Gaming Do we finally know the truth about BOTW

[Pandaxclone2]

You only agreed with me for BotW. You implied most or all of the other, older games did have a clear timeline.

Because the published timeline didn't exist until Skyward Sword. The games released since then barring remasters and remakes were A Link Between Worlds, Triforce Heroes and BotW. Like you said, games that are obviously sequels don't count since they clearly had a continuity in mind, so the remainder is BotW.

Basically, they couldn't care about a timeline beforehand because there wasn't a clear one at the time. That doesn't mean they couldn't keep continuity in mind. It just means things are more difficult now that they do have a timeline to abide by, which they've sidestepped for BotW.

 

[MadMageKefka]

If you could link another article stating the same thing anytime before the official timeline was published, then fine; I'll be glad to concede that they weren't thinking about the timeline before they made it.

https://nintendoeverything.com/zeld...ros-path-mode-was-added-as-dlc-timeline-more/

"Eiji Aonuma: Actually, those timeline-related questions are difficult because we’ve never designed any Zelda games by saying “hey, we’re going to put that game here, we need to have it fit into this period or that one, etc.” That’s not what comes first for us."

Does this work?

In the end, does it really matter? (I must be the only Zelda fan that doesn't give a shit about timelines...) I don't play the Zelda games as if they sequel one-another (Unless they specifically say they do, like Link To The Past and Link Between Worlds). Nor do I need them to reference one another. I just enjoy each installment at face-value, and on to the next. Hopefully we'll get a new Zelda game in a year or two that was actually MADE for the Switch, and not just a shoe-horned Wii U port.

I've been arguing the same point here for a while now. At least read my posts. *cries*

 

[TotalInsanity4]

https://nintendoeverything.com/zeld...ros-path-mode-was-added-as-dlc-timeline-more/

"Eiji Aonuma: Actually, those timeline-related questions are difficult because we’ve never designed any Zelda games by saying “hey, we’re going to put that game here, we need to have it fit into this period or that one, etc.” That’s not what comes first for us."

Does this work?


I've been arguing the same point here for a while now. At least read my posts. *cries*

Given that so many games have references to each other in terms of in-game history, I have a hard time believing that all the home console games up to Skyward Sword (barring Four Swords Adventures) weren't designed with at least a loose chronology in mind. The handheld games are a different beast entirely, though. I have the feeling that what Aonuma meant is that they had never designed a game trying to satisfy specific time periods that appear on the timeline, rather than not designing them with a specific chronological order

 

[MadMageKefka]

Given that so many games have references to each other in terms of in-game history, I have a hard time believing that all the home console games up to Skyward Sword (barring Four Swords Adventures) weren't designed with at least a loose chronology in mind. The handheld games are a different beast entirely, though. I have the feeling that what Aonuma meant is that they had never designed a game trying to satisfy specific time periods that appear on the timeline, rather than not designing them with a specific chronological order

Read the interview. He says it plain as day. Believe whatever makes you happy, though. Its just a game.

 

[TotalInsanity4]

Read the interview. He says it plain as day. Believe whatever makes you happy, though. Its just a game.

I did read it, and I stand behind my statement. I'm really not particularly invested in arguing it, because, yes, it's just a game, but given that you can very, VERY easily trace the chronology backwards from the first to games to Ocarina of Time, then forwards for Majora's Mask, Twilight Princess, and Wind Waker, and the fact that Skyward Sword was very obviously made WITH the timeline in mind, I'm standing by what I said

 

[MadMageKefka]

I did read it, and I stand behind my statement. I'm really not particularly invested in arguing it, because, yes, it's just a game, but given that you can very, VERY easily trace the chronology backwards from the first to games to Ocarina of Time, then forwards for Majora's Mask, Twilight Princess, and Wind Waker, and the fact that Skyward Sword was very obviously made WITH the timeline in mind, I'm standing by what I said

It was directly stated that Skyward Sword was to take place before Ocarina of Time, so that game is obviously an exception.

 

[TotalInsanity4]

It was directly stated that Skyward Sword was to take place before Ocarina of Time, so that game is obviously an exception.

And Twilight Princess explicitly takes place after Ocarina of Time, which also means it has to take place after Majora's Mask, so I guess that's an exception, too

And, given that Ocarina of Time is just the story that's referenced in the intro to Link to the Past, I guess we'll give that one an exception as well?

Oh, and the story for Ocarina of Time is re-told in the intro to Wind Waker, which means it must take place after it in some manner as well. Exception?...

 

[nWo]

That video from the first comments sucked balls so bad. Man, I wasn´t that disgusted eons ago.

 

[osaka35]

Last in the fallen hero timeline according to game theory

Game theory tends to forget anything that doesn't fit into whatever thinking they're pushing. just ignore whatever they say. Even if they're right, they go about it in all the most infuriating and wrong-headed ways.



I think team zelda there don't care too much about the timeline, and focus more on gameplay first and foremost. Then they'll attach a story to give a better shape to the gameplay, and then figure out the finer details (continuity concerns, as I call it). They'll sacrifice finer details before they sacrifice the story/gameplay.

They want zoras and rito? before they should maybe exist? whatever! you get zora and rito because they want those characters and they want those environments and those plot points. The "but can they exist right now" is on the back-burner. I'm sure they'll tweak things if it doesn't impact how they want things to be, but they certainly aren't going to let it get in the way of the gameplay or story they want told.

It's still fun to think about though. I'd like to think it happens in the fallen timeline, but not sure how much it matters.

 

[TotalInsanity4]

I think that the previous Zelda games are going to be the Old Testament to the "new" series' New Testament, if that makes sense

 

[MadMageKefka]

And Twilight Princess explicitly takes place after Ocarina of Time, which also means it has to take place after Majora's Mask, so I guess that's an exception, too

And, given that Ocarina of Time is just the story that's referenced in the intro to Link to the Past, I guess we'll give that one an exception as well?

Oh, and the story for Ocarina of Time is re-told in the intro to Wind Waker, which means it must take place after it in some manner as well. Exception?...

Um... where is it said Twilight Princess directly takes place after Majora's Mask? I think you're just assuming based on the "fallen hero" thing. Link to the past was made before OoT, so not sure how long in advance you THINK they plan their story, but it was CLEARLY ret-con'd. I'll agree Wind Waker was an exception too, though.

You're really just proving my point, though. I have given you direct quotes from the developers, straight up saying that they don't think about the story in a Zelda game until after the game itself, and you're here all like "nope nope nope nope nope nope nope." No dude, you're right. You understand the process better than the developers. How foolish of me. /s

 

[TotalInsanity4]

Um... where is it said Twilight Princess directly takes place after Majora's Mask? I think you're just assuming based on the "fallen hero" thing.

I didn't say that, I said that it takes place after it in general. Which, really, no matter how you read it, it literally HAS to given that Majora's Mask DOES take place directly after Ocarina of Time

Link to the past was made before OoT, so not sure how long in advance you THINK they plan their story, but it was CLEARLY ret-con'd.

Retconning implies that you're ignoring crucial information that was previously canon. Having played both games and not recalling anything incompatible with the story, Ocarina of Time is just a prequel, simple as that

I'll agree Wind Waker was an exception too, though.

I'm mildly confused as to how you accepted this but not Twilight Princess

You're really just proving my point, though. I have given you direct quotes from the developers, straight up saying that they don't think about the story in a Zelda game until after the game itself, and you're here all like "nope nope nope nope nope nope nope." No dude, you're right. You understand the process better than the developers. How foolish of me. /s

I think you're misunderstanding my argument. I'm not saying that Aonuma is giving false information in the interview, I'm saying you're reading it wrong. He specifically mentions "periods", as in specific time periods. I'm aware that they don't plan for passage of time or anything like that (or any of the "wars" that are outlined in Hyrule Historia, for instance), but given the direct connections between MOST of the games, they were very clearly designed with at least a loose chronology by the end of the story planning phase

 

[MadMageKefka]

I didn't say that, I said that it takes place after it in general. Which, really, no matter how you read it, it literally HAS to given that Majora's Mask DOES take place directly after Ocarina of Time

Retconning implies that you're ignoring crucial information that was previously canon. Having played both games and not recalling anything incompatible with the story, Ocarina of Time is just a prequel, simple as that

I'm mildly confused as to how you accepted this but not Twilight Princess

I think you're misunderstanding my argument. I'm not saying that Aonuma is giving false information in the interview, I'm saying you're reading it wrong. He specifically mentions "periods", as in specific time periods. I'm aware that they don't plan for passage of time or anything like that (or any of the "wars" that are outlined in Hyrule Historia, for instance), but given the direct connections between MOST of the games, they were very clearly designed with at least a loose chronology by the end of the story planning phase

I was about to argue each point, but you know what? Screw that. You're exactly the type of fan I'm speaking of in earlier posts. You can't accept the facts in front of your face, so you try to read between lines that aren't there. Yes, some of the games fit together. Just because they don't think of a story when developing a game, doesn't mean they don't think how to make it fit AFTER they are done. The "exceptions" I'm speaking of are games where they clearly had the story in mind at the START of the project, like Majora's mask, or Wind Waker. I honestly don't understand why you are so desperate for there to be a connection between the games. Can't you just take them for what they are and leave it at that? Whatever my friend, you do you.

 

[D34DL1N3R]

Given that so many games have references to each other in terms of in-game history, I have a hard time believing that all the home console games up to Skyward Sword (barring Four Swords Adventures) weren't designed with at least a loose chronology in mind. The handheld games are a different beast entirely, though. I have the feeling that what Aonuma meant is that they had never designed a game trying to satisfy specific time periods that appear on the timeline, rather than not designing them with a specific chronological order

How can a person be anti "Legend" theory, but could accept "designed with at least a loose chronology in mind"? It's pretty much the same thing. A loose legend, lore and chronology involved, naturally. But it doesn't HAVE to fit anywhere, and wasn't designed to (but you can probably smoosh it in anywhere you'd like if you want to, because of the reoccurring lore and legend). Are some of them obvious sequels? Sure, but that doesn't mean all of them are. You've already been given the devs quote on the matter. No one is reading it wrong, I think you're reading too much into it and conjuring something that doesn't exist.

 

[TotalInsanity4]

How can a person be anti "Legend" theory, but could accept "designed with at least a loose chronology in mind"? It's pretty much the same thing. A loose legend, lore and chronology involved, naturally. But it doesn't HAVE to fit anywhere, and wasn't designed to (but you can probably smoosh it in anywhere you'd like if you want to, because of the reoccurring lore and legend). Are some of them obvious sequels? Sure, but that doesn't mean all of them are. You've already been given the devs quote on the matter. No one is reading it wrong, I think you're reading too much into it and conjuring something that doesn't exist.

You... Do understand that that's what I'm saying, right?

 

[D34DL1N3R]

You... Do understand that that's what I'm saying, right?

No.

 

[TotalInsanity4]

No.

That's effectively what I've been saying; at the very least, the fact that the "timeline" is clearly malleable and most everything would fit about anywhere (to a degree, as long as constraints as to how far back or forward you could place something) if you try hard enough, but each game definitely builds on the lore presented in the previous release in a way that is very recognizable between releases