Topic: Legend of Zelda - The official Zelda thread

[Solar]

Hehe, I do think it'd make more sense if it came before, but he said it, not me

NP: Where do all the Zelda games fall into place when arranged chronologically by their stories?

Miyamoto: Ocarina of Time is the first story, then the original Legend of Zelda, then Zelda II: The Adventure of Link, and finally A Link to the Past. It's not very clear where Link's Awakening fits in--it could be anytime after Ocarina of Time.

[Mirby]

Now THAT'S the Word of God right there.

[Bueno Excelente]

Since even he's not sure where it fits, and from what they say, they keep the timeline reserved in their secret Nintendo clubhouse, I'm gonna call an ass-pull on these. =P Maybe Miyamoto had the vision of a Zelda game before all the others in OOT (although he said this new Skyward Sword game was before OOT), but he certainly didn't campaign it. We were never told about the timeline directly, never told how we should look at them, except one thing that fits in EVERY. SINGLE. INTERVIEW. That they always develop every single Zelda game as a whole new world and experience, worrying more about gameplay, and just keeping the main elements of the game alive.

Miyamoto isn't Grant Morrison. He doesn't set up huge stories through years so we can follow small details of them through convulted timelines that may or may not relate to each other. The dude makes games. For gaming. And in each game, he makes a whole new experience. I've yet to see a game from him which was actually a "sequel" to anything story-wise, instead of a whole new thing.

[Solar]

And I don't think anyone is even trying to argue with that last paragraph.

[Bueno Excelente]

And I don't think anyone is even trying to argue with that last paragraph.

But people loooove arguing amongst themselves about the tiny details that makes the games OBVIOUSLY stand in this or that timeline. I say screw it. =P Nintendo never cared about anything timelines (okay, Metroid has a pretty established one) and they're not about to start. So let's just enjoy individual Zeldas for what they are.

[Solar]

But people loooove arguing amongst themselves about the tiny details that makes the games OBVIOUSLY stand in this or that timeline. I say screw it. =P

Again, as I said, if you don't care keep not caring, just let the people that do have their fun.

[Zan]

Miyamoto isn't Grant Morrison. He doesn't set up huge stories through years so we can follow small details of them through convulted timelines that may or may not relate to each other. The dude makes games. For gaming. And in each game, he makes a whole new experience. I've yet to see a game from him which was actually a "sequel" to anything story-wise, instead of a whole new thing.

Miyamoto is the "all gameplay" type, whereas Aonuma is the one aware of continuity. Evident in their interviews with Miyamoto confused about the time travel endings of Ocarina, and Aonuma having to explain it. Miyamoto just isn't the only person on team, and where he doesn't care, there are others who do.

MC->FS->FSA->the rest

This is actually one of the more disputed statements. During FSA's development, Aonuma spoke as of "thinking" of Four Sword as the oldest tale, and in another interview there's noted original intend of this being a  "new Hyrule". However, several months later Aonuma admitted FSA's story changed all the way till the end. Which leaves it entirely unclear, other than FSA's ties as some sort of prequel to a Link to the Past.

---------------

Aonuma: The GBA Four Swords Zelda is what we’re thinking as the oldest tale in the Zelda timeline. With this one on the GameCube [(FSA)] being a sequel to that, and taking place sometime after that.

Aonuma: In an example with Four Swords Adventures, I was the producer.. I didn’t actually put the story for that game together... Mr. Miyamoto then came in and upended the tea table... we changed the story around quite a bit... storyline shouldn’t be something complicated that confuses the player... and the storyline changed all the way up until the very end

---------

    Nintendo Power: "This title is the third game in the Four Sword series. Did you plan it as a trilogy from the beginning?"

    HF (Capcom): "We did not think to develop a trilogy from the beginning. When we developed the first Four Swords game for GBA, we created a new Hyrule legend that said that a long time ago, evil Vaati brought crisis to Hyrule and people sealed that evil. We had some thought that we wanted to carry over that story into future titles some way."

SS->OoT

Correct me if I'm wrong, but all Nintendo said was "the Skyward Sword becomes the Master Sword." Which actually implicates two possible settings. Not just SS->OoT, but also ST->SS. The post Wind Waker setting requires a return of the Master Sword, after all.

The OoT->Zelda 1 and 2->LttP comes right from Miyamoto's mouth actually.

The weird thing with Miyamoto's timeline statement is that the game manuals and boxes implicate the exact reverse. However, it works considerably better once you add in the sound and drama somewhere in the equation.

http://zeldapower.com/index.php/features/articles/sound_and_drama_-_the_script.php

[Bueno Excelente]

Miyamoto is the "all gameplay" type, whereas Aonuma is the one aware of continuity. Evident in their interviews with Miyamoto confused about the time travel endings of Ocarina, and Aonuma having to explain it. Miyamoto just isn't the only person on team, and where he doesn't care, there are others who do.

This is actually one of the more disputed statements. During FSA's development, Aonuma spoke as of "thinking" of Four Sword as the oldest tale, and in another interview there's noted original intend of this being a  "new Hyrule". However, several months later Aonuma admitted FSA's story changed all the way till the end. Which leaves it entirely unclear, other than FSA's ties as some sort of prequel to a Link to the Past.

---------------

Aonuma: The GBA Four Swords Zelda is what we’re thinking as the oldest tale in the Zelda timeline. With this one on the GameCube [(FSA)] being a sequel to that, and taking place sometime after that.

Aonuma: In an example with Four Swords Adventures, I was the producer.. I didn’t actually put the story for that game together... Mr. Miyamoto then came in and upended the tea table... we changed the story around quite a bit... storyline shouldn’t be something complicated that confuses the player... and the storyline changed all the way up until the very end

---------

    Nintendo Power: "This title is the third game in the Four Sword series. Did you plan it as a trilogy from the beginning?"

    HF (Capcom): "We did not think to develop a trilogy from the beginning. When we developed the first Four Swords game for GBA, we created a new Hyrule legend that said that a long time ago, evil Vaati brought crisis to Hyrule and people sealed that evil. We had some thought that we wanted to carry over that story into future titles some way."


Correct me if I'm wrong, but all Nintendo said was "the Skyward Sword becomes the Master Sword." Which actually implicates two possible settings. Not just SS->OoT, but also ST->SS. The post Wind Waker setting requires a return of the Master Sword, after all.

The weird thing with Miyamoto's timeline statement is that the game manuals and boxes implicate the exact reverse. However, it works considerably better once you add in the sound and drama somewhere in the equation.

http://zeldapower.com/index.php/features/articles/sound_and_drama_-_the_script.php

Argh, conspiracy theorizing about ass-pulls. =P Again, if there was a timeline, they'd make it alot more visible.

[Saber]

NP: Where do all the Zelda games fall into place when arranged chronologically by their stories?

Miyamoto: Ocarina of Time is the first story, then the original Legend of Zelda, then Zelda II: The Adventure of Link, and finally A Link to the Past. It's not very clear where Link's Awakening fits in--it could be anytime after Ocarina of Time.

This statement is from 1998/1999, when Ocarina of Time had just come out. Back then, attempting to piece together the Zelda games was still easy. And as it was said, Miyamoto is the guy who does the gameplay stuff in Zelda games. He develops the mechanics first and then others build a story around it. Miyamoto may be amongst the highest ranking executives amongst Nintendo employees, but he doesn't do everything and knows everything, just like how Inafune hasn't complete contol over everything going on in Rockman.

[Zan]

Argh, conspiracy theorizing about ass-pulls. =P

Argh, matey. Everything's an ass-pull to you.

This statement is from 1998/1999, when Ocarina of Time had just come out. Back then, attempting to piece together the Zelda games was still easy.

Zelda2 Japanese manual:
Long ago, when Hyrule was still one country, a great King was said to have used the Triforce to maintain order in Hyrule.

Triforce of the Gods Japanese box:
This time, the stage is set very long before the time when Link accomplished a feat, the epoch when Hyrule was still one kingdom.

Which actually states the opposite as Miyamoto, unless you interpret the quote from the box as actually in reference to that game's backstory; the events of Ocarina, the imprisoning of Ganon. In which case Miyamoto's order works out.

[Solar]

This statement is from 1998/1999, when Ocarina of Time had just come out. Back then, attempting to piece together the Zelda games was still easy. And as it was said, Miyamoto is the guy who does the gameplay stuff in Zelda games. He develops the mechanics first and then others build a story around it. Miyamoto may be amongst the highest ranking executives amongst Nintendo employees, but he doesn't do everything and knows everything, just like how Inafune hasn't complete contol over everything going on in Rockman.

Yeah, but it's not like that changes anything. All the other games can go before, betwee, or after the first 3 Zeldas, but that wouldn't make the "OoT->the first 3 games" statement any less true.

[Bueno Excelente]

Argh, matey. Everything's an ass-pull to you.

Zelda2 Japanese manual:
Long ago, when Hyrule was still one country, a great King was said to have used the Triforce to maintain order in Hyrule.

Triforce of the Gods Japanese box:
This time, the stage is set very long before the time when Link accomplished a feat, the epoch when Hyrule was still one kingdom.

Which actually states the opposite as Miyamoto, unless you interpret the quote from the box as actually in reference to that game's backstory; the events of Ocarina, the imprisoning of Ganon. In which case Miyamoto's order works out.

The devs just make up [parasitic bomb] as they go along, not really caring about the order of the games or anything. I'm betting that if we asked Miyamoto about the order again, he'd give us a completely different answer.

[Solar]

Of course they make it up as they go, but why would that make continuity nonexistant?

[Bueno Excelente]

Of course they make it up as they go, but why would that make continuity nonexistant?

...

They make it up as they go, not caring about past games for any matter of continuity, it's what I was saying.

Honestly, if any kind of stable continuity happens, it's by sheer accident.

[Solar]

Every game after Ocarina has a clear continuity, it's only when people try to connect the first 3 games in a way other than "2 comes after 1, and they all go after OoT" that they're looking too much into it.

[Bueno Excelente]

Every game after Ocarina has a clear continuity, it's only when people try to connect the first 3 games in a way other than "2 comes after 1, and they all go after OoT" that they're looking too much into it.

You mean the OOT/MM/WW/PH/ST continuity, because Twilight Princess and the Vaati games don't really fit anywhere. And I'm talking about games that CLEARLY show they're one after the other, not that have a few references here and there.

...not just that, other than a few references, there's really nothing to do with previous games, really. Wind Waker was the one that made the most references to the Hero of Time and the OOT continuity, and it STILL had pretty much absolutely nothing to do with it.

So, yeah. Nintendo doesn't give a flying [parasitic bomb] about continuity. They don't. It's just there as a way to make sure they can do successive Zelda games and not have every single one of them be yet another reboot of the universe.

...and they still are, so... yeah.

[Zan]

You mean the OOT/MM/WW/PH/ST continuity, because Twilight Princess and the Vaati games don't really fit anywhere.

No matter how much of an ass-pull you think it is, Twilight connects to Ocarina in the same way Majora does. Which is different from Wind Waker. Word of God, regardless of the quality of ingame intent delivery.

And naturally the Vaati titles fit as their own separate trilogy. For now.

[Solar]

The Zelda timeline is just an order anyway, does something really need to directly reference something past or future to be chronologicaly before or after it? Even if they don't care as much about it, it's still there, they always at least say themselves where the new games go (TP goes after OoT, the Four Swords saga is the oldest one, etc.)

Seriously, it's just an order, not some sort of epic story across generations.

[Bueno Excelente]

No matter how much of an ass-pull you think it is, Twilight connects to Ocarina in the same way Majora does. Which is different from Wind Waker. Word of God, regardless of the quality of ingame intent delivery.
And naturally the Vaati titles fit as their own separate trilogy. For now.

Word of God is and always has been bullshit. It's a way for creators to excuse their flaws by saying they did this because of this and that. Hideo Kojima's Word of God statements  contradicted in-game canon a few times. The Myst creators' Word of God contradicted actual game canon. And these are games where the creators actually care about the stories. In games like Zelda, you just can't trust Word of God statements. It's either in the game, or it's complete bullshit.

[Aresian]

I dunno, G. That's like saying if I create water, it's really wine.

Word of God indicates that is what the end discussion is. If I wrote a game one way and then decided AFTER THE FACT, it was "THIS" way... it's [chameleon sting]ing this way.

Hence Word of God. That's just as bad as the idiots who think that writers should write their story according to the way the fans want it as opposed to how the [tornado fang] the writer wants to write it.

Facebook Zetta decrees that such logic is both annoying and boring.

[Mirby]

The Sheep God hath spoken. Obey the Word of Sheep God.

[Bueno Excelente]

Word of God indicates that is what the end discussion is. If I wrote a game one way and then decided AFTER THE FACT, it was "THIS" way... it's [chameleon sting]ing this way.

Not if the author doesn't give a [parasitic bomb] about the story or any kind of continuity in the first place. If they did, the games themselves would show it.

[Aresian]

Not if the author doesn't give a [parasitic bomb] about the story or any kind of continuity in the first place. If they did, the games themselves would show it.

So you understand the entirety of what authors intend? You psychically know when someone may have intended for it to be the last game or not?

Also, there's that funny thing called retconning. Oh how writers love to retcon their work. Hell, I even do it on a rare occasion.

There's a lot of things to consider, economics, sales... and so forth. Some of which may or may not apply to this case, but I ALWAYS speak universally.

Except when I don't.

... Just say'n. Super Saiyan.

CURIOUS AFTER THOUGHT: Kinda like Megaman Classic... should we consider the gameboy games canon in the first place? Doesn't that through out Vaati or whatever? My knowledge is a bit edgy though.

Still saying that it's all a big incest story.

[Bueno Excelente]

So you understand the entirety of what authors intend? You psychically know when someone may have intended for it to be the last game or not?

Also, there's that funny thing called retconning. Oh how writers love to retcon their work. Hell, I even do it on a rare occasion.

There's a lot of things to consider, economics, sales... and so forth. Some of which may or may not apply to this case, but I ALWAYS speak universally.

Except when I don't.

... Just say'n. Super Saiyan.

CURIOUS AFTER THOUGHT: Kinda like Megaman Classic... should we consider the gameboy games canon in the first place? Doesn't that through out Vaati or whatever? My knowledge is a bit edgy though.

Still saying that it's all a big incest story.

Have you started RPing ever since you changed your name or something? Because from the way you're talking, I don't know if you're kidding, or making some kind of reference, or not.

[Aresian]

Have you started RPing ever since you changed your name or something? Because from the way you're talking, I don't know if you're kidding, or making some kind of reference, or not.

Naw, I'm actually exactly the same as I've always been, with the mild inclusion of character name.

I'm about as serious with what I say as I always am.

Which is always serious.

Except when I'm not.