surf dtoid with 
Rising (10+)
People you follow
Lol @ Link's Awakening being the sequel to Phantom Hourglass.
I never got the compulsion people feel to put Zelda in a timeline when it's pretty obvious none of the games outside of the direct sequels are anything but tangentially connected.
I never got the compulsion people feel to put Zelda in a timeline when it's pretty obvious none of the games outside of the direct sequels are anything but tangentially connected.
"If we can get enough names then there's a good chance that Nintendo will give the timeline a chance and not abandon Zelda" "Let's save Zelda!"
Ummm... what? What exactly are we saving Zelda from? Is he implying that we need to sign his petition which won't do anything to save Zelda from the creators original idea for how the series should be? I guess if we don't sign this petition to make Nintendo accept this random fan's time line then all hell will break lose and Nintendo will suddenly decide to drop it's huge multi million dollar series because they can't handle not having a set time line, it's just too confusing for them.
Ummm... what? What exactly are we saving Zelda from? Is he implying that we need to sign his petition which won't do anything to save Zelda from the creators original idea for how the series should be? I guess if we don't sign this petition to make Nintendo accept this random fan's time line then all hell will break lose and Nintendo will suddenly decide to drop it's huge multi million dollar series because they can't handle not having a set time line, it's just too confusing for them.
Wait...
So after all that he started a petition to send to Nintendo in hopes that they'll change they're minds and pretend they had a grand timeline for the entire series?
Wut?
So after all that he started a petition to send to Nintendo in hopes that they'll change they're minds and pretend they had a grand timeline for the entire series?
Wut?
It's Nintendo of America we're talking about here. It's like asking Brazillian GM if everything is going to be okay:they have absolutely no clue. There is obviously a timeline, even if it envolves just around 5 games of the franchise, and saying otherwise is just plain wrong. I really don't think they will ever manage to fit the older games in the new story structure, specially after Twilight kind of messed everything up, but their response was obviously pre-made. Miyamoto just doesn't care and Aonuma, by trying to give the games some connections among each other, made the series stale. I really don't know what'll come next, and honestly, I don't care about continuity anymore.
There is a timeline and it's pretty obvious.
It starts with Ocarina of Time, because it is the best game because everyone says it is the best game, followed by Majora's Mask because Masks are cool. Then comes the NES games because they are old and therefore should come in the middle so the retro fans don't get pissy. The handheld games don't count as they are handheld and thus shouldn't count. Twilight Princess comes next because Wind Waker was too kiddy to be part of the HARDCORE timeline because the graphics don't look like realism. Then Ocarina of Time again because Blue is the color of Linkens tonic is blue like the sky which is up high. Sony needs to make these things more clear.
It starts with Ocarina of Time, because it is the best game because everyone says it is the best game, followed by Majora's Mask because Masks are cool. Then comes the NES games because they are old and therefore should come in the middle so the retro fans don't get pissy. The handheld games don't count as they are handheld and thus shouldn't count. Twilight Princess comes next because Wind Waker was too kiddy to be part of the HARDCORE timeline because the graphics don't look like realism. Then Ocarina of Time again because Blue is the color of Linkens tonic is blue like the sky which is up high. Sony needs to make these things more clear.
@Shoop: because people want them to be. So instead of thinking of them as a series of separate legends, they shoehorn them together. That, and at one point, Nintendo really did try to fit them together before saying "fuck it" and focusing on what's more important (gameplay).
Besides, who the hell plays Zelda games for their stories? I'm a diehard Zelda fanatic, but even I recognize that Zelda's stories leave a lot to leave desired.
Besides, who the hell plays Zelda games for their stories? I'm a diehard Zelda fanatic, but even I recognize that Zelda's stories leave a lot to leave desired.
@Phoenix Gamma
Haha that exactly, I've played almost every Zelda game because they're all so fun, but if you think that "link saves the princess from the evil wizard" is actually important in the quality of the games then that's pretty silly.
Haha that exactly, I've played almost every Zelda game because they're all so fun, but if you think that "link saves the princess from the evil wizard" is actually important in the quality of the games then that's pretty silly.
If there was an official timeline awesme videos like that plastered with intelligence, logic and fanboyism would hardly exsist. this was alot better than the GT.com version.
Personally I just enjoy Zelda games without pondering the timeline because secretly they all have the same thing happen just like mario games. The levels and graphics change but Zelda will always be targetted for kidnapping, link will always have to go through crap and upgrade before fighting ganon/dorf and saving zelda.
Personally I just enjoy Zelda games without pondering the timeline because secretly they all have the same thing happen just like mario games. The levels and graphics change but Zelda will always be targetted for kidnapping, link will always have to go through crap and upgrade before fighting ganon/dorf and saving zelda.
Once upon a time, I went nerd-ballistic and made up a timeline that explained how all the Mega Man games fit together. This was a while ago, before a lot of the newer Mega Man series were released, so it wasn't that tough. Off course, Capcom would later announce that certain games in the series are in an alt timeline and other such nonsense, but it's my understanding that some fans persisted at getting them all to fit together, in a similar fashion as this guy did for Zelda.
Coming up with these kinds of timelines really helps fans to feel like the series in question exist in a "real world", and for that reason, I think it's great when devs come up with them themselves, or at least, give fans' theories the benefit of the doubt.
That said, I'd be annoyed if some random guys claimed to know more about the games I created than I did. If Nintendo says there is no official time line, then that's it; leave it alone.
Coming up with these kinds of timelines really helps fans to feel like the series in question exist in a "real world", and for that reason, I think it's great when devs come up with them themselves, or at least, give fans' theories the benefit of the doubt.
That said, I'd be annoyed if some random guys claimed to know more about the games I created than I did. If Nintendo says there is no official time line, then that's it; leave it alone.
The tendency to draw connections between every little thing has always struck me as silly. Most of the Zelda games are great standalone titles - excepting those with sequels - and do a great job of telling their own story, even if that story should be a rehash of the tried-and-true formula of Zelda's past.
Canon aside, somebody should really investigate why people CARE about this so much, as there's nary an explicit reference to other Zelda titles throughout the entire series, save for a few exceptions.
Canon aside, somebody should really investigate why people CARE about this so much, as there's nary an explicit reference to other Zelda titles throughout the entire series, save for a few exceptions.
What... of course there is no time-line. They would all be old as fuck right now. Instead... they all get younger, then older, then younger again. Of course there is no time-line! I mean... Ganon was a pig at some point, what happened with that? Crazy kids and their time-lines.
What, that doesn't "make sense," at all. In Wind Waker, they clearly refer to the Link from Ocarina. You can't put that into a game and then go back and say that the games have nothing to do with one another.
Whatever the timeline, no once can really argue that Minish Cap is actually the first game in the time line.
@Dexter
I agree. Although most of the Zelda games are haphazardly put together and have nothing to do with each other, that part in Wind Waker was clearly an Ocarina reference. More proof that they just make shit up as they go?
I agree. Although most of the Zelda games are haphazardly put together and have nothing to do with each other, that part in Wind Waker was clearly an Ocarina reference. More proof that they just make shit up as they go?
i kinda find it weird that people still try to find a timeline for a game like Zelda, since you cant really say what comes first.... its like the what came first, the chiken or the egg thing. Its a game, its like final fantasy with each game being either a new world or time.... or maybe alternate time..... or maybe even alternate dimension..... or something like that. Its kinda useless to bother with, what we should be trying to figure out, is what the next Zelda game with that picture of Link and that girl behind him is suposed to be, i vote its going to be an explenation HOW the major item of the new zelda games, since the snes, came to be created..... The master sword, and its odd nobody started to debate about that one.
My take on it was always that it was a one legend and various interpretations of it, with some of those interpretations having little "continuity nods" to others (see Dexter345 comment, for example).
Of course, that's just my take on it. Timeline or no timeline, The Legend Of Zelda is my favorite game franchise.
Of course, that's just my take on it. Timeline or no timeline, The Legend Of Zelda is my favorite game franchise.
There's only one thing I care about and that's when Nintendo is going to show off the gameplay of the next Legend of Zelda game.
I'll agree with Mr. Razak, the Zelda series was never meant to include all the different games that have spawned into one single timeline, and is fanboy nonsense to me. Now if you'll excuse me, I'm off to create a Jedi character who could have plausibly existed in the KOTOR era for my star wars campaign.
All of the games in Japanese fit into a time line the creators confirmed it a while back and said that they have the time line written down. It's just the direct translation's and then rewrites for the English versions messed up the continuity between those versions and their stories.
oi. There's no overarching storyline. However, some games are direct continuations of one another.
Majora and Ocarina, the Oracle games, stuff like that.
But go ahead and try tieing Link's Awakening to any Zelda game without grasping for straws. I dare you.
Majora and Ocarina, the Oracle games, stuff like that.
But go ahead and try tieing Link's Awakening to any Zelda game without grasping for straws. I dare you.
Mirax - I dig your interpretation. Like a tale told over generations that gets distorted and altered over time. Beautiful thought.
It doesn't have to have a time line, with deep engaging plots and stories in order to be awesome. It's just awesome the way it is. This is Zelda, not MGS.
It's called a boilerplate reply, or "standard response." Companies write them when they discover that lots of people write them about the same thing, over and over.
SOME of the games have an obvious timeline, but there's definitely not a set-in-stone thing for the entire series. We'd know by now if there were.
@Phoenix Gamma When the game was released in the Japan it was stated that it was a direct sequal to the Lttp or Triforce of Gods as it's called there. The translated information also said that Link left Hyrule after defeating Ganon, which is similar to how link left Hyrule after Ocarina of Time which lead to Majora's Mask.
What the hell is a Petition going to do? They said there was no Time Line, face the fact that you wasted time in doing all this 'research' and understand it's just a VIDEOGAME!
@Sentry:
Beautiful thought indeed.
In fact, there is a word for tales told from generation to generation that get altered over time. That word is "Legend."
We always knew that the Legend of Zelda was a legend, didn't we?
Beautiful thought indeed.
In fact, there is a word for tales told from generation to generation that get altered over time. That word is "Legend."
We always knew that the Legend of Zelda was a legend, didn't we?
But there is one thing we need to consider, how many of the games relesed so far have been only remakes, of the older games. A link to the past and Twillight princess have a close story to each other, both having the main evil, Ganondorf being a leader of a group of thieves, banished, 7 sages, Dark realm= Twillight realm? and the master sword being in the forest, preaty much like in both games. But it could be like Sentry said, told over generations(snes to wii) and distorted. hehehe, or maybe its some seeeeecret conspiration that only hardcore fanboy, much bigger fanboys then me can only see
But at the end of the Oracle games, Link is seen departing on a boat. This seems to indicate that they are the prequel to Link to the Past! And in Zelda II: The Adventure of Link, Link has supposedly already saved Zelda. But Impa shows him a Zelda that has been sleeping for a long-assed time! Not to mention the fact that Link was sent back in time after Ocarina of Time! That's all that happened! There is no split!
Yeah, um, but seriously. There is indeed no objective timeline. It is what you make it. I almost wish that Nintendo would find a way to make the new Zelda so chronologically confusing to troll and enrage all the timeline enthusiasts even further. Till then, why don't we all argue over where Super Smash Bros., Soul Caliber II, and the CD-I games fit on the timeline. You wouldn't want to cop out like those n00bs who disregard the continuity of the Oracle games, would you? Bwhahahaha!!
Yeah, um, but seriously. There is indeed no objective timeline. It is what you make it. I almost wish that Nintendo would find a way to make the new Zelda so chronologically confusing to troll and enrage all the timeline enthusiasts even further. Till then, why don't we all argue over where Super Smash Bros., Soul Caliber II, and the CD-I games fit on the timeline. You wouldn't want to cop out like those n00bs who disregard the continuity of the Oracle games, would you? Bwhahahaha!!
If you watch the second video the reference the beginning of Wind Waker in their letter as part of the explanation, stating that that clearly showed that each different game is a different "tale" told, but that none have a connected time line together.
Thinking of them this way its hard not to picture the Zelda series more as a collection of stories told to express themes and ideals. Almost as if each game was a different cultures telling of the same story that was handed down from generation to generation in order to teach life lessons.
I think I just got way too deep with that, but it makes me like the games even more.
Thinking of them this way its hard not to picture the Zelda series more as a collection of stories told to express themes and ideals. Almost as if each game was a different cultures telling of the same story that was handed down from generation to generation in order to teach life lessons.
I think I just got way too deep with that, but it makes me like the games even more.
At this point this is one of those works of art that can transcend its creator. Storytelling, and interpretations of what is contained in storytelling, shouldn't be confined to what a sole person (director, creator, painter, etc.) thinks of it. It's interesting to see an insight into their creative process (here relating to the linking of Zelda stories, apparently there was none), but really the player's interpretation of how things happen is where the true story lies.
For example, let's take scholarly essays on poetry, or any kind of fiction. They are written from a purely subjective point of view because scholars realize that it doesn't matter what the author thought of the story, the thing of actual importance is what the reader can take away from the it, as long as an argument can be made as to an argument's validity.
In conclusion, there is no rigid yes or no answer to whether something exists within a work of art, and if there was one it certainly wouldn't come from the creator of said work. Art exists to instill an emotional response in those who partake in it, and to attempt to say that just because one person or group of people don't agree means your opinion is wrong is absurd.
tl;dr: it doesn't matter what Nintendo says because art is subjective, which means there are no wrong ways to interpret it as long as you can form a valid argument around your point of view.
For example, let's take scholarly essays on poetry, or any kind of fiction. They are written from a purely subjective point of view because scholars realize that it doesn't matter what the author thought of the story, the thing of actual importance is what the reader can take away from the it, as long as an argument can be made as to an argument's validity.
In conclusion, there is no rigid yes or no answer to whether something exists within a work of art, and if there was one it certainly wouldn't come from the creator of said work. Art exists to instill an emotional response in those who partake in it, and to attempt to say that just because one person or group of people don't agree means your opinion is wrong is absurd.
tl;dr: it doesn't matter what Nintendo says because art is subjective, which means there are no wrong ways to interpret it as long as you can form a valid argument around your point of view.
At this point this is one of those works of art that can transcend its creator. Storytelling, and interpretations of what is contained in storytelling, shouldn't be confined to what a sole person (director, creator, painter, etc.) thinks of it. It's interesting to see an insight into their creative process (here relating to the linking of Zelda stories, apparently there was none), but really the player's interpretation of how things happen is where the true story lies.
For example, let's take scholarly essays on poetry, or any kind of fiction. They are written from a purely subjective point of view because scholars realize that it doesn't matter what the author thought of the story, the thing of actual importance is what the reader can take away from the it, as long as an argument can be made as to an argument's validity.
In conclusion, there is no rigid yes or no answer to whether something exists within a work of art, and if there was one it certainly wouldn't come from the creator of said work. Art exists to instill an emotional response in those who partake in it, and to attempt to say that just because one person or group of people don't agree means your opinion is wrong is absurd.
tl;dr: it doesn't matter what Nintendo says because art is subjective, which means there are no wrong ways to interpret it as long as you can form a valid argument around your point of view.
For example, let's take scholarly essays on poetry, or any kind of fiction. They are written from a purely subjective point of view because scholars realize that it doesn't matter what the author thought of the story, the thing of actual importance is what the reader can take away from the it, as long as an argument can be made as to an argument's validity.
In conclusion, there is no rigid yes or no answer to whether something exists within a work of art, and if there was one it certainly wouldn't come from the creator of said work. Art exists to instill an emotional response in those who partake in it, and to attempt to say that just because one person or group of people don't agree means your opinion is wrong is absurd.
tl;dr: it doesn't matter what Nintendo says because art is subjective, which means there are no wrong ways to interpret it as long as you can form a valid argument around your point of view.
Seems pretty straightforward to me. Each new game= new Link, new Zelda, and probably new Hyrule. It makes as much sense to put Final Fantasy into a timeline as the Zelda games.
While I do kinda feel like Nintendo just unzipped His/Her pants and just smacked me with a mini hotdog and telling me to think less...I've always felt that aside from a few exceptions most of the Links were different people chosen from birth by destiny, named Link for metaphorical reasons and groomed into their Hero natures by a guiding organization like the Sages or something else. But really Nintendo...
follow
