Why Are There So Many Prequels? Can Zelda Move Forward?

[Djinn]

With the announcement that Skyward Sword will take place before Ocarina of Time and tell the story of the origin of the Master Sword, and through fan speculation the origin of Hyrule, I wondered just why we are again moving backwards in time with another prequel.

I understand through the need to continue using certain important characters the timeline would have to go backwards. As Ganon was defeated and Zelda rescued in the original Legend of Zelda. So the developers went back with Link to the Past (which was said to be a prequel to LoZ at the time) which also led to Link defeating Ganon, claiming the triforce and saving Hyrule. However the backstory of LttP was itself interesting. It spoke of the Imprisoning War and Ganon's rise to power after stealing the triforce and waging war against Hyrule. So the developers decided to move back again to tell this story in OoT. Wind Waker was a refreshing change, as it had Ganondorf escaping the Sacred Realm to pillage Hyrule once more. Minish Cap takes place long before Four Swords Adventures also telling more origin stories of Vaati and the Four Sword. Now Skyward Sword is in an era even before OoT.

So why are the developers constantly moving backwards? Was the concept just to have Ganon one more time? He was defeated in Loz, then killed in LttP, so the best way to have him return was to tell the story before he was killed at the hands of LttP Link.

However Way back in the 80's Zelda 2 introduced us to the concept that Ganon's loyal minions could revive him. It was a subplot to the game. So why has this concept dropped from all later Zelda games? There should be no need to constantly wind the clock back and tell a before story when the series takes place in a far away magical land in which almost anything could occur. Even the triforce has displayed the ability to revive the dead with the wish Link made at the ending of LttP. It is also thought that Ganondorf revived Volvagia using the triforce of power. Great evil entities returning from the grave to plague the land once more is a time honored fantasy storytelling tradition. Which would not be out of place in Hyrule.

I also like to think that there are many more legends to tell that could come after Ganon. He did conquer Hyrule more than once, he could very well become something of myth that all evil creatures of Hyrule revere as a god. Or be something of a symbol for all up and coming villains to aspire to one day. LttP already introduced us to the Cult of the Triforce. An evil organization headed by Aganihm that appears to follow or worship Ganon. Vaati has his own followers in Four Swords Adventures. An emerging cult following Ganondorf's example would not be too far a concept. Either way I believe that Nintendo should let the timeline move forward for a change.

 

[Destiny]

Well, I think after Skyward Sword, there isn't going to be much more they can back peddle from. I think the main reason they released another prequel is to perhaps explain a few things before they move forward again. I think they will continue more on the child Timeline then the adult Timeline for more console games. And you're right, they don't need to keep back peddling, I definitely think the next main console game will be farther along in the Adult Timeline, but not a continuation of TP. I personally think after SS, that they are going to try something completely different.

 

[Mr.Verto]

It might be true what you are saying but...the last games released were TP and ST which neither of them are sequels then is PH that is not a prequel either. So in fact Nintendo is going way to forward in my opinion, Im even glad we have a prequel and this one is not any prequel. SS will tell us how all started (maybe) and that can take us to new conlclusions instead of knowing an order (WW then PH then ST, kinda of boring)

 

[Hylian Hobbit]

I think that having Skyward as a prequel will make for an interesting story. I feel that by having it as a prequel they can link to a lot of the origins of some new civilizations and such that we've seen in recent games. For example, possibly go into the Oocca or Twili, or something like that. I don't know. Anyhoo, they could do a great job with the game and tie some of the other games together very nicely, or just come up with some random stuff and throw it before OoT happened. I would be rather disappointed if it was the latter case.
So I don't mind the fact that it is a prequel as long as they do something productive with it.

 

[shopy01]

i think it would be nice to know the beginning of hyrule. history is important. for them to make new games depicting the future of hyrule they have to explain it's past first. you have to know and understand how you got to that point in time. or else you don't know or understand what is happening.

 

[jugglaj91]

I don't go to far into caring about sequels or prequels. I'm just happy that there is a new Zelda game coming. While I don't get into theorizing about timelines or any of that I don't mind it being another prequel. They said that game play comes first then the story. As for this being a prequel it has been a while since we had one. We had OoT leading to MM, which in then turned into WW then TP. From WW we got PH then ST. There has been a lot of forward progression so I believe we are due for a backwards leap.

 

[Djinn]

So do you not think constantly moving backwards for storytelling limiting in a way? Obviously the story much reach the conclusion of the previous sequel we have already played. Ganon cannot die in any prequel because he has to live long enough for LttP Link to kill him and claim the triforce. Ganondorf of OoT had to be sealed in the sacred realm because that was where we found him in LttP. If the story is moving backwards then it is not fully expanding. Only filling in little pieces missing from the established story of the previous game. And could never expand the story too far or else it would interfere with established continuity by ignoring certain aspects.


The problem that comes with prequels is that we already know the outcome before we begin. The story, the events, everything already known because we already played the sequel. We know who lives, we know who dies, and how it all happened. Other than the usual creation of paradoxes this leaves no room for new innovations and ideas.

 

[MrLuigi]

Did we know who lived and died in Ocarina of Time when it came out?

 

[Djinn]

Did we know who lived and died in Ocarina of Time?

Yes we do. Ganon survived since he was still alive and well in the sacred realm. Zelda and the royal family had to survive since there is still a royal family in the time of LttP. We know the sages and their seal was successful since the seal is still in place and the sages had descendants. Kakariko is still there. And the Gorons and Zora had to leave as they are not present.

 

[shopy01]

but you don't know exactly what happens. you don't know what happened that cause the master sword to be created. there are other things that are unknown too. like how could the royal family know that at some point in time ganondorf would invade. i think both sequels and prequels are need and heres why. when they first created zelda they didn't think it would succeed. they thought they were doing a one time thing. that's obvious because of how the first game's story was written. but now it a world of it's own. and like a world it has history. because they didn't originally write it to be a big story. now they have to fill in the holes. and the fact is this is the first prequel since oot. that is few games of moving forward. and with many people asking questions about the past they decided to make a prequel. you act like all the games they have done are prequels but this the first one in along time.

 

[Satsy]

We don't even know how the timeline all fits together.

Knowing what the sequel tells us doesn't mean we know everything. A sequel which gives a little insight to the initial story simply glosses over what happened before. And in a series like Zelda, that's about the same as knowing nothing at all.

The series is disjointed in its progression. They go any and either way. Going backwards allows us to see where things might have splintered off, in a much more detailed way than an interview and a "last time in LoZ" intro. Plus it hasn't stopped the series moving forward as well.

Nintendo (Miyamato and Anouma) will tell whatever story grips them at the time. Right now, that story is one of the 'where it all began' tales, and I don't mind that. It could help piece together theories, or completely shatter them. That's kinda fun, too.

 

[jugglaj91]

If a game is not a direct prequel you have no idea what is going to happen in it. The story itself could prove insight beyond we know "X" lived and "Y" died. They already said they won't label one specific Zelda game as the first because it means they cannot go back any further than that again. So now they will just make games that can go anywhere. As I stated we are due for a leap backwards but it doesn't mean anything. Just like there are multiple Links and Zeldas there could very well be multiple Ganons. One Gerudo born every hundred years, sounds about right for every few of them to be power hungry enough to want to follow in someones footsteps.

My main point is nothing in Zelda is definitive until it is released in a game in a canonical sense.