Not sure why people feel the need to come into Zelda threads and tell people they are wrong for finding any value in the timeline or believing that it isn't 100% Nintendo pulling it out of their asses.
I would like for my contribution to every Zelda timeline discussion to be me screaming WHO CAAAAAAAAAAAAARES so loud that no one else can be heard but visually and without me getting banned
because seriously who fucking cares
Nintendo doesn't, neither should you
Kind of hard to go further back than what they did. Even at the very end, Demise cursed your blood and that you'll forever be intertwined in conflict with him. You also created the Master Sword and Zelda realized she is the reincarnation of the goddess Hylia.
Ocarina of Time spoke of the origin of the world and its creation and the reason they hid the Triforce in another realm. Nothing in Skyward Sword even contradicts it but instead expands upon it in the opening prologue.
But they do or why else was Skyward Sword made? They firmly said that it was the origin story for the main characters of the series and much of the lore in Zelda as well as being the beginning of the timeline.
The moon has a nightmare face.
It couldn't more clearly be a dream world.
The Capcom titles (and FSA) are "technically canon" but basically ignored by the Nintendo made Zelda titles.There aren't major plot contradictions but they didn't avoid tiny retcons. The particular issue that involves OoT, MC and SS is Link's traditional hat. OoT sort of blames it on Kokiri dressing like they do without caring too much - one could later Links reusing such hats out of tradition but it could start earlier. MC released later, while being put earlier in timeline, and actively nudges the player to understand it starts with Ezlo and his memorial hat for the Link of that time - the game shows a previous Link in the intro memorialized without one. Then out of sudden we have SS happening even earlier with all the Skyloft "knight" force having similarly shaped hats and Link just getting a green one. OoT-wise, SS did nothing wrong because it doesn't make a huge deal out of the hat, but with MC you have got... well, not as much as a contradiction, more of a seriously contrived coincidence here.
Like clockworkThis. Nintendo only made the timeline after the fact to placate fans. They don't really care about it and you shouldn't either.
Breath of the Wild contains so many contradictions and is so impossible to definitively place anywhere in the timeline that I can't imagine how anyone still thinks Nintendo cares about continuity, except in the very, very broadest strokes.
The details in the OP still makes it seem like a parallel world, but with Skull Kid as it's "god". It was based on his psyche, but it was still a tangible place that Link went to.
Because of the power of the mask it managed to manifest things beyond Skull Kid's knowledge, and that world ended after the mask wasn't able to continue making it exist. Sounds fine to me.
Same, it just seems like they decided to rip off (old Zelda spoiler, thought I might as well hide it)twist, just so they could ignore Terminal in the future. They didn't even have to retcon it as non-existant, because there is no need to have ever had to bring it up again anyways. But this makes the game less meaningful in my opinion, and is about as lame as the "Link is dead" stuff. The entire history and culture of Majora's Mask is kind of meaningless with this retcon. Compared toLink's Awakening's, this retcon isn't even interesting, and I sincerely doubt it was the intention of the original "author" (Aonuma?). It seems much more likely that Terminal was always meant to be a strange alternate dimension, not some dream world.Link's Awakening
Worth noting that the Encyclopedia also establishes that the Kokiri were originally Hylians.
The Encyclopedia also retcons the timeline established in Hyrule Historia slightly, switching the places of the Oracle games and Link's Awakening and states that the Oracle games feature a different Link than ALttP and LA.
It also has no information on BotW at all.
The preface of the new encyclopedia explicitly says that the author took liberties on the interpretation of Zelda lore. It's paid fan stuff.
tldr: it doesn't mean anything.
The preface of the new encyclopedia explicitly says that the author took liberties on the interpretation of Zelda lore. It's paid fan stuff.
tldr: it doesn't mean anything.
If it's not in the game, why think about it?
Wait, really?
Right, I can understand the frustration and I agree that it's an unnecessary addition to the lore. My thing was more that it's not a simple "it was all a dream" like the OP concluded, which would be even cheaper.Don't get it wrong, it's not like this is a completely unsound explanation. The problems are on another layer of reasoning. One, the disappearance part goes somewhat against the determinator (haha) spirit of the game, contrary to way more Zelda games going for a more Ancient Greek alike "gotta align with fate" philosophy. Two, we had two games in the very same series doing the psyche-based world thing, but they didn't rely on external source to communicate this, they told you so straight at some point, and the world being potentially more "real" than the aforementioned ones does not excuse coming up with such a global twist without no prior indication of this being the case.
Imagine that you're watching an action movie. Speed for instance, but it's not really important right now. If by the end they revealed it was all a training drill it could work better or worse, but it would be absolutely ludicrous if Speed 2 simply opened with "entirety of Speed 1 was a drill".
Awakening, Wind, Twilight, and maybe Minish Cap Links would like a word with you.I am certain someone at Nintendo hates the Hero of Time, he is the only Link who has a sad and depressing ending.
The Oracle games' placement on the timeline was always kinda iffy, even back in the days of fan arguments. It's not super clear if the creators of the games had any specific intent on when they were supposed to take place (outside of post OOT due to Ganon and Twinrova being in them). Having them take place between ALttP and LA came from the fact that the linked story between the two has Link set off on a boat in the end (which is how LA begins), but that's a pretty weak connection if you ask me. The issue with placing them between ALttP and LA was that Zelda in the Oracle games very clearly meets Link for the first time, which would make no sense if he's supposed to be the same Link from ALttP.I read about the Kokiris the other day but didn't know about the Oracle thing. Can't comment on it specifically since I never played them, but I imagine this is also really weird for that game's fans.
Awakening, Wind, Twilight, and maybe Minish Cap Links would like a word with you.
I find it highly irrelevant whether it's a parallel world that already existed or one created consciously or unconsciously by skull kid. It's a parallel dimension either way.
The Capcom titles (and FSA) are "technically canon" but basically ignored by the Nintendo made Zelda titles.
I'm of the belief that BOTW is a somewhat cheap way to merge all 3 timelines due to it being placed so far in the future and the presence of elements from practically every Zelda game made. Maybe Nintendo intended for this to be a "reboot" of the timeline of sorts.
Breath of the Wild contains so many contradictions and is so impossible to definitively place anywhere in the timeline that I can't imagine how anyone still thinks Nintendo cares about continuity, except in the very, very broadest strokes.
Reading through that Zelda thread and they point out that none of the top heads at Nintendo are named in the credits of the encyclopedia. It has none of the same writers or editors of the previous book. Aonuma, for example was credited as the supervising editor in Hyrule Historia. They point out it's by Nintendo Dream. Nintendo Dream runs a Nintendo focused magazine in Japan.
So it's highly speculative fan theory but licensed and approved by Nintendo without any of their top heads working on the book.
I always assumed that Termina was a mirror dimension like Lorule/Dark World where everything was going to hell until GOAT Link saves the day. This is one story Nintendo should have just left alone, it was perfect like it was.
Nothing about this changes that. Some of you are so caught up on it being a dream, as if an entire magical dream world isn't essentially a mirror dimension.
Really sick of hearing this.This. Nintendo only made the timeline after the fact to placate fans. They don't really care about it and you shouldn't either.
Right, I can understand the frustration and I agree that it's an unnecessary addition to the lore. My thing was more that it's not a simple "it was all a dream" like the OP concluded, which would be even cheaper.
Wait, really?
If this is accurate this thread is even more amusing.
Awakening, Wind, Twilight, and maybe Minish Cap Links would like a word with you.
Yes it does. Lorule and the Twilight Realm didn't suddenly stop existing once Link saved them. There is a difference between a parallel universe and a dream one.Nothing about this changes that. Some of you are so caught up on it being a dream, as if an entire magical dream world isn't essentially a mirror dimension.
Really sick of hearing this.
From Ocarina Of Time onward they've very clearly cared about when the games take place and how they relate to each other. Yes they wedged the earlier games in after the fact, but for the last 20 years they've pretty clearly been invested in building out lore and telling a series wide story.
still the best zelda so whatever.
still the best zelda so whatever.
My man.
The preface of the new encyclopedia explicitly says that the author took liberties on the interpretation of Zelda lore. It's paid fan stuff.
tldr: it doesn't mean anything.
I would like for my contribution to every Zelda timeline discussion to be me screaming WHO CAAAAAAAAAAAAARES so loud that no one else can be heard but visually and without me getting banned
because seriously who fucking cares
Nintendo doesn't, neither should you
The preface of the new encyclopedia explicitly says that the author took liberties on the interpretation of Zelda lore. It's paid fan stuff.
tldr: it doesn't mean anything.
It's funny how everyone is ignoring this, assuming it's true.