I must say I didn't see this coming, but I'm not extremely shocked by it either. I'll bet they let us believe that there was a timeline. They did it for the lulz.
Nintendo Lays To Rest Zelda Timeline Mystery
- Thread starter Keane Ng
- Start date
Totally! That's how we got Firefly back on television.thiosk said:
...oh wait.
Honestly I'm not surprised. If there is any company that continually hates their fans its Nintendo. How others are unaware of this baffles me.
I thought that the different universe theory was accepted as common knowledge.
As far as I'm aware, there has never been any suggestion from Nintendo that the Zelda series followed a timeline.
I would call that kid a Nintendo fan boy.
But it looks like hes about to argue with Nintendo.
So hes an anti-fan fanboy.
As far as I'm aware, there has never been any suggestion from Nintendo that the Zelda series followed a timeline.
I would call that kid a Nintendo fan boy.
But it looks like hes about to argue with Nintendo.
So hes an anti-fan fanboy.
Practically speaking, what does he expect? Nintendo obviously thinks making new games is more important than figuring out how their old games connect. You think they want to be paying one of their employees to look over his theory in an in-depth way and verify it? What a waste of someone's time and their money. Plus, I bet Ocarinahero10 will still buy every Zelda game to come out for the rest of his life - he obviously lives for Zelda games - so what do they care.
O_OAboveUp said:
Jesus, that makes so much sense, and yet Nintendo claim it doesn't. F*ck sake, how good would that have been if that was actually noted in the story?
Meh Link is an age old endless story repeated many times under seemingly same settings with slightly different characters played by regurgitated actors.
Because of similarities in the fiction/worlds you can string them together into a time line but...
Like FF its a multiple world deal that may or may not be a universe apart.
Because of similarities in the fiction/worlds you can string them together into a time line but...
Like FF its a multiple world deal that may or may not be a universe apart.
Practically speaking, they can not capitalize upon it run down the theory refine it with their own log it and make some nice anniversary books/items/video out of it then add it with the next game for 50$ more, or polish up the older titles and re release them 2 or 3 in one package with the extras at a time for 49$ a pop.boozby said:
They are the ones wasting time and money by not doing something and the way CP works a fan group could not even begin to make a project out of it.....
Lol. I watched his video, and the Nintendo response.
He's one pretentious guy...
Miyamoto has in the past claimed there was a timeline, but I suspect neither the fans nor nintendo themselves are being entirely honest here.
There isn't a detailed timeline, and too many details conflict for them to put much actual thought into it.
But even so, it's clear that the games have stories 'inspired' by parts of earlier games.
Starting with the series itself:
The 2nd game on the NES (I forgot it's name) seems to imply it's an actual sequel to the first.
The plot of 'Link's awakening' implies it follows on from 'A link to the past', though the details don't quite add up.
Ocarina of Time is so obviously derived from the opening sequence of 'A link to the past', that it's hard not to draw a connection.
Majora's mask again seems a direct sequel to Ocarina of time.
Wind waker makes reference to a legend that sounds uncannily like one of the consequences of alternate universes being caused by the events of 'Ocarina of time',
And Twilight princess has a very obvious relation to the ending of 'Ocarina of time' as well.
None of the minor details of these relationships make any sense though, which makes me suspect that Nintendo is telling a half-truth here.
There is no timeline in the sense of an official, well documented chronology that fits together coherently.
There is a timeline in the sense that parts of later games have repeatedly been derived from elements of the story in earlier games...
It would be silly to suggest the designers don't know they're doing this, so they are making a timeline implicitly, but they don't want an official timeline because they don't want to have to deal with actual continuity checking.
I have no problem with this.
There's no official timeline they feel obliged to follow exactly, but there are clearly elements that impicitly form some kind of chronology to the games.
He's one pretentious guy...
Miyamoto has in the past claimed there was a timeline, but I suspect neither the fans nor nintendo themselves are being entirely honest here.
There isn't a detailed timeline, and too many details conflict for them to put much actual thought into it.
But even so, it's clear that the games have stories 'inspired' by parts of earlier games.
Starting with the series itself:
The 2nd game on the NES (I forgot it's name) seems to imply it's an actual sequel to the first.
The plot of 'Link's awakening' implies it follows on from 'A link to the past', though the details don't quite add up.
Ocarina of Time is so obviously derived from the opening sequence of 'A link to the past', that it's hard not to draw a connection.
Majora's mask again seems a direct sequel to Ocarina of time.
Wind waker makes reference to a legend that sounds uncannily like one of the consequences of alternate universes being caused by the events of 'Ocarina of time',
And Twilight princess has a very obvious relation to the ending of 'Ocarina of time' as well.
None of the minor details of these relationships make any sense though, which makes me suspect that Nintendo is telling a half-truth here.
There is no timeline in the sense of an official, well documented chronology that fits together coherently.
There is a timeline in the sense that parts of later games have repeatedly been derived from elements of the story in earlier games...
It would be silly to suggest the designers don't know they're doing this, so they are making a timeline implicitly, but they don't want an official timeline because they don't want to have to deal with actual continuity checking.
I have no problem with this.
There's no official timeline they feel obliged to follow exactly, but there are clearly elements that impicitly form some kind of chronology to the games.
Wow, Nintendo really left it's fans out in the cold with this, they could have AT LEAST tried to make an effort to keep the fans happy.
Is it just me or is there something wrong when the developers are taking the game less seriously then the fans?
Anyway, it doesn't mater, we all know fans will still speculate and ignore the official statement.
Is it just me or is there something wrong when the developers are taking the game less seriously then the fans?
Anyway, it doesn't mater, we all know fans will still speculate and ignore the official statement.
I agree - Nintendo has always made it clear, implicit or understated in the story itself - that only a few of the games were related, time-line wise. It was well and truely made clear that the gods of Hyrule conspired to create a new hero when any evil threat loomed. Chances are, all based on the original hero, Link, from the first (earliest?) iteration of the hero and his enemy. Ganon(dorf), however, I believe was just under statis, or trapped somewhere, or resurrected like any bad guy should be. Each Link is new, though, except some that recur such as the Link from Ocarina of Time and Majora's Mask.AboveUp said:
The lack of timeline isn't so much a lack, though - more a lack of such an in-depth timeline as created by the fans. Each game takes place in a certain point of Hyrulian history - there was mention of a cataclysm that caused the once neat Hyrule (or OoT, WW etc) to be more of a wide open, squarish land of the earlier games. And then a major flood caused it to turn to what was shown in Wind Waker.
Well at least he backed up what he said, you have to give him credit for that, it did make sense.
Different universes/dimensions?
Makes sense. Hyrule's landscape always changes... also Termania was an alternate dimensi- OH GOD I'M GOING NERDY. *pours bleach on himself*
Makes sense. Hyrule's landscape always changes... also Termania was an alternate dimensi- OH GOD I'M GOING NERDY. *pours bleach on himself*
Does there really need to be a timeline? Zelda is not exactly known for its deep and intricate story. The games give you a good, solid, simple, self-contained story and give you a great game to play to advance said story. Is that so bad?
I completely support Nintendo on this case, as they're the ones who made the games in the first place.
I completely support Nintendo on this case, as they're the ones who made the games in the first place.
I will be probably neither the first nor last to say i totally called that. Looking at the worlds and structure of each game it's pretty obvious Nintendo didn't really make the games with any coherent consistency in mind, except maybe Majora and Hourglass.
hmmm... they made a FICTIONAL game set in a FICTIONAL world, with FICTIONAL main characters not adhere to some fanboys theory of how the games should go chronologically? Why does anyone care this much, it is just a series of good games, just chill out and enjoy them for what they are.
rosac
rosac
