yes, "for a time" is pretty vague, but "ages ago" is vague in a way that it could mean nearly any length of time, but you know that it's a long time. "For a time" could even mean just a year, or even a month.
I think what gets me the most is the art style and Zelda's familiarity with Link. She doesn't really explain to Link what the Four Sword is or who Vaati is (see the Four Swords opening), and she sort of treats him like he's done the hero thing before. And this would be the first time that two Zelda games used the same art style without featuring the same Link as the protagonist, with the debatable exception of Link's Awakening and the Oracle games.
So yes, I admit, the distance between Four Swords and Four Swords Adventures isn't set in stone, but I still feel it's so heavily implied, it may as well be.
I've still never played Four Swords for that very reason. :mad: But since I bought it for portable Link to the Past, I guess it wasn't so bad. And now I have Link to the Past for the SNES, the GBA and the Wii. Three guesses what my favourite Zelda game is...
That brings up another good point. With this supposed "master document" that the public was never to see, I wouldn't be surprised at all if the timeline we got isn't from this document, but was actually assembled just for this book.
If you have a 3DS, you can download the Anniversary Edition of Four Swords for free right now, and you can play using the new single player mode. Or you can try using VBA Link and play the original by yourself. Or you can buy a second copy of the game and force a friend to sit down and play with you.
Wow, that is surprising. But hey, at least you've got a shiny Zelda 3DS.
...all of my rage
Speaking of Skyward Sword, it topped ScrewAttack's Top 10 games of 2011 list. Very surprising since it's a list of fan votes, but then again, Zelda beat out Skyrim, Arkham City, and Assassin's Creed on G4's Video Game Deathmatch...and at least ScrewAttack's hosts didn't claim that the votes were cast by vindictive Zelda fans that were angry about Zelda being neglected from G4's award show.
Edit: Holy crap, I know it's a translation, but the timeline image even calls it "The Tragedy of Princess Zelda I". If she's "the first", what about the five Zeldas (minimum) that came before her, according to this timeline?
Simple. It only became mandatory after the princess in question. There's nothing demanding each princess be named Zelda in the interim.
There's little chance for resolution since knights in the sky wear those hats and Skyward Sword is being angled as the origin for the rest of the series.
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.