Legend of Zelda Timeline Discussion

[CT Chia]

I for one find the concept of the timeline enthralling, and love the potential it has for the series. I do agree that the new exploration and style of each Zelda is slowly decreasing, each game isn't as revitalizing and refreshing as the last. They still do have small things mixing it up such as the Wolf in TP or the sky in SS, but it's not as ground breaking for the series like OOT, MM, or WW.

We know all the past games are massively different. We also know there is somewhat of a Link between them, and to see how they work together is great I think. To see what kind of creativity can take the same basic story and land and make it completely new and different is something that takes skill in story and game design, and is what I've come to love from the Zelda series. Sure you can start with a blank canvas and make something new and refreshing every time, but to be given a palette already created and modify it to make everyone have a whole new vision and outlook on it, is what I've come to love from Zelda.

 

[#HBC | ZoZo]

I really think it's a shame that Aonuma is now in charge instead of Miyamoto. I just tend to disagree with his views quite often. To each his own, I guess.

 

[Spire]

Well Aonuma started off doing so good! He created the Water Temple and directed Majora's Mask. Awesome achievements in the history of the franchise.

But what happened?

 

[Jam Stunna]

I can honestly see how both the Water Temple and MM could come out of Aonuma's philosophy, so I won't say his approach to Zelda is necessarily bad. It may just be that he's not suited to making the "epic quest" Zeldas like TP and SS.

 

[Spire]

But Aonuma hates difficulty in games. How do the Water Temple and MM correspond with that? They're the most difficult parts of the series since Adventure of Link (unless you consider Phantom Hourglass to be the most difficult part considering its sheer obnoxiousness).

 

[Jam Stunna]

I don't know, I didn't take away that Aonuma hates difficulty from the links you provided, just that he hates certain types of difficulty. For the sake of argument, we'll agree that those parts are very hard. But they're not hard in the tons-of-octoroks-onscreen way, they're hard in the puzzle-solving way. As challenging as the Water Temple may have been from an environmental standpoint, I wonder how many people actually died in the Water Temple, as opposed to getting frustrated and resetting the game or whatever.

Now for some personal opinions: I honestly didn't find the Water Temple that hard. Tedious, yes, but not even close to the difficulty of Turtle Rock or Ganon's Tower in LttP (or the Spirit Temple in Master's Quest, but I guess that doesn't really count). Majora's Mask main quest isn't hard either. The difficulty comes in figuring out how to get all the masks.

 

[CT Chia]

I really enjoy the difficulty that wracks your mind rather than just technical skill for Zelda. Things like the Water Temple and MM are perfect examples of it.

One of the most tedious I think was the Sky Temple from Twilight Princess, much more daring than the Water Temple.

 

[etecoon]

I love the water temple personally, but that dungeon is maybe the single most hated dungeon in the series, not the best example to shower praise on Aonuma in all likelyhood. MM I chalk up to being a happy accident that happened largely because of the extremely compressed development cycle, it's not representative of Aonuma's typical philosophies in a lot of ways.

edit: just noticed the other forum is gone, I don't mind that per se but it just reminds me again that they should give us the social thread back, meddling admins...especially if it's still going to be stickied, why waste the real estate at the top of the first page for a thread you aren't even allowing us to use?

 

[Masky]

The Water Temple isn't hard. Literally all you have to do is go down every path until you find a key, then find a locked door to use the key on.

And are you guys really hating on Aonuma for Skyward Sword? Alright... I'm about to blow your mind... but he didn't even direct Skyward Sword, that was Fujibayashi, the guy who directed Minish Cap.

 

[ZIO]

I thought the team that worked on Spirit tracks did most of the work on Skyward Sword.

 

[Masky]

I thought the team that worked on Spirit tracks did most of the work on Skyward Sword.

homie check the credits

 

[#HBC | ZoZo]

hint; i dislike aonuma
hint; i loved skyward sword

yarrrrr

 

[etecoon]

I've said a few times now that SS is a good indication to me that fujibayashi should be the series' main director, not aonuma. there are some quirks to be worked out and I'd say it's a more flawed game than aonuma's were, but it also has much more of the creativity that I felt those games lacked with the exception of MM(again, happy accident)

 

[etecoon]

TP was the creative rock bottom of the series, not only for being a rehash on OoT and FSA but also for being the most blatantly derivative of other games that any zelda game has ever been(SotC all over the place...). I really don't see how you can say fujibayashi hasn't shown creativity compared to that.

 

[CT Chia]

I don't know why people think TP lacked so much creativity. It had the biggest departure from normal main character control in the series yet.

 

[etecoon]

I don't know why people think TP lacked so much creativity. It had the biggest departure from normal main character control in the series yet.

the story is mostly recycled from OoT and FSA, aesthetics influenced by SotC, boss concepts directly ripped from SotC, follows a very similar structure to OoT, and aside from being derivative most of the game feels very lifeless and flat. I do like a lot of things about the game so I don't mean to be overly harsh on it, but to me it does lack a little something that LTTP, LA, OoT, MM, and SS have and I think the philosophy of the game trying to out OoT OoT instead of being it's own thing is a lot of what caused that.

 

[PsychoIncarnate]

http://wii.ign.com/articles/121/1215510p1.html

The new legend of zelda book just said NEITHER of the split timelines are canon.

Link died in OoT before he defeated Ganon

 

[etecoon]

technically it just makes link dying also canon...as well as him living and beating ganondorf...

the only way I can possibly see this making sense is if SS also caused a timeline split in which OoT occurs afterward on both timelines, but for some reason link fails in one of them and doesn't in the other. and even that doesn't really make sense because SS' time travel is already littered with paradoxes that make it impossible to say exactly how it was intended to work

but yeah, MM and zelda II have more of a case for a canonical failure based on the events of the game

 

[PsychoIncarnate]

From Nintendo's recent announcements, it seems they've retconned it completely.

Probably makes games such as Twilight Princess, Majora's Mask, and Wind Waker non-canon.

 

[ZIO]

So I read through the intro of ALttP.

Welp, I'm going to assume when they note "The golden Land" they are referencing the Sacred realm. And that Evil power flowed from the sacred realm, thus forcing the sages to lock it up.

I guess, in this sense that Link failed in this timeline three way split, it makes sense, as Link failing would have given ganondorf his long awaited power. BUT, what gets me is that in OoT he is in Hyrule - Not the sacred realm. Wouldn't he have been wreaking havoc on Hyrule? Or, maybe, he did, and decided to expand he reach into the sacred realm. And, of course - What of Zelda? I'm supposing she lost her part of the triforce, but still, thanks to the power of Hylia, was not killed by Ganondorf.

Gah . . .

 

[theeboredone]

So I'm a bit lost. People keep saying "Link died" instead of "Link failed." Which one is it? "Died" is a pretty strong word.

 

[etecoon]

haven't read it myself yet(is the full translation out anywhere?) but I've seen two main camps on it, link dies, or link "fails" as a result of time travel/other splits occurring. neither one actually makes sense and both represent serious retcons on nintendo's part as far as I'm concerned

 

[ZIO]

I heard the book translated to Link Dying. That's undeniable, now.

At least, that's what I heard. But for the Imprisoning War to take place, Ganondorf would need that triforce. And if the only way to get that piece is to kill the holders of those pieces, then Link had to have been killed.

 

[etecoon]

it does make the most sense from that perspective, state of triforce, state of MS etc, time travel alone couldn't have produced that result. but how can link dying and link succeeding coexist? as I said, the only thing that makes even a little sense to me is SS causing another split where OoT happens in both timelines, but it's like DBZ where the villains strength changes for no apparent reason when time travel is involved so link fails in one of those. either that or nintendo is now saying that some of the games are simply based on a hypothetical scenario, which makes sense because they've already treated the earlier games as if they never happened for some time now but it's weird for them to come out and do it this way

 

[ZIO]

As I've said, I don't honestly believe Nintendo had thought this through before doing what they have done here.

That, or they intentionally did it to set the internet ablaze. Because the split where Link fails is a What if scenario, and it implies that what could have been was taken as fact. What does this say about every game? Each game could have split the timeline even further if we were to even think Link COULD have failed. It's seriously a mess.

This even makes me think about the WW intro - They mention a time when Evil did ravage the land, but no hero was there to save them. What if the hero was there, but he failed? :I

 

[GwJ]

Death isn't the only way for Link to have relinquished his piece of the Triforce. If you have played Wind Waker, Ganon has the ability (whether it be unique or universal) of being able to literally take the piece of the triforce from someone. We don't know if there are certain conditions such as the victim being completely unable to struggle or react or whatever, but it is possible. The only thing that would need to happen would be for Link to be defeated in any battle. Ganon could show up and take the trifroce piece Cell-style.

 

[etecoon]

I've always thought a game set in that era could be amazing, it'd be like the empire strikes back of zelda. I doubt it will ever happen though, but it could be interesting because if they ever did it it would be pretty simple for them to blindside us with it, "ganon escapes the seal and starts ravaging the land" is such a played out storyline that it could be set just about anywhere in the timeline. I think there was a "failed link"(technically ganon is sealed again but at great cost to the people of hyrule, obviously wasn't anyones plan A) regardless of whether or not we ever get a game clarifying it though, it's implied that there is always a chosen hero to battle ganon when he rises, just now it's more confirmed that sometimes ganon wins(which makes sense, ganon winning is a prerequisite to the events of LTTP, maybe it didn't have to happen coming from OoT but it had to happen somewhere)

 

[theeboredone]

Hence why I would love to have a game starring Ganon. Give him some characterization, while being a total bamf. Kicking *** and taking names.

 

[ZIO]

Well, GwJumpman, I didn't really think of it. I suppose that can be. BUT! Didn't Ganondorf try? Wasn't that what Ganondorf tried to do when Link entered the room in OoT? That purple beam that he shot out?

I mean. If he had everyone gathered, he had the same opportunity as he did in WW. But he didn't take it for whatever reason.

 

[etecoon]

might be because the hero of time was on more equal ground with ganon than WW link, we know from other games that a child link is capable of killing ganon but maybe that kind of scenario is one of the things rauru was guarding against by waiting for link to grow up

 

[Spire]

ALttP's backstory dictates there was not a hero to draw the Master Sword and defeat Ganon.

Failure timeline dictates Link literally lost in the battle against Ganon, so the would-be hero had arisen after all.

WW's backstory says there was never a hero. Because ALttP's backstory also said there was never a hero (but alas, there was, though he proved not to be a hero after all), we could very well see a game set pre-WW where we fail. They could be really ambiguous with it too, only revealing the placement of the story later on in the game.

Of course they could go the route of splitting the timeline once more, having us succeed in such events, preventing WW altogether.

 

[etecoon]

that's what I really love about that concept, because the "ganon escapes seal and is up to trouble again!" thing has been done so many times, you wouldn't necessarily see it coming until the very end if they played it right. I just don't think it will happen because having a game literally end with the hero being killed and the world flooding is pretty dark for nintendo, I can't see a zelda game ending on such a down note

 

[Psychoace]

Ironically enough you die in Harvest Moon: A Wonderful Life.

 

[theeboredone]

Sorry to bring this up as I'm still confused. If Link "died"...but wasn't he the one who pulled the Master Sword and slept for 7 years and grew into an adult? Or was there another Link we played as in OoT?

 

[ZIO]

The master sword was the final lock into the Sacred Realm. Once Link removed it, The Sacred realm was an all day buffet for Ganondorf.

And in order for this scenario to fit with AlttP, Link had to have failed during the final fight in which the sages were in the process of sealing Ganon.

I think they were still successful, and the events went relatively unchanged after the final battle. The only difference being that ganondorf has the full triforce and Link is dead.

And, probably, The Master Sword was hidden within the forests afterward.

 

[PsychoIncarnate]

Ok, you guys were right. 3 split timelines

Oh btw Nintendo made a canonical timeline
http://wii.ign.com/articles/121/1215301p1.html

/thread

 

[GwJ]

There's still room for debate. Specifically how the Link from Minish Cap cannot be the Link from Four Swords, yet they're put together and separated from FSA.

 

[Spire]

Link must have died during the fight with Ganon. It's the only way to explain how all of the sages were awakened. Had he not triumphed the temples of Hyrule, awakening Saria, Darunia, Ruto, Impa, and Nabooru, the sages would not have had enough power to seal Ganon following Link's fall. Their circle would have been incomplete. The true story of Ocarina of Time is that of Link awakening the sages. That was his purpose. He defied the expected and created an alternate timeline continuing in Ganon's wake, and then Zelda created a third timeline, sending Link back to his youth.

Essentially, Ganon, Link, and Zelda created three timelines by the following direct motions:
A. Ganon defeats Link, timeline A (failure) pursues
B. Link defeats Ganon, timeline B (adult) pursues
C. Zelda sends Link back to his youth, timeline C (childhood) pursues

The childhood line is ultimately the strangest of the three.

 

[CT Chia]

I've been reflecting more and more on the idea of the Link fails timeline, and especially after reading that IGN article, it really starts to hit you. The idea of you failing and the game over screen becoming a reality is something that's never really been done before.

 

[Elyssa Xey Hexen]

I think you could explain all three timelines existing at once with that little flow chart.

The master sword sealed the sacred realm and it is unlocking this which gave Ganon the ability to mess up Hyrule so much 7 years into the future in Ocarina. You play through the game as normal and you seal up Ganon.

But, Zelda realized that unlocking the Sacred Realm was a bad idea and thus sent Link back in time. I assume that once Link goes back in time that either he or zelda has enough knowledge now (or something) that caused them to never open up the Sacred Realm. This effectively keeps Ganon from making too much mischief. Link goes onto Majora's Mask and the sages go on to execute Ganon.

However, since Zelda sent Link back in time, the timeline with ganon sealed no longer has its hero of time. This leads to the "The Era Without a Hero" and thus ganon breaks free of being sealed. Hyrule floods because there was no Link to beat him that time around being sent back into the past. So, these two timelines can exist side by side: Ganondorf is Sealed & Sacred Realm Protected timelines.

The segment where the Hero of Time fails I think can be worked in with the plucking of the Master Sword. Link goes two ways, the one where his spirit is preserved and one where it is not. I think he sort of gets split into two. One with his spirit not preserved, we go on to an untold story with young link getting killed trying to fight against Ganon. He couldn't, he was too young to stand a chance. The other part is where his spirit is preserved and goes on to the explanation I mentioned before of the other two timelines.

And this all sort of works out if you think of time as being split up into multiple branches that sprout up depending upon how an action is taking. Once created, it will keep proceeding forward no matter if you manage to transfer between two branches of time.