Hyrule Historia Book: A Bunch of Bull?

[SNOlink]

Big Mess Up In Hyrule Historia's Timeline

Remember the timeline that Nintendo had posted in the Hyrule Hystoria? Well I've noticed a blaring error in the timeline. According to the timeline, the Sealing War takes place right after Ocarina of Time on the "If Link is Defeated" section. Well, here's the thing. In the Sealing War, the Master Sword is created to defeat Ganondorf who possesses the Triforce. How could the Master Sword be created between Ocarina of Time and A Link to the Past if it is in two games (Skyward Sword and Ocarina of Time) before that point? It just doesn't make sense to me. I'm not saying ALttP doesn't go there (which I personally don't think it does, but that's a different story) but the Sealing War absolutely needs to be before Skyward Sword.

 

[guapo2003]

Yeah the whole timeline thing is just jacked up and makes no sense.

 

[Shadao]

Yes, the English A Link to the Past manual gave such accurate info compare to the Japanese Manual, which says that the People of Hylia made the Master Sword in case evil came.

http://www.zeldalegends.net/files/text/z3translation/z3_manual_story.html

In all seriousness, the English manual has its own spin on the Seal War and should not be considered canon. And take note that Legends from the Legend of Zelda are not always accurate history, hence the Legend part. And OoT is intended to be the Seal War, which features Ganondorf stealing the Triforce and taking over the world. The Seal War could not happen before Ocarina of Time as it is Ganondorf's origins.

 

[SNOlink]

Well Ocarina of Time is not necessarily Ganondorf's origin. He could have just gone through another one of those revival things he goes through all of the time. I see why you would say this, but there is still nothing that ultimately claims that this is Ganondorf's origin.

 

[Shadao]

Then why does the King of Hyrule trust Ganondorf? It will be incredible stupid of the King if Ganon/Ganondorf was already infamous for attacking Hyrule for the Triforce before. Also, OoT says that the Triforce was in the Sacred Realm, untouched by evil hands. Ganondorf was the King of Gerudo and became Ganon when he touched the Triforce and turn the Sacred Realm into the Dark World, much like ALttP's story. The OoT is his origin story in any way you look at. And haven't I told you the English Manual changed alot of things from the Japanese and thus not be trusted. If the Seal War took place before SS, then it would make less sense. If you played Skyward Sword, you would know that villain is not Ganon but Demon King Demise who never got his hands on the Triforce. Demise is the root of all evil and the Master Sword was made to repel him and his influnces.

 

[Spiritual Mask Salesman]

I stick with what Axle said once in a mailbag, In the legend of zelda people treat the stuff as the true history, but its not history, just a legend, and legends are not always right.
I actually want to say something about the official timeline, I always thought FSA comes before Alttp because ganon gets the trident in FSA, therefore they should be on the same line in the timeline, but they are not. Its weird that he just magically gets the trident, unless you think of when he turns into ganon at the end of Oot and he fights you using two tridents.

 

[Shadao]

Well the tridents that Ganon has different designs. ALttP Ganon just has a generic white-bone skull trident that was used as a boomerang. Phantom Ganon also has a wide-metal trident during his boss fight in OoT. The Trident of Power in FSA, however, is nothing like those tridents. It is colored in black and has a red jewel in the middle. What I'm saying is that the Trident of Power has just as much relevance to the Timeline as Link's Hat from Minish Cap, it is not enough.

 

[Spiritual Mask Salesman]

Oh, It looked to me like a trident in Oot, but maybe its not.

 

[JuicieJ]

I've noticed quite a few inconsistencies in this timeline, but it really doesn't matter to me. It makes enough sense to where it doesn't completely contradict itself, so it's cool with me (save that it's a cop-out). However, I don't really care at the same time. The games are what matter the most, so it's not a big deal either way.

 

[LnktheWolf]

there is proof that the timeline works, whether it be from an to be released game or not. Until we make more sense of this let's call it the cop-out timeline (split) like in the mailbag.

 

[Koosholts]

Yes, the English A Link to the Past manual gave such accurate info compare to the Japanese Manual, which says that the People of Hylia made the Master Sword in case evil came.

http://www.zeldalegends.net/files/text/z3translation/z3_manual_story.html

In all seriousness, the English manual has its own spin on the Seal War and should not be considered canon. And take note that Legends from the Legend of Zelda are not always accurate history, hence the Legend part. And OoT is intended to be the Seal War, which features Ganondorf stealing the Triforce and taking over the world. The Seal War could not happen before Ocarina of Time as it is Ganondorf's origins.

That right there in the bolded section is my biggest problem with the Zelda timeline. Granted, I know close to nothing about Zelda compared to some hardcore fans and I certainly don't know enough to make my own timeline theory, but this just doesn't make sence. You say that it's just a "legend" and we can only take it with a grain of salt. However, 1/4th of the timeline is based on a made up alternative ending that was never even shown in any gameplay whatsover and there is no evidence from the game to back it up other than a miniscule part that I don't think justifys creating a whole third split in the timeline. Also, if you say it's just a "legend", well, aren't all Zelda games legend?? Every single thing in a Zelda game is a legend so if you're to say we can't take the OP's post into account of the timeline because it was just a legend than I take what you say to absurdidity and say that we can't use any of the games information because it was all a legend. There are so many contradictions when it comes to a timeline and my gut still to this day believes there is no timeline. I think nintendo released it just for the 25th anniversery and made it up in about a week so that it was good enough to make sence but still unclear enough that nintendo fans will still be debating about it for ages.

This could be considered a rant and I'm not meaning to sound rude or ignorant, it's just that I saw your post and it bothered me lol.

 

[Fierce_Deity]

Remember the timeline that Nintendo had posted in the Hyrule Hystoria? Well I've noticed a blaring error in the timeline. According to the timeline, the Sealing War takes place right after Ocarina of Time on the "If Link is Defeated" section. Well, here's the thing. In the Sealing War, the Master Sword is created to defeat Ganondorf who possesses the Triforce. How could the Master Sword be created between Ocarina of Time and A Link to the Past if it is in two games (Skyward Sword and Ocarina of Time) before that point? It just doesn't make sense to me. I'm not saying ALttP doesn't go there (which I personally don't think it does, but that's a different story) but the Sealing War absolutely needs to be before Skyward Sword.

It's really more of an inconsistency (and intentional changes) between the American and Japanese manuals rather than an error in the timeline- or big mess up. Not only that, Nintendo of America also changed the name of the game and certain things in the game they considered to be "religious references". I have found that most people consider the original Japanese versions to be the canon version.

 

[SNOlink]

I think you have to remember that it's not like they've created their own timeline theory. It is THE timeline. They don't need evidence to back up the placement of games, they just need to ensure they fit where they are fairly well. If it were a fan who had made this timeline up, I could understand people taking issue with it. But frankly the 'flaws' that do exist are few and far between and detract very little from the overall jist of the timeline

The only part I really disagree with is the fact that you said they don't need evidence. Really? You always need evidence. Nintendo is people too. That means they can make mistakes. They probably should give the evidence to help solidify their reasoning. They probably have it in the Hyrule Historia, but I don't know any of it because it's all in Japanese and only sold in Japan.

And another thing to Shadao. If we can't trust the ALttP manual because of controversy, how can we also believe the Hyrule Historia with some of the other controversies it has?

 

[Shadao]

I said we cannot trust the English Manual of the ALttP. We can still trust the Japanese Manual. It was the English Manual that caused so many problems with OoT. It changed the story of the Master Sword as well as changing names, such as the Seven Sages into the Seven Wise Men.
http://www.zeldalegends.net/files/text/z3translation/z3_manual_story.html
Japanese Manual

For that reason, the people of Hyrule were told by the gods to make something that would repulse any evil that may kidnap the Triforce: the blade of evil's bane.

English Manual

Suspecting that Ganon's power was based on the Triforce's magic, the people of Hyrule forged a sword resistant to magic which could repulse even powers granted by the Triforce. This mighty weapon became known as the blade of evil's bane

Translator's Note

Important: the American translation introduces its own story, and thus introduces an inconsistency with later games. A divine oracle (or a "divine message" from the gods, i.e. God's voice) told the people to make a mighty sword, supposedly long before the appearance of Ganondorf. They did not create it by themselves in response to Ganon's rise to power. The Master Sword is indeed older than we thought, since later the sages aren't even sure if it existed and had to search for it (see below). This means it was not created at the time of Ganon's rise, and thus that the sword can be legendary in OoT.

Also note that the blade is supposed to repel the evil one who would steal the Triforce, not "powers granted by the Triforce." So it does not, as we previously though, merely repel Triforce magic; it repels ANY evil!

 

[Rando Roots]

I myself believe the timeline given in this book is completely false... and I don't care if it's official Nintendo merchandise. How many "official" statements on the timeline have been released, proven inconsistent , and finally ignored or forgotten afterwords? What makes this timeline different? The fact that it's in print? (maybe) I don't think so... Some people are talking about evidence supporting the timeline and whether Nintendo should support their timeline with some. I would say hell yes, Nintendo needs to support their timeline with loads and loads of evidence, they've got all the information a Zelda nerd could ask for and yet youtube users and bloggers support their timeline theories with much more evidence.

This "official" timeline is Nintendo's (< or part of) shot at the timeline and I wish they'd never released it (as they promised they wouldn't).