302: Ocarina of Timelines

[Logan Westbrook]

Ocarina of Timelines

Assembling a coherent Zelda timeline is a bit like trying to assemble a jigsaw with your eyes shut, but that doesn't stop the series' fans from trying.

Read Full Article

 

[Exterminas]

Why does something like Legend of Zelda need continuity?

It is like asking a company that makes instant meals for a nutrition philosophy.

That stuff is obviously not intented to be part of some bigger picture, which is a huge part of the series appeal: You can sit down and play any Zelda game and get right into the story, because "Save the princess" is something anyone can understand. You don't need to get buckled down and reread what the hell an Ocarina is to enjoy the experience.

Just like an instant meal can be enjoyable without any further planning around it.

 

[MeleeMittens123]

I must admit as a History major that I am almost always interested in the historiography of Video Games. (its probably why I LOVE Bethesda games)

But when it comes to Nintendo games I have always been glad with the information each game gives me. Nintendo is notorious for making never-ending character games; Mario and Zelda probably are its most popular. Because I am so used to this trend, the historiography has never really mattered all that much. Mario saves Peach, Link saves/is guided by Zelda.

Its a formula that works for Nintendo. (Of course this is not to say that I would read a history book based on Zelda or Mario; I AM still a History major after all, )

 

[Celtic_Kerr]

Why does something like Legend of Zelda need continuity?

It is like asking a company that makes instant meals for a nutrition philosophy.

That stuff is obviously not intented to be part of some bigger picture, which is a huge part of the series appeal: You can sit down and play any Zelda game and get right into the story, because "Save the princess" is something anyone can understand. You don't need to get buckled down and reread what the hell an Ocarina is to enjoy the experience.

Just like an instant meal can be enjoyable without any further planning around it.

I think it would just be a lot easier for people to accept if every hero wasn't called Link. Link's son, someone coming across the costume, an alternate time line where someone makes t he suit after being wrong... Each one would help people just drop the idea of continuity, but since each character looks the same, dresses the same, has the same "Hero of time/blah blah blah" and uses the same weapons, people expect there to be SOMETHING that explains why they see the same person in every game, while at the same time it never appears as if the other games happened.

Hell, even if Nintendo said "They're all in different universes, none are related" it would have stopped all this

 

[Exterminas]

I think one mayor problem is that the games hail from japan.
So most of the names are most likely translated and therefore derived of most meaning and connotation they might have had in japanese.

Of course the name "Link" calls for interpretating him as the link between all the stories, but then again you base this interpretation on something that can possibliy be a hundred percent translation.

 

[Dorkmaster Flek]

Yeah, I love geek trivia contests as much as the next, well...geek, but honestly I just don't think Nintendo cares about the Zelda timeline that much. They're probably amused by all the fan speculation on the matter. As long as they don't do anything too crazy with regards to plot twists in the Zelda games, the fans will likely never figure it all out.

 

[WanderingFool]

I must admit as a History major that I am almost always interested in the historiography of Video Games. (its probably why I LOVE Bethesda games)

But when it comes to Nintendo games I have always been glad with the information each game gives me. Nintendo is notorious for making never-ending character games; Mario and Zelda probably are its most popular. Because I am so used to this trend, the historiography has never really mattered all that much. Mario saves Peach, Link saves/is guided by Zelda.

Its a formula that works for Nintendo. (Of course this is not to say that I would read a history book based on Zelda or Mario; I AM still a History major after all, )

I can relate to this as well, I to am a history major.

Anyways, I find trying to put together a Zelda timeline more a hobby for when board than anything serious, largely because of all the continuity problems. Hell, I once was convinced that everyone was mistaking the Wind Waker game series for being the adult timeline, when really they should go in the child time line (the theory itself would make this a very long post, so suffice to say, I have dropped a while back.)

Why does something like Legend of Zelda need continuity?

It is like asking a company that makes instant meals for a nutrition philosophy.

That stuff is obviously not intented to be part of some bigger picture, which is a huge part of the series appeal: You can sit down and play any Zelda game and get right into the story, because "Save the princess" is something anyone can understand. You don't need to get buckled down and reread what the hell an Ocarina is to enjoy the experience.

Just like an instant meal can be enjoyable without any further planning around it.

I think people want there to be a connection because of the actual story in Zelda. People are probably fine with Mario because in comparison, Mario is a simple bicycle, Zelda is a Honda DN-01 with a 680cc liquid-cooled 52 degrees V-Twin... or... Mario is Zelda without the story, just save the princess, save the kingdom.

 

[-Dragmire-]

Damn right their all different Links, if not then Link has alzheimers and keeps forgetting where he put his boomerang, grappling hook, Master Sword etc. that he uses in most of his adventures.

I want the high jump back from Link II, it was always fun to see him travel like a grasshopper.

EDIT: Also their should be a Zelda game where you play as Zelda. It's like Super Mario bros. being named the Chronicles of a Toadstool named Peach.

 

[beema]

This reminds me quite a bit of the show Lost and how its fans (myself included) agonized on internet forums over the details of the show and its timeline. It's funny how easy it is to get wrapped up in something like that, which from an outside perspective, is very clearly just a product of real-world development constraints and human error, and does not have a complete perfect sense-making explanation. This part especially

Both the series' creator, Shigeru Miyamoto, and its current overseer, Eiji Aonuma, have said that the series does have a fixed timeline, but they're rather reluctant to tell anyone what it is.

reminds me of Lindelof & Cuse (Lost creators) insistence that they had a plan for everything and had everything mapped out from the beginning and knew the reasons behind everything, but could not divulge it -- despite the obvious that they very clearly did not (because how could you possibly plan for something as fickle and subject to the whims of a media industry as a TV show).
I've gotten over my anger at them for misleading people so steadfastly, but the glaring plotholes and after-knowledge of many items on the show never coming to light have ruined any future re-watching of it for me.

Sorry for the tangential rant!

Anyways, back on topic, if anyone has not watched this before, do so NOW -- it's a hilarious deconstruction of this topic by the AVGN:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cHIP9UtkQDQ

Najarian, ctudia -- wtf did I just say some chant from the Necronomicon with this captcha?

 

[CrystalShadow]

Why does something like Legend of Zelda need continuity?

It is like asking a company that makes instant meals for a nutrition philosophy.

That stuff is obviously not intented to be part of some bigger picture, which is a huge part of the series appeal: You can sit down and play any Zelda game and get right into the story, because "Save the princess" is something anyone can understand. You don't need to get buckled down and reread what the hell an Ocarina is to enjoy the experience.

Just like an instant meal can be enjoyable without any further planning around it.

I think it would just be a lot easier for people to accept if every hero wasn't called Link. Link's son, someone coming across the costume, an alternate time line where someone makes t he suit after being wrong... Each one would help people just drop the idea of continuity, but since each character looks the same, dresses the same, has the same "Hero of time/blah blah blah" and uses the same weapons, people expect there to be SOMETHING that explains why they see the same person in every game, while at the same time it never appears as if the other games happened.

Hell, even if Nintendo said "They're all in different universes, none are related" it would have stopped all this

Wind waker played around with this. Even though the hero in that is called Link, and looks the part, he's only wearing the green costume because it's a cultural tradition on the island that a young boy wears that on his birthday when he officially becomes a man.

It's a little in-joke, if you will. (And I do believe if you replay the game with the more difficult 'master quest' settings, he actually refuses to wear it, and wears his own clothes the whole game instead.)

Yeah, I love geek trivia contests as much as the next, well...geek, but honestly I just don't think Nintendo cares about the Zelda timeline that much. They're probably amused by all the fan speculation on the matter. As long as they don't do anything too crazy with regards to plot twists in the Zelda games, the fans will likely never figure it all out.

I think, this is true. Sort of.
Nintendo doesn't care about continuity with the Zelda series. They'll mess with anything.
But... At the same time, the frequency with which various bits of one game allude to another is far too high for it to be a coincidence.

I get the feeling Nintendo knows fans will join the dots, and deliberately throws in things that look like a reference to something else.
They don't care about continuity enough to keep their facts consistent, but they care enough to insert odd, self-referential details into the games that suggest some kind of continuity.

 

[FogHornG36]

While your at it why don't you do a final fanticy time line?! HU?

 

[Georgie_Leech]

I still think my favourite timeline theory was this one here:


Also,

EDIT: Also their should be a Zelda game where you play as Zelda. It's like Super Mario bros. being named the Chronicles of a Toadstool named Peach.

There was. It was for the Cd-i. The less we say about it the better.

 

[-Dragmire-]

Also,

EDIT: Also their should be a Zelda game where you play as Zelda. It's like Super Mario bros. being named the Chronicles of a Toadstool named Peach.

There was. It was for the Cd-i. The less we say about it the better.

Too bad, she looks like she could refresh the whole series if the gameplay was based on smash bros brawl. At least Peach's game on the DS was decent.

 

[ccesarano]

I hear "split timeline" and I say "Good night everybody!" That is silly and just way too much work/effort, and I cannot imagine any company is trying to keep track of all that seriously.

Personally, I would probably ignore a bunch of the side games for portables anyway. Trying to fit Four Swords into a timeline? Seriously? Bullshit, that was just for fun. The only side game I might consider would be Link's Awakening on the GameBoy, because if I recall that was supposed to be the Link to the Past Link.

And yes, I remember promotional materials claiming A Link to the Past took place before the original Legend of Zelda. However, let's face it. Miyamoto probably wasn't thinking about that sort of stuff, especially considering the simplicity of games at the time. In truth he probably thought "Hey, we can recreate Zelda with a more complex story and world. Let's do that!" and lo and behold, A Link to the Past was born. Ocarina of Time would have been the same thing.

It's a fun mental exercise, but I'll just accept the simple fact that they are all a different Link in a different Hyrule and leave it at that.

 

[Phuctifyno]

The specific timeline isn't important, but the idea of Hyrule being caught in an eternal cycle, which resurrects the triforce's influence to conduct the struggle of good and evil every few hundred years, is interesting enough.

Scienceticians' fringe theories of quantum mechanics dictate, however, that the stories don't happen in one specific order, but in every conceivable order - regardless of how outrageous the explanation. Eternity takes a long-ass time and makes room for ALL possiblities.

 

[Lvl 64 Klutz]

I don't think Nintendo started caring about a timeline until Wind Waker, and got even more serious about it with Twilight Princess, even going so far as to describe all of Link's tools as sacred artifacts and weapons "left behind by the ancient hero." But at that point, continuity was so disjointed that I just don't care to follow it anymore.

I'm still waiting for the explanation to why Hyrule seems to be re-terraformed every 50 years or so.

 

[Macgyvercas]

Good article, but I have issue with the phrase "Putting together a Zelda timeline is like trying to put together a jigsaw puzzle without knowing what it's supposed to look like". All I can say is that fewer people than I expected have ever heard or/done 1500 piece mystery jigsaw puzzles.

They really are not that hard, but then again, I've always had a knack for relying on shapes rather than trying to match the color on the piece with where it goes on the box.

Still, good article.

 

[coldfrog]

Aside from basically the entire timeline story (which was interesting, don't get me wrong), I TOTALLY forgot about Koume/Kotake being villains in the games. I've just been playing Majora's Mask again, and they're helpful! Wonder if they have anything to say about that.

 

[Heart of Darkness]

Why does The Legend of Zelda need a timeline, anyway? I always just saw it as variants on a single legend: the main elements of the legend (Hyrule, Link, Zelda, Ganon(dorf), the Triforce) are usually there in the legend, but the exact characters, locations, and story vary from storyteller to storyteller.

 

[Penitent]

I'd hate for the timeline to become an actual issue. Part of Legend of Zelda's strength as a series is that it's meant to be about this never-ending clash between three people, fated to meet each time - the hero, the king, and the princess - and we don't need any more than that. No player needs to know whether the next Zelda game happens before Ocarina of Time or after; it's something Nintendo can play around with if they like (as they did in the Wind Waker), but that's not what the game is about. If they ever did make an official timeline, I'm afraid that would make Zelda more about continuity than it would adventure, in the eyes of the fans.