http://www.wired.com/techbiz/media/magaz...15miyamoto
Quote:I'm always instructing my game designers on the history of the characters and worlds we've created...
So it's always confusing where this guy stands on story in his games. I tend to think he cares more than he lets on sometimes.
AVGN made a video about the totally messed up continuity in Zelda.
Yes yes...
Actually the continuity is fine for most of the games. I still don't know when Twilight Princess is supposed to take place, and the Oracle games don't seem to have any place in the main storyline (I have to assume they are alternate universe stories). Other than that, Four Sword Adventures confuses things by having Ganon sealed at the end rather than killed, so it's hard to figure out where he came from in OOT if FSA is supposed to be his new official "first appearence". Other than that, Link's Awakening originally appeared to be a direct sequel to LTTP, but at some point Miyamoto officially said it could be put after all the Zelda games that were out at the time he made that statement (latest being Majora's Mask at the time), which leaves either the LTTP Link, OOT Link, or original Link.
The order of games seems to be as follows:
Minish Cap
Four Swords
Four Swords Adventures
Ocarina of Time
Majora's Mask
Wind Waker
Phantom Hourglass
Link to the Past
The Legend of Zelda (Hyrule Fantasy if you like)
Adventure of Link
I personally place Link's Awakening after LTTP, using the LTTP Link, as that was the original way it went down and Miyamoto's later statements are too fuzzy (plus it makes the appearence of LTTP elements make sense if you are one to think of Lord Jabu Jabu as possibly the Wind Fish).
Twilight Princess' location in the storyline I'm not clear on. If anyone has some sort of official statement on when this took place I'd like to read it. I think I recall something about it taking place way after Wind Waker but I'm not sure.
The two Oracle games are trouble. Some have said they take place after Majora's Mask, but that's impossible as Link literally visits the triforce, clearly in the posession of the royal family, at the start of both games. The events of Ocarina of Time and LTTP combined basically rule out this scenario. Ganon himself claimed the triforce of power at the end of OOT and kept it there through the ages. It's made clear in LTTP that, whatever may have happened between that time and it, the entire triforce was never reclaimed by hyrule and enshrined. Ganon himself simply obtained the entirety of it at some point and by the time LTTP starts it's clear that Hyrule has never officially had it since that time. Wind Waker takes place a century after MM and it is made clear the hero of time never even returned from wherever he went after MM, furtehr it's made clear that Hyrule doesn't have the triforce, that Ganon managed to find a way out (possibly through a puppet body), and that while the triforce was completed, the old King made it vanish from Ganon's grasp just after making one wish on it. Where it went from there is unknown (possibly to the golden realm, aka, dark world, where Ganon easily aquired it thus making the king's banishment of the triforce meaningless).
As the triforce hadn't even been found before the events in OOT (and the Master Sword hadn't been found/forged from the Four Sword before that), that basically means the two games couldn't take place during any time before LTTP. I considered it taking place after Zelda 2, but the Link in the Oracle games is portrayed as young, and in Zelda 2 it's clear the original Link has become "teen Link" (in fact it's a major story point). So either it took place way after Zelda 2 (leaving me to wonder why that Link was already considered a hero and ready to help his friend Zelda from the very start), or it didn't occur in that time anyway. This leaves it taking place after LTTP. If it did, and we also are going to assume that Link's Awakening starred the same Link, it means LA took place AFTER the Oracle games, which fits the storyline well enough as LA makes it clear that that character went on "many journeys" after he slayed Ganon (which incarnation isn't specified). That does make one wonder about Twinrova's presence as that was an OOT character.
The problem with Twinrova is the extended sequence of their ghosts arguing before realizing they are dead. Dead. So... they died and then were revived in order to revive... Ganon? Erm... why not cut out the middle-witch if you already are reviving ancient evil? Plus, since when was Ganon dead? Since after LTTP? Sure, for a time but he apparently came back. Since after Zelda 1? Certainly, but the revival method of choice in Zelda 2 involved getting his killer's blood. One might say that this Twinrova was just a new generation that found a new spell as they couldn't get the blood of original Link, but it really stretches it at that point. Further, there's the issue of the Oracles themselves. What are they exactly, and why did we never see them in previous Zelda games? The great goddesses, near as I can tell, were more of "deist" deities that merely created Hyrule before departing forever (in fact that appears to be a major point early in OOT, that the gods left long ago and only the triforce is left, though WW makes it clear lesser gods are still around). Really the only conclusion I can reasonably reach at this point is that the two Oracle games are some sort of alterante reality storyline. In this reality, I would have to say that Ganon was killed instead of banished (and Twinrova somehow escaped instead of being killed, which as her death allowed Nabooru to be awakened likely is what forced Link to kill Ganon by another method), thus allowing Link to gain the triforce of power, and all the pieces were then kept by the royal family. As in the end of OOT, Zelda then decided Link deserved his youth, and considering the state of Hyrule and the fact that they had the triforce used it to restore it instead of the song of time, possibly wishing for the kingdom to be restored to what it was before Ganon's betrayal, which would make both Link and Zelda kids again (I doubt the triforce does those "tricky wishes" where it would also restore Ganon even though that's clearly not what they wanted, as LTTP makes it clear that it manifests a wish based on what one feels about the wishes they make, such as how strongly and so on).
Actually the triforce doesn't factor into the game as much as the other two but it does appear Ganon still at least has the part of power. The confusing aspect is that in this game Ganon appears to be roaming freely before being banished. Did he break free and get enslaved early in the story, or what? It couldn't take place after Zelda 1 as Ganon is clearly dead by that point (dead dead, NES Link doesn't mess around) and trying to say he was reincarnated by magic as a mere aside pushes credibility. If he did break free again, Link appears to have defeated him by the end of the game. If it was anything like Wind Waker and took place centuries after that game, Ganon there may not have been the real deal but a puppet (it's hinted at by his first form, and his second form turning to stone when you stab him in the head at the end of WW that the Ganon you are fighting is more like Agahnim than anything). However, with all the drama about trying to actually kill him and banishing him to a shadow world, it seems very unlikely that the Twilight Princess appearence of Ganon is anything but the real deal. TP is a little confusing that way.
Great post.
I think the oracle games both explain that the world you are traveling to is basically entirely fabricated by the triforce which exists in a temple. Young Link is on Epona so this tells me that it takes place after the events of MM when Link finds himself back in the forest after his 'personal journey'. So here, the young hero of time is again taken from the real world - during his time in Termina and the Oracle worlds Ganon is gatheing strength in the Sacred Realm that he uses (I think) to create the Golden Land where he's king, create an avatar to collect the bloodlines of Zelda in order to completely destroy her and gain the ability to travel in to the real world. After being taken down and Link makes his wish the golden land vanishes and returns to the sacred realm that is sealed forever (trapping Ganon's evil) and this Link is again thrown in to a dreamworld in LA - during the events of LA Ganon's evil still in essence within the sacred realm creates fires, floods, etc, Link cannot be summoned by the goddesses so they instead freeze Hyrule awaiting Link.
...?
So LTTP and LA take place before Wind Waker in this timeline?
The biggest issue I have with that version is that for Link to see the triforce in the temple, the triforce would have to be in a temple, and it's made pretty clear that it never was during any point at least before LTTP's completion. When Ganon was sealed, he kept the piece of power.
Miyamoto, care about story? I don't think he does, no. One little quote that could potentially be interpreted that way doesn't counter all the evidence there is that he doesn't care...
Quote:Twilight Princess' location in the storyline I'm not clear on. If anyone has some sort of official statement on when this took place I'd like to read it. I think I recall something about it taking place way after Wind Waker but I'm not sure.
Twilight Princess happens at the same time as Wind Waker, just in an alternate history... TP is the future of the OoT world Link returns to (he and Zelda save Hyrule and return to the past, where the disaster is averted); WW is the future of the world he left (because the hero was gone -- remember the WW intro, where 'the evil returned' (obviously Ganon breaking his seal again) but there was no hero to stop him (because he had returned to his original timeline)... Iwata explained that in an interview sometime.
Well after the game came out.
Yeah, I'd probably bet on "he made it up later on in order to try to explain the broken Zelda timeline"... :)
Quote:I personally place Link's Awakening after LTTP, using the LTTP Link, as that was the original way it went down and Miyamoto's later statements are too fuzzy (plus it makes the appearence of LTTP elements make sense if you are one to think of Lord Jabu Jabu as possibly the Wind Fish).
LA going after LttP is generally accepted, yeah.
Oracles is the one I'm not sure about too, as you say... I don't know if it has a clear place in the timeline. "They're in their own universe" is as good an answer as I've heard, really.
Would you provide that quote? I never read anything to the effect of a splitting timeline. Rather OOT seemed to simply rewrite history in the ending, preventing the disaster. The golden land's history is probably seperate from Hyrule's, so the time travel would not undo Ganon's banishment to that place, but it would create a second Ganon that was prevented from his goals.
Wait, hasn't this been mentioned here before? It's not new info...
http://www.thehylia.com/index.php?subact...5&archive=
Quote:–When does Twilight Princess take place?
Aonuma: In the world of Ocarina of Time, a hundred and something years later.
–And the Wind Waker?
Aonuma: The Wind Waker is parallel. In Ocarina of Time, Link flew seven years in time, he beat Ganon and went back to being a kid, remember? Twilight Princess takes place in the world of Ocarina of Time, a hundred and something years after the peace returned to kid Link’s time. In the last scene of Ocarina of Time, kids Link and Zelda have a little talk, and as a consequence of that talk, their relationship with Ganon takes a whole new direction. In the middle of this game [Twilight Princess], there's a scene showing Ganon's execution. It was decided that Ganon be executed because he'd do something outrageous if they left him be. That scene takes place several years after Ocarina of Time. Ganon was sent to another world and now he wants to obtain the power...
–And now we wait for the game to enjoy the rest of the story, huh? (laughs)
Aonuma: Well, that’s how things are. (laughs)
–There’s a reference to King Zora (the king of the Zora race in Ocarina of Time; his official name is Do Bon, the third), and there are some pictures of the man from the fishing pond (the owner of a fishing business near Lake Hylia in Ocarina of Time). You can get the feeling here and there that the events from Ocarina of Time happened some time ago.
Aonuma: Those things have a connection to Ocarina of Time, and we were not very sure of whether to include them or not, but the staff was having a good time, so those details just kept increasing.
–Kakariko Village and Lake Hylia haven’t changed their names, did you have in mind for their design that a hundred years had passed?
Aonuma: We clearly didn’t design Kakariko Village to reflect that a hundred years had passed. We had this town and when we decided the events that would take place there, we also decided it to be Kakariko Village, just the way it was. In this game, there are two places named, “Forest Firo-ne [Faron Woods]” and “Orudin [Eldin]”; they received their names after the three goddesses from Ocarina of Time. During Ocarina of Time, there were no such places, but after a long time, the names grew on the people living there and so those names were passed on.
Well if that's true, that settles that! I tend not to want to invoke alternate realities without good reason, but this would be it. It neatly ties up all those loose ends.
So then that explains a lot. It explains how Ganon broke free in that flashback (he didn't, he was captured immediatly and executed by... some guys we never once saw in OOT but okay). For a second it made me wonder where LTTP and onward take place but that's easy. LTTP specifically has to do with Ganon breaking free after being sealed by seven sages during the imprisoning war of OOT. With the Twilight Princess world clearly taking place where no one would remember an imprisoning war and Ganon being sent to the Twilight Realm instead of the Sacred Realm, nothing adds up. So, the timeline has one official split now (and Majora's Mask takes place in another alternate reality but this really isn't a split reality from Hyrule so much as just another reality).
Also, your quote more or less confirms they DO think about story a lot there. Combined with previous quotes I have to conclude their method is that they care about making a good story, but tend to write the story after determining gameplay elements (story to make the gameplay work) and that it's secondary to making a fun game.
So...
Timeline Link leaves behind where Ganon was sealed into the Sacred Realm and the world suffered under his rule for 7 years:
Minish Cap
Four Swords
Four Swords Adventures
Ocarina of Time -- Here reality splits.
Wind Waker
Phantom Hourglass
Link to the Past
The Legend of Zelda (Hyrule Fantasy if you like)
Adventure of Link
Timeline where Link is sent to relive his past, prevents the cataclysm and Ganondorf is executed (er, banished to Twilight Realm) before he can gain the triforce:
Minish Cap
Four Swords
Four Swords Adventures
Ocarina of Time -- Here reality splits.
Majora's Mask
Twilight Princess
Ganondorf's enmity must be far worse in the split reality... It must not seem fair to be punished for a crime you haven't even committed, for time itself to judge you. I need to replay this game with that in mind.
Here's why I place Zelda 1 and 2 after LTTP. It was stated a long time ago when that game first came out that LTTP was meant as a prequil to the events in those two as an explanation for how the kingdom gained the triforce. Twilight Princess's events do nothing to explain this and the intervension of OOT Link in that reality would very likely have strengthened the seal of the sacred realm rather than convinced them to gain it.
That still leaves the Oracle games. As I just explained there's no place in the split reality for those games to take place if Hyrule does not possess the triforce. Alternate reality is still the only good explanation of that game. I know of no official statements for where that game took place in the continuity myself, but really the only gap it could fit would be just after LTTP. The only issue is just like after Adventure of Link, LTTP Link is portrayed as a teen (in the manual artwork and illustrations in the official player's guide). However, in the remake he's been given the voice of young Link instead of old Link so perhaps officially he's now supposed to be a kid.
I thought I'd add there are a number of places for more stories. For example, Minish Cap shows that even before that game, there was another Link looking fellow (this one just lacking a hat, certainly an epic change that would NOT BE TOLERATED) who first saved the world from darkness using that legendary sword when it was first created. Apparently this was also where the royal line first attained the Light Force. I'd like to play that game. They could make this a major origin story for the whole thing, such as Link's name. I'm one to think all the Links come from the same family line, one where EVERY first born son is named Link. It's certainly better than something like "destiny did it". As for Tingle, I'm pretty sure none of them were actually named that at birth and the original Tingle just inspired the rest in tales to become total freaks.
I STILL WANT THE TINGLE RPG! Apparently it was translated and released in Europe... Sounds like an import invitation to me! (Fortunately it is a portable game so the PAL/NTSC thing won't come into it.)
Anyway, there could also be a story explaining what the heck is going on with Ganondorf in Four Swords Adventures. It was sure a cool story twist to have Ganondorf appear from the desert and overthrow Vaati as the main boss of the game, but it presents a few problems for continuity. While they showed the source of his trident weapon, which made him transform into a pig demon form, the one issue is that he was specifically said to have been recently born in OOT as the new prince of the Gerudo tribe. So, that begs the question of who this Ganondorf is. The second issue is that while Vaati was killed, Ganondorf was sealed within the Four Sword. I can accept if they reveal that Ganondorf is a spirit that is reborn in the Gerudo tribe every now and then and his appearence in OOT was a reincarnation that had similar goals, but a wiped memory (as reincarnations tend to do). However, I doubt he could reincarnate if he was sealed inside a sword at the time. There needs to be a story explaining how he broke free and was actually killed. This same story could also explain the origin of the Master Sword. Either the Four Sword could become it (giving up the splitting power to gain more power to defeat evil) or the Four Sword could be shattered by the release of the evil king and a new sword forged. If they want to make a new Four Sword style game, they'd have to go with the former (gameplay comes first), in which case the story would have to actually destroy the Four Sword in doing something to get rid of Ganondorf, rather than during the final fight. As for what, it's hard to say. He isn't reincarnated in any other games, so if he's outright killed here it makes one wonder why that never happened after LTTP. He can't just be sealed, he needs to be outright born in OOT's story, not released. I think the only way to make it work is for them to leave him for dead instead of outright killing him and show some scene after that game's completion where someone finds his body as he's still dying and decides to cast some spell before his final breathe that would allow his spirit to reincarnate in a new Gerudo host a century from then, thus allowing that legend. Yeah, that'd work.
There's also a gap in explaining how ganon got the rest of the triforce. I think the best explanation I have at this point is that when King Hyrule wished for a future for Link and Zelda and then wished for the triforce to vanish, it vanished to the Sacred Realm, which allowed Ganon, when he was returned there, to claim it in it's entirety.
Another question is what became of Link after Link's Awakening (the game and the event at the end of the game :D). It appears he was floating aimlessly at sea but still happy. Did he ever get back home or did he die at sea? They could have another adventure for him after that anyway.
Another thing is, how did Ganon come back to life after the events in Link to the Past? My own suspicion is that since it was intended as a prequel, Ganon's death was never meant to be permanent and Zelda 2 probably has the best explanation. Unlike all the previous games in that time line, Ganon didn't get banished again, he was killed. Zelda 2 states that he can be returned to life using the blood of the one who killed him in some ritual, possibly invoking a thousand-faced moon. So, that's probably what happened. That is, the servants of Ganon killed Link or found his remains and used them to revive him a long time later, when no one would remember what happened. If so, and LA does take place after LTTP, then it makes one wonder all the more about that story.
Of course, lastly I would always like to see the story continue on from AFTER Zelda 2.
One thing is that while Hyrule is guilty of techno-stasis as is any fantasy world (and Star Wars for that matter), there does at least seem to be progress. Some games show a noted increase in tech level in certain areas, which is reverted in other eras with good reason. I mean after OOT, the world was flooded and had to rebuild. After Wind Waker, they had to rebuild a society in a new Hyrule. Before Zelda 1, Ganon's invasion reduced the entire kingdom to a prehistoric cave society with not even houses and Zelda 2 showed that they managed to rebuild from that. So, they are a little better off than the average fantasy world in terms of explaining the stasis. Even Twilight Princess shows some noted tech advancements since OOT.
Basically, here's what just about everyone involved on Zelda timeline theory agrees on:
LA comes after LttP
AoL comes after LoZ
MM goes after OoT (Child)
PH goes after WW
MC goes before OoT
... and that's pretty much it. Everything else is argued about...
http://www.thehylia.com/forums/the_book_...ora-b29.0/
Most agree on the split timeline, though, considering that there are quotes going back years (to the WW development/release period) talking about it. And yeah, the only things that definitely go on the "Child" side are MM and TP.
So, the as-definite-as-we-can-get timeline:
MC
OoT (Adult)
WW
PH
MC
OoT (Child)
MM
WW
Unclear locations (grouped titles go in that order):
LoZ
AoL
LttP
LA
FS
FSA
Tingle RPG
For instance...
US LttP: Clearly says 'past' in the title, manual says 'decedents of Link and Zelda'. But...
JP LttP: titled 'Triforce of the Gods'. Doesn't have the 'before Zelda 1/2' manual references. In 1998 Miyamoto said that it comes after AoL.
LttP: The "Imprisoning/Sealing War": Is it describing the events of OoT or some completely different, and so far not yet shown in any game, event? If it's the latter, this game could go almost anywhere in the timeline, really...
Four Swords/FSA: Do you believe the 'it goes before OoT' quote or not, considering that Aonuma, the guy who said that, wasn't actually in charge of the series yet at the time of the game's release (I think) and didn't work on the games?
FS/FSA: Is FSA a followup to FS, or is it the real story or something while FS is a sidestory?
Oracles: Erm... yeah, nobody's quite sure what to do with these...
Zelda 1/2: Where do these go? The Zelda II backstory: Tale of before the series begins (how all the Zeldas got their name)?
FS/Oracles/MC: Should the Capcom Zelda games count?
Anyway, as I've said before, my belief is that they come up with the game concept first, and try to figure out how to fit it into the timeline sometime later on. It's the only way that would make sense, for us to get such an incredibly messy timeline...
I thought I explained all that in my posts above. It's all pretty much made clear. It's only them that's messing it all up. Never heard of that site before, but I tend to avoid the big guns about these things. Look what they did to the otherwise straightforward Warcraft continuity... They actually think Garona was half-Draenai at this point.
The title and instruction booklet are hardly all I'm going on with LTTP. There's the fact that Zelda 1 and 2 CAN'T fit BEFORE the events in LTTP (as the Triforce is possessed by Hyrule before Zelda 1 starts). Even excluding that, official statements before LTTP came out in interviews in Nintendo Power sort of make it clear where they intended the story to fit. If they aren't after, they must be alternate universe stories too. One last thing. The title actually still matters. Even in a translation's title change, why do you think they would have changed it to that? It's not like they are going to make up something like it taking place centuries before Zelda 1 out of whole cloth. I'd say more than likely they added that because that was their original idea. It's still a valid point to point to the title then.
The timeline of the "Zelda name" backstory must have happened after LTTP as well, for the same reason. While that doesn't do much to explain all those OTHER Zeldas, it was only meant to explain two Zeldas in Zelda 2. One can be generous and assume that the Zelda put to sleep was LTTP's Zelda. I see no conflict there.
Where do you think they came up with the story of OOT anyway? They even changed the translation from "Wise Men" to "Sages" (and a few other translation issues) in the GBA rerelease to make it fit better! The development kept talking about it too, also in Nintendo Power. I'd say that's pretty much set beyond reasonable doubt. It "could go almost anywhere" only if you are willing to just make up random stuff about the timeline and force fit it. Look at the storyline elements for a moment. The start of LTTP goes into detail about how eons ago, Ganondorf invaded the Sacred Realm to acquire the Golden Power for himself, and when he did he used it's power for great evil, and 7 sages used their power to seal him into the sacred realm. That seal should have remained for all eternity. Now look at OOT. In this game Ganon does NOT have the triforce at all, it's made clear the kingdom has never had it but that they had recently ended a war over it with Hyrule guarding the temple of time, a place rumored to be connected to the golden land. Ganon breaks in, claims the triforce (but only in part, I attribute this to the hazy nature of myths), and 7 sages banish him into the Sacred Realm, where he specifically states he will kill Link, Zelda, and the Sage's descendants when he breaks free. I mean how much more direct can the two games possibly be? What other possible placement can you come up with?
Regarding the Four Swords games, he may not have worked on them, but that's the best statement we have to go on and I have no reason to doubt it. They do fit the timeline after all. We could of course strike the Capcom games from the continuity if you like. However, the statements I've heard don't really justify that.
Have you played Four Sword Adventures? It's as clear as the OOT/MM and Zelda1/2 connection. The opening of the game actually is a synopsis of the events in the first Four Swords game. There's really no wiggle room at all.
Minish Cap has been officially stated to occur before the Four Swords games. Further, the storyline of that game makes it very clear. It's supposed to be Vaati's origin story.
That's why I came up with that timeline. I had very good reasons for sticking all that stuff where I did. The only stickler is LA after LTTP. How they managed to agree on that being after LTTP (which I readily admit is just my personal preference based on an old statement about it) while managing to dispute when OOT took place (which no one can honestly say isn't clearly supposed to be the imprisonment of Ganon mentioned in the very start of LTTP) is beyond me.
There are other ways to interpret it, and it's all fiction so it doesn't really matter. With enough imagination you could come up with all sorts of alternate scenarios, but this is the most parsimonious one I can see that only goes directly on the official story and statements we've been given.
I'm a huge nerd.
Oh yes, later confusing one-off statements that contradict statements made when the game first came out? We should probably ignore those. I played a game that everyone in the world was telling me took place before 1 and 2 when it came out, and I'm sticking with that.
I'll also note that in this timeline, they don't have to pay attention to future continuity at all for games set in the TP side, after TP. That gives them some freedom.
The events in Twilight Princess suggest to me that the Twilii were banished long before the events in OOT (possibly what allows for the so called "dark world" in Four Swords Adventures), so in other words there's possibly another Twilight World in the other timeline. That opens up another storyline there.
I do have one question though. If TP takes place in an alternate world where Ganondorf's plans were stopped, how did he acquire the triforce of power?
Oh yes, one other thing. The towns in Zelda 2 are the same as the sages in OOT. I remember in an interview that they said the idea was those towns are named after the sages.
Quote:I thought I explained all that in my posts above. It's all pretty much made clear. It's only them that's messing it all up. Never heard of that site before, but I tend to avoid the big guns about these things. Look what they did to the otherwise straightforward Warcraft continuity... They actually think Garona was half-Draenai at this point.
I'm sure you've heard of it before, it's the descendant of ZHQ.
As for Garona... well, she's a Half-Orc, but what is the other half? Fair question. :)
The point is, these points are definitely arguable. Some positions have less basis than others, but they are arguable. And the situation as far as the Zelda timeline goes is far from clear.
Quote:Have you played Four Sword Adventures? It's as clear as the OOT/MM and Zelda1/2 connection. The opening of the game actually is a synopsis of the events in the first Four Swords game. There's really no wiggle room at all.
Minish Cap has been officially stated to occur before the Four Swords games. Further, the storyline of that game makes it very clear. It's supposed to be Vaati's origin story.
Good points.
Quote:Regarding the Four Swords games, he may not have worked on them, but that's the best statement we have to go on and I have no reason to doubt it. They do fit the timeline after all. We could of course strike the Capcom games from the continuity if you like. However, the statements I've heard don't really justify that.
It does raise a definite question, though. I'd provisionally put them between MC and OoT, but not definitely...
As for striking the Capcom games though, yeah, it's really just Oracles that needs to go, storywise. Ironically, Oracles is by far the best of the Capcom titles gameplay-wise... but in story, it's pretty poor and very hard to place in the series.
Quote:That's why I came up with that timeline. I had very good reasons for sticking all that stuff where I did. The only stickler is LA after LTTP. How they managed to agree on that being after LTTP (which I readily admit is just my personal preference based on an old statement about it) while managing to dispute when OOT took place (which no one can honestly say isn't clearly supposed to be the imprisonment of Ganon mentioned in the very start of LTTP) is beyond me.
Well, I'd say it's pretty obvious that it goes after LttP... you are right that some people don't put it there, because technically it's not actually stated without any question, but like with your OoT-is-the-imprisoning-war argument, most would agree that it's a very clear intent. Same exact Link art, the backstory fits perfectly with the end of LttP, back then the relationships between the Zelda games seemed clear (2 goes after 1, 3 goes before 1, 4 goes after 3...)... so yeah you're right that some people dispute it, but anyone using anything like the standard you are, trying to focus on the intent of the creators as much as possible... there's no question that it's LttP.
Quote:The title and instruction booklet are hardly all I'm going on with LTTP. There's the fact that Zelda 1 and 2 CAN'T fit BEFORE the events in LTTP (as the Triforce is possessed by Hyrule before Zelda 1 starts). Even excluding that, official statements before LTTP came out in interviews in Nintendo Power sort of make it clear where they intended the story to fit. If they aren't after, they must be alternate universe stories too. One last thing. The title actually still matters. Even in a translation's title change, why do you think they would have changed it to that? It's not like they are going to make up something like it taking place centuries before Zelda 1 out of whole cloth. I'd say more than likely they added that because that was their original idea. It's still a valid point to point to the title then.
All that this proves is that the
American story is known to be that LttP goes after OoT (Adult) and before LoZ. I don't think that anything you said there has any impact on what the Japanese setting is... I don't agree that what they said about the American release has anything to do with the original version. Perhaps Miyamoto had something to do with the new title choice, but do we know that? For all we know it could have been chosen by someone at NOA... same goes for the manual and any quotes in magazines at the time.
And the title did have to change, of course. "Triforce of the Gods"? Nintendo didn't allow religious references back then. The implication that Agahnim was a priest who had been sent to Hyrule by the gods (as the original version had) had to go, and the game's title too. So the question is, who wrote the new story... we just don't know.
You are right that a comment five years later doesn't necessarily reflect the intent of the actual game made years earlier, however, so that doesn't mean that I think Miyamoto's comment is certainly true. It just means that I don't think we can say which one it is for sure... but that doesn't affect the official American timeline, which is, we agree, pretty clear on LttP's placement. It is worth mentioning though.
Quote:I'll also note that in this timeline, they don't have to pay attention to future continuity at all for games set in the TP side, after TP. That gives them some freedom.
Indeed, that is true. A whole new timeline to follow! :)
Quote:I do have one question though. If TP takes place in an alternate world where Ganondorf's plans were stopped, how did he acquire the triforce of power?
Ganondorf is the immortal master of evil... I don't know. I could look it up, but... maybe later. I'm sure there is an explanation somewhere...
The interviews I'm talking about weren't with translators (well okay in a manner of speaking), they were with the creators. They are the ones who originally intended it to take place back then. Religious references aside (seriously, that angel statue in Zelda 2 is a "trophie", riiight... even as a kid I thought it was a religious icon, though I didn't know that icon meant anything other than windows 3.1 desktop thing).
The thing is, there is a major story element that also forces LTTP to take place before Zelda 1. As I said, the triforce is nowhere to be found until Link himself finds it in Ganon's possession, and the story indicates that before that, it was never controlled by Hyrule. So, there's no place between OOT and LTTP for Zeldas 1 and 2 to take place, as a major story point in THOSE games is that Hyrule HAS been in possession of the triforce for a long time. Either it takes place after LTTP, or we have to strike that story from the record. It seems pretty clear that LTTP was meant as an explanation of, on top of where Ganon came from, also how Hyrule came to control the Triforce.
That said, there are some niggling issues with other story points. I mean Four Swords (and Four Swords Adventures mentioning the events of Four Swords) talk about how the first time Vaati emerged, he kidnapped "many maidens", but in Minnish Cap the only person he kidnaps at all is Zelda herself. Also a number of details of the imprisoning war seem "off" from the OOT telling. Knights fighting to the last to defend the sages as they cast their spells? A king getting the sages together instead of Link? The Master Sword being "forged" during the war to combat the triforce? None of that ever happened in OOT. The intent is clear, and the storyline really doesn't allow for much if any wiggle room in where all these stories are placed (I still say LA has the most wiggle room of all of them as it being placed after any of the games doesn't really contradict any major story points, but I prefer after LTTP as that was original intent). However, these details should be handled. The only thing I can figure is that a number of lines in LTTP talk about time shrouding the past, so we can perhaps assume that certain details changed in each new telling. Instead of just Zelda, the legend makes him out to kidnap all sorts of women. Surely many soldiers and the king himself ended up dead in the war to stop Ganon when he gained Number1 Triforce Power (to use the bad english of the Zelda 2 intro scroll). Retellings might have obscured that. The problem with this explanation is we know exactly how retellings obscured that story from Wind Waker, which didn't talk about a king or sages, just a young lad in green clothes who travelled through time. It would seem odd that over time all details except the green hero would be lost and then after even more time THOSE details would be lost but the rest in some form would suddenly be restored. Then again, one thing we know for sure. In MOST of these stories, all hints of a past Link are somehow erased from history, and in any cases where a previous Link is acknowledged, the name of that hero is lost.
Oh and about Garona. It was pretty heavily implied that she was intended to be a cross between human and orc in that manual. I mean she explains that she was born after that first trip into the human world through that portal, and I'd expect that to be the basic explanation.
What really frustrates me is something not even Zelda's storyline was ever guilty of, the infamous "storyline trainwreck" that came with the updated Draenai origin story when one of those WOW expansions came out (it was an instance of gameplay over story of course, but still they could have thought it out better). In WC3, Sargeras was a noble Titan fighting evil until he was corrupted by the evil Eridar race (namely, he went insane because he couldn't fathom how such evil things could exist). Then in that expansion pack, according to the official web site description, suddenly the Eridar are good until the evil Sargeras shows up and corrupts THEM, with those uncorrupted becoming Dranaei and running from that world. Pretty much everyone thinks that was a major slip-up. Then again this is the world where Thrall sits still in his throne room doing nothing, all the great villians of the past are being killed one by one, and alien mummies hand out star trek technology to medieval dwarves.
I absolutely agree, WoW has done horrible, horrible things to the Warcraft storyline... it really is pretty sad how much WoW has messed it up.
Of course, then you get people who, in spite of all an author's protesting (What do they know? I know Freud!), insist they have the true SYMBOLIC meaning behind something that was intended to be read straight and not as allegory to anything.
Quote:Memories of that overzealous English teacher who forced you to accept that every character, every scene, and every action had a deep inner meaning have led to widespread fear on the part of readers and viewers everywhere that every tale secretly contains some other story being told in subtext.
The end result of this is a state of mind that, for example, interprets every plot as an allegory for the afterlife and every protagonist as a stand-in for the Christ: Everyone Is Jesus In Purgatory!
Rampant paranoia results from this state; one cannot look at anything without being suspicious that this is some kind of allegory brainwashing you into learning An Aesop against your will. Is that box of Ding-Dongs one character is handing another a mere confection, or is it a blessing from On High, manna sent from a merciful God? Or wait... it could be a Deal With The Devil; short-term pleasure resulting in permanent bodily ruination! What Do You Mean Its Not Symbolic?
The concept of "the Death of the Author" hasn't particularly helped this state of affairs, either, as it allows everyone to insist that their pet theories are entirely valid (with or without justification), regardless of how many times the author of the text states his or her intentions in writing the work, or, as in many cases, that the pet theory absolutely isn't the state of affairs at all.
Quote:The interviews I'm talking about weren't with translators (well okay in a manner of speaking), they were with the creators. They are the ones who originally intended it to take place back then. Religious references aside (seriously, that angel statue in Zelda 2 is a "trophie", riiight... even as a kid I thought it was a religious icon, though I didn't know that icon meant anything other than windows 3.1 desktop thing).
The thing is, there is a major story element that also forces LTTP to take place before Zelda 1. As I said, the triforce is nowhere to be found until Link himself finds it in Ganon's possession, and the story indicates that before that, it was never controlled by Hyrule. So, there's no place between OOT and LTTP for Zeldas 1 and 2 to take place, as a major story point in THOSE games is that Hyrule HAS been in possession of the triforce for a long time. Either it takes place after LTTP, or we have to strike that story from the record. It seems pretty clear that LTTP was meant as an explanation of, on top of where Ganon came from, also how Hyrule came to control the Triforce.
True. The only question is what the Japanese version's text actually said... was it directly translated, censorship aside, or was it changed? This doesn't affect the US series timeline of course, but that is the question... I can't find anything that answers that question.
Quote:That said, there are some niggling issues with other story points. I mean Four Swords (and Four Swords Adventures mentioning the events of Four Swords) talk about how the first time Vaati emerged, he kidnapped "many maidens", but in Minnish Cap the only person he kidnaps at all is Zelda herself.
Huh... will they do another game with Vaati sometime?
Quote: Also a number of details of the imprisoning war seem "off" from the OOT telling. Knights fighting to the last to defend the sages as they cast their spells? A king getting the sages together instead of Link? The Master Sword being "forged" during the war to combat the triforce? None of that ever happened in OOT. The intent is clear, and the storyline really doesn't allow for much if any wiggle room in where all these stories are placed (I still say LA has the most wiggle room of all of them as it being placed after any of the games doesn't really contradict any major story points, but I prefer after LTTP as that was original intent). However, these details should be handled. The only thing I can figure is that a number of lines in LTTP talk about time shrouding the past, so we can perhaps assume that certain details changed in each new telling. Instead of just Zelda, the legend makes him out to kidnap all sorts of women. Surely many soldiers and the king himself ended up dead in the war to stop Ganon when he gained Number1 Triforce Power (to use the bad english of the Zelda 2 intro scroll). Retellings might have obscured that. The problem with this explanation is we know exactly how retellings obscured that story from Wind Waker, which didn't talk about a king or sages, just a young lad in green clothes who travelled through time. It would seem odd that over time all details except the green hero would be lost and then after even more time THOSE details would be lost but the rest in some form would suddenly be restored. Then again, one thing we know for sure. In MOST of these stories, all hints of a past Link are somehow erased from history, and in any cases where a previous Link is acknowledged, the name of that hero is lost.
And those are exactly the kind of questions that open up the holes I mentioned, so someone could say "Well, the answer is that the war LttP describes is a different war, not in any of the games, not the events of OoT." Because OoT didn't have knights fighting for Hyrule or any of that stuff... just Link and Zelda, pretty much. If anything else happened, it happened in the background off screen... but given the importance of the events described in LttP, that doesn't quite seem like a satisfying answer. "The telling changed over time" is a reasonable answer, but as you say, not an entirely satisfying one.
Your point about the WW version vs. the LttP version is also interesting... I hadn't thought of that, but yeah, you're right. Why would the telling change so dramatically, to add many elements nonexistent in the older telling while removing other key parts that had been intact earlier? Stories can change, sure, but going from "a long time later, the key points of the story were remembered" to "a long time after that, the story was radically different"... doesn't quite work. I do think that even so the Imprisoning War is probably the events of OoT, but the inconsistencies are annoying.
Also, it's less than satisfying to think that the Hyrule in LttP/LoZ/AoL isn't actually the Hyrule of OoT, if you follow the "WW says how the people went to a new, but similar, land and called that Hyrule" story, if I'm remembering it right... it seems like the same place, but isn't? :(
I'd say their intentions for LTTP, stateside and Japanside were likely pretty much the same. From everything I've read regarding translation differences, it was only a number of religious references that were altered, and nothing that really alters any main story points. The interviews with some of the Japanese developers in those old issues of Nintendo power indicate there was no real difference in intention. It was meant as "before" in both locations. The Japanese instruction booklet lacked this information, but a number of these games lack the developer's commentary to tie it all together. The issue I have with saying OOT happened either before or after the imprisoning war, rather than being the imprisoning war, is that it doesn't really fit before as Ganon getting the triforce that had been hidden for centuries a while before doing the exact same thing in the imprisoning war sounds way off. Doing it AFTER he was imprisoned (to get imprisoned... again?) also seems really weird.
Yeah Wind Waker makes it very clear that the old Hyrule is a thing of the past and they had to find a new land to call Hyrule. I didn't have a problem with it. I liked that story. It is interesting to that that in the time of LTTP, the people would have forgotten that the stories of the past applied to a different land entirely, but it fits when you consider the Lost Woods in LTTP and onward having none of the magical properties of the Lost Woods in OOT.
That addition also helped to clear up a major inconsistancy in the shape of the land. LTTP and OOT's overworlds are substantially different from each other, and being different countries goes a long way to explaning that. However, it ONLY explains the difference in the land between those two specific games and does nothing to address all the changes the land went through between other games. Between LTTP and Zelda 1 for example (or if you want to think of it in reverse order for some reason, the problem is still there), what the heck happened? The worlds are still very different. LTTP's Hylia is in the southeeast corner of the map, and Zelda 1's is in the center. The desert is east of Lake Hylia in 1, and to the far west of it in LTTP. The Lost Woods are in the southwest corner in 1, with Death Mountain far to the north., while it's in the northwest corner in LTTP, with Death Mountain just to the east. Zelda 2 did explain that the part of Hyrule Link explores in Zelda 1 was just a small fraction of a much larger country, which he goes on to explore in Zelda 2. As far as I can tell from what's said in Zelda 2, Link travelled north of Death Mountain, setting that as the southern-most part of the Zelda 2 map with the desolate land he explored in the first game further south of that. It fits as throughout Zelda 2, there's no Lake Hylia, or Lost Woods, or any of the other landmark areas of the series.
However this won't save LTTP's geographical issues. No matter how you set it (or twist it, if you wish to presume that the maps in the series aren't always oriented in any particular compass direction), it just doesn't match up to the locations shown in 1 and 2. About the only saving grace is to assume an extremely vast "deep time" between LTTP and Zelda 1, long enough for wind and water to change the very shape of the land, perhaps shorter if you consider the strange effects of powerful magical beings doing things here and there. In fact, the LTTP player's guide (which, I checked, was in fact a translation or reworking of the Japanese player's guide, and is illustrated by a team of Japanese people) does make mention of time changing the land. (Actually that player's guide is pretty heavy on VERY intricate details of Hylian life and lore, as it's "hook" is that it's half-written as an archeological historical book, for example Link changing his hand dominance when facing left and right isn't a result of sprite mirroring, it's because of a superstitous Hylian belief that bad luck eminates from Death Mountain in the north and Link always keeps his shield facing that direction, well at least if you take the player's guide as a legitimate source on these story details, at any rate nothing in the guide is major enough to shed light on or contradict the timeline of events.)
So, okay, we don't know how much time has passed, and maybe a few centuries of changes is enough if magical incidents are considered. However, that still leaves other major issues in geographical consistancy.
Twilight Princess takes place in a non-flooded Hyrule. It actually does continue from the OOT world, they never left. So, it really makes one wonder when you see the layout in TP and how different it is from OOT. I know that the entire overworld was (needlessly if you ask me) mirrored between GCN and Wii versions. However, even flipping it around doesn't really let it match up with OOT's locations. Ordon Woods (which I might assume is the renamed Lost Woods) is still in the south, but that's it. Hyrule Castle is now in the very middle rather than the north. The desert is now exactly east (or west) of lake hylia rather than south of it, and death mountain is off in some new windy path. The problem with this is it being exactly a century after OOT really introduces a big time crunch for the land changing over time, too much for me anyway. An unspecified amount of time that allows for several hundred years at least? Sure, that's fine. A major disaster like in WW? That works. A mere century and the land changes this much with narry as much as a mention in the world? (A world that, I should remind you, has the events of the "spared world" OOT timeline still fresh enough for the details to be passed down about Ganondorf's attempted execution.) That's really tough to swallow. At best, I'd have to assume that in the century since then, human advancement is what changed the land so much. It certainly explains the human settlement of the Lost Woods and the canons and stage coaches and so on. Perhaps that combined with some small climate changes can cover it...
However, that's hardly anything compaired to the biggest geographical screw of them all, the "Vaati series" of games. Whatever issues the "Ganondorf series" of games may have, they are minor compaired to this series. Even between Four Swords and Four Swords Adventures, which the intro story of Adventures makes clear is the same Link, who's still a kid at that, is fairly different. The map of the first Four Swords has Death Mountain in the north, but nothing else recognizable. The rest of the land is locked in this odd sort of "active volcano right by a giant wall of ice" sort of weirdness (and it was primarily just meant as a video game to be played for it's own sake at the time, so it could be excused). Adventures ditches this landscape almost completely to match up a lot closer to what's in other Zelda games. That lets it match up to OOT a lot better (though not perfectly it can be worked with with the "changes over time" thing), but if their intention was a world that actually acknowledged the storyline of the first Four Swords, and it clearly was as the events of that game are detailed, then it fails utterly in explaining such a drastically changed landscape.
As you may know I try to work with plot holes as much as I can to come up with my own solutions for them. I'm a fiction apologist. However, there's nothing I can do to fix this. It's a geographical train wreck. About all I can do is to come up with something really extreme like the lands Link is visiting in the first Four Swords are actually in an alternate world created by, or at least inhabited by the fairies of the Zelda series (which would go a way towards explaining the landscape's almost comical layout of ice by volcano by forest by cave layout). However I am loathe to introduce an entire reality unless there's some good justification for it. Minish Cap doesn't fare much better. It at least has the good sense to distance itself very far from Four Swords in the distant past though, so it allows me to work with the time line a little better in terms of "geological changes over time". I let a lot of geographical issues go in the series (like how the heck certain rivers could possibly form in the shapes they do) only because the series does a very good job of explaining that in OOT, that they were literally dug out by a goddess. That'll go a long way to explaining initial geographical features, and magical events and further weathering satisfy me sufficiently most of the time, but that goes out the window with the FS/FSA games as they are.
Speaking of inconsistancy, I suppose everyone else has already came to this on their own but it bears mentioning that I don't take much issue with the fairies and monsters changing as they do between games. The fairies seem to be made OUT of magic, so I figure whatever form they take isn't so much locked in place so much as whatever form it is they feel like taking, and so the differences in appearence across the games can just be called fairy "fasion" for lack of a better word. The monsters are simple enough to explain as, generally, being made from dark forces and thus would be different depending on era. The advantage here is that each "era" of Hyrule is fairly consistant in the monsters it uses. Zelda 1 and 2 keep to similar monsters, and while OOT has pretty different ones, it shares the same ones with MM. That really helps this explanation work just fine.
Oh yes, I really have to wonder what those strange glowing beings are in TP. That is, the ones who's faces aren't attached to their faces. They are the ones that appparently decided to execute Ganondorf, but who are they? I must assume that when Ganondorf was confronted with the accusations of a couple of children he couldn't be captured by the Hylian guard (he was already an accomplished and very powerful wizard). They aren't once mentioned or seen in OOT. I figure whoever these deities are, their temple was in the desert so they might have only been called when the desert tribe themselves realized Ganondorf had betrayed everyone. I may have to replay TP to get more details on that event.
When were the Twili actually banished to the Twilight Realm anyway? Was it after OOT? The way they talk about it, it seems like it was long before those events... I still don't know who actually banished them. They say "the gods" but was it the great 3, or some lesser gods that did it? I figured that the 3 goddesses left Hyrule a long time ago, a set of Deist style gods that create a world and move on without looking back. If they actually are still watching over it, that can work, but I figure they really could have done a better job of, say, eliminating Ganon in WW without flooding the place. So, I figure it was the lesser gods they created that are being prayed to. They would have limited power and might be forced to do a flood to save the rest of the world from Ganon.
Ah yes, then there's the whole hylian/human thing. Minish Cap finally settled once and for all that hylians are humans that also have pointed ears. The rounded-ears variety of humans doesn't show up too much in the OOT era but seems more common in WW/TP, even more so in LTTP, and very common in 1 and 2.
It's like Teraptus in the DragonStrike movie, Ganon can
move the walls... :)
(If you haven't seen it before, the greatest D&D movie ever:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=B8LBpMuSTrQ )
Really though, most of your post there is just a very long way of saying "Every game has a completely different world map that does not line up with the other games, even the ones that are supposedly set in the same worlds." And that is very indisputably true.
Quote:Yeah Wind Waker makes it very clear that the old Hyrule is a thing of the past and they had to find a new land to call Hyrule. I didn't have a problem with it. I liked that story. It is interesting to that that in the time of LTTP, the people would have forgotten that the stories of the past applied to a different land entirely, but it fits when you consider the Lost Woods in LTTP and onward having none of the magical properties of the Lost Woods in OOT.
I've always had a big problem with those "The people forgot" stories, really. An epic journey from one land to another, and the founding of a new society? People aren't going to forget that. Even before writing, oral stories lasted for centuries and beyond... it is surprising how well people DID remember the important things. Just think of the Illiad and the Odyssey. They are books hundreds of pages long, but were transmitted from person to person for centuries before they were ever written down.
Unless something amazingly catastrophic happened, people don't "just forget" things like that...
Of course we do have lots of missing pieces of history (we don't know what happened in most of history, really), as once a people dissolve or are subsumed into another group their individual history is often lost, and the distant past does eventually descend into myth and legend -- see for instance all the theories the Romans had for the early days of their city -- but even so, those legends are generally assumed to contain at least some truth. I'm sure many great events are completely unknown, but... the propensity for fantasy authors (games, books, etc) to just say "and then over the centuries people forgot" is, I would say, stupid. Things just don't really work like that. Whether through oral history or written, people remember! Stuff like this is in so many things, and it's always stupid. It basically proves that whoever wrote that story has absolutely no idea how oral history works.
The only exception would be if said societies were actually wiped out.
Quote:When were the Twili actually banished to the Twilight Realm anyway? Was it after OOT? The way they talk about it, it seems like it was long before those events... I still don't know who actually banished them. They say "the gods" but was it the great 3, or some lesser gods that did it? I figured that the 3 goddesses left Hyrule a long time ago, a set of Deist style gods that create a world and move on without looking back. If they actually are still watching over it, that can work, but I figure they really could have done a better job of, say, eliminating Ganon in WW without flooding the place. So, I figure it was the lesser gods they created that are being prayed to. They would have limited power and might be forced to do a flood to save the rest of the world from Ganon.
I bet you're thinking about this way more than Nintendo ever has. I mean I do like discussing the Zelda story, but... it's hard to take it so seriously (as you do there) when it seems so obvious that Nintendo does not. Just look at all those geographical problems, for instance. Beyond the most basic elements -- "this part in the north, probably, etc", the world changes each time not because of any of the ways you try to explain it, but simply because each time they make a new overworld and don't care about keeping it accurate when compared to the other games. That really is the answer... they don't care, and don't care about even coming up with an explanation to explain it. Because the difference between OoT and the later games in overworld design is no different than the differences between the other games. WW's "they went to a new place" wasn't explaining why the map changed, it was simply trying to tell an interesting story, because each Zelda game really is self-contained (unless it's a direct sequel).
TP vs. OoT is maybe the most obviously ridiculous case of that. As you say, the two world maps have absolutely nothing worth mentioning in common, despite being in "the exact same world". There is no way to logically explain this, so I'm not even going to try.
Note that, however, originally the game DID reflect OoT's overworld more, before TP was repeatedly overhauled. Go watch the first trailer again, it clearly showed a few OoT locations in it. They just ditched that later on in favor of a completely different map that they liked more, but had less to do with the original design... because they care more about each game on its own than the continuity.
The same goes for the Twili in the adult timeline -- they never existed there, because they were created specifically for TP... I guess they could make some game with the Twili in the adult timeline, but just because TP says "they are there and have been for a long time" doesn't mean Nintendo is actually going to follow through on that to the logical conclusion for the other timeline, if there is such a thing. (maybe they should, but will they? Likely not.)
A Mana-style "the stories are all different versions of the same world unless we directly say it's a sequel so we don't need to bother with a timeline" style thing would have done wonders for the Zelda series, I think, as stupid as that excuse is... (if you won't actually try to make a logical universe)
Quote:The map of the first Four Swords has Death Mountain in the north, but nothing else recognizable. The rest of the land is locked in this odd sort of "active volcano right by a giant wall of ice" sort of weirdness (and it was primarily just meant as a video game to be played for it's own sake at the time, so it could be excused). Adventures ditches this landscape almost completely to match up a lot closer to what's in other Zelda games. That lets it match up to OOT a lot better (though not perfectly it can be worked with with the "changes over time" thing), but if their intention was a world that actually acknowledged the storyline of the first Four Swords, and it clearly was as the events of that game are detailed, then it fails utterly in explaining such a drastically changed landscape.
Ah... so this would explain the "FS is actually a sidestory" theory, then, perhaps.
Quote:It certainly explains the human settlement of the Lost Woods and the canons and stage coaches and so on. Perhaps that combined with some small climate changes can cover it...
Guns in (JRPG) fantasy worlds exist, but don't work as well as guns do in real life. People prefer to carry around really big swords, because swords deflect bullets like lightsabers and guns are useless when compared to someone with a 20 foot long sword!
Zelda just takes from that tradition, I would say, though admittedly it is just cannons and not handguns too. And yes, guns did take a few centuries to reach wide use, and did start off as just cannons... but that stage didn't last anywhere near as it does in your average fantasy game or show. (Western fantasy isn't immune to this either, of course... why is it that only Dwarves have guns, and they're not really any better than swords? :))
Note that some other Zelda games have cannons too -- Oracles, for example.
Quote:I'd say their intentions for LTTP, stateside and Japanside were likely pretty much the same. From everything I've read regarding translation differences, it was only a number of religious references that were altered, and nothing that really alters any main story points. The interviews with some of the Japanese developers in those old issues of Nintendo power indicate there was no real difference in intention. It was meant as "before" in both locations. The Japanese instruction booklet lacked this information, but a number of these games lack the developer's commentary to tie it all together.
We really don't know whether this is true or not, though... I don't think we should just assume that it was translated exactly.
Quote:The issue I have with saying OOT happened either before or after the imprisoning war, rather than being the imprisoning war, is that it doesn't really fit before as Ganon getting the triforce that had been hidden for centuries a while before doing the exact same thing in the imprisoning war sounds way off. Doing it AFTER he was imprisoned (to get imprisoned... again?) also seems really weird.
No, you've probably just got several more games in between, perfectly explaining all of the relevant situations! :)
Are you sure? Everything I've heard says that before widespread literacy, the vast majority of a populace lived in total ignorance of even base things like more than a few generations back in their family (note: I myself live in total ignorance of more than a few generations in my family line, I'm really what you call a "mutt", which is how I prefer it). Aren't there even a few nations in the real world that slowly migrated and over time many forgot they had migrated? I seem to recall some special on the history channel saying something to that effect... I will say this though. It's impossible for that sort of thing to happen NOW. No one is ever going to forget ANYTHING at this point, or at least society as a whole will ALWAYS have all information everything forever. That's why distant future sci-fi stories where everyone for some reason doesn't know where the nuclear piles of today are stored always seem ridiculous. I mean, when you think about it, how many civilizations have ANY tales talking about travelling from Kenya to where they are? That's apparently what happened, prehistorically, but history holds no tales, no myths, that actually reveal this. Some legends have zero truth whatsoever to them. I mean Europe treated Africa like some newly discovered "savage land" rather than the place Europeans came from. I don't think it's all that far fetched that several generations would lead to all but a few scholars and some ancient books in a forgotten language remembering that they actually came from another land of Hyrule ages ago. They do make it clear that the language in OOT is supposed to be the same language as all those ancient scripts in LTTP you have to find some book to translate. Link is a 5th level genius or something, running around solving puzzles in a few minutes that years of research failed to solve. Indy Jones (and Tucan Sam) seem equally capable.
About LTTP's setting, you should note that in neither the US or Japanese versions does ANY in-game text reveal where it's set in the timeline relative to Zeldas 1 and 2, excepting logical conclusions based on the triforce and all that. What is it you are saying we can't be sure of, those interviews with the developers?
The order of tech seems to be bombs, then cannons, then some disaster setting everyone back. One thing's for sure, there's like a million "lost cultures" that seem to develop some really advanced tech, like (namely) hookshots.
I agree that the "developer explanation" of changed landscapes is usually "it was more fun this way". They seem to care a little, but not enough to sacrifice gameplay for it. That's understadable, but it makes things a little tough for me. Castlevania is lucky. They explained fairly early on that Dracula's castle is "simply" a manifestation of Dracula's will and changes in every incarnation because of that. King's Quest also did the logical thing and just decided early on that EVERY game will take place in a brand new country. I'm not saying I don't agree with their move. If Hyrule looked exactly the same every single time, it would get stale really quick. I'm just saying it makes explaining things a little tougher.
However, they don't ignore it entirely. LTTP's official player's guide explains that the land changes over time in their attempt to at least acknowledge the issue. Zelda 2 explains that Hyrule is a much larger place and states that the whole game takes place in a different part of Hyrule. Wind Waker's ending about forming a new Hyrule really does seem inspired by making some sense out of the change in land, even if that was not the point of the game (likely they thought of it some time into the project as an added bonus). But yes, overall they will always sacrifice story to make the game more fun. Blizzard certainly has taken that policy as well.
Quote:Are you sure? Everything I've heard says that before widespread literacy, the vast majority of a populace lived in total ignorance of even base things like more than a few generations back in their family (note: I myself live in total ignorance of more than a few generations in my family line, I'm really what you call a "mutt", which is how I prefer it). Aren't there even a few nations in the real world that slowly migrated and over time many forgot they had migrated? I seem to recall some special on the history channel saying something to that effect... I will say this though. It's impossible for that sort of thing to happen NOW. No one is ever going to forget ANYTHING at this point, or at least society as a whole will ALWAYS have all information everything forever. That's why distant future sci-fi stories where everyone for some reason doesn't know where the nuclear piles of today are stored always seem ridiculous. I mean, when you think about it, how many civilizations have ANY tales talking about travelling from Kenya to where they are? That's apparently what happened, prehistorically, but history holds no tales, no myths, that actually reveal this. Some legends have zero truth whatsoever to them. I mean Europe treated Africa like some newly discovered "savage land" rather than the place Europeans came from. I don't think it's all that far fetched that several generations would lead to all but a few scholars and some ancient books in a forgotten language remembering that they actually came from another land of Hyrule ages ago. They do make it clear that the language in OOT is supposed to be the same language as all those ancient scripts in LTTP you have to find some book to translate. Link is a 5th level genius or something, running around solving puzzles in a few minutes that years of research failed to solve. Indy Jones (and Tucan Sam) seem equally capable.
You mostly missed my point, DJ. I mean honestly, humanity's origins in Africa, tens of thousands of years ago? You're right, oral tradition doesn't go back anywhere remotely that far. I tried to account for that when I talked about "within a culture." Oral traditions last within cultures.
It does seem that civilized cultures are more likely to want to remember their histories than more primitive ones, which would explain part of that. Surely the first migrants to the Americas remembered the voyages of their ancestors to the new continent from Asia, but yes, over time that was indeed forgotten... and yes, peoples everywhere made up stories to try to explain what they did not know.
But of course, not all of those stories are completely made up... just think of the aforementioned Illiad and Odyssey. Once scholars thought that those were simply stories too, before they learned that they were actually based on real historical events. Myths often do say something about the culture that created them. But anyway, there's a big difference between something that happened tens or hundreds of thousands of years ago and something that happened hundreds of years ago. A big, BIG difference. In the latter case, expecting a culture to hold historical memory of important events of a couple of centuries ago is entirely reasonable and should be expected.
As I said,before there was written history, there was oral history. This is a tradition of stories and tales told by one generation to the next. In these cultures, people had far better powers of memorization than we do, because they had to learn everything that way. The next person would memorize the entire oral history of the tribe to memory, and pass it on that way. Indeed over time some things would be forgotten, and the longer the amount of time passes the more from the distant past may be forgotten, but not everything will be... and in any society with writing, very little of importance will be.
For instance, in Rome, the debate wasn't what had happened since their culture started writing things down. The debate was about what exactly had happened before then. There were oral traditions saying what had happened, but they were not entirely reliable... so a history was constructed. Not all people believed it of course, the ties to the Trojans and all that, but the effort was made to fill in the blanks... but my point is, for cultures with writing, this should not be a problem. Things that happened get written down -- the achievements of the leaders, etc. So we know a lot about which Mayan rulers conquered which cities when and all that... we know little about many other things, but the leaders made sure to write down their most important exploits (true or not, as Ramses II or Egypt would tell you :D). But their ancestors had very long ago forgotten about the trip to the Americas, so they could not have known that... over the thousands of years between the arrival of people in the Americas and the rise of civilizations here, the trip had been long forgotten (but as I said, if it had been a continuing civilized culture that had made the trip, it'd probably have been less likely that it would have been forgotten. Think of the Vikings and their trips to the Americas...they didn't stay long, but they wrote a few books about it. Those books were long forgotten, but when people thought about it again and looked for them, they were there... and then when they looked for the physical evidence, they found L'Anse aux Meadows. It was not completely forgotten.
To the point:
Hyrule has writing.
The Hyrulean civilization survives.
They would have written down what happened to them. "It was lost" is not an excuse (unless civilization was truly totally destroyed, which in this case it was not); think of how Greek and Roman civilization fell, and a thousand years later when people wanted to go find their old books again, they found that a surprisingly large amount of it was still around... something as important as moving from the old land to a new land across a sea would not simply be forgotten in a few centuries! Whether through oral or written traditions, such a major event would certainly last that long in the memory of that civilization.
And I'm supposed to believe that in just a few generations people have completely forgotten everything?
The only way out of this is if there's a really, really big gap of time between WW and the next game (LttP) in that timeline, and in between Hyrulean civilization collapses (repeatedly?) or something...
I can see that and I myself would have to agree a large period of time. A thousand years works for me if you are willing to humor the idea that every possible thing that could go wrong short of catastrophe did. What we DO know is the old languages are known by very few in LTTP, so the books would only help some. If the oral tradition was already mentioning what happened with Ganon and the triforce, that story could have been seperated in the retellings from stories of coming from another land until the order was forgotten, and at least some people might be mistaken in that regard. Yeah it's a little bit of a stretch, especially when you consider EVERY Link is capable of reading, and every character IN the Zelda games we come across also seems more than capable of reading...
There's not too much to say except that if the average person just doesn't care about history, then only scholars would really know that. There's nothing in LTTP that rules out the imprisoning war taking place in another Hyrule. It's just never once mentioned in the course of the game. I suppose there's no particular reason it must be brought up. It could just not be entirely common knowledge, but most scholars are still aware of it.
One thing that does a lot to make clear that lots of time had to pass is just how ancient some of those old temples really are.
Hmm, another oddity is it is weird that if the old Hyrule is somewhere else, the Dark World seems to have been oddly carried into this new land with everyone else. It's a twisted mirror image of LTTP's Hyrule after all. I mean, did Ganon sense that everyone had gone to a new land and move his entire operation to a completely new part of the Dark Land? Huh, this is actually a much bigger issue than some lost details over time if you ask me...
I found the best site ever!
http://www.gannon-banned.com/
Turns out he's got a number of interviews. Those wily Nintendo guys do have a time line and do in fact intend on clearing up everything in the future, and they do care about the story.
Also sorry lazy, Link and Zelda are not related... I actually didn't notice playing through the GBA version of LTTP that they had redone Link's Uncle's line to something more obvious... Then again, I thought he meant "Zelda is your... [destiny]" from the start, on account of how brain I be! Er, on account of how brain I not be probably, because I sometimes miss the cues some people pick up on early for big reveals.