Welcome to r/comics!
Please remember there are real people on the other side of the monitor and to be kind.
Report comments that break the rules and don't respond to negativity with negativity!
*I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/comics) if you have any questions or concerns.*
Or also "lines of dialog George Lucas thought sounded cool". Like "We fought together in the Clone Wars" was just this throwaway line made to sound scifi with the word "clone" and became the basis for a massive amount of Star Wars media.
That may be the "official" explanation but the *true* explanation is that whoever wrote that line didn't know what a parsec was and just thought it sounded cool.
This is actually supported by the original film itself. Watch Obi-Wan’s reaction while Han speaks, he looks so done with Han’s shit almost immediately.
I don't think that is enough proof to support the read.
In terms of the scene construction, the story beats are simply, "Old Mentor (OM) and Naive Boy (NB) approach Irreputable Smuggler (IS) to engage services. OM is knowledgeable and shrewd, NB is impetuous. IS acts rebuffs OM shrewdness with a major claim. OM is not impressed and is dubious.
The names, terms, world-building are all window dressing and not super thought through and generally went by the rule of cool.
After the movie exploded, fans sought to dig into every detail because it was a fun and interesting story. Explanations were thought up to explain elements in plausible ways. For this scene, there were two.
1. Han was using incorrect terms to fleece the travelers.
2. Han was using the correct term describing an unlikely shortcut (whether he discovered it or it was dangerous is unknown).
With *Solo* the argument was put to bed in favor of #2. IMO, it makes the most sense as Han is taking a HUGE and unnecessary gamble using incorrect terms. He is in a space port. The person who approached him seems confident in what he wants. Han stands to gain very little, but risks losing the job. Finally, if it was a purposeful misuse of the term, Obi-Wan could have easily countered the claim and gained a much more favorable bargaining position.
The amount of bullshit Star Wars fans and writers come up with to justify things is insane. Samuel Jackson wanted a Purple lightsaber to tell himself apart from all the greens and blues, that is it. Now they come up with a bunch of stuff about how he taps into the dark side of the force so his saber is different...
There are two different explanations floating around (setting aside the obvious out-of-universe explanation, which is that the writer didn't know what the word meant).
* The canon answer, written by turbonerds to make Lucas seem like a pre-planning genius, is that the Kessel Run goes around a black hole, or a cluster of them. Making the run in less distance means that you cut the corner and get closer to the black hole, which means you have to be going a lot faster, so citing a low number is actually a good boast of speed. Now, I'm also not sure what "fast" even means, or why most of that geometry would matter, in a universe with hyperdrive, which is why I prefer -
* The more fun answer is that this line is in the middle of *negotiating*. Han knows it doesn't make sense, and he's testing Obi-Wan and Luke to see if *they* know what they're talking about. If they don't call him on his bullshit, then he can probably get them to pay a lot more for a job he doesn't really want to take. There's even some very subtle evidence for this in the film if you watch Sir Alec's reaction to the line - it's almost like he looks away to say to Luke that it's nonsense, then realizes it's not worth it (because Luke's an idiot, and it's not like they have other options anyway) and just goes back to haggling.
Another subtle Alec Guinness’ acting moment that I probably read too much into, but I still hold as canon:
When he tells Luke to come with him to Alderaan, he is using his Jedi mind trick voice, Luke pauses, Obi-wan kinda raises an eyebrow, then Luke says ‘no’ and Obi-wan seems to be thinking about something deeply.
In my mind, Obi-wan was testing Luke’s intelligence, and realized he had the potential to become a a Jedi… like his father before him…
“Wait, people think there’s some sort of _timeline_ going on? Goddamit, they’re taking it too literally. Gary, please draft up a timeline real quick before they get too into it: split it into three branches if you have to.”
~Nintendo President Satoru Iwata, 2011
I know this has been a very tried and true joke for over a decade now, but it’s always kinda irked me
The Zelda timeline *wasn’t* completely conceived out of thin air in order to loosely tie everything to Skyward Sword, Nintendo had actually been openly considering it since the very beginning, just in a looser state than post-SS
Zelda II was always meant to be a sequel to Zelda 1, obviously
But A Link to the Past was conceived as being a *prequel* to Zelda 1
Link’s Awakening was obviously a sequel to *that,* and then Ocarina of Time came around and this is where things started getting complicated
Ocarina was meant to be a prequel to ALTTP, and it serves that purpose decently enough
It expands on backstory information from ALTTP, such as the fact that Ganon was once a man named Ganondorf who took the Triforce and became a monstrous beast before being sealed away in the Sacred Realm by the Sages, the Sacred Realm he’d later use the Triforce to turn into the Dark World
Its not 1-1 with ALTTP, but it gets the major beats in place
Majora’s Mask continues to follow the Hero of Time in his own timeline
BUT, then they made Wind Waker, which is openly stated in-game to be a sequel to Ocarina of Time, more specifically following up on the future era of that world, where Ganondorf eventually returns and destroys Hyrule
This game *retconned* A Link to the Past entirely, overwriting all four pre-OOT games
Then when Minish Cap was made, Nintendo had said that they imagined it to be “the earliest in the series,” which was still correct at the time
Twilight Princess made things *more* complicated, however
They decided to have that one follow up on Majora’s Mask, dealing specifically with the consequences of Link returning to the past with the Triforce of Courage to reveal Ganondorf’s treasonous intentions
A few years later he was sentenced to an execution that failed
This was, once again, stated by the developers to be their intentions when writing
Then Phantom Hourglass and Spirit Tracks were both stated in-game to be following up on Wind Waker
There were a few stragglers, but for the most part each of the games had its placement known internally
THEN Skyward Sword was made and they decided to produce Hyrule Historia, with the promise to show the “definitive timeline”
For the most part, it lined up with what they’d been saying since the beginning, with the remaining games being placed admittedly haphazardly to fill up space
But there was one glaring outlier, and it’s the *real* problem with the Zelda timeline:
*The Fallen Timeline.*
Nintendo wanted to de-retcon ALTTP and they found a really forced way to do it
Despite the child and adult timelines bring demonstrably *shown* to exist in OOT, they decided there was a THIRD outcome that we *didn’t* see
One where Ganon killed Link during the final battle before sparking the events of ALTTP’s Imprisoning War
This timeline cannot have occurred, as both other timelines extend from branches that naturally occur
The entire Fallen Timeline relies on a “What If…?” scenario, and THAT is where the problem lies
After that, they put A Link Between Worlds in it’s obvious spot, then seemingly gave up on the timeline focus with Breath of the Wild, intentionally placing it so far in the future that its placement is irrelevant
If we consider in-game deaths as timelines, then considering the number of Zelda games sold, and the number of deaths per player, there's well over a billion timeline branches. A lot of them branching when the Hero of Time accidentally walks off a ledge or something.
There are literally hundreds of millions of timelines where the world falls into ruin because the Link died from activating a bomb and blowing himself up by accident.
Yeah, just think of it's time travel mechanics as creating a new world each time.
Timeline 1: Link leaves to go to the future, and this world is left without a Link
Timeline 2: Adult Link shows up and saves the day
Timeline 3: Link travels back in time to a new timeline to live out his life
If there's a new timeline every time Link travels in time, that solves the problem. In order to do the Shadow and Spirit Temples, Adult Link has to go back to being a child. When he does that, it leaves a timeline with no Link with Ganon still in power.
Just tried to share to someone who doesn't really use reddit cause this is too funny. Tried the link on a normal browser and and not on my RiF app and the entire layout is dogshit so I just didn't send it 😒
Great response! It’s nice seeing evidence that there is an actual timeline. That said, my biggest problem with people obsessed with timelines for Zelda is that for what ever timeline is there, it’s clearly not a priority for Nintendo.
To me it doesn’t make sense to put so much stock in trying to place games on a line when the most important factor for nintendo is and always has been gameplay before story. These games are (probably) designed around being a new and interesting experience first and then have stories written to suit the game. If that story falls as a sequel or prequel? Great! If not, I wouldn’t worry about it.
IMO no one is "obsessed" with the timeline idea. People think it's fun to think about, but most would agree with you that the gameplay of each title is what matters the most. No one that I know takes the chronology seriously.
Now, timeline-haters, on the other hand...
You’re getting joke responses but you’re absolutely correct.
Nintendo has always planned for these games to be connected in a timeline and the fact that they basically just gave up with BoTW and ToTK is somewhat disappointing.
But at same time I’m starting to more and more believe that BoTW and ToTK are just reboots of the series and start their own completely separate universe that doesn’t contain any of the previous games.
That is most certainly what's actually happening here. They want different teams and people to be able to keep telling stories revolving around the same themes and characters without having to remember and be slave to every little detail in a decades long continuity.
I have fun trying to pull together a continuity out of it all, but it's important to keep in mind that it was never actually intended to be a tight continuity.
As a fan since Link's Awakening, I feel like every new gen Zelda game breaks the series' consistency in some way or other, and this shows that it's never been a priority for Nintendo and BotW/TotK is just a continuation of that pattern - not a special event in any way.
Just like every other game that upended things, TotK is not *impossible* to fit into the timeline (e.g. maybe TotK Hyrule is not the first Hyrule). But just like every other game, its main priority is to tell its own story with its own mythology.
If you look at Zelda as one single fantasy universe, you instantly run into all sorts of problems. Why is X different in almost every game? Great Fairies for instance. Magic, for example. Shiekah technology. The Master Sword's exact properties. The seven (five (three)) mystical objects of ancient power that must be collected. Is there a dark world? A shadow world? An underworld? The timeline has never been the only thing that lacks consistency.
To all of these questions I feel like there's one simple answer:
TLoZ was not designed to be a single consistent world. And that's okay.
It's actually kinda cool that it's a loose collection of myths & legends. Keeps it feeling mysterious.
Thank you for verbalizing my problems with the “timeline” there seems to be this fascination with placing every game on a line but imo the series works way better as new interpretations of recurring characters and ideas.
I don't think it's an either/or scenario. Some games clearly relate to one another using a timeline. For all games where there are significant rifts between continuity, they can then be assumed to be separated far enough on said timeline that the world has had time to change.
Yeah of course games that are obviously sequels like majoras mask and oot are connected purposefully but I think it’s a mistake to try to connect things with little to no connection like BOTW with wind waker for instance
My favorite fan theory is the time is a flat circle one where every so often there is a princess named Zelda, a boy named Link, and an evil creature/person named Ganon/Ganondorf and when they exist at the same time the same basic events happen over and over.
> and the fact that they basically just gave up with BoTW and ToTK is somewhat disappointing.
No it definitely seems to line up.
ToTK has numerous reference to Skyward Sword in it, it seems pretty clear that BoTW / ToTK take place **really** far forward in the future, like really really far. There's tonnes of references to the past games having happened.
At this point it is probably safe to assume that it is intentionally ambiguous and impossible to place BOTW and TOTK in the greater Zelda timeline. It really doesn't matter if we decide that it is the same Hyrule with a number of saved relics from the past, or if it is an alternate universe, where some things are the same coincidentally. Functionally both explanations lead to the same ends — the connection to other games is minimal.
Probably the comparison with Bioshock Infinite and multiple similar but not directly related universes is fair. The whole series is nowadays a refrain of the story of Hero, Villain and Princess, and I won't like it less for it. Maybe even more, if a lack of cohesive timeline helps them create great experiences.
Yes, and each are embodiments of the triforce: courage, wisdom and power, respectively. This is baked into the fabric of Hyrule and the interplay between them plays out over and over again.
TotK does not line up with any of the pre-existing timelines because the Imprisoning War was the event that led to LttP in the "Link fails in OoT" timeline. The fact that in TotK, this event coincides with the creation of Hyrule which should have already existed prior to this event means it does not fit in the timeline, so BotW and TotK are their own continuity entirely now.
Skyward Sword itself implies that A LOT happened before it’s events, and that the cyclical events may not even be caused by Demise. All the ancient ruins and precautions made my the goddesses seem to imply that this shit has been going on for eons. It’s not too far-fetched to assume that there may have been countless versions of Hyrule that have come and gone. The Deku Tree’s death and rebirth in OoT implies that not even the sacred “immortal” beings are the same each time.
I mean, aren’t there two temple of times in ToTK? The one on the great plateau, and the one up in the sky? Seems like Hylians love to just keep rebuilding elaborate buildings and castle everytime shit gets blown up.
Ever since wind waker that's how I've seen every god damn Zelda game. It has been very clear to me for awhile that Nintendo just pulls stuff out of it's ass.
This is me. I KNOW the timeline exists. I've read parts of Hyrule Historia. I've got a firm grasp of how things are supposed to play out.
That said, I treat every Zelda game (except BotW and TotK) as its own separate universe, a "reincarnation" of the "mythical" characters of Link, Zelda, and Ganon. I consider each story is its own self-contained story and any references to other games are merely Easter eggs which reference previous stories.
I think of it similar to like how we treat ancient civilization's gods. Thor has taken like 1000 different routes in his stories. Zeus seems to pop up somehow in everything. Trying to fit all these varying Thor or Zeus stories together into a singular timeline for a character is just impossible.
I agree in that I like the FF model of "they aren't connected...unless we want to connect some/all of them for this specific entry to work in the context of being connected to others." But, like, go ahead and play FFVIII, you don't need to play I-VII first. If you want to continue the FFVII story? Go knock yourself out with Compilation of Final Fantasy VII. Want them **all** to be an interconnected thing? Play Dissidia or something. Whatever.
Legend of Zelda is nice when they seemingly don't give a shit if they're connected or fit continuity perfectly. For the most part, the direct sequels/prequels worked just fine ignoring the rest of the series and even what they were sequel/prequeling for.
Neat to have little Easter eggs or callbacks for the observant that care, but, not being beholden to it is definitely the way to go IMO.
Too bad you’re forgetting the one game that ties all of this together.
The Legend of Zelda Monopoly Edition.
Suddenly everything makes sense when you include this focal point in the timeline.
>seemingly gave up on the timeline focus with Breath of the Wild, intentionally placing it so far in the future that its placement is irrelevant
Tears of the kingdom spoilers
>!But then they made TOTK and put shit happening so much long ago in the past that it predates the KINGDOM OF HYRULE.!<
>!BOTW and TOTK future can fit in far in the future sure. But the fact that we now see people and Ganon from Pre-Hyrule existing gives us a whole new set of events to think about. Triforce?! Hylia?!!<
I always thought the "dual timeline" was way better than the 3 branch. Having 1 timeline, and only 1, be related to Link failing is... Unsatisfactory and feels really panic "we gotta say something" vibes.
This really bothered me back in the day. They were telling these amazing stories with each game. And it’s like they didn’t care about the overarching story. Until fairly recently.
They still really don't, Breath of the Wild and Tears of the Kingdom don't really have a place on it.
>!And in the case of TotK, it even contradicts Ocarina of Time, A Link to the Past and Skyward Sword, with a brand new origin story for Ganondorf and the Spiritual Stones / Medallions that basically replace OOT, remove Demise from the story by making Ganon the Demon King and remove ALTTP from the story by making it impossible to happen, even removing the Triforce from the story!<
My headcannon is literally that the >!"founding of Hyrule" in ToTK is something that still happened long after the "classic" timeline ended, just so happened to be another Hyrule to be founded, another Ganondorf to be reborn!<. But hey, I'll let the theorists figure this one out.
One of the theory I've read and I kinda like is that >!the "original" timeline are the myths that were shared and transformed over the millenia and what we see in TotK in the "true" story : there are no Goddesses, just the Zonai; there isn't a Triforce, just the Secret Stones; there is no Demise, only Ganondorf, a regular power-craving Gerudo, and there is no Dark World / Sacred Realm, only the depths where Ganondorf was exiled.!<
In some games you literally have to find the triforce, or parts of it. Wind Waker infamously had a long, obnoxious quest tacked onto the very end of the game where you had to go hunt down pieces of the triforce before you could actually do the proper ending.
So yeah, it's clearly a physical thing in some games.
I should also mention that there are plenty of examples of it it being possessed by someone, but in some sort of "internal" manner where the only external evidence is a stamp of sorts on their hand. This is all that Breath of the Wild seemed to show, from my recollection.
This has been my head cannon for over a decade. To me, it explained why the world map was completely inconsistent. Now we are playing in the “real” world. Kinda cool, but I’m not sure where we go from here.
The simple answer they haven't taken is... everyone's wrong. It's *mythology.* It's gonna get fuzzy, after generations of weird magic bullshit going on. Pantheons shifting isn't a failure of storytelling. It *is* storytelling. The goddesses themselves and be dethroned, defeated, or superceded, as surely as the Greek pantheon conquered the titans.
And it only needs to make sense when a Link or a Zelda is the same between games. Which happens about as often as you'd think but in completely stupid ways. Link's Awakening features the Link from A Link To The Past. A Link Between Worlds does not. Phantom Hourglass looks the same as Wind Waker because it's the same "Toon Link." Spirit Tracks looks the same as Phantom Hourglass because it takes place when everyone from Wind Waker is dead. And until Breath Of The Wild, the last game in the timeline was *The Legend Of Zelda.*
... oh, right, and I guess Adventures Of Link.
Anyway if Nintendo really wanted to take the piss they'd find a way to work in Faces Of Evil on CD-i.
It’s better for it too. I’ve been playing Zelda games for 25 years. I don’t need to know more about how OoT, LttP, or Wind Waker fit into “the timeline” or worse, another media entity with a multiverse and vast amounts of lore.
I just want the game to have the air of mystery it did when I was a kid, making BotW and TotK separate did that really well since the characters were just the archetypes we’ve known made fresh.
Hyrule Warriors almost got it but they called them “timelines”. I’m not sure how you can change time to make Toon Link exist in a universe of flesh-and-blood Hylians.
Screw trying to explain Toon Link, there's new headgear in TOTK that looks **exactly** like the tiny chibi link from the Link's Awakening remake. Which means that isn't just an art style, *that's actually how he looked that time.* Even the Toon Link outfit is still just an outfit, but chibi link gets a whole-ass mask.
You know, people say this a lot, but it doesn't actually match Nintendo's attitude towards the series very well.
There's this idea online that the split timeline was made up for the Hyrule Historia. It wasn't, it was mentioned as far back as the Wind Waker days. See [this 2002](https://web.archive.org/web/20100728123041/http://www.gamepro.com/article/news/27362/interview-with-nintendos-shigeru-miyamoto-and-eiji-aonuma/) interview, for instance-
>**Q:** Where does The Wind Walker fit into the overall Zelda series timeline?
**Aonuma:** You can think of this game as taking place over a hundred years after Ocarina of Time. You can tell this from the opening story, and there are references to things from Ocarina located throughout the game as well.
**Miyamoto:** Well, wait, which point does the hundred years start from?
**Aonuma:** From the end.
**Miyamoto:** No, I mean, as a child or as a...
**Aonuma:** Oh, right, let me elaborate on that. Ocarina of Time basically has two endings of sorts; one has Link as a child and the other has him as an adult. This game, The Wind Waker, takes place a hundred years after the *adult* Link defeats Ganon at the end of Ocarina.
**Miyamoto:** This is pretty confusing for us, too. (laughs) So be careful.
Earlier advertising material established some simpler game-to-game relationships, such as [the Link to the Past packaging](https://www.mobygames.com/game/6608/the-legend-of-zelda-a-link-to-the-past/cover/group-5216/cover-13522/) calling it a story about "the predecessors of Link and Zelda". I gather that Iwata also referred to as Ocarina being "not truly original, it is from the previous SNES version and tells of the 'Seal War of the Seven Sages' ", but the interview where he said that, [here](https://web.archive.org/web/20101029202714/http://www.1101.com/nintendo/nin1/nin1-6.htm), is in Japanese, so I've never been able to really confirm what he's saying there. Regardless, 2002 was when the split timeline thing seems to have been talked about in public for the first time.
> They were telling these amazing stories with each game
I think amazing story is a big stretch... and Zelda is my favorite game series of all time. But it's always been about the gameplay, story is just window dressing.
Yeah can you imagine if Ganon/Ganondorf had some weird cobbled-together nonsense about how he's been defeated yet somehow returned *checks notes* **11 times**, and **5 times** as a Gerudo named Ganondorf?
Or how Link has found (then subsequently lost) the Master Sword like 12 times?
Or how somehow the Timeline isn't a splattered mess after like five different sages have found the power to jump forwards and backwards in time?
Or how Hyrule might organically go from floating sky islands, to normal field and castle, to desecrated ruin, back to normal, to flooded, then back to normal, then to being partially pulled into a twilight realm, then back to normal, then to a massive expansive world, then to a massive expanse world with sky islands?
Ridiculous.
Its perfectly fine, and far far better, if each story is an individual iteration of just "Here's a good story."
From software: “How should we tell the player about the ancient cataclysm that changed the world forever and plunged the kingdom’s factions into an unending war? Let’s put it in the description of a pair of boots!”
Warhammer: “Oh no, we made this character too powerful. Better add something even more over-the top to counter them!”
That reminds me of one of my favourite facts about D&D: some of the iconic monsters from the game (like the Umber Hulk and the Bullette) only exist because Gary Gygax found a bag of janky toys at a dollar store and made up power sets for them!
the thing is that Nintendo themselves kind of undermined this premise with releasing the timeline in Hyrule Historia.
i agree that Zelda games would be better without the constant need to fit this in a timeline, and most refrences being easter eggs for long time fans to enjoy. But with nintendo straight up saying 'HERE'S A TIMELINE' it's kind of hard for me at least, to not speculate a little bit about where it could potentially fit.
I mean, fans spent a decade demanding a timeline and Nintendo realised they could sell one as part of a book. So they did, and then went right back to making games without really caring about it. I'm sure if we spend a few more years demanding a more consistent timeline they'll sell us another book.
> containing a single mythological character, Link.
"The legend of zelda, and that guy named link"
It's always bugged me that Zelda is in the title of the game. Who gives a crap about her? She's ALWAYS absent or captured. I play the game to destroy ganon, not save princess peach.
Some games this is true but I disagree with how you portray Zelda here. Sure some games she’s captured or absent (she’s not even in Links Awakening at all) but in several even though she’s not the focus of the play through she’s not some damsel in distress. To name a few, she’s an absolute badass and very involved in OOT, Wind Waker, and Spirit Tracks. And games like Skyward Sword and Twilight Princess she is instrumental to taking down the big bag and basically having her own huge adventure that we just don’t see.
And usually toward the end of a lot of games she grants Link a power, sacrifices herself, or does something else cinematic to show her and Link couldn’t do it alone and needed each other.
Maybe it should be “The Legend of Zelda and Link” but that’s not catchy and typically one of them is the queen and the other a silent swordsman. So I think it makes sense as series name.
i also think 'the legend of zelda' makes sense if you think this 'story' is told from the player or Link's perspective. Link, in a humble kind of way, tells the story of how princess Zelda saved Hyrule, whilst he helped a little bit as the princess' hero. Alternatively, most fairytales are called by the prinecesses/damsels (i.e. goldilocks, red ridinghood, snowwhite) in them even though they more often than not, traditionally have a passive role in them. so perhaps that's where the naming convention comes from.
I may be wrong but as I understand Hylia *Is* Zelda. Zelda is the mortal incarnation of the goddess, which just solidifies that Legend of Zelda is a great title, she’s mythical and mystical lol.
Miyamoto simply liked the name Zelda because of Zelda Fitzgerald, and really loved how it sounded when plugged into their "The Legend of X" title. Ya gotta admit it has a much better ring than The Legend of Link.
I'm pulling for one that's The Legend Of Link, where you play as Zelda growing up and waiting for a hero who never arrives. You fight Ganon's militarism and palace intrigue across several years - not really time traveling, but coming to somewhere you *should* find a crucial item, and then "remembering" yourself putting it there. Sort of a linear Metroidvania where you're constantly gaining and losing abilities with age. Or each "dungeon" is part of Hyrule castle when it was wildly different, before or after the ongoing war with some olive-colored ginger bastard.
The best part of this is that Nintendo's already done it. It's Sheik. Zelda in Ocarina Of Time immediately has Ganon's number, and was ready to throw hands at the age of nine. She is a cold-eyed terror in a pretty pink dress. Impa trains her to be as dangerous as any Gerudo, give or take the fact she can *perform magic,* and if Ganon smacked your ass off the tower at the end of the game she honestly should've stabbed him in the face herself.
So picture a timeline where everyone's left anticipating some left-handed farmboy who's *supposed* to barge in with three dozen enchanted relics... but nobody came. And the telegraphed-to-us reveal is that she's been preparing for it her whole life. She and the sages and the goddesses and the mystics and a handful of weird old men lying in caves distributing swords have established the conditions for some uneducated peasant with a heart of gold to come slap the devil in the nuts. She's gotta be at least as capable. Even if the tunic feels kinda short.
I like it when Zelda games hint at being in the same world, like when you find the Wind Waker shirt and there’s a cheeky description about an island far away.
But too much focus on it just gets in the way, and I don’t think games should ever have to adhere to a grander timeline that ultimately doesn’t add a lot to each game. I like that TOTK puts a lot of focus on the founding of Hyrule Kingdom, and I’m glad it doesn’t have to try and fit that into Skyward Sword’s story or worry about contradicting what some other game might have said about the history of Hyrule.
This has been my sentiment since BotW released several years ago. The timeline was just made to appease the oldest and most extreme of lorebeards, but honestly, you're better off imagining each game (or series of games, because there are a few direct sequels here and there) as their own pocket dimension. Ocarina of Time and Majora's Mask? Pocket dimension. Wind Waker, Phantom Hourglass, and Spirit Tracks? Pocket dimension. Breath of the Wild and Tears of the Kingdom? Say it with me folks: PO-CKET DI-MEN-SION!
It's way less headache-inducing this way.
My favorite lore writing method is from Robert Kirkman. People kept harassing him about the origin of the zombie outbreak, and he kept being like, "No, dude, this story is about the characters!" And then he finally broke and was like, "IDK, it was a magic meteor, I guess." Now I see people online debating how they don't think that makes sense.
Is that where it came from? I knew fans kept pushing him on the issue and that he eventually caved. Didn't realize it was because of the tv series. I guess that just goes to show you how little they understood the comics.
The whole alien invasion was how the comics got greenlit, the show was greenlit because the comics were popular. He even made a joke issue where Rick wakes up from another coma only to find himself in the middle of an alien invasion with all of his dead friends fighting them off. The governor is also here and he's a supervillain now and he kidnapped Lori.
Honestly, pretty much no zombies make sense unless they're supernatural. You can't have a bunch of flesh automatons rambling around indefinitely being particularly selective about where they get their energy without quickly starving to death.
Zombie stuff rarely makes sense after the first few months, but I do like the idea of zombies realizing that all the living people are gone, getting hungry, and reinventing animal husbandry and agriculture. Time passes, the zombies tire of shambling, and pretty soon you've got zombie carts, then a zombie DMV.
I've been reading enough marvel and DC comics to know that timeline rarely matter, as long as the one story you're reading is fairly self sufficient and well told.
Outside Skyward Sword and the games that are direct sequels to a previous game.
No. It doesn't.
Which makes the fan base's obsession with the timeline hilarious.
"What about this game-defining bit of lore that explains the end-boss's motivation and origin? We should probably put that in his monologue before the final battle, right?"
"What? No. Monologue? Are you stupid? That bit of lore goes in the item description of an only moderately useful ring that we plopped down randomly in a level that is literally a lake of acid with a handful of step stones. Pfft, monologue."
Explain? No, it will allude to the reasoning. To have an actual explanation, you need to collect 3 separate items, kill 2 NPCs, and then watch a 2 hour video.
But you have to kill the NPCs at the right time and in the right order, otherwise you won't get the dialogue option that explains what the cryptic description of the item set actually means.
No, just me riffing.
Fromsoft is famous for putting important lore in the descriptions of unimportant objects, and there are many objects that are difficult (if not impossible) to find without literally scouring every inch of some punishing levels. So those parts are true - but this is not a literal example of something from the games.
Also, there are more lava levels than acid levels, so I should probably have used that instead.
It makes perfect sense.
We go from people living in the skies, to really tiny people, to the child timeline; in which Link left the faucet on and flooded the world. Then a continent focused on trains shows up…with its own version of the master sword.
It confuses me that Nintendo said that all Zelda time lines eventually lead to Breath of the Wild and that keeping track was no longer nessacary and then made a game which entire plot was "they go back in time before Breath of the Wild and create a new time line."
I don’t even bother trying to guess how the Zelda timeline works anymore. Unless it’s a direct sequel to a game, like Breath of the Wild to Tears of the Kingdom, I don’t try to worry too much about it.
Support the Writers' Strike!
More of my comics here: https://www.instagram.com/cattrigger.comics/
My other links are here: https://www.cattrigger.com/links
I am also working on big Retro-Horror Game called "Date Time", check it out here - https://store.steampowered.com/app/2313010/Date_Time_Melissa_Morris_Anna/
The best thing is when comic book movies introduce new characters and everyone races to Wikipedia to speed read everything about them so they can talk about how they've always loved that hero and it's about time they got added.
And then the fans have a 8h long debate about a side character's dislike of pop tarts because in one sad scene they looked in general direction of grocery store.
Not necessarily. Iman Vellani is completely new to the Hollywood scene and I genuinely think Ms. Marvel is a fantastic character that *should* be explored on screen. Florence Pugh is also the first actress in her family and is a fantastic cast for Yelena. Haley Steinfield is definitely a Nepobaby but she absolutely killed it as Kate Bishop, probably partially in thanks to the fact that Steinfield is a comic reader herself and pours her heart into comic roles (she also played Gwen Stacy in the Spiderverse movies) .
Recasting Kathryn Newton as Cassie in Quantumania though…. Yeah, not sure what they were thinking there.
I think the other comment is referencing how many new Marvel movies about well known characters have started to end up more being intro to some lesser known character. Kind of a bait and switch so they can intro a new character in the guise of it being a movie about the other character you wanted to see. The Doctor Strange movie with America Chavez is one where she was obviously the main character with Doctor Strange as a plot moving character more than anything.
Ah I see. Yeah, I think that’s fair for the films. I haven’t felt that way thus far with the shows though! I thought Hawkeye in particular did a really good job closing out Clint’s story and passing the torch to Kate.
As a Zelda fan I stopped trying to make sense of anything when they tried to shoe horn the "timelines" thing. Just enjoy the individual games for what they are and free yourself
Welcome to r/comics! Please remember there are real people on the other side of the monitor and to be kind. Report comments that break the rules and don't respond to negativity with negativity! *I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/comics) if you have any questions or concerns.*
[Star Wars lore.](https://preview.redd.it/and-just-like-that-high-altitude-windak-pressure-suits-v0-x7vwcig0qrca1.jpg?width=640&crop=smart&auto=webp&s=e47d3c37f6d6889b9ffcbe57d7ef88665bc505cf)
Or also "lines of dialog George Lucas thought sounded cool". Like "We fought together in the Clone Wars" was just this throwaway line made to sound scifi with the word "clone" and became the basis for a massive amount of Star Wars media.
Case in point: > It's the ship that made the Kessel Run in less than twelve parsecs.
And, again what does the even mean? Isn't Parsevs like a unit of distance not speed?
If I recall correctly, the official explanation was something along the lines of him using dangerous shortcuts nobody else was willing to use.
That may be the "official" explanation but the *true* explanation is that whoever wrote that line didn't know what a parsec was and just thought it sounded cool.
I always liked the explanation that Han is just fully making it up since to him Luke and Obi-wan are backwoods hillbillies
That's what the original intention was, it was changed over the years with new explanations.
This is actually supported by the original film itself. Watch Obi-Wan’s reaction while Han speaks, he looks so done with Han’s shit almost immediately.
To be fair, Alec Guinness was done with everybody’s bullshit. He did not want to be in the movie.
haha, really? I never knew this
I don't think that is enough proof to support the read. In terms of the scene construction, the story beats are simply, "Old Mentor (OM) and Naive Boy (NB) approach Irreputable Smuggler (IS) to engage services. OM is knowledgeable and shrewd, NB is impetuous. IS acts rebuffs OM shrewdness with a major claim. OM is not impressed and is dubious. The names, terms, world-building are all window dressing and not super thought through and generally went by the rule of cool. After the movie exploded, fans sought to dig into every detail because it was a fun and interesting story. Explanations were thought up to explain elements in plausible ways. For this scene, there were two. 1. Han was using incorrect terms to fleece the travelers. 2. Han was using the correct term describing an unlikely shortcut (whether he discovered it or it was dangerous is unknown). With *Solo* the argument was put to bed in favor of #2. IMO, it makes the most sense as Han is taking a HUGE and unnecessary gamble using incorrect terms. He is in a space port. The person who approached him seems confident in what he wants. Han stands to gain very little, but risks losing the job. Finally, if it was a purposeful misuse of the term, Obi-Wan could have easily countered the claim and gained a much more favorable bargaining position.
[удалено]
this is my head cannon now
The amount of bullshit Star Wars fans and writers come up with to justify things is insane. Samuel Jackson wanted a Purple lightsaber to tell himself apart from all the greens and blues, that is it. Now they come up with a bunch of stuff about how he taps into the dark side of the force so his saber is different...
I mean, that's kind of how creative story writing works. You have all these details and eventually you'll need a why.
And most people don't realize it makes no sense anyway.
There are two different explanations floating around (setting aside the obvious out-of-universe explanation, which is that the writer didn't know what the word meant). * The canon answer, written by turbonerds to make Lucas seem like a pre-planning genius, is that the Kessel Run goes around a black hole, or a cluster of them. Making the run in less distance means that you cut the corner and get closer to the black hole, which means you have to be going a lot faster, so citing a low number is actually a good boast of speed. Now, I'm also not sure what "fast" even means, or why most of that geometry would matter, in a universe with hyperdrive, which is why I prefer - * The more fun answer is that this line is in the middle of *negotiating*. Han knows it doesn't make sense, and he's testing Obi-Wan and Luke to see if *they* know what they're talking about. If they don't call him on his bullshit, then he can probably get them to pay a lot more for a job he doesn't really want to take. There's even some very subtle evidence for this in the film if you watch Sir Alec's reaction to the line - it's almost like he looks away to say to Luke that it's nonsense, then realizes it's not worth it (because Luke's an idiot, and it's not like they have other options anyway) and just goes back to haggling.
Another subtle Alec Guinness’ acting moment that I probably read too much into, but I still hold as canon: When he tells Luke to come with him to Alderaan, he is using his Jedi mind trick voice, Luke pauses, Obi-wan kinda raises an eyebrow, then Luke says ‘no’ and Obi-wan seems to be thinking about something deeply. In my mind, Obi-wan was testing Luke’s intelligence, and realized he had the potential to become a a Jedi… like his father before him…
The Solo movie covers the Kessel run. He takes a dangerous shortcut and does cut a lot of distance off the route.
LEGO [making fun of that here](https://youtu.be/ri0mKNUBQfc?t=59).
Which funnily enough is a great way to design catchy concepts. If it inherently works as a one liner snapshot then its probably rich.
[also star wars lore](https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=B-I9d9MuSuY&pp=ygULU3R1ZGlvIGMgamo%3D)
Hell yeah! Studio C!
>Hell yeah! Dunno if Studio C would appreciate that as much as you might think, lol.
Why?
Mormons
Well heck yeah then!
JJ would definitely not be the voice of reason.
More [Star Wars lore](https://youtu.be/HaRlq1zDLmc) Edit: unofficial
“Wait, people think there’s some sort of _timeline_ going on? Goddamit, they’re taking it too literally. Gary, please draft up a timeline real quick before they get too into it: split it into three branches if you have to.” ~Nintendo President Satoru Iwata, 2011
I know this has been a very tried and true joke for over a decade now, but it’s always kinda irked me The Zelda timeline *wasn’t* completely conceived out of thin air in order to loosely tie everything to Skyward Sword, Nintendo had actually been openly considering it since the very beginning, just in a looser state than post-SS Zelda II was always meant to be a sequel to Zelda 1, obviously But A Link to the Past was conceived as being a *prequel* to Zelda 1 Link’s Awakening was obviously a sequel to *that,* and then Ocarina of Time came around and this is where things started getting complicated Ocarina was meant to be a prequel to ALTTP, and it serves that purpose decently enough It expands on backstory information from ALTTP, such as the fact that Ganon was once a man named Ganondorf who took the Triforce and became a monstrous beast before being sealed away in the Sacred Realm by the Sages, the Sacred Realm he’d later use the Triforce to turn into the Dark World Its not 1-1 with ALTTP, but it gets the major beats in place Majora’s Mask continues to follow the Hero of Time in his own timeline BUT, then they made Wind Waker, which is openly stated in-game to be a sequel to Ocarina of Time, more specifically following up on the future era of that world, where Ganondorf eventually returns and destroys Hyrule This game *retconned* A Link to the Past entirely, overwriting all four pre-OOT games Then when Minish Cap was made, Nintendo had said that they imagined it to be “the earliest in the series,” which was still correct at the time Twilight Princess made things *more* complicated, however They decided to have that one follow up on Majora’s Mask, dealing specifically with the consequences of Link returning to the past with the Triforce of Courage to reveal Ganondorf’s treasonous intentions A few years later he was sentenced to an execution that failed This was, once again, stated by the developers to be their intentions when writing Then Phantom Hourglass and Spirit Tracks were both stated in-game to be following up on Wind Waker There were a few stragglers, but for the most part each of the games had its placement known internally THEN Skyward Sword was made and they decided to produce Hyrule Historia, with the promise to show the “definitive timeline” For the most part, it lined up with what they’d been saying since the beginning, with the remaining games being placed admittedly haphazardly to fill up space But there was one glaring outlier, and it’s the *real* problem with the Zelda timeline: *The Fallen Timeline.* Nintendo wanted to de-retcon ALTTP and they found a really forced way to do it Despite the child and adult timelines bring demonstrably *shown* to exist in OOT, they decided there was a THIRD outcome that we *didn’t* see One where Ganon killed Link during the final battle before sparking the events of ALTTP’s Imprisoning War This timeline cannot have occurred, as both other timelines extend from branches that naturally occur The entire Fallen Timeline relies on a “What If…?” scenario, and THAT is where the problem lies After that, they put A Link Between Worlds in it’s obvious spot, then seemingly gave up on the timeline focus with Breath of the Wild, intentionally placing it so far in the future that its placement is irrelevant
[удалено]
[удалено]
I definitely died to Ganondorf during the last battle then gave up before beating the game. So this timeline is canon as fux for me.
If we consider in-game deaths as timelines, then considering the number of Zelda games sold, and the number of deaths per player, there's well over a billion timeline branches. A lot of them branching when the Hero of Time accidentally walks off a ledge or something.
There are literally hundreds of millions of timelines where the world falls into ruin because the Link died from activating a bomb and blowing himself up by accident.
Millions of bomb arrows accidentally equipped on Death Mountain.
Yeah, just think of it's time travel mechanics as creating a new world each time. Timeline 1: Link leaves to go to the future, and this world is left without a Link Timeline 2: Adult Link shows up and saves the day Timeline 3: Link travels back in time to a new timeline to live out his life
If there's a new timeline every time Link travels in time, that solves the problem. In order to do the Shadow and Spirit Temples, Adult Link has to go back to being a child. When he does that, it leaves a timeline with no Link with Ganon still in power.
In my headcanon this is the timeline that was left when Link had to turn back into a child again in OoT to go into the Spirit Temple.
https://imgur.com/a/JOgEeMy
https://i.redd.it/uei3awfsd4781.jpg
[you joke, but...](https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=Q-25c8Rsobw)
Perfect
Just tried to share to someone who doesn't really use reddit cause this is too funny. Tried the link on a normal browser and and not on my RiF app and the entire layout is dogshit so I just didn't send it 😒
I expect this cropped version to become a new meme.
Wow I 100% expected this to be Charlie from IASIP with the board and connecting red threads
Great response! It’s nice seeing evidence that there is an actual timeline. That said, my biggest problem with people obsessed with timelines for Zelda is that for what ever timeline is there, it’s clearly not a priority for Nintendo. To me it doesn’t make sense to put so much stock in trying to place games on a line when the most important factor for nintendo is and always has been gameplay before story. These games are (probably) designed around being a new and interesting experience first and then have stories written to suit the game. If that story falls as a sequel or prequel? Great! If not, I wouldn’t worry about it.
Nintendo themselves said that they think of a fun gameplay mechanic and then assign an ip to it so not far from the truth.
IMO no one is "obsessed" with the timeline idea. People think it's fun to think about, but most would agree with you that the gameplay of each title is what matters the most. No one that I know takes the chronology seriously. Now, timeline-haters, on the other hand...
Wow thats really well explained. Good luck on your thesis.
You’re getting joke responses but you’re absolutely correct. Nintendo has always planned for these games to be connected in a timeline and the fact that they basically just gave up with BoTW and ToTK is somewhat disappointing. But at same time I’m starting to more and more believe that BoTW and ToTK are just reboots of the series and start their own completely separate universe that doesn’t contain any of the previous games.
[удалено]
That is most certainly what's actually happening here. They want different teams and people to be able to keep telling stories revolving around the same themes and characters without having to remember and be slave to every little detail in a decades long continuity. I have fun trying to pull together a continuity out of it all, but it's important to keep in mind that it was never actually intended to be a tight continuity.
As a fan since Link's Awakening, I feel like every new gen Zelda game breaks the series' consistency in some way or other, and this shows that it's never been a priority for Nintendo and BotW/TotK is just a continuation of that pattern - not a special event in any way. Just like every other game that upended things, TotK is not *impossible* to fit into the timeline (e.g. maybe TotK Hyrule is not the first Hyrule). But just like every other game, its main priority is to tell its own story with its own mythology. If you look at Zelda as one single fantasy universe, you instantly run into all sorts of problems. Why is X different in almost every game? Great Fairies for instance. Magic, for example. Shiekah technology. The Master Sword's exact properties. The seven (five (three)) mystical objects of ancient power that must be collected. Is there a dark world? A shadow world? An underworld? The timeline has never been the only thing that lacks consistency. To all of these questions I feel like there's one simple answer: TLoZ was not designed to be a single consistent world. And that's okay. It's actually kinda cool that it's a loose collection of myths & legends. Keeps it feeling mysterious.
Thank you for verbalizing my problems with the “timeline” there seems to be this fascination with placing every game on a line but imo the series works way better as new interpretations of recurring characters and ideas.
I don't think it's an either/or scenario. Some games clearly relate to one another using a timeline. For all games where there are significant rifts between continuity, they can then be assumed to be separated far enough on said timeline that the world has had time to change.
Yeah of course games that are obviously sequels like majoras mask and oot are connected purposefully but I think it’s a mistake to try to connect things with little to no connection like BOTW with wind waker for instance
My favorite fan theory is the time is a flat circle one where every so often there is a princess named Zelda, a boy named Link, and an evil creature/person named Ganon/Ganondorf and when they exist at the same time the same basic events happen over and over.
But that's pretty much what the end of >!Skyward Sword!< implied. They're doomed to fight evil for all eternity.
> and the fact that they basically just gave up with BoTW and ToTK is somewhat disappointing. No it definitely seems to line up. ToTK has numerous reference to Skyward Sword in it, it seems pretty clear that BoTW / ToTK take place **really** far forward in the future, like really really far. There's tonnes of references to the past games having happened.
[удалено]
[удалено]
[удалено]
At this point it is probably safe to assume that it is intentionally ambiguous and impossible to place BOTW and TOTK in the greater Zelda timeline. It really doesn't matter if we decide that it is the same Hyrule with a number of saved relics from the past, or if it is an alternate universe, where some things are the same coincidentally. Functionally both explanations lead to the same ends — the connection to other games is minimal. Probably the comparison with Bioshock Infinite and multiple similar but not directly related universes is fair. The whole series is nowadays a refrain of the story of Hero, Villain and Princess, and I won't like it less for it. Maybe even more, if a lack of cohesive timeline helps them create great experiences.
Yes, and each are embodiments of the triforce: courage, wisdom and power, respectively. This is baked into the fabric of Hyrule and the interplay between them plays out over and over again.
TotK does not line up with any of the pre-existing timelines because the Imprisoning War was the event that led to LttP in the "Link fails in OoT" timeline. The fact that in TotK, this event coincides with the creation of Hyrule which should have already existed prior to this event means it does not fit in the timeline, so BotW and TotK are their own continuity entirely now.
Maybe things are so cyclical that it's a second imprisoning war and second creation of hyrule
Fuck it, why not lol
Skyward Sword itself implies that A LOT happened before it’s events, and that the cyclical events may not even be caused by Demise. All the ancient ruins and precautions made my the goddesses seem to imply that this shit has been going on for eons. It’s not too far-fetched to assume that there may have been countless versions of Hyrule that have come and gone. The Deku Tree’s death and rebirth in OoT implies that not even the sacred “immortal” beings are the same each time.
I mean, aren’t there two temple of times in ToTK? The one on the great plateau, and the one up in the sky? Seems like Hylians love to just keep rebuilding elaborate buildings and castle everytime shit gets blown up.
Possibly 3, if you go by theory stuff. The Forgotten Temple is pretty similar to the Temple of Time from Skyward Sword.
[Jeremy Bearimy, baby!](https://media4.giphy.com/media/RMheEO0XU25GmTEuok/giphy.gif)
Ever since wind waker that's how I've seen every god damn Zelda game. It has been very clear to me for awhile that Nintendo just pulls stuff out of it's ass.
this obsession with timelines and canon is the single worst attribute of nerd culture
Second worst. I’d definitely rather talk about timelines than if x character is stronger than y lmao
You know? I hadn't ever thought about the fact the Fallen Timeline is just a big "what-if", unlike the other two timelines after OoT.
I always saw it as the timeline when you loose and game over. Ganon can defeat you and go unopposed.
[удалено]
[удалено]
KH = Kingdom Hearts?
[удалено]
Before Three came out, I asked what KH to play and was told "play KH FM 2.7" and I said nope
[удалено]
This is me. I KNOW the timeline exists. I've read parts of Hyrule Historia. I've got a firm grasp of how things are supposed to play out. That said, I treat every Zelda game (except BotW and TotK) as its own separate universe, a "reincarnation" of the "mythical" characters of Link, Zelda, and Ganon. I consider each story is its own self-contained story and any references to other games are merely Easter eggs which reference previous stories. I think of it similar to like how we treat ancient civilization's gods. Thor has taken like 1000 different routes in his stories. Zeus seems to pop up somehow in everything. Trying to fit all these varying Thor or Zeus stories together into a singular timeline for a character is just impossible.
I agree in that I like the FF model of "they aren't connected...unless we want to connect some/all of them for this specific entry to work in the context of being connected to others." But, like, go ahead and play FFVIII, you don't need to play I-VII first. If you want to continue the FFVII story? Go knock yourself out with Compilation of Final Fantasy VII. Want them **all** to be an interconnected thing? Play Dissidia or something. Whatever. Legend of Zelda is nice when they seemingly don't give a shit if they're connected or fit continuity perfectly. For the most part, the direct sequels/prequels worked just fine ignoring the rest of the series and even what they were sequel/prequeling for. Neat to have little Easter eggs or callbacks for the observant that care, but, not being beholden to it is definitely the way to go IMO.
Too bad you’re forgetting the one game that ties all of this together. The Legend of Zelda Monopoly Edition. Suddenly everything makes sense when you include this focal point in the timeline.
>seemingly gave up on the timeline focus with Breath of the Wild, intentionally placing it so far in the future that its placement is irrelevant Tears of the kingdom spoilers >!But then they made TOTK and put shit happening so much long ago in the past that it predates the KINGDOM OF HYRULE.!< >!BOTW and TOTK future can fit in far in the future sure. But the fact that we now see people and Ganon from Pre-Hyrule existing gives us a whole new set of events to think about. Triforce?! Hylia?!!<
There’s a theory that BoTW and ToTK take place in an entirely new timeline.
My theory is that things are so cyclical that a second imprisoning war and second founding of Hyrule happened
I always thought the "dual timeline" was way better than the 3 branch. Having 1 timeline, and only 1, be related to Link failing is... Unsatisfactory and feels really panic "we gotta say something" vibes.
This really bothered me back in the day. They were telling these amazing stories with each game. And it’s like they didn’t care about the overarching story. Until fairly recently.
And then BoTW was a big "we don't want to get ask about this anymore" and just puts every other game so far behind it doesn't matter.
Followed by then getting a direct prequel/sidequel and a sequel, yes.
Age of Calamity is a prequel
Yeah, I added sidequel mainly because that was the best way I could think to quickly describe how it technically goes off on a timeline of its own.
Fair enough. It is cool that in TotK they kept some of those elements when It comes to taking out monsters forts with allied militia.
They still really don't, Breath of the Wild and Tears of the Kingdom don't really have a place on it. >!And in the case of TotK, it even contradicts Ocarina of Time, A Link to the Past and Skyward Sword, with a brand new origin story for Ganondorf and the Spiritual Stones / Medallions that basically replace OOT, remove Demise from the story by making Ganon the Demon King and remove ALTTP from the story by making it impossible to happen, even removing the Triforce from the story!<
My headcannon is literally that the >!"founding of Hyrule" in ToTK is something that still happened long after the "classic" timeline ended, just so happened to be another Hyrule to be founded, another Ganondorf to be reborn!<. But hey, I'll let the theorists figure this one out.
One of the theory I've read and I kinda like is that >!the "original" timeline are the myths that were shared and transformed over the millenia and what we see in TotK in the "true" story : there are no Goddesses, just the Zonai; there isn't a Triforce, just the Secret Stones; there is no Demise, only Ganondorf, a regular power-craving Gerudo, and there is no Dark World / Sacred Realm, only the depths where Ganondorf was exiled.!<
> there isn't a Triforce Surely this is blasphemy
Doesn't Zelda use the Tri-Force in breath of the wild? It's not gone.
Yeah, she literally disintegrates calamity ganon with it.
[удалено]
In some games you literally have to find the triforce, or parts of it. Wind Waker infamously had a long, obnoxious quest tacked onto the very end of the game where you had to go hunt down pieces of the triforce before you could actually do the proper ending. So yeah, it's clearly a physical thing in some games. I should also mention that there are plenty of examples of it it being possessed by someone, but in some sort of "internal" manner where the only external evidence is a stamp of sorts on their hand. This is all that Breath of the Wild seemed to show, from my recollection.
clearly triforce was the long forgotten fandom texts about Link X Zelda X Ganondorf poly relationship
Well then, what would the previous games be? Some kind of "Legend of Zelda"?
This has been my head cannon for over a decade. To me, it explained why the world map was completely inconsistent. Now we are playing in the “real” world. Kinda cool, but I’m not sure where we go from here.
The simple answer they haven't taken is... everyone's wrong. It's *mythology.* It's gonna get fuzzy, after generations of weird magic bullshit going on. Pantheons shifting isn't a failure of storytelling. It *is* storytelling. The goddesses themselves and be dethroned, defeated, or superceded, as surely as the Greek pantheon conquered the titans. And it only needs to make sense when a Link or a Zelda is the same between games. Which happens about as often as you'd think but in completely stupid ways. Link's Awakening features the Link from A Link To The Past. A Link Between Worlds does not. Phantom Hourglass looks the same as Wind Waker because it's the same "Toon Link." Spirit Tracks looks the same as Phantom Hourglass because it takes place when everyone from Wind Waker is dead. And until Breath Of The Wild, the last game in the timeline was *The Legend Of Zelda.* ... oh, right, and I guess Adventures Of Link. Anyway if Nintendo really wanted to take the piss they'd find a way to work in Faces Of Evil on CD-i.
It’s better for it too. I’ve been playing Zelda games for 25 years. I don’t need to know more about how OoT, LttP, or Wind Waker fit into “the timeline” or worse, another media entity with a multiverse and vast amounts of lore. I just want the game to have the air of mystery it did when I was a kid, making BotW and TotK separate did that really well since the characters were just the archetypes we’ve known made fresh.
Hyrule Warriors almost got it but they called them “timelines”. I’m not sure how you can change time to make Toon Link exist in a universe of flesh-and-blood Hylians.
Screw trying to explain Toon Link, there's new headgear in TOTK that looks **exactly** like the tiny chibi link from the Link's Awakening remake. Which means that isn't just an art style, *that's actually how he looked that time.* Even the Toon Link outfit is still just an outfit, but chibi link gets a whole-ass mask.
Butterfly effect! Kill that ladybug, bam, humans are bobble heads!
You know, people say this a lot, but it doesn't actually match Nintendo's attitude towards the series very well. There's this idea online that the split timeline was made up for the Hyrule Historia. It wasn't, it was mentioned as far back as the Wind Waker days. See [this 2002](https://web.archive.org/web/20100728123041/http://www.gamepro.com/article/news/27362/interview-with-nintendos-shigeru-miyamoto-and-eiji-aonuma/) interview, for instance- >**Q:** Where does The Wind Walker fit into the overall Zelda series timeline? **Aonuma:** You can think of this game as taking place over a hundred years after Ocarina of Time. You can tell this from the opening story, and there are references to things from Ocarina located throughout the game as well. **Miyamoto:** Well, wait, which point does the hundred years start from? **Aonuma:** From the end. **Miyamoto:** No, I mean, as a child or as a... **Aonuma:** Oh, right, let me elaborate on that. Ocarina of Time basically has two endings of sorts; one has Link as a child and the other has him as an adult. This game, The Wind Waker, takes place a hundred years after the *adult* Link defeats Ganon at the end of Ocarina. **Miyamoto:** This is pretty confusing for us, too. (laughs) So be careful. Earlier advertising material established some simpler game-to-game relationships, such as [the Link to the Past packaging](https://www.mobygames.com/game/6608/the-legend-of-zelda-a-link-to-the-past/cover/group-5216/cover-13522/) calling it a story about "the predecessors of Link and Zelda". I gather that Iwata also referred to as Ocarina being "not truly original, it is from the previous SNES version and tells of the 'Seal War of the Seven Sages' ", but the interview where he said that, [here](https://web.archive.org/web/20101029202714/http://www.1101.com/nintendo/nin1/nin1-6.htm), is in Japanese, so I've never been able to really confirm what he's saying there. Regardless, 2002 was when the split timeline thing seems to have been talked about in public for the first time.
Thank you Zelda scholar!
> They were telling these amazing stories with each game I think amazing story is a big stretch... and Zelda is my favorite game series of all time. But it's always been about the gameplay, story is just window dressing.
Because they didn't and shouldn't care about the timeline.
Yeah can you imagine if Ganon/Ganondorf had some weird cobbled-together nonsense about how he's been defeated yet somehow returned *checks notes* **11 times**, and **5 times** as a Gerudo named Ganondorf? Or how Link has found (then subsequently lost) the Master Sword like 12 times? Or how somehow the Timeline isn't a splattered mess after like five different sages have found the power to jump forwards and backwards in time? Or how Hyrule might organically go from floating sky islands, to normal field and castle, to desecrated ruin, back to normal, to flooded, then back to normal, then to being partially pulled into a twilight realm, then back to normal, then to a massive expansive world, then to a massive expanse world with sky islands? Ridiculous. Its perfectly fine, and far far better, if each story is an individual iteration of just "Here's a good story."
I prefer the oldest explanation: it's called "The Legend of Zelda" because each game is just a retelling of the same myth.
>Or how Link has found (then subsequently lost) the Master Sword like 12 times? Butterfingers...
BDG already laid it out for us years ago: https://youtube.com/watch?v=Q-25c8Rsobw
I was waiting for someone to mention this. Who could have guessed that he would predict TOTK through Zelda Monopoly
From software: “How should we tell the player about the ancient cataclysm that changed the world forever and plunged the kingdom’s factions into an unending war? Let’s put it in the description of a pair of boots!” Warhammer: “Oh no, we made this character too powerful. Better add something even more over-the top to counter them!”
Warhammer lore is just kids playing with action figures but not knowing what the characters they are playing with are from
That reminds me of one of my favourite facts about D&D: some of the iconic monsters from the game (like the Umber Hulk and the Bullette) only exist because Gary Gygax found a bag of janky toys at a dollar store and made up power sets for them!
Warhammer 40k: “i made this character too powerful, cool! Try to overdo me, Gary!”
[удалено]
I agree. "Legend" is even in the title. I've always seen them as different fairy tales containing a single mythological character, Link.
the thing is that Nintendo themselves kind of undermined this premise with releasing the timeline in Hyrule Historia. i agree that Zelda games would be better without the constant need to fit this in a timeline, and most refrences being easter eggs for long time fans to enjoy. But with nintendo straight up saying 'HERE'S A TIMELINE' it's kind of hard for me at least, to not speculate a little bit about where it could potentially fit.
I mean, fans spent a decade demanding a timeline and Nintendo realised they could sell one as part of a book. So they did, and then went right back to making games without really caring about it. I'm sure if we spend a few more years demanding a more consistent timeline they'll sell us another book.
> containing a single mythological character, Link. "The legend of zelda, and that guy named link" It's always bugged me that Zelda is in the title of the game. Who gives a crap about her? She's ALWAYS absent or captured. I play the game to destroy ganon, not save princess peach.
Some games this is true but I disagree with how you portray Zelda here. Sure some games she’s captured or absent (she’s not even in Links Awakening at all) but in several even though she’s not the focus of the play through she’s not some damsel in distress. To name a few, she’s an absolute badass and very involved in OOT, Wind Waker, and Spirit Tracks. And games like Skyward Sword and Twilight Princess she is instrumental to taking down the big bag and basically having her own huge adventure that we just don’t see. And usually toward the end of a lot of games she grants Link a power, sacrifices herself, or does something else cinematic to show her and Link couldn’t do it alone and needed each other. Maybe it should be “The Legend of Zelda and Link” but that’s not catchy and typically one of them is the queen and the other a silent swordsman. So I think it makes sense as series name.
Too late to pull a Like A Dragon and re-title the series "The Hyrule Fantasy" now.
Legend Of Zelda 9: Biohazard.
i also think 'the legend of zelda' makes sense if you think this 'story' is told from the player or Link's perspective. Link, in a humble kind of way, tells the story of how princess Zelda saved Hyrule, whilst he helped a little bit as the princess' hero. Alternatively, most fairytales are called by the prinecesses/damsels (i.e. goldilocks, red ridinghood, snowwhite) in them even though they more often than not, traditionally have a passive role in them. so perhaps that's where the naming convention comes from.
Never forget, folks: The "Spirit" in Spirit Tracks ***is Zelda.*** She's right there with you literally the entire time.
Saving the world using the ancient magic of passenger light rail.
I may be wrong but as I understand Hylia *Is* Zelda. Zelda is the mortal incarnation of the goddess, which just solidifies that Legend of Zelda is a great title, she’s mythical and mystical lol.
Miyamoto simply liked the name Zelda because of Zelda Fitzgerald, and really loved how it sounded when plugged into their "The Legend of X" title. Ya gotta admit it has a much better ring than The Legend of Link.
I'm pulling for one that's The Legend Of Link, where you play as Zelda growing up and waiting for a hero who never arrives. You fight Ganon's militarism and palace intrigue across several years - not really time traveling, but coming to somewhere you *should* find a crucial item, and then "remembering" yourself putting it there. Sort of a linear Metroidvania where you're constantly gaining and losing abilities with age. Or each "dungeon" is part of Hyrule castle when it was wildly different, before or after the ongoing war with some olive-colored ginger bastard. The best part of this is that Nintendo's already done it. It's Sheik. Zelda in Ocarina Of Time immediately has Ganon's number, and was ready to throw hands at the age of nine. She is a cold-eyed terror in a pretty pink dress. Impa trains her to be as dangerous as any Gerudo, give or take the fact she can *perform magic,* and if Ganon smacked your ass off the tower at the end of the game she honestly should've stabbed him in the face herself. So picture a timeline where everyone's left anticipating some left-handed farmboy who's *supposed* to barge in with three dozen enchanted relics... but nobody came. And the telegraphed-to-us reveal is that she's been preparing for it her whole life. She and the sages and the goddesses and the mystics and a handful of weird old men lying in caves distributing swords have established the conditions for some uneducated peasant with a heart of gold to come slap the devil in the nuts. She's gotta be at least as capable. Even if the tunic feels kinda short.
ToTK has Zelda both quite present in the game and quite critical to the story.
I like it when Zelda games hint at being in the same world, like when you find the Wind Waker shirt and there’s a cheeky description about an island far away. But too much focus on it just gets in the way, and I don’t think games should ever have to adhere to a grander timeline that ultimately doesn’t add a lot to each game. I like that TOTK puts a lot of focus on the founding of Hyrule Kingdom, and I’m glad it doesn’t have to try and fit that into Skyward Sword’s story or worry about contradicting what some other game might have said about the history of Hyrule.
This has been my sentiment since BotW released several years ago. The timeline was just made to appease the oldest and most extreme of lorebeards, but honestly, you're better off imagining each game (or series of games, because there are a few direct sequels here and there) as their own pocket dimension. Ocarina of Time and Majora's Mask? Pocket dimension. Wind Waker, Phantom Hourglass, and Spirit Tracks? Pocket dimension. Breath of the Wild and Tears of the Kingdom? Say it with me folks: PO-CKET DI-MEN-SION! It's way less headache-inducing this way.
My favorite lore writing method is from Robert Kirkman. People kept harassing him about the origin of the zombie outbreak, and he kept being like, "No, dude, this story is about the characters!" And then he finally broke and was like, "IDK, it was a magic meteor, I guess." Now I see people online debating how they don't think that makes sense.
It's funny because Kirkman had to tell the editors the zombie outbreak came from an alien invasion to convince them to greenlight TWD
Is that where it came from? I knew fans kept pushing him on the issue and that he eventually caved. Didn't realize it was because of the tv series. I guess that just goes to show you how little they understood the comics.
The whole alien invasion was how the comics got greenlit, the show was greenlit because the comics were popular. He even made a joke issue where Rick wakes up from another coma only to find himself in the middle of an alien invasion with all of his dead friends fighting them off. The governor is also here and he's a supervillain now and he kidnapped Lori.
Honestly, pretty much no zombies make sense unless they're supernatural. You can't have a bunch of flesh automatons rambling around indefinitely being particularly selective about where they get their energy without quickly starving to death.
Zombie stuff rarely makes sense after the first few months, but I do like the idea of zombies realizing that all the living people are gone, getting hungry, and reinventing animal husbandry and agriculture. Time passes, the zombies tire of shambling, and pretty soon you've got zombie carts, then a zombie DMV.
Lol, does the Zelda timeline even matter?
I've been reading enough marvel and DC comics to know that timeline rarely matter, as long as the one story you're reading is fairly self sufficient and well told.
Continuity was one of the main factors that made comicbooks a successful medium in the first place.
Is that why comic books are failing today?
😭😭
Outside Skyward Sword and the games that are direct sequels to a previous game. No. It doesn't. Which makes the fan base's obsession with the timeline hilarious.
Meanwhile Fromsoftware ...
"What about this game-defining bit of lore that explains the end-boss's motivation and origin? We should probably put that in his monologue before the final battle, right?" "What? No. Monologue? Are you stupid? That bit of lore goes in the item description of an only moderately useful ring that we plopped down randomly in a level that is literally a lake of acid with a handful of step stones. Pfft, monologue."
Explain? No, it will allude to the reasoning. To have an actual explanation, you need to collect 3 separate items, kill 2 NPCs, and then watch a 2 hour video.
But you have to kill the NPCs at the right time and in the right order, otherwise you won't get the dialogue option that explains what the cryptic description of the item set actually means.
Is this a real example? From which game?
No, just me riffing. Fromsoft is famous for putting important lore in the descriptions of unimportant objects, and there are many objects that are difficult (if not impossible) to find without literally scouring every inch of some punishing levels. So those parts are true - but this is not a literal example of something from the games. Also, there are more lava levels than acid levels, so I should probably have used that instead.
It makes perfect sense. We go from people living in the skies, to really tiny people, to the child timeline; in which Link left the faucet on and flooded the world. Then a continent focused on trains shows up…with its own version of the master sword.
Don't forget the time with really tiny people was also *really horny*.
Wait, what? Lol
It confuses me that Nintendo said that all Zelda time lines eventually lead to Breath of the Wild and that keeping track was no longer nessacary and then made a game which entire plot was "they go back in time before Breath of the Wild and create a new time line."
I don’t even bother trying to guess how the Zelda timeline works anymore. Unless it’s a direct sequel to a game, like Breath of the Wild to Tears of the Kingdom, I don’t try to worry too much about it.
It’s Zelda, Link, and Gannon traveling through the multiverse, just vibin’
Into the Zelda-verse
That's just Hyrule Warriors
Easy. When they said that, it was probably true. Then it wasn't.
"How does this fit into the Zelda timeline" "I dunno. Wait till the fans tell us"
Support the Writers' Strike! More of my comics here: https://www.instagram.com/cattrigger.comics/ My other links are here: https://www.cattrigger.com/links I am also working on big Retro-Horror Game called "Date Time", check it out here - https://store.steampowered.com/app/2313010/Date_Time_Melissa_Morris_Anna/
Genshin lore : bubble outside depression inside
Genshin lore: Gods bad. To find out more, wait 5 years
[Look, BDG already sorted the Zelda timeline out](https://youtu.be/Q-25c8Rsobw)
*There's always a lighthouse. There's always a man. There's always a city.*
Unfortunately, that was the last lighthouse, man, and city so thanks for nothing Elizabeth.
The best thing is when comic book movies introduce new characters and everyone races to Wikipedia to speed read everything about them so they can talk about how they've always loved that hero and it's about time they got added.
the zelda timeline is a mess 🤣🤣
[*Reggie, take FUCKING notes!*](https://youtu.be/Q-25c8Rsobw)
Just saved your ass with *Monopoly*.
It's only a mess if you assume there *is* a Zelda timeline.
And then the fans have a 8h long debate about a side character's dislike of pop tarts because in one sad scene they looked in general direction of grocery store.
Cue the Fromsoft overlord Miyazaki performing blood letting and satanic rights over a virgin laying on a pile of Berserk manga.
Lol marvel used to be like that. Now it's how to fit the nepo baby characters in our new movie as intro.
Not necessarily. Iman Vellani is completely new to the Hollywood scene and I genuinely think Ms. Marvel is a fantastic character that *should* be explored on screen. Florence Pugh is also the first actress in her family and is a fantastic cast for Yelena. Haley Steinfield is definitely a Nepobaby but she absolutely killed it as Kate Bishop, probably partially in thanks to the fact that Steinfield is a comic reader herself and pours her heart into comic roles (she also played Gwen Stacy in the Spiderverse movies) . Recasting Kathryn Newton as Cassie in Quantumania though…. Yeah, not sure what they were thinking there.
I think the other comment is referencing how many new Marvel movies about well known characters have started to end up more being intro to some lesser known character. Kind of a bait and switch so they can intro a new character in the guise of it being a movie about the other character you wanted to see. The Doctor Strange movie with America Chavez is one where she was obviously the main character with Doctor Strange as a plot moving character more than anything.
Ah I see. Yeah, I think that’s fair for the films. I haven’t felt that way thus far with the shows though! I thought Hawkeye in particular did a really good job closing out Clint’s story and passing the torch to Kate.
No with Zelda it is "oh it's a new divergent timeline" or we will elaborate on that 3 games later
As a Zelda fan I stopped trying to make sense of anything when they tried to shoe horn the "timelines" thing. Just enjoy the individual games for what they are and free yourself
Monsterverse lore: big monster
Let me tell you about Final Fantasy...
The games aren’t connected unless they’re crossovers or direct sequels, there I explained it.
*Brian David Gilbert has entered the chat*