Hyrule Historia Discussion

[SotS]

RE: Hyrule Historia

I think that its dum. And the third timeline is jst dum. and nintendo should not hve relesed it.

Not really, I think that it's awesome. It proves a ton of speculation as being true, it kept other speculations from going so far that they were considered fact by fans, and it has awesome art. What's not to like?... Oh yeah, it probably isn't coming here. I swear I will move to Japan for a year once I finish school (and my Japanese study in school...) just to get everything that no one else gets. :<

 

[Zero]

RE: Hyrule Historia

Hyrule Historia is a fantastic fan item -- I'm getting it ^_^ The whole timeline thing is misguided and pretty much a cop out, but the entire package looks amazing.

 

[Card Slinger J]

RE: Nintendo Reveals Official Zelda Timeline/Hyrule Historia Discussion

They really should've been more specific about the timeline in the actual Zelda games instead of having kept us guessing for over 25 years to give us this travesty of an apology.

Had Nintendo had been more consistent with the story and plot of the Zelda games instead of having just one game be the sequel of a prequel and so forth fans would of had a better understanding of the franchise itself.

Then again Zelda wasn't a series that took great emphasis on story and plot in chronological order, it was about living out the lore that was inspired by Dungeons & Dragons. Heck even Skyrim owes some credit to D&D.

Kind of a shame that Nintendo nowadays is notorious for region locking JRPG's overseas.

 

[Zero]

They really didn't care much about story from the beginning. Gameplay took precedence over Story always. Before OoT, most Zelda stories just felt tacked on and only added to create a more full experience. The fact that they made an official timeline to begin with was a mistake. They announced themselves that they screwed it up, so bleh D:

 

[Starboard Driger]

Did this thread just get merged with another thread?

Whatever. Anyways, the timeline seems pretty tacked on. I just view each game as a new story, like Miyamoto (I think it was him) said originally. The timeline makes sense, but it just makes more sense to view each game as a separate story imo.

 

[catutie]

I just say who cares and just play the game. Would you like a timeline of the Mario games next? Exactly...who cares. Each game is always an amazing experience and should just be viewed as a great game and not strung together by a confusing time line....

 

[SotS]

They announced themselves that they screwed it up, so bleh D:

That was just people taking what Aonuma (I think it was him, I'm not sure) said out of context. The timeline is real, and actually makes a lot of sense. It seems people just got too used to the split-timeline theory. ChrisCross has some videos which show how it all work together.

And Card Slinger J, if I may ask, how on earth is Zelda anywhere near based off of Dungeons and Dragons? Or in that case, even related? Miyamoto (Again, I get confused with these Japanese names, I'm quite sure it was Miyamoto though) never mentioned once DnD whenever he was interviewed with how he came to make Zelda. He said it was based off of the adventures he had as a kid.... Or something like that. And he wanted to recreate that experience for others to experience.

 

[CMP]

Would you like a timeline of the Mario games next? Exactly...who cares. Each game is always an amazing experience and should just be viewed as a great game and not strung together by a confusing time line....

While I do agree that each installment in the Zelda series should be viewed on its own and be admired for its own achievements, I'm not sure if the Mario comparison works -- many Zelda games mention events and legends which have been seen/played through in others, where there is a distinct sense of "this happened in the past, which is why things are now like this, etc." Hence why fans have obsessed for years about the timeline. The Mario series doesn't really fit that mold, as each game's plot truly is (for the most part, I haven't played many recent games) standalone.

 

[catutie]

While I do agree that each installment in the Zelda series should be viewed on its own and be admired for its own achievements, I'm not sure if the Mario comparison works -- many Zelda games mention events and legends which have been seen/played through in others, where there is a distinct sense of "this happened in the past, which is why things are now like this, etc." Hence why fans have obsessed for years about the timeline. The Mario series doesn't really fit that mold, as each game's plot truly is (for the most part, I haven't played many recent games) standalone.

But you get the point. We don't need a timeline. It's just people trying to over complicate the games...

 

[Naked Snake]

But you get the point. We don't need a timeline. It's just people trying to over complicate the games...

Over complicating are the Latin words for internet.

Seriously though, I personally like the timeline. I find it very interesting.

 

[Argetlam]

Well, my first Legend of Zelda game was Skyward Sword, so I will probably play them in order Hey, if you guys have a facebook, like this page:

http://www.facebook.com/pages/NoA-Please-bring-us-Hyrule-Historia-in-English/316841885016483

They want Nintendo to bring us the book in English.

 

[Red Monkeys In A Forest]

So I like how after all this time about asking for a timeline, we still don't truly understand the official one from Nintendo hahaha. The whole Link is defeated sounds very confusing cause it sounds like him dying and not dying would be a possible "timeline split" in every game, although I do doubt that's what Nintendo meant, never the less it still is possible.

I think what we need now is the Historia of the Historia of Hyrule

 

[FireMeowth]

The whole Link is defeated sounds very confusing cause it sounds like him dying and not dying would be a possible "timeline split" in every game,

And that's exactly what it means, yes. The only difference between him failing the quest in OoT as opposed to any other game is that the OoT failure is the only one that has been touched on by other games. I wouldn't be surprised if the future would bring more games based on Link failing his quest in... well, any other game, really.

 

[Incinermyn]

I just finished playing OoT for the 3DS a little while back and I'm a little confused by how the timeline diverges between how if Link returns to his childhood and events could continue from either the past or the future. If Ganondorf is defeated by Link in OoT's future, doesn't that still mean he exists in the past and Link has to suffer through whatever unfolds because of his actions anyways (unless Ganondorf is somehow removed from the past by being defeated/sealed away in the future, presuming OoT 3D is based on the exact storyline of the N64 game)? I guess now that I've actually had the opportunity to play OoT, this timeline is starting to seem really disjointed after all... :/

 

[Chariblaze]

If Ganondorf is defeated by Link in OoT's future, doesn't that still mean he exists in the past and Link has to suffer through whatever unfolds because of his actions anyways

Yes, this is a bit part of the split timeline. Ganon defeated in the future =/= Ganon defeated in the past.

(unless Ganondorf is somehow removed from the past by being defeated/sealed away in the future,

He's not removed this way. Everyone assumes that since Link was sent back to the point he met Zelda, they told the king and had Ganon executed/sealed. This was confirmed in interviews and Twilight Princess.

 

[Incinermyn]

Alright, that clears things up for me then. I never kept up with interviews or anything, but I do recall that there was a cutscene in which Ganondorf was executed/banished to the Twilight Realm during part of Twilight Princess. So I couldn't make the connection between it and any time-lapse between the games because I hadn't played OoT until now and apparently didn't pay much attention to the epilogue of OoT 3D after I completed my first play-through.