Part of the problem there was that they never established that OoT was giving us 1985 A and 1985 B.
The Nintendo Thread of Jumping, Slashing, and Home Decorating
- Thread starter ZakuConvoy
- Start date
I will say that Zelda absolutely does not give a solid definition of how time travel works. Ever. Forget defining how it should work for the series. Each of the several games that has time travel doesn't even maintain consistency in how it works within that game. OoT's ending splitting the timeline is apparently a unique event that's completely independent of the pre-ordained sequence of events implied through stuff like the windmill song. SS having Zelda already sealed away at the start of the game and Impa being the old woman that remembers them in the past is completely inconsistent with going back to plant a seed so it can become a tree in the present. Time travel just works however they want it to work at the moment for the story.
Yeah, that's even worse.
But just having three different timelines and never even thinking to mention that's how that works in this case...
I mean, yeah, I thought OoT was all one timeline from start to finish, and you were just hopping back and forth there.
But just having three different timelines and never even thinking to mention that's how that works in this case...
I mean, yeah, I thought OoT was all one timeline from start to finish, and you were just hopping back and forth there.
Because the "three timelines" thing was just because the fans couldn't just... accept that most games existed on their own. That Zelda 2 was direct to Zelda 1. LA could happen anywhere. Alttp was the "first" invasion. That OoT was the same thing as Alttp. Obviously WW was a direct sequel to OoT/MM they made it perfectly clear. But Oracle games could fit anywhere with any link, or even ones we don't "know". TP was again... Alttp, not that it was Gannon's first time in Hyrule, but it was the first time he turned into Beast King Ganon.
But that goes against things like Breath of the wild, that have both Ruto and Zora when the Zora where supposed to evolve into Ruto, and again.. first time he became the beast.
This gives a decent explanation on why the timeline at best is fallible, at worst, just tossed out to keep fans quiet.
Daily Debate: Does the Zelda Timeline Have Value if Developers Treat it as an Afterthought? - Zelda Dungeon
If you were to ask any five Zelda fans what they think about the series’ timeline, you shouldn’t be surprised if you get five completely different answers. To say that the the timeline is a hotly debated subject would be an understatement. Almost as long as The Legend of Zelda has existed, its...
www.zeldadungeon.net
The timeline is terrible and my conscience is clear on this. I never asked for one. Some of the games connect. Some don't. There was never anything wrong with that.
I don't disagree with the article. I would offer this as a counterpoint:
I guess I'd say where I really disagree is this:
This just feels like a big stretch to me. Yes, Nintendo prioritizes gameplay over lore. Absolutely. But there are a lot of clear connections through them. It always feels like everyone wants to jump in on either insisting that the timeline is sacrosanct, or the timeline is something made up to appease fans who bugged them about it. It's why I really don't engage with the Zelda fandom despite it being my favorite video game series. The truth has always been in the middle. The timeline has always been there, but it isn't Nintendo's main focus and they're happy to fudge it around the edges.
Set aside the branching business for a moment and ignore the oddball games (the Capcom games, FSA, and TH). You can formulate three distinct timelines that are each pretty clear:
1) SS -> OoT -> ALttP/LA -> ALBW -> EoW -> TLoZ/TAoL
This is the classic timeline of the first five games, plus a few later entries. Aside from the Miyamoto interview referenced in the article that may or may not have been a translation error, I really don't think there's much controversy here. TLoZ/TAoL are obvious. ALttP was always supposed to be a prequel and was marketed as such, but was explicit within the game that this was not Ganon's origin. LA is pretty standalone, but was always assumed to be following ALttP. OoT was intended to be the backstory referenced in ALttP, but only did so in broad strokes. Again, Nintendo fudges it. SS is obviously the first. If there's any wiggle room, it's that ALBW and EoW are both clearly set as following ALttP, but don't clearly define themselves relative to the other or the first two games.
2) SS -> OoT -> TWW/PH -> ST
I don't think there even really can be any controversy here. They're all pretty explicitly set in this sequence.
3) SS -> OoT/MM -> TP
It's the smallest line, but I think the one that causes the most issues. Like I said before, TP really didn't explain itself at all. Officially, these games go in this order, and they fit without issue. But Ganondorf's past as shown in TP doesn't match up with what we saw in OoT. In hindsight, that's because this is the alternate timeline that followed after OoT Link went back in time and changed the past, but that wasn't at all clear at the time. And even for those who assumed these fit like this, it raised a lot of questions about how the classic games fit in either of these other two.
Like I already said, the 3D games started with a prequel to the 2D games, but it messed up some of the details and the other 3D games went off and did their own thing without much regard toward the 2D games. So yes, I think trying to fit the 2D games into a single timeline with the 3D games is an afterthought.
The place things get kinda ugly is trying to force in the games I excluded, primarily either developed by Capcom or derived from their games. OoS/OoA are their own thing and can just be crammed in wherever, as Hyrule Historia and the Zelda Encyclopedia show by moving them around. FS, FSA, and TMC form a neat little trilogy of games, but if it weren't for throwing Ganon into FSA, they would be completely independent of the other games. TH is just another multiplayer game, and really is standalone. So yeah, shoving these games into a master timeline is a bit forced. I don't think there was any master plan behind them, and they could easily be shuffled around again in the future.
That just leaves BotW/TotK. I already said that they're a soft reboot. There's a reason Nintendo shows them following the main timeline, but not connected to it. They're intended to be so far separated from the other games that the details of what happened in which timeline just don't matter. That's what makes it even sillier to try to insist that Rauru and Sonia founded the Hyrule seen in the classic games. You don't separate these games from the old ones by intertwining their origins. They're intended to be a clean break from getting dragged down in the lore details as mentioned in developer interviews without just throwing them away.
Anyway, sorry for the novella. Again, no one has to like or be satisfied with the timeline. But pretending it doesn't exist or was just all made up after the fact to shut up fans is just kinda ridiculous. Based on your last post, I don't think that's what you intended to argue, but it kinda reads that way. Might just be my issues with the Zelda fandom triggering me...
I guess I'd say where I really disagree is this:
This just feels like a big stretch to me. Yes, Nintendo prioritizes gameplay over lore. Absolutely. But there are a lot of clear connections through them. It always feels like everyone wants to jump in on either insisting that the timeline is sacrosanct, or the timeline is something made up to appease fans who bugged them about it. It's why I really don't engage with the Zelda fandom despite it being my favorite video game series. The truth has always been in the middle. The timeline has always been there, but it isn't Nintendo's main focus and they're happy to fudge it around the edges.
Set aside the branching business for a moment and ignore the oddball games (the Capcom games, FSA, and TH). You can formulate three distinct timelines that are each pretty clear:
1) SS -> OoT -> ALttP/LA -> ALBW -> EoW -> TLoZ/TAoL
This is the classic timeline of the first five games, plus a few later entries. Aside from the Miyamoto interview referenced in the article that may or may not have been a translation error, I really don't think there's much controversy here. TLoZ/TAoL are obvious. ALttP was always supposed to be a prequel and was marketed as such, but was explicit within the game that this was not Ganon's origin. LA is pretty standalone, but was always assumed to be following ALttP. OoT was intended to be the backstory referenced in ALttP, but only did so in broad strokes. Again, Nintendo fudges it. SS is obviously the first. If there's any wiggle room, it's that ALBW and EoW are both clearly set as following ALttP, but don't clearly define themselves relative to the other or the first two games.
2) SS -> OoT -> TWW/PH -> ST
I don't think there even really can be any controversy here. They're all pretty explicitly set in this sequence.
3) SS -> OoT/MM -> TP
It's the smallest line, but I think the one that causes the most issues. Like I said before, TP really didn't explain itself at all. Officially, these games go in this order, and they fit without issue. But Ganondorf's past as shown in TP doesn't match up with what we saw in OoT. In hindsight, that's because this is the alternate timeline that followed after OoT Link went back in time and changed the past, but that wasn't at all clear at the time. And even for those who assumed these fit like this, it raised a lot of questions about how the classic games fit in either of these other two.
Like I already said, the 3D games started with a prequel to the 2D games, but it messed up some of the details and the other 3D games went off and did their own thing without much regard toward the 2D games. So yes, I think trying to fit the 2D games into a single timeline with the 3D games is an afterthought.
The place things get kinda ugly is trying to force in the games I excluded, primarily either developed by Capcom or derived from their games. OoS/OoA are their own thing and can just be crammed in wherever, as Hyrule Historia and the Zelda Encyclopedia show by moving them around. FS, FSA, and TMC form a neat little trilogy of games, but if it weren't for throwing Ganon into FSA, they would be completely independent of the other games. TH is just another multiplayer game, and really is standalone. So yeah, shoving these games into a master timeline is a bit forced. I don't think there was any master plan behind them, and they could easily be shuffled around again in the future.
That just leaves BotW/TotK. I already said that they're a soft reboot. There's a reason Nintendo shows them following the main timeline, but not connected to it. They're intended to be so far separated from the other games that the details of what happened in which timeline just don't matter. That's what makes it even sillier to try to insist that Rauru and Sonia founded the Hyrule seen in the classic games. You don't separate these games from the old ones by intertwining their origins. They're intended to be a clean break from getting dragged down in the lore details as mentioned in developer interviews without just throwing them away.
Anyway, sorry for the novella. Again, no one has to like or be satisfied with the timeline. But pretending it doesn't exist or was just all made up after the fact to shut up fans is just kinda ridiculous. Based on your last post, I don't think that's what you intended to argue, but it kinda reads that way. Might just be my issues with the Zelda fandom triggering me...
Given the more family friendly nature of the Nintendo platform (Zelda fans notwithstanding…)
Atari has quietly announced a big Toy Story retro collection coming this October. The Collection will include:
Toy Story (SNES, Gen/MD, Game Boy)
Toy Story 2 (PlayStation 1 and Game Boy Color versions)
Toy Story Racer (PS1 and GBC)
Buzz Lightyear of Star Command (PS1 and GBC)
A Bug’s Life (PS1 and GBC)
Also included will be design documents and interviews, inducting with Traveler’s Tales staff and Jim Hanks, Tom Hanks’ cheaper brother (Legit, when Tom isn’t available or too expensive, his brother Jim steps in as a vocal stand in)
In addition, Toy Story 3 is getting a remaster. TS3’s game was notable for its “Toy Box” mode, which was foundation upon which Disney Infinity would be designed from.
The physical copy will include both in a double pack, while you can order either Toy Story 3 OR the Retro Collection separately on digital.
atari.com
Atari has quietly announced a big Toy Story retro collection coming this October. The Collection will include:
Toy Story (SNES, Gen/MD, Game Boy)
Toy Story 2 (PlayStation 1 and Game Boy Color versions)
Toy Story Racer (PS1 and GBC)
Buzz Lightyear of Star Command (PS1 and GBC)
A Bug’s Life (PS1 and GBC)
Also included will be design documents and interviews, inducting with Traveler’s Tales staff and Jim Hanks, Tom Hanks’ cheaper brother (Legit, when Tom isn’t available or too expensive, his brother Jim steps in as a vocal stand in)
In addition, Toy Story 3 is getting a remaster. TS3’s game was notable for its “Toy Box” mode, which was foundation upon which Disney Infinity would be designed from.
The physical copy will include both in a double pack, while you can order either Toy Story 3 OR the Retro Collection separately on digital.
Toy Story: Retro Roundup! & Toy Story 3 Complete Edition
Toy Story: Retro Roundup! and Toy Story 3: Complete Edition are out now on PS5, PS4, Xbox, Nintendo Switch, and Steam. Buy the standalone games or the physical Double Pack from Atari.
atari.com
I love the style of Orbitals.
I was interested in orbitals till I learned it was a two player game.
They were able to use the power of the Switch 2 to make it bluer!
