The Zelda Timeline is Misunderstood
Vložit
- čas přidán 27. 02. 2024
- I guess, the main point I'm trying to make is that the timeline was published to show us the legitimate, authentic order of these games, and that Nintendo didn't try to hide that order out of shame. Instead, they gave us exactly what we asked for: The "Official" Zelda Timeline.
I think saying "Nintendo doesn't care about the story, so therefore there is no timeline", is incorrect. It's more accurate to say "Nintendo doesn't care THAT MUCH about the story, which is why their story is shaped like a fork."
-----------------------------------
You should watch these videos if you haven't:
The Zelda Rant - ( • The Zelda Rant )
Tears of the Kingdom: A Disappointing Masterpiece - ( • Tears of the Kingdom: ... )
Tears of the Kingdom Lore Is Not Interesting - ( • Tears of the Kingdom L... )
-----------------------------------
#nintendo #zelda #tearsofthekingdom
That little detail about Link's shield in Wind Waker potentially tying The Hero of Winds to Hero of Minish earned a like and subscribe
I'm a lifelong Zelda fan and lore-junkie, and "Nintendo doesn't care THAT MUCH about the story, which is why their story is shaped like a fork" is an A+ line. Got a solid cackle outta me.
But yeah, the lore is messy, the timeline especially. But it adds up far more than it doesn't, overall.
And so many character and story beats are made stronger for the game's interconnectedness, like tracking Dorf's different arcs across timelines. For example; the humbled, contemplative man in WW who's tasted defeat at the height of his power, juxtaposed against the arrogant, vengeful conqueror in TP who was blindsided by "nobodies" before his schemes got off the ground. Both still villainous, both still Ganondorf, but each molded in different ways from the same person (OoT Dorf) by time and circumstance.
It makes for a fascinating character study to see how someone does and doesn't change depending on where their life takes them.
When people comment in theorizing threads/forums with "there isn't a timeline" or "it was made up with no effort because Nintendo doesn't care", they do so for one reason only: they want to shut down discussion. The comments are always visceral, bitter, and defensive. They get mad that people are even talking about the Zelda timeline, which is so stupid. If you aren't into theorizing, that's fine, but that doesn't mean you get to spoil the fun for everyone else who does enjoy it. It doesn't affect you.
I hate when people are like that.
Even worse, I can understand people not being into strictly theorization. Not everyone's down for needing fan-theory to connect dots. But that's just...not how an overwhelming majority of this series is??? It doesn't take an ounce of theory to explain OOT into wind waker into its 2 sequels. That's one entire timeline explicitly explained with no uncertainty. Zelda 1, is obviously followed up by Zelda 2. Why do people think A link to the past is called A link to the past? It was intended from the start to be a prequel.
People denying the timeline's existence entirely is some willful media illiteracy.
I have been obsessed with think about Zelda for the last week, and i find most videos on the subject extremely frustrating. They almost all start with some claim that the timeline is confusing, or too complicated or that no one likes it. I have understood and appreciated the timeline since i was 13 years old.
Seeing you delve into the fact that things have been consistent all along was immensely satisfting. The video was also INCREDIBLY well done and edited.
Thank you!!
this video may be the start of my Zelda hyperfixation
Welcome to the rabbit hole, you'll be stuck here for a while
Ah if only I could have marked the day as clearly
Been here for over 20 yrs. Cheers mate 🍻
ONE OF US
ONE OF US
Me too 😂
Bro how does this only have 37 views, this vid has great editing and is well written! Keep up the good work man!
You might want to refresh that
While I don't agree with the final part of the video on TotK, this is the best video on the Zelda timeline yet. I've been saying for a while how the timeline is so easy to understand once you do two things:
1. Consider timeline placement at time of a game's release and you'll see OoT being a prequel to ALttP is explained.
2. Consider the Capcom stuff hard to place, including Four Swords Adventure even if it wasn't developed by Capcom.
What is disappointing is that ToTK didn't provide a semblance of answer to small mysteries about the world of BotW. I would love when a revisiting a place in Totk i'd get a new piece of information about something that makes you say "oh that's why ToTk is the sequel". ToTk quests should have been a reward to BotW players 100% completionist. By reward i mean ToTk side quests should have been for most to give a piece of answer that certain quests in botw gave.
The actual main story for both botw and totk is whatever. But this is dissapointing to not exploit the full map to its rightful purpose.
There is no point to explore in ToTK.
@@user-wj2ov8kq1o Same... I did most of the stuff in BotW but when I started ToTK I quickly lost interest in all the side quests, and once I found out how disappointing the story and timeline situations were, I gave up entirely. There's really no point in playing ToTK at ALL IMO, since it just makes BotW world look stupid with things like kids not believing the Calamity was real despite it only having been 5-7 years since it ended, among others.
Thanks for putting this together, needing to argue with Zelda Timeline deniers has been rough for decades now, maybe this will be much easier for them to digest than the same thing in text form
Yeah to be honest it’s pretty pathetic that they couldn’t connect the dots putting it together while playing the F@$@@@ official Games themselves LOL 🤣
Why do you feel the need to argue with someone who doesn't agree with you?
@@kerstin1719 It's more so them coming to the sections of the fanbase that discuss lore to only quote "IT'S CALLED THE LEGEND OF ZELDA FOR A REASON DUH!!".
@@anubhavkumarc I get why that would make you upset. It seems kinda rude entering a lore discussion just to troll people.
@@kerstin1719 HK Vessel pfp :D
I made a twitter thread a while back that basically said the exact same thing but I deleted it when it came off as really convoluted, so I really appreciate someone taking the time to take that information and put it in a more viewer friendly format.
I'm guessing that by saying that "Nintendo should get rid of the Zelda timeline", I don't think they mean that Nintendo should say that all games in the series are no longer connected despite direct references to each other. Rather, I think their saying that from NOW ON, all Zelda games(that aren't direct sequels like TOTK) should be essentially reboots(soft or hard) and that new Zelda games should either ignore other Zelda stories or straight up consider them to not be Canon.
I strongly disagree with this notion, however. Without games building off of each other's story, Zelda plots would either start becoming derivative in order to still feel like their stories in the same series, or their stories would feel so different that they don't feel like ZELDA stories, only like High Fantasy stories that are told in a Zelda game.
I think people that state that are not aware that the timeline is embeded into the games, they think they just cannonized fan theories in Hyrule Historia.
@@luisoncpp prolly a little bit of both.
@@luisoncpp Right? As if the connection between OOT, WW, and MM/TP is some grand mystery. They have and are capable of crafting connective tissue between the games, that they've chosen not to in recent times is extremely upsetting.
I like that BOTW is a soft reboot of the series but I don't want that to be the setting for every new game going forward. It's nice that it and its sequel have breathing room for being so far separated from previous games, but I want to see the gaps get filled in for the old timeline too.
So, I recommend "The Zelda Timeline Explained in 15 minutes" by Zeltik, who proposes that BOTW-TOTK are so far off in the future from the rest of the timeline that it does not matter to which timeline you connect it. Most importantly for the people who think the "Founding of Hyrule" and the "Imprisoning war" to be lore contradictory, well there also he proposes a simple solution. Who said Hyrule only had 1 founding ? Hyrule has been wrecked and destroyed or declining in every single timeline. There’s even New Hyrule in Spirit Tracks so it’s not like the name would just be lost to time either. Kingdoms have been lost and recreated and lost again in our own history so it makes perfect sense for it to be the case here.
I believe that Rauru and Sophia's Hyrule is one founded long after the events of OoT. The Ganon they seal is simply a new incarnation of it that spawns hundred or thousands of years after the timelines.
I personally subscribe to the idea that Skyward Sword's ending created another timeline split. The details are a little messy, but it essentially allows for a reboot, as well as the opportunity for remakes if they were to go that route. Perhaps a version of Twilight Princess where Midna doesn't shatter the Mirror of Twilight?
Thank You!!!
honestly. botw/totk being in the downfall timeline makes the most sense. hyrule was decaying and the games are set in "old hyrule". with the land now wilted and only a little bit of civilization left. the zonai stubble upon this land and recreate hyrule.
there is so much effort in this video, it's almost unbelievable that I found it with only 23 views. Looking forward to future video's of this Channel, keep up the good work!
Edit: man i really need to change my tag, i comment so rarely that i forgot what it was xD
I like timelines. They make me appreciate the universe, the characters, the landmarks and the prophecies/plot points better
Bro, this is fucking NUTS and you got an instant subscribe from me. I always knew they had something in mind for a timeline, as certain games referenced others or included the same Gannandorf (OOT/WW/TP), but I didn't know they planned it out from the beginning like this.
Amazing video, it's criminal that this doesn't have more views. Hope to see more videos from you!
Fantastic video! We literally share the same thoughts. I have this cool theory that Skyward Sword caused the timeline split that lead to TotK and Botw but honestly seeing how Nintendo treated the lore of the past 2 games doesn't make me want to even talk about it. It feels like I am trying to headcanon stuff for myself knowing full well that Nintendo didn't even think about any of this for a second. They couldn't even keep the story consistent between Botw and it's direct sequel so it is super discouraging to talk about continuity nowadays.
By skyward Sword causing a split to Botw/Totk, do you mean that there'd be another split, right after SS, where it goes to botw and totk, and then the other one that then includes minish cap, Four Swords OOT, and then the 3 splits?
Bc that sounds cool, i actually like that theory!
(and while i havnt played botw or totk yet, i can certainly imagine that the game devs not caring all too much about the lore/timeline would certainly be discouraging (as the video states))
Great video. I'm currently working on a video rethinking the Zelda timeline, so this was fun to see.
Every Zelda fan who cares about the timeline should bookmark this video and use it as a answer to any naysayer.
And yes, there's the issue with Eiji Aonuma and Hidemaru Fujibayashi's attitude with the whole issue feels dishonest. But not only because they seem to have lost interest in connecting older games together, they seem to have lost interest with even the simplest form of continuity. "Tears of the Kingdom" not having any clear connections with games previous to "Breath of the Wild" is one thing. But "Tears of the Kingdom" barely functioning as a narrative sequel to "Breath of the Wild"? That's a much, MUCH bigger pill to swallow.
And that's the thing. I don't know if Aonuma and co. regret having a timeline or not. But the answer to that question is kind of irrelevant, because in either case, the problem seems to be that they don't really want to worry about continuity in it on itself anymore. So they have become lazy about it.
Now, I'm gonna make another speculation, but I feel that maybe Aonuma and Fujibayashi made one miscalculation: they saw that traditional Zelda fans had become a tiny minority of their player base with BotW (around 15% to be precise. Yes, it can be calculated). So they thought that they didn't have to cater to those older fans anymore. That they could focus on newer fans and the complains of older fans would be little more than a drop in the bucket of praise from newer fans.
However, they made one mistake: they assumed that newer fans wouldn't care about continuity... at all. That they would shrug off any contradictions between the stories of BotW and TotK, because they would be having too much creating Zonnai devices for them to even care.
Unfortunately, they were kind of wrong, because even newer Zelda fans have called them out.
And they didn't assume the size of the old zelda fanbanse could grow so people could care even more about continuity after playing the old games
Playing OOT through Majora and TP (and WW by relation) there are very clear connections even if the developer didn't say a word. It's more than the names of areas, and each game focuses on the Triforce way more than nuZelda. Each game tells an aspect of the Hero of Time's story, either directly or covering the fallout from his actions. You'll never be able to tell a gripping story if your character doesn't even get to take part in it and sees it all in memory cutscenes.
As someone who's been playing Zelda since the first game came out? Even Miyamoto said he doesn't care about continuity. Gameplay first, story a far distant second.
TotK was a great sequel, it's not anyone's fault but your own you didn't speak with NPCs in BotW then in TotK to see how they continued on in the sequel. Case and point, there's a couple in Hateno in BotW where the wife wants to move back to her home town of Lurelin. In TotK, after you rebuild Lurelin, you see that same couple in Lurelin and they talk about how they finally decided to make that move. You also see a tracker in Hateno in BotW who's at the inn and he thinks the innkeeper is cute but he's an adventure so he doesn't know if he wants to settle down. In TotK? He did settle down and they got married...There's so many examples of this in TotK but please, tell me how Divine Beasts being gone is the only thing most people focus on without realizing...Y'all complained about them, very loudly and now you wonder why they're gone? If the Divine Beasts weren't the issues in TotK and it was how same-y they were, y'all should've made that more clear.
And before you say, "no one remembers Link" that's just not true, not everyone had interactions with the hero or even knew he was the hero in BotW...Do you think every person in the world knows who like, I don't know, Kurt Cobain is? Yes, he's wildly famous, but not everyone knows about him...Link is no different. Your entire comment is just zoomers dribble and nothing more. Most long time fans of the series (the ones who grew up with the 2d games) care mostly about gameplay. It wasn't until the 3d entries came out and the games had to get more linear due to technical limitations that it had a stronger focus on story and most of those stories outside of MM are very same-y, boring and might as well be OoT but with a gimmick 🤷♀️
@@chooongusbug724 Dude, you aren't fooling anyone.
First you are contradicting yourself. First you put an example of continuity being preserved and put as an example of TotK being a good sequel and say it's our fault for not seeing that, and in literally the next paragraph you shrug off complains about places where continuity is not preserved as a non-issue? Make up your mind.
And people not remembering Link complains aren't about every single NPC in the game, but rather characters who should know who Link is, given it's very likely players interacted with them quite often in BotW (unless you are going to say the canon story of BotW is from a freaking speedrun), like Hestu, Bolson or the Great Fairies. The continuity in TotK towards BotW is VERY inconsistent at best and nonsensical at worst.
And sure, it's cute you say the stories from "The Wind Waker", "Twlight Princess" and "Skyward Sowrd" are "the same story as OoT with a gimmick", as if we still were in the early 2000s and people didn't see that as the goldfish pattern recognition based argument it actually was.
@@XanderVJ I didn't say SS, WW, and TP are the same stories. They have the same structure as OoT you dolt. Collect 3 mythical items, pick up Master Sword, go do a few more dungeons, fight Ganondorf...how isn't that samey?
And yes, it is your fault for not noticing the continuity between BotW and TotK. You didn't speak with NPCs in BotW and now you're wondering why the games don't have continuity between them? They do, but the old good new bad crowd didn't give BotW a fair chance so TotK had no shot from people who only did the main quests of both and didn't go off the beaten path. But question, do you remember how Link introduces himself to NPCs in BotW? I don't think you do.
Now, the Zelda timeline isn't misunderstood...it just sucks, but I'm not surprised that someone with an anime pfp is regurgitating CZcamsr takes without forming their own opinion
Edit: Bolson does remember Link you dolt lol. My dude really didn't play the game and just regurgitated things he heard on CZcams lol
This was a great video to stumble on. Just looked down at my phone assuming this was a much larger channel after listening through. Got a subscriber, great content!
A lot of people seem to have a problem with the existence of a "fallen hero" timeline for one reason or another, but I don't really understand why?
The way I always thought of it was that the already existing timeline split 'broke' time in a way that made it ripe for breaking again. Like how cracked glass begets more cracks. I'm not even the only person that has thought of this. I've seen someone use this concept to create another split and tie Hyrule into a very well made Skyrim mod called Relics of Hyrule.
Besides, who is to say other fallen hero timelines don't exist? Why would their existence be a problem? Do you not like the idea that our hero can lose? I do. A hero predestined to win is no hero at all, for courage can only appear in the possibility of failure.
My headcannon is that the Fallen Hero timeline is the result of Link travelling back to the past for the Well and Spirit Temple, and thus, returning to a slightly different timeline and the original timeline not having a hero
@@ripscort1896 This is actually the same way I always thought Nintendo should've resolved the third timeline issue ha ha. It's cool to see someone else had the same thought. It would've been cooler and more clever if they had made the 3rd timeline split be a result of Link going back in time during the Shadow/Spirit temple quests hahah. Creating a third timeline where there is no hero and the Sages have to band together themselves lol. It would've been in line with the way Time Travel works in Zelda too.
"I've seen someone use this concept to create another split and _tie Hyrule into a very well made Skyrim mod called Relics of Hyrule."_ I am fucking stunned. Yeah, remember that time Ganondorf smoked a bowl with Dagoth Ur?
OoT provides a very clear and logical reason for at least two timelines to exist, that being the child and adult timeline. The actions of Zelda and Link directly caused the timeline to diverge when Zelda sends Link back in time to _before_ he pulled the Master Sword and he changes his actions afterwards due to his knowledge of the future.
But where does a timeline where the hero loses come from? In order for there to be a timeline where the hero loses and also at least one timeline where the hero wins, there had to have been a split somewhere before that. Something, or someone, must have created that divergent timeline, otherwise the hero losing would be the only timeline. What made that split?
We have never seen that initial split happening, therefore the validity of the fallen hero timeline becomes debatable. That doesn't mean it's true or false, just debatable.
@@DaShikuXI The Defeated split comes from that Ganondorf got the full Tri-force, which can be glean from Alttp, Hyrule Historia and the pipe organ scene in Oot which confirms that Zelda has the Tri-force of wisdom, Ganondorf has the Tri-force of power and Link has the Tri-force of courage and should Link be defeated in the fight that happen then, Ganondorf would get the full Tri-force.
Will definitely be telling everyone about this channel! You deserve more this video is amazing
I think people talk like this because they are actually only fans of BOTW/TOTK and they don't want to/haven't played any of the other games
People who've followed the entire series from the beginning are not confused and think the timeline was made up and invented suddenly and they don't complain about why there "needs to be one" or say "it should be done away with"
People hear all the talk about the connections to other games and they're like "I don't want to have to play a bunch of old games"-it doesn't sound optional to them. So they resent it.
Fantastic job! Keep up the great work! I'm not a die hard fan of zelda by any means. But I've been there with it since the beginning. It seems to me history, and thus, timelines are woven into the fabric of the games. Almost integral to the stories. I couldn't imagine a zelda title without history.
This video is so good and of high quality, I really hope you blow up
Just terrific stuff. I’m usually just as interested in the behind the scenes of lore-making as I am to the lore itself. I initially clicked thinking “please let this not be another timeline video,” and boy did you over deliver. I never minded having to place TOTK at the end of Zelda, but I didn’t know they implied that it might be a DIFFERENT HYRULE?! That’s not just disrespectful to us fans, but also people who worked on the previous games.
Amazing video man, keep it up!
Loved this video bro, I was surprised when I saw how small your channel was, this was top tier. Keep it up💯
That connection between the Hero of Winds and the Hero of Minish blew my mind.
been a zelda nerd for more than half of my life and found this well researched, great vid man!!
Regardless of the explanation of the 3rd branch, I think the timeline splitting in 3 makes sense for a series with 3 as a major arc number. But I also like that there is no definitive placement for BotW/TotK and that they put references to all of the timelines so you can pick which one fit how you view the series. For me, I really like the idea that it somehow is in all 3 timelines. It's an inevitable future.
They could always go back and make prequels explaining ToTK.
One solution to the fallen hero timeline I’ve always enjoyed is that that timeline canonically happens first-Link loses in the final fight of OoT for whatever reason, Zelda from Zelda II is awakened and for whatever reason dials time back to OoT to give Link another chance, he wins, then the timeline splits.
Then we get the clusterf*** that is Breath of the Wild and Tears of the Kingdom, which I theorize has a convoluted timeline/reality because the timelines are trying to reunite but having trouble doing so since the events of TotK further tamper with time
You've explained the situation very well. I think what has happened among Zelda fans is that there was so much of people forcing their ideas about why the timeline was important, that others started to push back with an equally inaccurate explanation for why it doesn't matter ("Nintendo made it up to appease fans"). When in actuality neither extreme is true, and there's elements of both: Nintendo _has_ always considered the timeline, they just don't _prioritize_ it. And it's up to you whether you want to care about it.
I'll also add, in this video you used the old Fandom Zelda wiki, which is outdated and no longer maintained (and also just a bad site). Not only do I recommend the independent Zelda Wiki, where most editors have moved, but I recently did a major overhaul of that specific article on timeline quotes to be less speculative, cite its sources properly, and add the significant amount of info that has come since. I hope for it to be of use for discussions like this.
so this wiki is just zelda wiki right?
@@darkdagger5237 Yes. Here's the situation: Zelda Wiki used to be independent, but on a site called Gamepedia. Fandom, a "wiki farm" that cares more about riddling its pages with ads for money than actually having useful resources, bought Gamepedia and ZW was forced to move. Because the admins didn’t agree with Fandom's ad bloat and restrictions, they moved to a new independent site, which is allowed due to how most wikis work. Most editors moved with, but Fandom keeps the old site up against the community's wishes because they stand to gain revenue, and it still shows up first because of how much they pay for SEO. So I don’t blame people for clicking on the first result, but as a wiki editor I like to encourage use of the independent wiki.
I’ve been playing Zeldas since 1988, a few months after the release of Zelda II. I remember the straight up shouting matches between kids arguing whether or not Ocarina’s story was actually the Imprisoning War from LttP, or if the devs just didn’t care about story and just did whatever they wanted (been remembering that a lot more lately with how people “talk” about TotK-so much that I quit clicking on anything TotK related).
All this has happened before, and all this will happen again.
that explains why i cant find anything about people knowing around release that ocarina of time did not fit with a link to the past because they were out of that faze by the time the internet was made
Oh my god you used the Shadow Tower death sound. I love you.
I hope ToTK is a lore hiccup they'll polish over later. Its astounding that they seem to value consistency so little that even details from BoTW were glossed over.
My personal theory is that in Tears of the Kingdom when Zelda goes to the past, she alters Link's present, which is why the Sheikah shrines disappear, Zonai technology appears, and many people seem to not know Link.
Amazing video, great way to explain how every game fits together, even for someone like me that never really dug deep into reasearch nor has the Encyclopedia.
I always found it fun to draw a clear line from Skyward Sword to Spirit Tracks just from memory and playing the games, but otherwise didn't really care that much if a game perfectly connected to each other or not when it comes to the series as a whole.
If I was gonna give my take as to how the new games fit in the timeline, I would say it's either an alternate Hyrule that encompasses every other game, as if a retelling of the story; Or they rejoin the splits, but take place ages later, and all they have left is nothing but rebuilt ruins and forgotten legends. On some of the interviews and showcases, the directors said that BoTW originally was designed to have a fictional urban setting, where Link would ride a bike, have an electric guitar and fight UFOs. I'm gonna be honest, I think EDF Link would be easier to explain, but at least there's a precedent that these games take place much later than the others.
LOVVEDD THIS VID!! Super interesting keep making more
I always liked the idea that Warriors brought the 3 timelines together, and BotW and TotK followed after.
Still one of the more underrated theories imo. My favorite “oh shit” moment when I first heard it was how the Champion blue color was inspired by Link’s blue scarf from that game.
I don't have time to watch this before bed, but I'm saving it for the morning and sharing it where I can. Offerings for the algorithm.
I'll edit in thoughts afterwards.
Warning: Should you edit the comment it'll loose the ❤️ given by the channel owner as the algorithm will assume it no longer says what made the channel owner give it a heart in the first place. Should you care about it keeping the heart (for wathever reason) you may instead write a brand new comment entirely.
I shared it in my discord hopefully more people will come see it
Hey, thanks!
Can you link the source for the 64 dream magazine quote about the Oracle games? That has been something people have been searching for for a long time.
great video and amazing job at breaking down the continuities so well. As someone who isnt extremely focused on the timeline aspect, it great to hear everyone’s perspective
The algorithm is about to do you well my friend. Good job
Woah, are you a witch? The views are suddenly kicking up, how did you know?
@@LUVIIKUU haha it was recommended to me and if I’m anything like my demographic everyone else was about to click, and it was a gooooood video dude. I’m not surprised a lot of people clicked
True
Great video!! Subbed :)
My theory is that the pre-BotW timeline is a legitimate timeline, for THAT story. But in BotW and TotK, it’s considered a myth. Or at least a loose retelling of what happened, as those events were passed on from generation to generation. Which is why TotK references many past events and characters, but changes the facts. I’m not saying I like that idea, but it makes sense.
The problem, is, then which one does it follow? It doesn’t make sense that it follows all of them.
Holy shit this video is incredible. Good luck on youtube man I hope Bandit sees this
my only "issue" (for lack of a better term) with how the timeline was handled after BotW is that Nintendo had a VERY satisfying answer right in front of them and for some reason chose to ignore it. The plot of Hyrule Warriors and Hyrule Legends quite literally revolves around the three timelines collapsing into one. It would fit *perfectly* right before BotW and Age of Calamity and explain most if not all of the contradictions in BotW and TotK with only some minor retcons.
The ending of Hyrule warriors puts everything back where it was prior to the game, so everything was unmerge at the end.
The only reason you'd need to merge multiple different stories that don't match each other is because they were all made up without thinking about how they might fit together.
Fantastic video. I was a forum using no-split theorist until TP came out and forced me to accept a split timeline. It was so cool how many options there seemed to be back then for placing the games this way or that. I have continued to resist further multiplication of realities in the franchise, and with HH’s “downfall” timeline and BotW’s “10,000 years” scale, it really seemed like they’re moving toward the “reinterpreted legend” model, sadly.
You’ve done an awesome job of covering all sides here and I look forward to following you in the future.
By the way, if you need help with Japanese translation I’d be happy to contribute. I used to translate professionally, though not in the tech industry.
Also Four Swords Adventures had a section of the game about the Gerudo and Ganondorf so it had to have taken place somewhere where Ganondorf was important in the previous game and Ganondorf being defeated at the end of Twilight Princess explains why he comes back as the monster form of Ganon instead.
You pointing out that the shield being a family heirloom of the Hero of Minish same as the Windwaker timeline also makes a lot of sense since it's a different timeline the shield also exist in that version of Hyrule.
In FSA backstory Ganondorf became Ganon because he stole the trident from the pyramid.
@@Ahourono the existence of the dark world means that ganon has the triforce
Great video my dude! I hope Nintendo changes their stance on the timeline in a future game. Not something that fixes everything but at the very least ties up loose ends.
The only explanation I can think of for BotW and TotK being the way they are is that the timelines converge so their histories, races, etc are all blurred together. This could have been decided on because they wanted to give the series a soft reboot. (That was the whole pitch for the game.)
My problem is that Aonuma really never really cared about story in the games. You can tell this from a lot of the interviews. He understands the story and lore is a part of the series, but at best, just passively oversees it, and at worst is actively trying to move away from it with each game. BotW could have been the excuse to not focus on story. I'm hoping that Nintendo is noticing the lack of interest among the fans. and go back to the stlye of story telling the older games had. No need to throw away the gold with the rubble.
I love that you recorded using a 3DS camera, makes this video feel vintage.
I recorded it with a Canon DSLR, so I was just as shocked as you are that it looks awful.
Still a great video regardless, was just memeing.
@@omegamerk Thanks!
Finally someone I can relate my thoughts on the timeline to. Great video!
Quick little note about the down fall timline I think that the hero defeated is the original canon event and that something to where someone went back in time to create the hero sucessfule events especially if you look at the photo the line for down fall timeline comes before the successful ones I'll probably have to exoand on it though
i love this!! it simly explains the existence of the timeline and debunks things i hate hearing like that it doesnt need to exist or when people say each game is a re-telling of the same story over and over. like so many of those viewpoints directly contradict the blatant connections.
I could be mistaken, but since Hyrule Historia came out and before Breath of the Wild/Tears of the Kingdom existed as their own thing Nintendo went back and revised the timeline by not only adding in A Link Between Worlds and Tri Force Heroes, but they also flipped the order of the Oracle games with Link's Awakening. Link' Awakening is now before the Oracle games.
You're correct, they updated it a few years later in "hyrule Encyclopedia" (which is the timeline currently on the official zelda website). A lot of people ignore the update, which I think is fair even though I personally don't ignore it.
A lot of people consider hyrule historia "more canon" than hyrule Encyclopedia due to more of the Zelda team being credited as involved in historia (iirc, i cant be bothered to verify right now), so that's part of why people don't always pay attention to the update. To me, I doubt a timelime update wouldn't be approved by Aonuma regardless, so I do consider Encyclopedia's update valid. But maybe I'm wrong.
Another part of the reason people often prefer historias timeline is because the Oracle games heavily reference links awakening visually, especially the linked ending basically being the same scene as links awakenings opening. People who argue against historias placement note that Zelda and Link act like they don't know eachother in the Oracle games, which would be a continuity issue if they're supposed to be the same people from ALttP. People in favor of historias timeline usually say that Zelda acting like she and Link don't know eachother is moreso for the players and not meant to matter in the story, but I don't personally buy that at this point.
Hyrule Encyclopedia didn't give an official explicit reason for moving the Oracle games (well they gave a vague explanation in the book, but not specifically about what was wrong with the old placement, just more generally that the timeline is subject to change for various reasons), but the change removes the continuity issue by making the Oracle games feature a different Link and Zelda, so I generally assume that was the main reason.
The magazine article mentioned in the video is definitely solid evidence for the hyrule historia timeline. Buuuuut, if you want to be a stickler (like me), there was like a solid year between that article and the final game being released, and future promotional material doesn't seem to mention any connection. My personal wild speculation is just that that aspect of the story changed late in development, which is why there are so many references despite the text contridicting the connection. I figure the timeline being updated as it has strengthens that theory.
But I definitely get the other side of it too, and it is a lot less satisfying this way. It's basically up to preference since it doesn't really matter in the grand scheme of things.
This definitely isn't me disagreeing with the main point of the video though. This is still a minor set of games, which weren't even developed primarily at Nintendo. Just another very small hiccup, like four Swords Adventures.
(Edited the comment to add stuff here and there)
"If you create a necessity to understand the lore in a long running franchise..." you get Kingdom Hearts.
Have been wanting a video like this for the longest time
Great video! I’ve recently come to the conclusion that the Wild Era games (against all of Nintendo’s weird posturing) take place in the Child Timeline. It would place all of the 3D era, non “Toon Link” stories in one timeline. And there is plenty of story and mission content to support it, assuming that all the little Easter eggs they’ve plugged into the games to muddle things are just that. Red herrings, basically.
This video needs more views asap. Phenomenal job
Great video. Subscribed for more!
This is what makes their recent continuity downfall so unbelievably pathetic. It is baffling that a team that used to care so much about connecting their games can suddenly just stop caring over the course of two games. Also...
GET THIS MAN SOME VIEWS
it makes me so frustrated, because zelda drew me in with its lore, i can't really justify getting any of these two games (BOTW/TOTK), i won't deny that they're amazing as stand-alone games, but that's it, there isn't a real, tangible connection, because the devs didn't seem to care about continuity anymore :( it always felt awkward when zelda lore channels tried piecing together an "unified timeline" for BOTW, but honestly that's as good as it gets, if you reject the idea of these new games being a reboot (which i would say they are)
@fabi4183 Well, I'd say that botw is a phenomenal standalone game, but totk is kind of an insult to fans. Either way, it's sad to see the guy who directed one of the most heavily continuity-bound games just stop caring.
@@wunder4402 like, i'm not even mad that they just gave up on continuity bc i understand how limiting it is given the whole scope of opportunities they have after developing that many games, but it would feel less insulting if they just outright stated that botw is a reboot, and instead just go "well we made it vague so you guys can figure it out" when it's not even vague, it's contradictory. can't be placed in any part of the timeline without being in direct conflict with any given aspect of a previous/later game (for example, can't be placed before TWW because then the Rito's evolution doesn't make sense, given that they are very explicitly becoming more bird-like as time goes on thanks to Valoo's scales, but it doesn't make much sense either to place it in a timeline where there isn't evidence of the Rito living in Hyrule)
@@wunder4402 Totk isn't even just an insult to general Zelda fans either, it's also an insult to specifically Botw fans as well.
@@WretchedRedoran Absolutely.
Thank you for making this video. I wanted to do something like this for years, explaining how deep the timeline actually is in the story of the franchise, but didn't had the time or editing skills (maybe one day, I think I can add some things to it as well).
The final bit about TOTK and BOTW summarizes my frustration with the new games. It's kinda sad that 'dense' people had make a bad impressiong on the lore aspect of the series (sorry if you can't understand a timeline man, is not my fault...), so much so that the devs started to care less about this stuff...
As someone who loves lore and worldbuilding, I honestly had a fascination with the Zelda timeline ever since I found out about it, and after I recently found out how the continuity was being built from the first few games I've only grown to appreciate it even more.
Besides from how to handle Four Swords Adventures and the Downfall Timeline (I personally think it works better if Minish Cap leads to its own timeline split [since it actually has a bad ending _in_ it] that then leads to the Four Swords games and in turn to A Link to the Past [and thus have FSA Ganon be the same Ganon as in the other games, just in a different timeline branch where he didn't enter the Temple of Time]), I also agree with you on the whole timeline situation; there's no reason to discard it, it's another part of making the series into the richly-crafted marvel that it is and that regardless of the solution to the TotK conundrum, it's just a big disappointment that intentionally complicates things for no reason.
four swords adventures was made to connect four swords to the rest of the timeline and then we got minish cap a prequel to four swords with an ending that does not work with four swords but it also had a bad ending one that better fit with four swords as far as i can tell four swords adventures was made to be a prequel to a link to the past something that ocarina of time failed to do
Now if only someone would place the CD-I Zelda games into the timeline.
They are just the nightmares OoT Link had
I mean we know he had dreams with Zelda in them haha
@@Yeyo-gg2dbor his dream while he was asleep with the master sword in which Ganondorf fking explodes
i made a video years ago about one of the bone structures in BotW, being in one of the CD-I games lol
Tied to the originals. When they said "Ganon reincarnated without his intelligence for the NES era", they meant he came back as the goofy Saturday Morning cartoon villain we see in the CDI games and the animated show.
Post Zelda 2.
I appreciate this video so much, i always hate when people say that the timeline is made up and stuff, thank you so much
It's kind of sad that a subset of fans are being phased out even if not intentionally. Sure I don't mind the direction they are going in. Though I'm more gameplay and character-focused (personality-wise) when it comes to Zelda. However, satisfying a fan like me should come at the cost of alienating fans who love lore and theorizing about it.
I think that Fujibayashi is probably the most important person to be looking at in terms of the series' current stance on lore and timelines. He started with the Capcom games before directing Skyward Sword, BotW, and TotK, and in all of these he seems utterly unconcerned with continuity, instead focusing on taking elements from previous games and reinterpreting or retelling them. It seems very much a focus on the "legend" aspect: these are stories that have been passed down for generations, and in the process some of them have gotten retold or details confused or conflated.
If you look at his works, he has a lot of similar elements (origin stories, ancient technologies, cities in the sky, the light force) he keeps coming back to, but in very different ways. I feel like his stance is that what you're seeing is an interpretation of what could have happened rather than literal historical events. That gives players flexibility for interpretation. It's not for everybody, but it's something I personally love.
I literally watched all 3 videos that you provided clips from just before this video. Eerie.
The history behind decisions made will always be interesting, even if some are not popular. It’s made me want to go back and play the older titles and theorize myself, even if it amounts to nothing. thank you for this topic.
Awesome Video Bro!!
its also quite upsetting how Totk directly recferences scenes and events from past games but then turns around and says, but this is not the same one as before. like the scene of ganondorf knelling to the king of hyrule. It couldve been so cool for that to be the same scene we saw in Oot. or the imprisoning war being a major part of the story, but not that imprisoning war, like if youre going to seperate the story completly then do that, tell a better story
Some theories think that BotW and TotK rake place in a Shadow Timeline split where Demise won... So the flash back events of TotK is that Timelines Ocarina of Time rebuild and imprisoning war which os why the sage themes reference and mirror OoT.
My biggest issue with the Zelda Timeline is actually the retcon they made for the placement of the Oracle games and Link’s Awakening. Nintendo wanted to so desperately follow their original vision of LA being a direct sequel to A Link To The Past in Hyrule Encyclopedia, when the linked ending of the Oracle games blatantly contradicts this. This also made me not take the Downfall Timeline seriously at all.
This video is incredible. A lot of these things are things that I've tried explaining to people about the series, so it's really nice to see someone else put all of that information into a video that can be easily watched and understood by people.
It is worth noting that Wind Waker was Aonuma's first game he was the sole director of (he was co-director on Majora's Mask alongside Koizumi), so the contradiction with the Fallen Timeline MAY be reflecting his initial desire to retcon the first few games, that he later went back on. I don't have any evidence confirming this, but it's a possible reason for the confusing third timeline.
Thank you, man! I used to believe that the timeline was some sort of retcon, but your video made me appreciate it more
I love this video! It's so well made and provides an in-depth breakdown of the timeline without the unnecessary part of diving into the lore. I didn't even consider that as a possibility. I also, appreciate that you provided a sort of pseudo ending at ~18:50 to distinguish between the fact and opinion!
I was caught off-guard by the TOTK cutscenes though. I wish you had disclosed they'd be there or used alternate footage.
@@sebastianbass946 Thanks! Also, sorry about the spoilers. I hadn't even considered that. I just now put a spoiler warning in the title.
@@LUVIIKUU I know it's really late after release. I just got distracted while playing it even though it was very fun. The spoilers weren't anything major. (just the one clip and some text, but I just made sure not to read it)
I couldn't finish TotK because the repetitive, predictable, weak story made me feel my efforts were pointless. That's why lore matters. It makes our time matter.
Excellent video, and I agree that nearly every game ended up in their originally intended places. As a whole, the timeline isn't confusing, it's just a few select problem spots that give that impression. Aside from the blatant "deliberately give ToTK bad writing just to screw over the lore enjoyers" thing, Four Sword Adventures' placement is another result of the exact same issue. Not only does FSA *clearly* feature the same Link and Zelda as in Four Swords (meaning the two games' placements should not be separated under *any* circumstance), but according to Aonuma, Miyamoto came in late in development and made them scrap a bunch of the story that they had already built the game around.
Thanks to datamines in recent years, we now know that said story elements pertained to ALttP, such as being able to find but not use the Master Sword, which combined with all the clues that remained intact (like several major Knights of Hyrule getting killed off, meeting the creator of the Medallions, Frozen Hyrule thawing out and creating a large wetland South of the castle, ect.) was basically foreshadowing that ALttP was the next game chronologically, with the Imprisoning War likely happening not long after FSA. In short, about 95% of FSA was almost definitely created under the intention of being a prequel to ALttP, and this original vision would have remained intact if Miyamoto hadn't "Upended the tea table" at the last minute because of his disdain for stories with more than zero complications.
If we factor this in, and place FSA between Four Swords and ALttP, with seemingly no other games happening between them, you might think that's a problem because of OoT supposedly being the Imprisoning War itself, yet clashing with FSA, but the truth of the matter is that although the idea of OoT being the Imprisoning War was their initial idea, they went on to change tons of details and make a brand new story, which shared *some* elements with the description of the Imprisoning War, but also deviated *vastly* in other ways, to the point that from before OoT even released, it was impossible for the two to be one and the same.
So how can this be rectified in a way that keeps as much dev intention intact as possible without in-game information contradicting each other? How can Four Swords be the "oldest" game as of its release, while leading directly into FSA, which in turn was originally intended to be a prequel to ALttP and presumably the Imprisoning War before it, despite clashing with OoT which was originally planned to be the Imprisoning War itself but eventually deviated in too many major ways? And no, simply accepting FSA's placement on the official timeline as correct doesn't work, because as stated in *multiple* previous games, if Ganon is killed, his evil soul lingers in the underworld indefinitely unless resurrected via some form of ritual, meaning that *it's not possible* for him to just reincarnate as a new Ganon later.
The one answer that makes sense is that FSA is instead a *different* origin story for the *same* Ganondorf, born in the *same* year that he was prior to OoT, but in a *different* timeline. Basically, the only proper solution for everything to fit when taking both in-game info and developer intentions into account is if the Downfall timeline doesn't branch off from OoT, but instead *before* Four Swords. If one branch leads to Four Swords and the other leads to OoT, everything fits together cleanly. Even the whole "Zelda 2 towns being named after OoT sages" thing doesn't actually hold up because Mido gets a town instead of Impa, and of course there's the "Unseen" sage Kasuto, but naturally, this isn't a problem if OoT is *not* the Imprisoning War to begin with and the Zelda 2 towns are named after the sages from the *actual* Imprisoning War, which are still technically what the devs wanted those towns to be named after, even if the connection to OoT is severed.
At this point, one questions remains... is there a logical place for the Downfall Timeline to branch off from before Four Swords? And lo and behold, there is, courtesy of of our old foe Vaati. Namely, the fact that Minish Cap serves as his origin story, and yet the game's ending results in him completely destroyed, whereas Four Swords instead requires him to be sealed away but alive. Lucky for us, MC actually has a bad ending where Zelda dies and Vaati becomes stronger, but this outcome leaves Link still alive, with the potential to at least seal him away if killing him isn't an option.
Lastly, while this "bad ending" in MC is technically an extended Game Over, it's still FAR less arbitrary than the Hero of Time just randomly running out of hearts and dropping dead to Ganon during OoT's finale, despite that being the branching point many people suggest since he'd need to save every Sage first for the "OoT is the Imprisoning War" idea to work, even though Twinrova are still alive in the Oracle games, meaning that those games *also* can't fall in a timeline where they were already killed sooner. Twinrova can seemingly extend their age indefinitely, but if they could come back from the dead then they'd show up far more often.
Sorry if this went on a bit of a tangent there btw. I guess I'm just a bit frustrated that everything could have worked out so cleanly if the timeline was allowed to fall into place naturally instead of getting skewed by the meddling of the higher-ups for such dumb reasons.
The biggest conflict with them being the same Link and Zelda is the maidens that appear in only FSA.
If Ganondorf/Ganon isn´t revived for a long time he reincarnate, we have two instance where he has reincarnated, FSA and Totk.
There is two sages from Oot who don´t have a town not one, Impa and Zelda.
MC isn´t a logical place to split the timeline because of Zelda, FS Zelda is a direct descendant of MC Zelda and Alttp Zelda is also a direct descendant of MC Zelda.
Twinrova isn´t a good argument because we have other Zelda characters with multiple appearances.
@@Ahouro
"The biggest conflict with them being the same Link and Zelda is the maidens that appear in only FSA."
I don't see how the maidens disprove anything. Vaati broke out once already, so Zelda brought in the maidens after Four Swords to strengthen the seal, and for all intents and purposes it was working until they got third-party'd by Shadow Link. Also, Four Swords and FSA use the *exact* same design for Zelda (with the large red ribbon in her hair), which is different from how she looks in *every* other "Toon"-styled game.
"If Ganondorf/Ganon isn´t revived for a long time he reincarnate, we have two instance where he has reincarnated, FSA and Totk."
Except the whole point I'm trying to make is that that assumption is based on false information. The entire premise of Ganondorf reincarnating was only made as an explanation for FSA being placed after TP, which is *not* where it was meant to go in the first place. This also means the TotK Ganondorf shouldn't be a reincarnation either. The dude was sitting mummified but alive under Hyrule Castle from the age of the Zonai all the way until TotK, and no other Ganondorf was born during that time. Between this and all the other problems with TotK, the best explanation is that these games take place in their own, 4th timeline that branched off sometime around Skyward Sword. Which again, would mean that TotK Ganondorf is the same guy as FSA and OoT Ganondorf, all being born the same amount of time after Demise was slain, but in different timelines.
"There is two sages from Oot who don´t have a town not one, Impa and Zelda."
Which further proves my point. If the towns are named after the Sages from the Imprisoning War, then this is just further evidence that OoT is NOT the Imprisoning War because Impa and Zelda were *definitely* Sages in OoT while Mido was not and "Kasuto" just didn't appear at all.
"MC isn´t a logical place to split the timeline because of Zelda, FS Zelda is a direct descendant of MC Zelda and Alttp Zelda is also a direct descendant of MC Zelda."
It's literally the only place a split *could* happen, otherwise Vaati would be dead before Four Swords. Also, where is it stated that the FS and ALttP Zeldas in particular are direct descendants of MC Zelda?
"Twinrova isn´t a good argument because we have other Zelda characters with multiple appearances."
True, but Twinrova is unique in that they're explicitly shown to be able to extend their lives, meaning that it's entire possible they're the same people, whereas for most other reoccurring characters it's obviously impossible. Naturally Twinrova being in the Oracles is by no means a lynchpin, but it's a good supplement to the already-existing *mountain* of evidence pointing towards the "Downfall branches off from MC" theory.
@@Luigifan305 FS Zelda have a blue sash while FSA have a red, which proves they don't have the same design and are more likely not the same person.
FSA takes place after the defeat of a previous Ganondorf because Ganon is called the ancient demon reborn and FSA Hyrule is relative safe so the only place it can fit is after TP.
Botw/Totk don´t take place in a fourth timeline split this has been debunked by both the Zora monuments in Botw which confirms it takes place after Oot and Aonuma also confirmed it takes place after Oot on the timeline, source Game informer March 2017 page 48, even if it was a fourth split it wouldn't be same Ganondorf and FSA, Oot and Totk past don´t happen at the same time in different timelines.
Kasuto can be a pseudonym for Impa since she is from the secretive Sheikah clan but Zelda wouldn´t have a town name after her because she also royalty.
Every Zelda is a direct descendant from SS Zelda, what do you think would happen if you remove MC Zelda who was the only child of king Daltus and the split can only feasible happen in Oot because of the backstory of Alttp, it is because of the Tri-force.
It isn´t possible for them to be the same persons because Link killed them in Oot which is before the Oracle games.
MC split theory have more holes than Swiss cheese.
@@Ahouro
Bruh, look at the artwork, it's a blue sash with red accents, and both sprites are part blue, part red. The fact that they're at slightly different resolutions is all it takes for the color ratio to shift a bit, which you'd know if you ever used a mosaic blur effect on literally anything. Are you really so desperate to ignore all the *identical* details that you'll resort to this black/blue dress vs. white/gold dress nonsense?
Gee, I wonder if there's another ancient demon they could be referring to him being reborn from? *coughDemisecough*
The issue with the history of the Zora in both BotW *and* TotK is that they don't exactly line up with OoT either, especially since the "Ruto" that Vah Ruta was named after is 99% likely to *actually* be the Sage from the Zonai era, aka the one that eventually passed on her Secret Stone to Sidon. Between that, and the fact that the Gerudo never had another male leader after TotK Ganondorf got mummified under the castle (a castle that gets completely destroyed in OoT yet doesn't release mummydorf btw), the fact of the matter is that it is fundamentally impossible for OoT to happen between the Zonai era and BotW. Also, "after OoT" could just as easily mean "set in a later year", like how Wind Waker is technically still "after" Majora's Mask, even if not connected linearly. Likewise, so long as Four Swords is set in an earlier year than OoT, it doesn't have to be in the same timeline to be considered "the oldest tale" as of its release.
Ah yes, "This new name is totally just an alias for an existing character who had no problem letting people know she was a Sage, to the point where she had her own stained glass portrait alongside the rest.". That argument holds enough water that you could swap it out for an Empty Bottle and still have room for half a serving of Granny's Soup.
Gee, without MC Zelda, the connection between Hylia and the Hylians would become so weak that the Hylian race as a whole would begin to dwindle, with their long ears becoming more rare with each generation. Y'know, *something that's stated to have been happening in the Downfall Timeline?* If anything, there's no more logical of a catalyst for the Hylian bloodline to start declining than for the descendant of the goddess herself to get taken out. (Also, if a direct descendant is *absolutely necessary*, there's no hard rule saying that Daltus couldn't try for another child. You'd be shocked at how old a person can be and still have kids.)
Again, that only holds true if you take the objectively flawed timeline of the Historia as gospel instead of acknowledging the fact that FSA's placement on it was simply incorrect from the start (likely due to more tampering from Miyamoto or some other higher-up) and we should be using its original, *intended* placement as a direct sequel to Four Swords and a prequel to ALttP as our baseline instead if we want to determine the truth.
@@Luigifan305 If you look up the Zelda sprite from FS then you see that her sash main color is blue while FSA Zelda´s sash main color is red.
At the time of FSA Demise didn´t exist and pair it with it´s official place on the timeline confirms that FSA Ganondorf is reincarnation.
There is 0% chance that Vah Ruta is named after the water sage from Totk past and the Zonai age happens after Oot not before, king Rauru´s Hyrule is a refounding not the first founding of Hyrule.
The stained glass is in a chamber that only selected few had access to, it wasn´t open to the public like the town.
A MC split will not be canon until Nintendo says it is.
FSA place in the timeline isn´t flawed, it can only be after Ganondorf/Ganon has been killed as he was called the ancient demon reborn and at the time of release only Ganondorf/Ganon existed no Demise existed at that time and Hyrule in FSA was relative safe that makes after TP the only logical place.
I would say that not knowing the lore or "timeline" actively makes games like OOT through TP slightly less interesting. Rather, the connections between those games makes a playthrough of them more interesting due to all the implications or recurring characters, or even the locations, or music.
The Oracles games placement was shuffled after Historia, stated to be a different link from ATTLP in the Encyclopedia.
Awesome work man! I'm new to zelda games-played botw shortly before the release of totk-so I appreciate the insight on the timeline before it.
There's a sentiment thats been popping up recently. "The zelda games have always been gameplay first before story" Thoughts?
That's, true. The Zelda team always figures out the gameplay mechanics before writing the story. They're game designers, so ultimately, the gameplay is the most important thing to them. But I believe many people erroneously interpret that as meaning that stories are total afterthoughts that the devs don't care about.
But they do write the stories along side the games, and have typically had an understanding of where they take place in accordance to other games. Which we can often clearly see within the final product.
Sometimes though, the devs do create games and decide where they go later, such as in the case of Tri Force Heroes. That was also what they originally planned to do with BotW, before deciding to leave it up to fan theories.
I love the objective drive of this video. The subject of the timeline has always been very heated and polarized. It’s refreshing to see a video that highlights the merit and flaws in the topic in such equal measure. All around, great stuff.
I was going to eventually make this exact video to start a Zelda CZcams channel lol. I agree with, and have thought about every single thing you’ve said here. I even found myself finishing your sentences in this video. Great work. Someone needed to say this
doesn’t the downfall timeline exist because by the time they finished creating ocarina of time it didn’t match the backstory of alttp anymore
Thank you for this amazing video. The timeline was made following as many previous statements they had made as possible. I would prefer them to use exclusively in game information instead but its their choice.
the only stuff that changes if you use in-game exclusivly are:
ALttP and OoT don't connect because of contradiction
the oracle games are connected with OoT (somehow?) (same Twinrova and Hyrule castle)
FSA is a direct sequel to FS with the same link, and is also the prequel to ALttP
ALBW goes with Oot (which dosent make sense) becasue the backstory and sages are clearly based on that game
and going down that route would have even more hurdles to get things to work out.
no a link between worlds is triforce of the gods 2 it talks about a link to the past which is triforce of the gods and also talks about oracle which does not come after ocarina of time
Thank you for giving a prpper out-universe story and repass of all of this, it was much needed.
Oh my god thank you so much for this video. It's very intelligently put together, and it's unfortunately a little bit of a rare thing on this particular topic. What a breath of fresh air!
This deserves way more views. Great job.
Good stuff man this was great
OoT kinda fucked it up first because of how they changed the LttP backstory. Ganon was successful in acquiring the entire triforce before LttP, which isn't what happened at the end of OoT. He only had the triforce of power. I'm sure you could rationalise it somehow, but it doesn't fit cleanly at all.
I completely agree with this video. I'd like to add the fact of how the compact separation of the old games vs the post-Ocarina games was likely because of the fact that all games before Majora were made by Miyamoto while Aonuma worked all the rest (not counting the Capcom games). Similarly, Fujibayashi is the director of the series since Skyward Sword.
Also I feel the Capcom games (Oracles and the Four Sword related games) shouldn't be part of the timeline, they always felt out of place and considering they have partial ownerships of the titles. I wouldn't mind if they were not treated canon. Not only that but you can tell those games didn't involve Nintendo as much since the stories don't exactly fit or had limited input from Aonuma.
they filled important gaps in the story like the resurrection of ganon and connecting the original timeline with ocarina of time
@@darkdagger5237 Not really, they're just filler.
@@Mudkip971so you're saying wind waker is just filler because it fills the important gap in story of what happens after link left the timeline or skyward sword because it filled the important gap in story of the origin of the master sword if that's not what you're saying then why bother labeling the capcom game as filler
@@darkdagger5237 No I'm saying that the Capcom games are filler.
@@Mudkip971so you're saying that you believe that just because they were made by capcom that they are meaningless and have no value to the story that's just shallow minded
3:30 Did you just use the Final Fantasy 7 boss death sound?
As someone who both enjoys the games as they are, but also cares about the timeline... The official timeline is a bit tricky. I don't even mind retcons or perspectives changing over time which then change the canon to fit a new vision. That's common in basically everything.
The original Star Trek series wasn't made in mind with Star Trek 5 or Star Trek Discovery to be made years down the line and establish two different siblings for Spock that never come up once in the entirety of the original or animated series. And the animated series has a whole episode dedicated to Spock accidentally traveling through time and being the mysterious man who saved his child self. An episode shere we see Spock as a child, and no other family members except for his parents. But when both characters are introduced, the reasons why they were never mentioned are explained fairly well. And I can also go back and watch the original series and read his relationship with those characters into his character even if he never brings them up to anyone. So far, he's only mentioned his sister to Captain Pike, who was the only other person who knew her. And even that is in a new series set before the original series. Which still works really well. And his brother might show up at some point in Strange New Worlds.
But Star Trek is maybe one of the few examples I can think of where the lore is kept pretty consistent despite new visions for the franchise. There might be a few instances of contractions, such as Khan's origins being moved later and later in time (now set in the 21st century) throughout the different shows, but for the most part, it all works.
The Legend of Zelda works from a surface level. There are references to other games and events, and there characters in multiple games, and different versions of characters in different games, and recurring locations and sometimes even whole maps. But beyond the surface level stuff, it's not the most self-explanatory. It's not Star Trek. I just wish that as the creators for The Legend of Zelda were growing and as the vision for the series grew and changed that the games were still kept more consistent. I wish Legend of Zelda was more like Star Trek. And since Master Koga returned after falling down that giant hole as a recurring villain in the Depths, and was launched up into space after the final fight, then I might get that wish. Because the sequel to Tears of the Kingdom HAS to go to space, right? And we're going to visit various planets from Nintendo franchises collecting rare artifacts from each of them, and using various items and abilities from them, as well.
Just kidding. This entire comment wasn't a setup for me wanting to play as Link in a spaceship. It would be cool, but no. The official timeline doesn't make the most sense to me. And there are a lot of rules and quotes not established in the games themselves that are taken as fact that I feel shouldn't be. Either from interviews, game manuals, or anything else. I mean, it can be taken into consideration, but it future information contradicts it, we shouldn't try to use apologetics to make it work, we should just treat the in game information as the priority, and anything else as secondary information, with the reliability of it decreasing the further back in time it goes. That's how I treat everything. Or... Most everything. I still consider Fede Alvarez' statements about his 2013 Evil Dead film as more canon than Lee Cronin's statements about the entire franchise, and specifically about Fede's film. But I don't want to get into that. Evil Dead's continuity is like, 50 other bags of worms that I'd rather not deal with unless I myself made an Evil Dead thing.
I like to put totk at the end of the adult timeline. Perhaps the zonai where responsible for wind waker's tower of the gods.
Perhaps when the waters receded that land would be called hyrule, but not a kingdom, letting Rauru found it. This would also mean there's another kindom of New Hyrule, which I could imagine be shortened to Newrule.
Perhaps the Zonai are variants of the Twilight, the mirror would not have been broken in the adult timeline. The only other possible ancestor might be the ooccoo, but that's not a pleasant idea.
Holy shit you defined so perfectly why I'm upset about the timeline. They intentionally put contradictory stuff so we cant figure out the timeline
They actually don't. They just make the games then figure out where the story fits best in the timeline after the fact. They might have a vague notion about where they want it, but usually not too specific until after it's done.
Plus the contradictions usually become good material for a new game to focus on - how it's not actually a contradiction, but a bad assumption on the audience's part.
@@OtakuUnitedStudio except the difference in botw and totk is that they put in things to show that all timelines it could be connected which is obviously impossible
@@espeonix1245Broad strokes, that makes it easier to handwave any inconsistency.
@@OtakuUnitedStudio Why dose it even need to give off the idea of it being a contradiction in the first place? Why not just make it make sense now. I get putting mysteries in your story, but TOTK takes it a bit too far.
It's so frustrating how loud the people who like to claim "it was all invented in 2011" are. It feels like it's a take that's echoed any and every time the timeline comes up at all. It makes trying to have an actual discussion on the matter far more difficult than it really should be.
The timeline makes sense if you look at the games (and their surrounding media) in release order. Minor details might not line up 100% perfectly, but that's really just a byproduct of the fact that this is a long running franchise written as it goes by multiple writers with different visions and ideas. It feels like Zelda is the only fandom that seems incapable of understanding this half the time.
I suppose this is all to say, I agree with you. Gonna rec this video any time someone gives that take now.
I feel the need to point out that not even Final Fantasy has all games taking place in different fictional universes. Many FF games are directly tied to others.
My only real issue is the dialogue in the Oracle Games that imply that Link and Zelda have never met