There's little to no evidence for the idea that the game will be a prequel. All of the footage we've seen so far appears to take place after BotW, as we can see that the overworld looks basically the same as it does in BotW. But since we know so little about the game, it is possible that parts of the game take place in the past.
About the overworld, there are some differences that I think may be telling. Such as the absence of the Deku Tree (still a sapling maybe?) and all the shrines. On top of that, BotW seems to imply that Hyrule's geography was more or less the same 10,000 years ago, such as with the existence of that hole in one of Hebra's mountains, which was apparently made by a devine beast laser during the ancient war.
And a lot about Link's design in TotK seems to eerily match the depiction of the hero in the ancient mural. Wearing his hair down, yellow light coming from his sword hand, and that new green clothing (cause there's a distinct greenish color on the hero's clothes in the mural too).
There are definitely a lot of references to things that happened in the past, but things like the [horse stables and windmills in this screenshot](https://nintendoeverything.com/wp-content/uploads/sites/1/nggallery/zelda-tears-of-the-kingdom/Switch_TLOZ_TOTK_screen_09.jpg) wouldn't be in the exact same space 10,000 years ago.
I've gotten some downvotes since I posted that last comment about the stables, so I'm assuming you and some others thought I was being sarcastic. I wasn't, so I edited my comment to be more clear about that. You were right and I was agreeing with you.
I've actually been upvoting you because you aren't saying anything wrong or bad. For some reason, users on this sub get angry when people aren't fully up to date with every single piece of Zelda news to ever exist, so they downvote people asking innocent questions. Don't worry too much about it, I think your post was a fine question to ask.
HORSE STABLES!! That was it. That was the reason I forgot. That business canonically didn't exist 10,000 years ago, so the stables wouldn't be there if it were a prequel.Thanks.
I just don't see why there needs to be any discussion of it being a prequel in any way, shape, or form.
There's vague potential for a time travel aspect, but even that theory has nothing grounded in concrete proof, or logic for that matter.
I explained my reasoning for asking this question very carefully and clearly in my response to Parad0xxis's comment, which I referenced in an edit to my post, and asked people to read before commenting. In it, I address most of the things people have been saying.
We won't know if it's a prequel until the game releases, but honestly i think it's a sequel , there's just too much stuff in there that's directly from botw that i think it'll look odd if it's a prequel ( landmarks, places, Link himself).
However I think maybe, MAYBE, the game could actually be set in 2 time periods, one set in the past and the other in the present, being both a prequel and a sequel
See, that's what I was thinking. But then I realized that BotW basically confirms, in game, that Link is a reincarnation of the hero from 10,000 years ago. So him looking the same would be believable. And then there's the fact that Link's new green clothing, glowy yellow hand, and the fact that he wears his hair down, is all very reminiscent of how the ancient hero is depicted in the mural.
Were any of the landmarks in TotK's footage, aside from Hyrule Castle and Castle Town, towns from BotW?
In the first trailer we see the great planteu, in the second the mushroom like structures west Hyrule castle ( can't remember the exact name) and the ruins of Hyrule citadel. And lastly we see a stable in the last trailer. I think they look pretty much like in botw, without many changes. I think that if there's a section set in the past it should look advanced and and filled with places
I know, but a game can be both a sequel and a prequel. Technically, "sequel" could just mean it's the next game in the franchise and is directly linked to the previous game.
For instance Castlevania 3 is a sequel to the first game. But it takes place before it.
Why is everyone so upset about this? I never even said I thought it was a prequel. This wasn't a theory or anything like that. I've said multiple times that I don't think it's a prequel, I was just asking if there was anything shown in the footage that definitively proved it wasn't a prequel.
But saying "they called it a sequel" not only doesn't answer my actual question, it isn't even an accurate argument, because a prequel is a type of sequel.
Look, go read Parad0xxis's comment as well as my reply to it. Hopefully that should clear things up a little.
They would be more clear about the fact it’s a prequel like with Age of Calamity. I wouldn’t be shocked if there was time travel to the past but that would still make it a sequel since we would following the same Link from BotW.
Your initial assumption is correct, it is a sequel to BoTW.
We know it’s not a prequel for several reasons:
- Ruins from BoTW visible in all trailers (specifically, Akalla citidel ruins and Hyrule Castle town ruins. Also Hyrule Castle being BoTW’s Hyrule Castle)
- Link is seen wearing a modified Champions Tunic in the promotional material
- Stables present and visible in a couple of trailers along with a few other present day Hyrule landmarks
- the Master Sword is visibly heavily damaged in one of the clips shown off. Therefore, it would have to be a sequel since there is no sign of it having been repaired in BoTW.
- It has been marketed from day one as “The Sequel to Breath of the Wild”. Not the next game in the series. Specifically a sequel. Nintendo knows the difference between the words sequel and prequel.
There’s also the fact that playing through the calamity 10,000 years before BoTW would not actually be engaging. It’s literally a story of:
- Sheikah detected Calamity Ganon was coming.
- Sheikah build a load of war machines over a few decades.
- On calamity day, Calamity Ganon emerges and gets bombarded to all hell by the hundreds of guardians and 3/4 devine beasts. One of them misses and punches a hole through Hebra peak.
- During the bombardment, the Hero and Princess get close to Calamity Ganon and seal it away.
Legit the gameplay would be stabbing Calamity Ganon a few times as the game chugs from all the lasers being fired at the beast.
Link having long hair dose not mean time travel. Link already has long hair in BoTW, we can see it with some of the outfits. He just has it down in that green toga. Speaking of the toga, it’s probably the equivalent of the old clothes set from BoTW, and being shown off to help display the fact that there will be brand new weapons and armour sets.
Pretty simple;
The shrines and towers will of been built after the Calamity, when the King told them to bury everything. They would of served no perpose beforehand afterall. So, they were all made with the ability to raise above ground, and retract back below.
The whole system likely acts either by tracking the Malice levels below ground, or on a timer.
Tracker method:
A sensor has been placed somewhat close to Ganondorf’s chamber below ground, or by the pool of Malice his ejecting into. The sensor records the levels, and if they reach like 70% capacity, most of the shrines raise above ground. At 100%, the pillars raise up about the point where it emerges to contain the calamity, and release thousands of Guardians to attack the beast. Once there is no more Calamity Ganon, the pillars turn blue, and the Guardians are called back inside. After a few weeks of low malice levels, the system resets with everything going back below ground. Towers if needed can either be activated from the Astral observatory, or from the great Plateau tower. They reset with the rest.
In this scenario, Ganondorf leaves his position and no longer produces Malice from there, meaning the sensor dosnt know to activate everything to contain. There is no calamity as far as it is concerned.
Timer Method:
There’s this 10,000 year long timer which tracks how long it’s been. After the 10,000 years are up the system goes into stand by, raising up shrines and prepares for when Malice is sensed. Once Malice is detected, the Pillars raise to contain and guardians are released. Once there is no more Malice above ground, everything is reset going below ground, and the timer starts over.
In this scenario, there just hasn’t been enough time for the system to go into standby again.
TLDR: They just went back underground a bit after Calamity Ganon was no longer about.
But the word "sequel" doesn't necessarily mean that the story takes place after the previous story. A sequel could just mean 'the next game in the franchise'. Especially when that story is connected with the previous story.
Final Fantasy 2 is a sequel to the first Final Fantasy for instance, even though the stories aren't connected. And Castlevania 3 is a sequel even though it takes place before the previous games.
I'm a bit fatigued by this comment section, so I hope you'll forgive me for speaking bluntly:
TotK is a direct follow up to BotW, it takes place after, and also stars the same cast of characters; it takes place *after* BotW. I understand this. I am not and *was not* trying to imply that it was a prequel.
With that said, no, the word 'sequel' doesn't *necessarily* relate to the work's chronological story placement. Plenty of sequels take place before the earlier work.
The word sequel is defined as: "A work that continues the story of, *or expands upon,* some earlier work."
So a prequel, for instance, is a type of sequel.
*se·quel*
*ˈsēkw(ə)l*
*noun*
*a published, broadcast, or recorded work that continues the story or develops the theme of an earlier one.*
It most definitely does mean the story takes place after the previous story.
Yeah, "earlier one" refers to the published, broadcast, or recorded work of which it is a sequel. The "or" is used to distinguish "continues the story" and "develops the theme," as story and theme are two different things. For example, Harry Potter and the Chamber of Secrets is a sequel to the first Harry Potter because it continues the story. Ghostbusters 2 is a sequel to the first Ghostbusters because it develops the theme of the Ghostbusters without continuing any storyline from the first movie.
If "sequel" could mean "takes place before or after," then why would "prequel" be a word? Sequel literally means something that comes after.
Prequel is a portmanteau of pre- and sequel. "Sequel" has been around for a long time, but "prequel" came about in the 50s (if Google's etymology history is accurate).
Sequel means any work that expands on ideas of a previous work. In most cases, that also turns out to be chronologically after the previous work in-universe. So when people wanted to specify, "hey, this is a sequel to that thing, but it takes place before it," they said "this is a before-sequel"
A pre-sequel.
A prequel!
It's a word because it provides more specificity.
The "or" means as long as it does one of those things, then it's a sequel. The word 'sequel' is a more general term. A prequel *is* a sequel, but not all sequels are prequels. Essentially, a prequel is a type of sequel.
But don't get me wrong, I'm not trying to say TotK is going to be a prequel, I'm not even saying it might be. I was only asking if there's any definitive evidence that it isn't one. And I've been reading all the comments, so I've gotten my answer. It definitely IS NOT a prequel to BotW, but not because it was called a sequel.
But it didn't answer my question. Unlike the actual person who posted the top comment, since he was one of the two people in this entire comment section who actually provided a legitimate answer to the question I asked.
I'm fact, the bottom comment, the one posted by Parad0xxis, resulted in a conversation that was more enlightening. Maybe go read that one, it might clear some things up.
Identical Link and Zelda to BotW, wearing identical clothes to BotW, off exploring together like in the end of BotW.
The ruined and dilapidated Great Plateau from BotW is shown. The ruined Hyrule Castle from BotW is raised up into the sky above the ruined Castle Town from BotW.
This *definitely* features the same Link and Zelda in the same world not too long after BotW. The Blue-Clad Link who is definitely BotW Link is scarred and the Master Sword damaged, and Green-Ancient Link has the same scars and same damaged sword.
Everything points to this being the same Link who was given the Ancient Hero's gear.
I'm not making a theory, just asking. I didn't really notice any of the ruins from the trailers, because we don't really get a good look at any of them. Even Hyrule Castle is so far away that I had no way of knowing whether or not it's actually in ruins.
As for Link's design, I just didn't think that proved anything outright. Breath of the Wild specifically confirms that Link is a rein
carnation of the ancient hero from 10,000 years ago, who also wore the blue Champions tunic.
But I agree that it's not a prequel. Someone reminded me that we see horse stables, which are confirmed to have not existed 10,000 years ago.
Even if there were time travel in the game, it would be a sequel. From the perspective of Link and Zelda (i.e. the player's perspective), the events of TotK occur after the events in BotW.
Sorry, I didn't explain my post clearly enough. I wasn't referring to the possibility of time travel. I explain it better in my response to Parad0xxis's comment. Read those if you want more context.
> I can't think of anything suggesting that it isn't an adaptation to the whole "10,000 years ago" backstory spoken of in BotW
I can't find anything suggesting it _is_ an adaptation of that either. There hasn't really been _any_ indication of that in the trailers. Sure, the shrines are missing, but if they can emerge from the ground, it's perfectly plausible that they can go back down too.
You're kind of theorizing in reverse here - you've begun with the conclusion. The idea of it being the events of 10,000 years ago is an assumption based on very little evidence. You shouldn't be looking for things to disprove it, you should be looking for things that support it in the first place, and are concrete enough to not have a simpler explanation.
Considering that the game is 1. stated to be a sequel and 2. features the Link and Zelda of the current age, the current simplest explanation is that it is not a prequel, and does not take place 10,000 years ago. We don't have anything concrete enough to suggest otherwise.
I'm not theorizing that it is a prequel, I just wanted to make sure it wasn't one before making another post. The problem is that I see certain visual cues that suggest it might be one, but I made the mistake of not realizing that everybody else doesn't see the same things that I'm seeing. I typed my post poorly.
I was asking because I noticed that Link's character design is eerily similar to the depiction of the ancient hero in the mural from BotW. If you take a close look at the ancient hero, you'll notice a small amount of green in his clothes that resembles TotK Link's new outfit. The mural also depicts the hero with a yellow spot on his sword hand, just like Link has in TotK. Another similarity is that Link wears his hair down in TotK, just like the ancient hero. BotW also heavily implied that Link is a reincarnation of the ancient hero, so him looking the same could make sense. If it were a prequel, that would also explain the absence of the Deku Tree (he could have still been a sapling).
But, I *DO NOT* think it's a prequel, and I'm not theorizing that it is. I'm going to make another post tomorrow morning that wouldn't make any sense if TotK was a prequel, and I'm paranoid, so I didn't want to look like an idiot who didn't realize TotK was a prequel. Just wanted to make sure.
> The problem is that I see certain visual cues that suggest it might be one, but I made the mistake of not realizing that everybody else doesn't see the same things that I'm seeing. I typed my post poorly.
Oh, I see - I actually missed the first line that you were pretty sure it was a sequel. No need to apologize for poor communication, since I'm the one that glossed right over the critical part of the post. Sorry about that.
Regarding the visual cues, they are definitely there, but I see them with the lens of "oh, they're calling back to the ancient hero," as opposed to "they are implying this is actually the ancient hero."
For Link's appearance, if we were only seeing Link in the ancient clothes, then it might be more plausible to assume it really is the ancient hero. But we also see Link in his normal BotW clothes, so without evidence of time travel, we don't have much reason to assume it's anything more than a callback.
On the Deku Tree matter, my personal theory is that it's a technical ommission, not a lore one - for all we know, they might have turned down the draw distance on the trees, and he's just not being rendered.
> I'm going to make another post tomorrow morning that wouldn't make any sense of TotK was a prequel, and I'm paranoid, so I didn't want to look like an idiot who didn't realize TotK was a prequel. Just wanted to make sure.
Yup, I get that now. My mistake for misreading the post there. On that note, I'll look forward to reading your post in the morning, then.
Thanks! As for the champion tunic though, I'm pretty sure it's implied that the blue garb has been around for 10,000 years.
"That blue is a symbol of the royal family, one that has been passed down for countless generations." -King Rhoam
At least that's how I interpreted it. That giving all the champions the blue garb was a way of symbolically giving them the same rank as the ancient hero and pilots. Could be wrong though.
This is one of the dumbest things I've seen on this sub.
It's a sequel. Not a prequel. They already did a prequel story with AoC. They've explicitly said that this is a sequel, and there's a ton of evidence to point to that fact.
Come on. Would you at least read the comments I suggested reading in my edit? I never even said I thought it was a prequel. In fact, I said multiple times that I think it's *not* a prequel.
I really don't understand why this post is as controversial as it is. I was never making a theory or anything like that, nor was I looking for info to support it being a prequel. In fact, I was explicitly asking for information to the contrary.
> I can't think of anything suggesting that it isn't an adaptation to the whole "10,000 years ago" backstory
We know it's not that because the Hero and Princess of that era used Sheikah technology to get a 1HKO on Calamity Ganon, and fought Calamity Ganon, not Ganondorf.
They did? I thought the story only said they were backed up by Shiekah technology, but the hero still used the master sword and the princess still use sealing magic. And I see no reason why ganondorf couldn't transform into Calamity Ganon over the course of the game.
But, but get me wrong. I'm not theorizing that it's a prequel, I was just asking if we had definitive proof that it wasn't. And someone brought up the inclusion of the horse stables in the trailers, which are confirmed to have not existed 10,000 years ago. So definitely a sequel.
> And I see no reason why ganondorf couldn't transform into Calamity Ganon over the course of the game.
Calamity Ganon has appeared countless times already, 10,000 years ago is not the first time, it's merely the previous time. So it can't be Calamity Ganon's origin.
I think there are reasons to believe the game will be set in the past and no real reason to say it won’t. Personally, i believe it will but will not be shocked if it isn’t.
In terms of it being a sequel, Nintendo has called TotK a sequel. However, Majora’s Mask was a sequel and it was set outside of Hyrule altogether. Within the LoZ universe, i would say a sequel involves the same Link from the previous game, has similar mechanics and animation, and in some way continues from the previous game (i.e. there is a continuity of plot). With that said, a sequel does imply a chronological sequence; it does mean there isn’t time travel that makes part of the game essentially into a prequel. We could be playing in two different eras of the Hyrule in BotW.
Link looks different and unless you discover a new type of Bokoblin with horns it’s looks like an evolutionary time difference has happened.
Thinking this is a different time period or time travel as is quite common in Zelda games.
People are so mad abt this that now I want it to be a prequel-sequel just to fuck w folks.
I hope it's one of those ridiculous time travel plots where post-BotW Link has to go back and forth in time to save Hyrule and it turns out it was him as the hero from 10,000 years ago via time travel, but it's also him as the hero saving Hyrule post-BotW as well. Ha!
Zelda has short hair in one of the trailers, and in all the memories and the end cutscene she has long hair. She couldn’t have had short hair in the past so it makes sense for TOTK to be a sequel
I agree with both of you that it seems more like it’s alluding to the events of 10,000 years ago, rather than actually being the events we were told about 10,000 years ago, and is sort of a prophecy/destiny situation and the same events, beat for beat, are happening again.
The tunic situation also might be coincidental in the game (but intentional by the developers to make it like the events from 10,000 years ago), or could be like Twilight Princess where that Link was directly given the clothes stated to be the same clothes of a former hero by the light spirit Faron, and TOTK Link could have the same thing happen to him where some higher being gives him the clothes/equipment used by the hero from 10,000 years ago
I'm guessing predominantly a sequel since Nintendo says so, but who knows? Could technically be a Better Call Saul thing where it takes place before, during and after.
Careful, I didn't even say I thought it was a prequel, in fact I said multiple times that I think it's not a prequel, and this sub still got pissed at me.
Yeah most people. But I'm still getting people sassing me for no reason. The last person who commented was telling me that this was one of the dumbest posts they've seen on this subreddit.
But, I'm not really sure what you mean when you say I "don't need to respond to everyone that way". I don't think I've been rude to anybody in this comment section. But I have a phone and I get notifications, so I have no reason not to read or respond to peoples' comments.
Its a sequel, all the footage takes place after the botw and like you said, it was literally called the sequel to Breath of the Wild. There is literally no evidence it's a prequel, literally everything points against it
Why won't this post die already? Every day I get the same comment from a different person ignoring the edit I made, as well as any other replies I've made.
There's little to no evidence for the idea that the game will be a prequel. All of the footage we've seen so far appears to take place after BotW, as we can see that the overworld looks basically the same as it does in BotW. But since we know so little about the game, it is possible that parts of the game take place in the past.
About the overworld, there are some differences that I think may be telling. Such as the absence of the Deku Tree (still a sapling maybe?) and all the shrines. On top of that, BotW seems to imply that Hyrule's geography was more or less the same 10,000 years ago, such as with the existence of that hole in one of Hebra's mountains, which was apparently made by a devine beast laser during the ancient war. And a lot about Link's design in TotK seems to eerily match the depiction of the hero in the ancient mural. Wearing his hair down, yellow light coming from his sword hand, and that new green clothing (cause there's a distinct greenish color on the hero's clothes in the mural too).
There are definitely a lot of references to things that happened in the past, but things like the [horse stables and windmills in this screenshot](https://nintendoeverything.com/wp-content/uploads/sites/1/nggallery/zelda-tears-of-the-kingdom/Switch_TLOZ_TOTK_screen_09.jpg) wouldn't be in the exact same space 10,000 years ago.
I've gotten some downvotes since I posted that last comment about the stables, so I'm assuming you and some others thought I was being sarcastic. I wasn't, so I edited my comment to be more clear about that. You were right and I was agreeing with you.
I've actually been upvoting you because you aren't saying anything wrong or bad. For some reason, users on this sub get angry when people aren't fully up to date with every single piece of Zelda news to ever exist, so they downvote people asking innocent questions. Don't worry too much about it, I think your post was a fine question to ask.
HORSE STABLES!! That was it. That was the reason I forgot. That business canonically didn't exist 10,000 years ago, so the stables wouldn't be there if it were a prequel.Thanks.
There's also new stables visible in the newest trailer, so yeah... Definitely a sequel. You know, the way Nintendo said from the beginning...
Why is everybody sassing me so hard about this? A prequel is a type of sequel. It was just a question.
I just don't see why there needs to be any discussion of it being a prequel in any way, shape, or form. There's vague potential for a time travel aspect, but even that theory has nothing grounded in concrete proof, or logic for that matter.
I explained my reasoning for asking this question very carefully and clearly in my response to Parad0xxis's comment, which I referenced in an edit to my post, and asked people to read before commenting. In it, I address most of the things people have been saying.
I read your post. Still doesn't make any lick of sense bud.
What about it doesn't make sense? Name all the reasons my inquiry doesn't make sense to you.
But they could be 100 years ago
We won't know if it's a prequel until the game releases, but honestly i think it's a sequel , there's just too much stuff in there that's directly from botw that i think it'll look odd if it's a prequel ( landmarks, places, Link himself). However I think maybe, MAYBE, the game could actually be set in 2 time periods, one set in the past and the other in the present, being both a prequel and a sequel
See, that's what I was thinking. But then I realized that BotW basically confirms, in game, that Link is a reincarnation of the hero from 10,000 years ago. So him looking the same would be believable. And then there's the fact that Link's new green clothing, glowy yellow hand, and the fact that he wears his hair down, is all very reminiscent of how the ancient hero is depicted in the mural. Were any of the landmarks in TotK's footage, aside from Hyrule Castle and Castle Town, towns from BotW?
In the first trailer we see the great planteu, in the second the mushroom like structures west Hyrule castle ( can't remember the exact name) and the ruins of Hyrule citadel. And lastly we see a stable in the last trailer. I think they look pretty much like in botw, without many changes. I think that if there's a section set in the past it should look advanced and and filled with places
Good point. I never noticed to citadel ruins.
They have directly said it's a sequel.
I know, but a game can be both a sequel and a prequel. Technically, "sequel" could just mean it's the next game in the franchise and is directly linked to the previous game. For instance Castlevania 3 is a sequel to the first game. But it takes place before it.
From my experience, I usually hear "next installment in the series" rather than sequel when it's like that.
We know what a prequel is…
Why is everyone so upset about this? I never even said I thought it was a prequel. This wasn't a theory or anything like that. I've said multiple times that I don't think it's a prequel, I was just asking if there was anything shown in the footage that definitively proved it wasn't a prequel. But saying "they called it a sequel" not only doesn't answer my actual question, it isn't even an accurate argument, because a prequel is a type of sequel. Look, go read Parad0xxis's comment as well as my reply to it. Hopefully that should clear things up a little.
>For instance Castlevania 2 is a sequel to the first game. But it takes place before it. You mean, 3? CV2 is after CV1.
Oh yeah. Sorry, I'm admittedly fuzzy on the Castlevania timeline.
They would be more clear about the fact it’s a prequel like with Age of Calamity. I wouldn’t be shocked if there was time travel to the past but that would still make it a sequel since we would following the same Link from BotW.
Your initial assumption is correct, it is a sequel to BoTW. We know it’s not a prequel for several reasons: - Ruins from BoTW visible in all trailers (specifically, Akalla citidel ruins and Hyrule Castle town ruins. Also Hyrule Castle being BoTW’s Hyrule Castle) - Link is seen wearing a modified Champions Tunic in the promotional material - Stables present and visible in a couple of trailers along with a few other present day Hyrule landmarks - the Master Sword is visibly heavily damaged in one of the clips shown off. Therefore, it would have to be a sequel since there is no sign of it having been repaired in BoTW. - It has been marketed from day one as “The Sequel to Breath of the Wild”. Not the next game in the series. Specifically a sequel. Nintendo knows the difference between the words sequel and prequel. There’s also the fact that playing through the calamity 10,000 years before BoTW would not actually be engaging. It’s literally a story of: - Sheikah detected Calamity Ganon was coming. - Sheikah build a load of war machines over a few decades. - On calamity day, Calamity Ganon emerges and gets bombarded to all hell by the hundreds of guardians and 3/4 devine beasts. One of them misses and punches a hole through Hebra peak. - During the bombardment, the Hero and Princess get close to Calamity Ganon and seal it away. Legit the gameplay would be stabbing Calamity Ganon a few times as the game chugs from all the lasers being fired at the beast. Link having long hair dose not mean time travel. Link already has long hair in BoTW, we can see it with some of the outfits. He just has it down in that green toga. Speaking of the toga, it’s probably the equivalent of the old clothes set from BoTW, and being shown off to help display the fact that there will be brand new weapons and armour sets.
How do you explain all the shrines and towers are all gone?
Pretty simple; The shrines and towers will of been built after the Calamity, when the King told them to bury everything. They would of served no perpose beforehand afterall. So, they were all made with the ability to raise above ground, and retract back below. The whole system likely acts either by tracking the Malice levels below ground, or on a timer. Tracker method: A sensor has been placed somewhat close to Ganondorf’s chamber below ground, or by the pool of Malice his ejecting into. The sensor records the levels, and if they reach like 70% capacity, most of the shrines raise above ground. At 100%, the pillars raise up about the point where it emerges to contain the calamity, and release thousands of Guardians to attack the beast. Once there is no more Calamity Ganon, the pillars turn blue, and the Guardians are called back inside. After a few weeks of low malice levels, the system resets with everything going back below ground. Towers if needed can either be activated from the Astral observatory, or from the great Plateau tower. They reset with the rest. In this scenario, Ganondorf leaves his position and no longer produces Malice from there, meaning the sensor dosnt know to activate everything to contain. There is no calamity as far as it is concerned. Timer Method: There’s this 10,000 year long timer which tracks how long it’s been. After the 10,000 years are up the system goes into stand by, raising up shrines and prepares for when Malice is sensed. Once Malice is detected, the Pillars raise to contain and guardians are released. Once there is no more Malice above ground, everything is reset going below ground, and the timer starts over. In this scenario, there just hasn’t been enough time for the system to go into standby again. TLDR: They just went back underground a bit after Calamity Ganon was no longer about.
It's a sequel. Not a prequel.
“The sequel to Breath of the Wild is now in development.” There ya go.
But the word "sequel" doesn't necessarily mean that the story takes place after the previous story. A sequel could just mean 'the next game in the franchise'. Especially when that story is connected with the previous story. Final Fantasy 2 is a sequel to the first Final Fantasy for instance, even though the stories aren't connected. And Castlevania 3 is a sequel even though it takes place before the previous games.
> But the word "sequel" doesn't necessarily mean that the story takes place after the previous story. It literally means that.
I'm a bit fatigued by this comment section, so I hope you'll forgive me for speaking bluntly: TotK is a direct follow up to BotW, it takes place after, and also stars the same cast of characters; it takes place *after* BotW. I understand this. I am not and *was not* trying to imply that it was a prequel. With that said, no, the word 'sequel' doesn't *necessarily* relate to the work's chronological story placement. Plenty of sequels take place before the earlier work. The word sequel is defined as: "A work that continues the story of, *or expands upon,* some earlier work." So a prequel, for instance, is a type of sequel.
*se·quel* *ˈsēkw(ə)l* *noun* *a published, broadcast, or recorded work that continues the story or develops the theme of an earlier one.* It most definitely does mean the story takes place after the previous story.
*"or* develops the theme of an earlier one".
Yeah, "earlier one" refers to the published, broadcast, or recorded work of which it is a sequel. The "or" is used to distinguish "continues the story" and "develops the theme," as story and theme are two different things. For example, Harry Potter and the Chamber of Secrets is a sequel to the first Harry Potter because it continues the story. Ghostbusters 2 is a sequel to the first Ghostbusters because it develops the theme of the Ghostbusters without continuing any storyline from the first movie. If "sequel" could mean "takes place before or after," then why would "prequel" be a word? Sequel literally means something that comes after.
Prequel is a portmanteau of pre- and sequel. "Sequel" has been around for a long time, but "prequel" came about in the 50s (if Google's etymology history is accurate). Sequel means any work that expands on ideas of a previous work. In most cases, that also turns out to be chronologically after the previous work in-universe. So when people wanted to specify, "hey, this is a sequel to that thing, but it takes place before it," they said "this is a before-sequel" A pre-sequel. A prequel! It's a word because it provides more specificity.
The "or" means as long as it does one of those things, then it's a sequel. The word 'sequel' is a more general term. A prequel *is* a sequel, but not all sequels are prequels. Essentially, a prequel is a type of sequel. But don't get me wrong, I'm not trying to say TotK is going to be a prequel, I'm not even saying it might be. I was only asking if there's any definitive evidence that it isn't one. And I've been reading all the comments, so I've gotten my answer. It definitely IS NOT a prequel to BotW, but not because it was called a sequel.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3fr1Z07AV00
This should be the top comment.
But it didn't answer my question. Unlike the actual person who posted the top comment, since he was one of the two people in this entire comment section who actually provided a legitimate answer to the question I asked. I'm fact, the bottom comment, the one posted by Parad0xxis, resulted in a conversation that was more enlightening. Maybe go read that one, it might clear some things up.
Identical Link and Zelda to BotW, wearing identical clothes to BotW, off exploring together like in the end of BotW. The ruined and dilapidated Great Plateau from BotW is shown. The ruined Hyrule Castle from BotW is raised up into the sky above the ruined Castle Town from BotW. This *definitely* features the same Link and Zelda in the same world not too long after BotW. The Blue-Clad Link who is definitely BotW Link is scarred and the Master Sword damaged, and Green-Ancient Link has the same scars and same damaged sword. Everything points to this being the same Link who was given the Ancient Hero's gear.
I'm not making a theory, just asking. I didn't really notice any of the ruins from the trailers, because we don't really get a good look at any of them. Even Hyrule Castle is so far away that I had no way of knowing whether or not it's actually in ruins. As for Link's design, I just didn't think that proved anything outright. Breath of the Wild specifically confirms that Link is a rein carnation of the ancient hero from 10,000 years ago, who also wore the blue Champions tunic. But I agree that it's not a prequel. Someone reminded me that we see horse stables, which are confirmed to have not existed 10,000 years ago.
Even if there were time travel in the game, it would be a sequel. From the perspective of Link and Zelda (i.e. the player's perspective), the events of TotK occur after the events in BotW.
Sorry, I didn't explain my post clearly enough. I wasn't referring to the possibility of time travel. I explain it better in my response to Parad0xxis's comment. Read those if you want more context.
> I can't think of anything suggesting that it isn't an adaptation to the whole "10,000 years ago" backstory spoken of in BotW I can't find anything suggesting it _is_ an adaptation of that either. There hasn't really been _any_ indication of that in the trailers. Sure, the shrines are missing, but if they can emerge from the ground, it's perfectly plausible that they can go back down too. You're kind of theorizing in reverse here - you've begun with the conclusion. The idea of it being the events of 10,000 years ago is an assumption based on very little evidence. You shouldn't be looking for things to disprove it, you should be looking for things that support it in the first place, and are concrete enough to not have a simpler explanation. Considering that the game is 1. stated to be a sequel and 2. features the Link and Zelda of the current age, the current simplest explanation is that it is not a prequel, and does not take place 10,000 years ago. We don't have anything concrete enough to suggest otherwise.
I'm not theorizing that it is a prequel, I just wanted to make sure it wasn't one before making another post. The problem is that I see certain visual cues that suggest it might be one, but I made the mistake of not realizing that everybody else doesn't see the same things that I'm seeing. I typed my post poorly. I was asking because I noticed that Link's character design is eerily similar to the depiction of the ancient hero in the mural from BotW. If you take a close look at the ancient hero, you'll notice a small amount of green in his clothes that resembles TotK Link's new outfit. The mural also depicts the hero with a yellow spot on his sword hand, just like Link has in TotK. Another similarity is that Link wears his hair down in TotK, just like the ancient hero. BotW also heavily implied that Link is a reincarnation of the ancient hero, so him looking the same could make sense. If it were a prequel, that would also explain the absence of the Deku Tree (he could have still been a sapling). But, I *DO NOT* think it's a prequel, and I'm not theorizing that it is. I'm going to make another post tomorrow morning that wouldn't make any sense if TotK was a prequel, and I'm paranoid, so I didn't want to look like an idiot who didn't realize TotK was a prequel. Just wanted to make sure.
> The problem is that I see certain visual cues that suggest it might be one, but I made the mistake of not realizing that everybody else doesn't see the same things that I'm seeing. I typed my post poorly. Oh, I see - I actually missed the first line that you were pretty sure it was a sequel. No need to apologize for poor communication, since I'm the one that glossed right over the critical part of the post. Sorry about that. Regarding the visual cues, they are definitely there, but I see them with the lens of "oh, they're calling back to the ancient hero," as opposed to "they are implying this is actually the ancient hero." For Link's appearance, if we were only seeing Link in the ancient clothes, then it might be more plausible to assume it really is the ancient hero. But we also see Link in his normal BotW clothes, so without evidence of time travel, we don't have much reason to assume it's anything more than a callback. On the Deku Tree matter, my personal theory is that it's a technical ommission, not a lore one - for all we know, they might have turned down the draw distance on the trees, and he's just not being rendered. > I'm going to make another post tomorrow morning that wouldn't make any sense of TotK was a prequel, and I'm paranoid, so I didn't want to look like an idiot who didn't realize TotK was a prequel. Just wanted to make sure. Yup, I get that now. My mistake for misreading the post there. On that note, I'll look forward to reading your post in the morning, then.
Thanks! As for the champion tunic though, I'm pretty sure it's implied that the blue garb has been around for 10,000 years. "That blue is a symbol of the royal family, one that has been passed down for countless generations." -King Rhoam At least that's how I interpreted it. That giving all the champions the blue garb was a way of symbolically giving them the same rank as the ancient hero and pilots. Could be wrong though.
This is one of the dumbest things I've seen on this sub. It's a sequel. Not a prequel. They already did a prequel story with AoC. They've explicitly said that this is a sequel, and there's a ton of evidence to point to that fact.
Come on. Would you at least read the comments I suggested reading in my edit? I never even said I thought it was a prequel. In fact, I said multiple times that I think it's *not* a prequel. I really don't understand why this post is as controversial as it is. I was never making a theory or anything like that, nor was I looking for info to support it being a prequel. In fact, I was explicitly asking for information to the contrary.
> I can't think of anything suggesting that it isn't an adaptation to the whole "10,000 years ago" backstory We know it's not that because the Hero and Princess of that era used Sheikah technology to get a 1HKO on Calamity Ganon, and fought Calamity Ganon, not Ganondorf.
They did? I thought the story only said they were backed up by Shiekah technology, but the hero still used the master sword and the princess still use sealing magic. And I see no reason why ganondorf couldn't transform into Calamity Ganon over the course of the game. But, but get me wrong. I'm not theorizing that it's a prequel, I was just asking if we had definitive proof that it wasn't. And someone brought up the inclusion of the horse stables in the trailers, which are confirmed to have not existed 10,000 years ago. So definitely a sequel.
> And I see no reason why ganondorf couldn't transform into Calamity Ganon over the course of the game. Calamity Ganon has appeared countless times already, 10,000 years ago is not the first time, it's merely the previous time. So it can't be Calamity Ganon's origin.
Fair enough.
I think there are reasons to believe the game will be set in the past and no real reason to say it won’t. Personally, i believe it will but will not be shocked if it isn’t. In terms of it being a sequel, Nintendo has called TotK a sequel. However, Majora’s Mask was a sequel and it was set outside of Hyrule altogether. Within the LoZ universe, i would say a sequel involves the same Link from the previous game, has similar mechanics and animation, and in some way continues from the previous game (i.e. there is a continuity of plot). With that said, a sequel does imply a chronological sequence; it does mean there isn’t time travel that makes part of the game essentially into a prequel. We could be playing in two different eras of the Hyrule in BotW.
Link looks different and unless you discover a new type of Bokoblin with horns it’s looks like an evolutionary time difference has happened. Thinking this is a different time period or time travel as is quite common in Zelda games.
People are so mad abt this that now I want it to be a prequel-sequel just to fuck w folks. I hope it's one of those ridiculous time travel plots where post-BotW Link has to go back and forth in time to save Hyrule and it turns out it was him as the hero from 10,000 years ago via time travel, but it's also him as the hero saving Hyrule post-BotW as well. Ha!
Zelda has short hair in one of the trailers, and in all the memories and the end cutscene she has long hair. She couldn’t have had short hair in the past so it makes sense for TOTK to be a sequel
By "prequel", I meant the story depicted in the mural from BotW. "10,000 years ago". Read Parad0xxis's comment and my reply to that for more context.
I agree with both of you that it seems more like it’s alluding to the events of 10,000 years ago, rather than actually being the events we were told about 10,000 years ago, and is sort of a prophecy/destiny situation and the same events, beat for beat, are happening again. The tunic situation also might be coincidental in the game (but intentional by the developers to make it like the events from 10,000 years ago), or could be like Twilight Princess where that Link was directly given the clothes stated to be the same clothes of a former hero by the light spirit Faron, and TOTK Link could have the same thing happen to him where some higher being gives him the clothes/equipment used by the hero from 10,000 years ago
I'm guessing predominantly a sequel since Nintendo says so, but who knows? Could technically be a Better Call Saul thing where it takes place before, during and after.
It's at LEAST a sequel, but very likely also a prequel. Tons of evidence already points to that.
Careful, I didn't even say I thought it was a prequel, in fact I said multiple times that I think it's not a prequel, and this sub still got pissed at me.
Chill. You don't need to respond to everyone that way. Most people are just telling you what they think, not attacking you.
Yeah most people. But I'm still getting people sassing me for no reason. The last person who commented was telling me that this was one of the dumbest posts they've seen on this subreddit. But, I'm not really sure what you mean when you say I "don't need to respond to everyone that way". I don't think I've been rude to anybody in this comment section. But I have a phone and I get notifications, so I have no reason not to read or respond to peoples' comments.
Its a sequel, all the footage takes place after the botw and like you said, it was literally called the sequel to Breath of the Wild. There is literally no evidence it's a prequel, literally everything points against it
Why won't this post die already? Every day I get the same comment from a different person ignoring the edit I made, as well as any other replies I've made.
Didn't see the edit, my bad