The lights are on
Trying to make sense of the Legend of Zelda series' continuity is an exercise in futility, though some people still try. There are occasional references between the games, but Nintendo has shied away from making too many definitive bridges between titles. Would you believe that Nintendo itself claims to have a timeline in mind? And that the upcoming Skyward Sword takes place before the events of Ocarina of Time? Really?
Go Nintendo has posted an excerpt of an interview from Official Nintendo Magazine, in which series veteran Eiji Aonuma says that there's more of a method behind the apparent madness than we might believe.
“Yes, there is a master timeline but it's [a] confidential document! The only people to have access to that document are myself, Mr. Miyamoto, and the director of the title," he reportedly says. "We can't share it with anyone else! I have already talked to Mr. Miyamoto about this, so I am comfortable in releasing this information – this title [Skyward Sword] takes place before Ocarina of Time. If I said that a certain title was ‘the first Zelda game,’ then that means that we can't ever make a title that takes place before that! So for us to add titles to the series, we have to have a way of putting the titles before or after each other.”
Is this level of secrecy even necessary? Surely, Nintendo could just outright say that such and such was the first game in the series, and players would be sophisticated to know that means "so far." Nintendo fans are a forgiving lot. Just spill it already!
Email the author Jeff Cork, or follow on Twitter, Google+, Facebook, and Game Informer.
This is ridiculous. I take each Zelda game as a microcasm, I feel Nintendo doesn't have a timeline and what Eijii said is bs.
Not that it takes away from my love of the franchise, but to say that there is a "master timeline" is an insult to well thought out storylines that transverse titles such as Gears of War, Halo, and Resident Evil.
To me, Zelda is like Final Fantasy, each entry is of the same brand and realm, has some similarities, but the stories are original and independant of each other.
Knew it was, sadly I knew.
There's no timeline. OoT's hero was a kid. Are you really telling me that there are identical green-hooded fairy midgets running around slaying evil princess-kidnapping bastards every generation?
If they've really decided to try to explain this one then it's going to be more confusing as the titling of Final Fantasy or the timeline of Castlevania.
I love how they have to reiterate that "yes, there is a timeline" every couple of years and people are always surprised.
Does it matter really? I like the abstract nature of the Zelda "timeline". It makes every installment feel simultaneously new and familiar, like each one could be taking place in an alternate Zelda universe. Save the whole prequel/sequel rut for games like Halo (just an example...I own Halos 1-3...don't get touchy).
You Know the true problem of the Zelda timeline is that there is not an time distance between each game. We know that Sprit Tracks happen 100 years after Phatom Hourglass and that it, but with the other games we don't know how much time between Ganon's Death and His Revivel,It could be 1 year or 1000 years. The point is without an length of time between each game the zelda timeline is ultra mess up. I know that Link is know as the hero of time, so that means that Link, Zelda, and Ganon can live though different lifetimes due to there bond of the Triforce......Yikes!
well, it certainly adds interest
Could Skyloft possibly be the dungeon in the sky in Twilight Princess?
Eh. Zelda could have a single timeline if Nintendo wasn't so *** stupid about it. I don't care what anyone says: Twilight Princess was a terrible game that was COMPLETELY unnecessary and didn't NOTHING but contradict the ending of Ocarina of Time and mess up Wind Waker. I mean, the freaking just look what Nintendo did to the Six Sages! >_>
Sorry for the rant there, but that game really pissed me off, and its followers haven't been much better. To be on topic, Nintendo really just needs to get over itself. As the article says, its fanbase -- those remaining at least -- will forgive anything they dish out. Just cut the crap and actually make things that work instead of relying on cheap gimmicks -- in both plot and gameplay mechanics.
I'm not interested in the timeline of the series. Given how each Link is different, as well as each Zelda and Ganon, I don't stress on trying to figure out a coherent timeline.
For the sake of argument, Link was a child at the beginning of Ocarina of Time. Unless he is somehow returned to childhood with a blank memory at the end of Skyward Sword, there's no conceivable way for Skyward Sword to have occurred first.... or after... whatever.
It's nice to know where it is in the timeline but I've never really had a big issue with not knowing where games are in relation to others in the series.
Now there's an interesting twist. Miyamoto always finds away to add new Zelda games to the zelda story line.
Just when I thought that the Star Wars cannon was the epitome of FUBARocity...
I don't even focus much on when each one takes place. I just play them for the general story and fill in the gaps with something of my own. Haha, it doesn't always work though.
I would love to see that timeline
i am so smrt