Dark Horse and Nintendo team up to bring Hyrule Historia to America

[CrimzonEyed]

Which isn't even canon since you just restart from your last checkpoint. Whoever thought of this timeline is just stupid.

That's possible in all games...
the character reviving trough save isn't counted for in the story.

 

[Guild McCommunist]

Which isn't even canon since you just restart from your last checkpoint. Whoever thought of this timeline is just stupid.

That's possible in all games...
the character reviving trough save isn't counted for in the story.

No one ever writes a canon possibility being that you died by a flock of fowl feasting on you. It's just incredibly stupid. That's like starting Mass Effect 3 with a giant Collector base hovering towards Earth and Anderson going to Ashley and saying "Well looks like Shepard died doing some menial sidequest and accidentally poking out of cover, looks like we've got a swarm of Collectors coming to fuck us up and we've still got Reapers to worry about."

 

[Hells Malice]

Link never defeated Ganon.
The seven wise men sealed the ganon and the dark version of hyrule that he had created.

I'm not sure if the seven wise men are the seven sages. It all depends on if Link was killed before or after he awoke the sages.
If he died before he was able to awake the sages, then I have no clue on who the seven wise men might be.

In all honesty the "official timeline" is by far one of the dumbest fucking things I've read and anyone who had a semblance of talent in storytelling and connecting narratives would just shake their head at this. Having a timeline that works on non-canon endings that players can NEVER get is retarded.

You already had your ass shut down with this argument, why bring it up again?

Go play OOT, get a game over, and don't continue.
Holy fucking shit, hero is defeated ending!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!111111111 Y DEY HIDE DIS SECRET SO WEL GUISE?!

It's an interesting prospect to see how a timeline would go if the hero were to be defeated. The LoZ series is quite ready for that since a "Link" is born so friggin' often that one dying just screws shit up momentarily.

I think it is a patchwork timeline, but it works all the same. Even the ways it 'doesn't work' has nothing to do with the timeline split involving Ocarina of Time link failing, because there are -so- many possibilities that can canonically be said to provide that as a true-to-story possibility.

 

[CrimzonEyed]

Which isn't even canon since you just restart from your last checkpoint. Whoever thought of this timeline is just stupid.

That's possible in all games...
the character reviving trough save isn't counted for in the story.

No one ever writes a canon possibility being that you died by a flock of fowl feasting on you.

[yt]l2VnS8mwW-g[/yt]

 

[The Milkman]

Then again, im gonna pass. Most of the value (IMO) in the zelda series is from the fact that fan have tried to figure out the timeline since the days of Wind Waker. And frankly, I dont think we should see anything official till we get some sort of climax game in it, not per say the end of the series. To me this shatters, most theories of the series and messes up the fact that the story was great without making any chronological sense. All this does is pretty much tell us where the series will be going from here on out (Link failing to save Hyrule). FF didnt need a timeline, why does Zelda?

I get what you're saying, but at the same time, i think the historia did open a lot of doors for theories, for every one it closed. Plus, not reading it isn't going to help "stimulate" former debunked theories, since the cat is already out of the bag, you know what I mean? Even if you and some other people who haven't read anything in the historia are theorizing on a thread or something, some other person could easily jump in and say "actually, Hyrule Historia confirmed/debunked X theory, bla bla bla." You know what I mean?

Yeah, I kniw nit reading wont change it, but still I would like to preserve some of the fun for reading old theorys since ill have those memories.

 

[TripleSMoon]

Personally, I prefer this timeline from Magical Game Time...

Spoiler

But that aside, I fully agree with Guild on this one... The reason the original split timeline (child and adult) works is because both are able to exist at the same time without breaking canon or providing hypothetical "what-if" scenarios. Here, let's go through time travel 101 (warning: Ocarina of Time spoilers follow)...

1) Link goes to the future, to see a ravaged land under Ganon's control. He defeats Ganon, leaving Zelda and the Hylians to rebuild their future. Zelda sends him back to live his actual life 7, years prior.
2) After returning to the past (before Ganon chased away Zelda and Link pulled out the Master Sword, Link warns Zelda so as to prevent the horrible events that return in the future. Ganon is arrested, and none of the horrible things happen.
3) As a result, the timeline splits, so now an adult timeline exists without a hero (since Link returned to the past and split the timeline, so he no longer existed in it, which explains why the "hero never came" in the Wind Waker's backstory).
4) Link, on the other hand, lives in the child timeline, and goes on to experience the events of Majora's Mask.

As you can see, the "Hero fails" timeline can't possibly fit into this canon, at all! The only way for it to fit is a hypothetical "what-if" or alternate universe scenario in which Link dies in the battle against Ganondorf, and hence the other 2 timelines don't occur. In other words, the "hero fails" timeline is exclusive to itself, and can't exist at the same time as the other 2.

So it makes no sense, and it really upsets me that Zelda has been broken into 2 parallel universes (essentially) rather than a timeline that all works together. If you've ever read the various different continuities for Marvel comics or Transformers, you'll understand what I mean. they're all reboots in different universes that have nothing to do with each other... and that's exactly what this "hero fails" timeline is, except it doesnt reboot anything, and Nintendo is seriously trying to spin it as working as part of the same canon, when there's literally no possible way it could.

 

[gamefan5]

Personally, I prefer this timeline from Magical Game Time...

Spoiler

But that aside, I fully agree with Guild on this one... The reason the original split timeline (child and adult) works is because both are able to exist at the same time without breaking canon or providing hypothetical "what-if" scenarios. Here, let's go through time travel 101 (warning: Ocarina of Time spoilers follow)...

1) Link goes to the future, to see a ravaged land under Ganon's control. He defeats Ganon, leaving Zelda and the Hylians to rebuild their future. Zelda sends him back to live his actual life 7, years prior.
2) After returning to the past (before Ganon chased away Zelda and Link pulled out the Master Sword, Link warns Zelda so as to prevent the horrible events that return in the future. Ganon is arrested, and none of the horrible things happen.
3) As a result, the timeline splits, so now an adult timeline exists without a hero (since Link returned to the past and split the timeline, so he no longer existed in it, which explains why the "hero never came" in the Wind Waker's backstory).
4) Link, on the other hand, lives in the child timeline, and goes on to experience the events of Majora's Mask.

As you can see, the "Hero fails" timeline can't possibly fit into this canon, at all! The only way for it to fit is a hypothetical "what-if" or alternate universe scenario in which Link dies in the battle against Ganondorf, and hence the other 2 timelines don't occur. In other words, the "hero fails" timeline is exclusive to itself, and can't exist at the same time as the other 2.

So it makes no sense, and it really upsets me that Zelda has been broken into 2 parallel universes (essentially) rather than a timeline that all works together. If you've ever read the various different continuities for Marvel comics or Transformers, you'll understand what I mean. they're all reboots in different universes that have nothing to do with each other... and that's exactly what this "hero fails" timeline is, except it doesnt reboot anything, and Nintendo is seriously trying to spin it as working as part of the same canon, when there's literally no possible way it could.

Elaborate, because so far, you didn't explain why it doesn't fit.
The other 2 tmelines are NEGATED when the hero dies which makes total sense.

If you see the timeline graph, you would realize the timeline doesn't even split evenly.

 

[TripleSMoon]

Elaborate, because so far, you didn't explain why it doesn't fit.

Sure I did. Basically, the "adult" and "child" timelines both mutually exist because of things that all actually happened. The "hero fails" timeline is the result of something that can't possibly happen at the same time as the other 2: The hero can't both fail and succeed at the same time. So only either the "hero fails" timeline or the 2 "Hero succeeds" timelines can exist at once. All 3 can't exist at once. If you've ever seen Back to the Future, I can give a better example of what I mean.

 

[gamefan5]

Elaborate, because so far, you didn't explain why it doesn't fit.

Sure I did. Basically, the "adult" and "child" timelines both mutually exist because of things that all actually happened. The "hero fails" timeline is the result of something that can't possibly happen at the same time as the other 2: The hero can't both fail and succeed at the same time. So only either the "hero fails" timeline or the 2 "Hero succeeds" timelines can exist at once. All 3 can't exist at once. If you've ever seen Back to the Future, I can give a better example of what I mean.

Are you blind? Look at the timeline graph again! WHERE does it say that it exists at the same time as the hero succeed? -_-

Again you did not explain why it doesn't fit.

Spoiler

 

[TripleSMoon]

Are you blind? Look at the timeline graph again! WHERE does it say that it exists at the same time as the hero succeed? -_-

Again you did not explain why it doesn't fit.

No need to get so indignant over these things dude, as always. -_-

And yes, I did explain how it doesnt fit AS A SINGLE CANON. I never said it was disqualified as being an alternate reality. And that's what bugs me. I don't like the fact that it's an alternate reality, that's all. If you can't understand what I'm saying in plain english, then idk what to tell you.

 

[weavile001]

who cares about the history?,i just want to kick some monsters ass!

 

[gamefan5]

Are you blind? Look at the timeline graph again! WHERE does it say that it exists at the same time as the hero succeed? -_-

Again you did not explain why it doesn't fit.

No need to get so indignant over these things dude, as always. -_-

And yes, I did explain how it doesnt fit AS A SINGLE CANON. I never said it was disqualified as being an alternate reality. And that's what bugs me. I don't like the fact that it's an alternate reality, that's all. If you can't understand what I'm saying in plain english, then idk what to tell you.

You can dislike it. That much I don't really care.
There are 3 canon alternate timelines. 2 actually flows at the same time (when the hero wins). Whereas the other one, follows only when the hero is defeated. (Basically a what-if)
If it was only 2 timelines then the Zelda timeline would be non-existent.
The other one fits because it practically tells us the previous events of A link to the past and how it happened. Which makes total sense.
Of course there are loopholes (although very few are significant.) bu it's not as bad as when we thought that there was only 2. Which didn't make any sense at all.

 

[Gahars]

Again, the main problem is that arbitrarily hinging one of the timelines around something that does not happen in the story proper is kind of a cheat. It feels less like a logical progression of the various stories and more like a cheap copout when the team was having trouble fitting the games' stories together.

To be entirely honest, I feel like a timeline for the Legend of Zelda series is unnecessary anyway. I'm all for having stories in games, but let's be honest; the LoZ series has never really focused on the narrative side of things. It's a pointless complication that's more of a hindrance than anything else.

 

[TripleSMoon]

Again, the main problem is that arbitrarily hinging one of the timelines around something that does not happen in the story proper is kind of a cheat. It feels less like a logical progression of the various stories and more like a cheap copout when the team was having trouble fitting the games' stories together.

That's exactly what I'm trying to say!

To be entirely honest, I feel like a timeline for the Legend of Zelda series is unnecessary anyway. I'm all for having stories in games, but let's be honest; the LoZ series has never really focused on the narrative side of things. It's a pointless complication that's more of a hindrance than anything else.

That's sort of been my take lately... The way I see it, it's the Legend of Zelda, not the History of Zelda, and each game is "just one of the legends of which people speak," and, in context of the universe, by completely historical, completely legend, or most likely, a mix of both. This would explain why certain elements get reused over and over again (the rule of 3 stones, etc). Or why certain characters reappear exactly the same (besides Link, Ganon, and Zelda) when they exist hundreds or thousands of years apart (Beedle and Tingle, for example). Or why the Master Sword repeappears with different design and location in the various games.

 

[gamefan5]

Again, the main problem is that arbitrarily hinging one of the timelines around something that does not happen in the story proper is kind of a cheat. It feels less like a logical progression of the various stories and more like a cheap copout when the team was having trouble fitting the games' stories together.

To be entirely honest, I feel like a timeline for the Legend of Zelda series is unnecessary anyway. I'm all for having stories in games, but let's be honest; the LoZ series has never really focused on the narrative side of things. It's a pointless complication that's more of a hindrance than anything else.

I agree with the timeline. In fact I agree with the way Nintendo has done it. However, what I bolded in your opinion is how I aso what I feel.

Because now they'll be limited in what they'll do in future games. Now they actually have to care about the story and it actually has to follow and make sense. 'cause if it doesn't, the fans will rage. If fact, It would have been better if they didn't reveal it.

---

 

[Bladexdsl]

no here's the REAL timeline

lol that's bullshit and doesn't make any sense at all!

sure it does look very closely

there is ONLY TWO TIMELINES the games that should be in the third are merely a spinoff and have nothing to do with the real timeline.

 

[TripleSMoon]

Barely any different dude. Except in ATTLP.

I'm talking about size and shape, too. In Ocarina of Time, it looks like a typical broadsword for an adult. In Wind Waker, it's small enough for child Link to comfortably use it. In Twilight Princess, it's much longer and thinner than either.

And regarding "limitations" in the timeline, I'm not that worried. Didn't Hyrule Historia mention that "all of this could change" or something, somewhere? That nothing was set in stone, or something along those lines? I remember reading that somewhere...

 

[gamefan5]

Barely any different dude. Except in ATTLP.

I'm talking about size and shape, too. In Ocarina of Time, it looks like a typical broadsword for an adult. In Wind Waker, it's small enough for child Link to comfortably use it. In Twilight Princess, it's much longer and thinner than either.

And regarding "limitations" in the timeline, I'm not that worried. Didn't Hyrule Historia mention that "all of this could change" or something, somewhere? That nothing was set in stone, or something along those lines? I remember reading that somewhere...

One word, Graphics. You know nintendo. They always want to change things drastically in franchise even things so insignificant. Zelda is no different. The master sword basically is the same. The basic design is the same. The iconic hilt of it (except ALTTP hence the mention of it) is the same. They change that only to fit the Link that they were supposed to go accordingly. After all, a TP MS wouldn't fit a child sized WW lick. So I don't thnk it should be taken into account.

Now for the bolded part, I can't believe it ntil I see it with my own eyes. By making Skyward sword (and the events in it) They've set the timeline in stone.

However nothing can be said if they allow another timeline to exist. A completely linear seperate timeline per se.

 

[TripleSMoon]

One word, Graphics. You know nintendo. They always want to change things drastically in franchise even things so insignificant. Zelda is no different. The master sword basically is the same. The basic design is the same. The iconic hilt of it (except ALTTP hence the mention of it) is the same. They change that only to fit the Link that they were supposed to go accordingly. After all, a TP MS wouldn't fit a child sized WW lick. So I don't thnk it should be taken into account. Now for the bolded part, I can't believe it ntil I see it with my own eyes. By making Skyward sword (and the events in it) They've set the timeline in stone. However nothing can be said if they allow another timeline to exist. A completely linear seperate timeline per se.

I know that's probably Nintendo's reason. I'm just saying that, purely from a standpoint of viewing it as a story where the Master Sword should always be the same, it makes sense. My personal explanation, that's all. Besides, I think it's a cool idea that the Master Sword could change its shape based on the needs of the Hero who uses it (making itself smaller for child Link, making itself larger for adult Link, etc)

 

[DarkStriker]

So much drama over a stupid timeline that is just stupid.