Your Stance on Theorising

[Justac00lguy]

There are many forms of discussion to have about this series, one of, or was, the most popular was indeed theorising. A series that spanned many years and installments yet in terms of order, was not clear. Fans over many years tried to formulate the correct Timeline, and this became a huge part of the series, as well as other details that were obscure within the lore of the series.

Now I see time and time again people claiming that theorising is "dead" - a pretty strong word, well it's definitely not dead, but maybe not as lively as it once was. Most people's reasons as to why they think this is, yes you guessed it, Hyrule Historia. This, so called, "encyclopedia" of The Legend of Zelda -- for the first time -- revealed the official chronological order of each game as well as many other details. Now HH was slightly controversial for a few reasons; the third split (Defeated Timeline), the fact that Link was actually drafted, odd placements, weird translations and, for some, a lack of depth.

Yes it was odd to see a third split and maybe some placements seem odd, but this is official and it does make sense; however, it's the lack of depth that annoyed me. This is where I see a contradiction into some people's claims that HH ruined theorising. There were details, but these were mostly more structured in game information that was used to connect each game. In my opinion, the information included was not a revelation. Fact is, that very few "new" details were given and a lot of the questions were half-answered.

---

Now I wanted to address this and ask you guys because I'm quite confused. Hyrule Historia was good don't get me wrong; however, mediocre apart from the revealing of the Timeline and one or two details. It wasn't a revelation in my opinion, more so a book dedicated to concept art, brief details and establishing a brief connection to the games within the Timeline. Truth be told, this book didn't really change all that much within the realm of theorising, yes it may have completely got rid of Timeline theories, but there is still much more to be discussed; due to the series, overall, giving very brief details. A lot of the lore is still obscure, we now just have some canon confirmation of which to go off, resulting in better and more structure theories.

I know theorising isn't for everyone, but I don't agree that it's dead or it is doomed, I think that a lot of people jump the gun and come to the conclusion that there is nothing else to discuss. Well if we look at this section, on this site alone, there are a variety of topics. Yes, it may not be as active as other sections, but I feel that theorising within this series could be revived if people didn't have that state of mind that it's dead or that there's nothing left to discuss.

However, I want to know what is your stance on theorising within this series, as I'm generally interested.

 

[Ventus]

I see modern-day theorizing as nothing but a waste of time. What I commonly see is folks guessing at things that may or may not be true, but these things are so miniscule in comparison to what was discussed before. It's true, Hyrule Historia killed off a lot of discussion. However, a lot of points were proven that theorists were in tune with, but they went crazed because HH confirmed those things as fact. Why? I don't know. But I figure, with HH in the view and the old topics thrown out the window, that people would just quit.

I don't know.

 

[Big Octo]

I used to theorize quite often before the introduction of the Hyrule Historia. Some of my thoughts would be based on my view of the timeline and how certain connections would make sense chronologically. Of course, with the official timeline, I guess that's not really an option.

I do agree that some have probably overreacted to the HH, claiming that theorizing is dead and whatnot. Truth is that there are still many ideas to be had and many connections to be made. It's a shame that Zelda Theory isn't getting as much attention as it once did, because discussions involving many parties, peoples, and ideas were interesting and engaging. I wish that many could look past the Hyrule Historia and see that Zelda Theory still lives on.

 

[Mercedes]

The way I see it theorizing in videogames, and in general too, is just a nice point of discussion that fans can partake in. Fans of everything, all mediums, will forever dissect and look closely into things that they love and are passionate about. They pick apart song lyrics or cutscenes or a certain paragraph of a book, it's just what fans do, and yeah, maybe a lot of it is wrong and was never intended, but it's still a harmless way I see fans appreciating a series they like. It's a fun talking point when someone comes up with a theory and everyone discusses it and brings up points and facts which conflict or correlate with their theory. Some people get really into it, usually over-estimating the lore or writing of a certain game/book/movie/song, but, hey, fans do that! And always have done! I remember the story of John Lennon hating how kids at his old school would dissect Beatles songs in class, and so he wrote 'I Am The Walrus' as complete nonsense and then apparently goes "****ing analyse that!" just after he wrote it.

So, I see theories of Zelda to be exactly the same. Just, fans doing what fans do, looking at their hobby in-depth. And sometimes they do get it right to be fair!

 

[Stitch]

Theorizing isn't dead, it's just moved to a more niche audience. Before the official timeline was introduced there were so many ideas that involved the timeline, small and big, that it was a broad enough subject that even the least knowledgeable Zelda fan could put their "two cents" into the Zelda theory community. Now there are smaller, less important things to theorize about (such as: how two or more characters are slightly connected to each other, if this weapon is related to that weapon, how this place may have become this place, etc.) that only the most hardcore Zelda fans would be interested in dissecting. I think this is what might make discussion of theories a discussion and not just an argument that doesn't end until someone's idea official or that something official negates all the theories presented in the argument. In short: theorizing is becoming smaller, but becoming more creative and more prone to discussion. :triforcepiece:

 

[Salem]

There're way more interesting things to theorise about than the timeline. Like the nightmares, where did they come from, what're they REALLY after?

Besides, when the new Zelda games come out, there will be more things too talk about.

 

[mαrkαsscoρ]

i was a huge zelda theorist a couple years ago
but i notice my interest in theorizing just stopped not too long after hyrule historia came out

 

[OcarinistOfTime]

I wouldn't say it's dead it's just in an awkward transitional period. As said HH did answer a lot of questions and SS being LoZ's book of genesis theorizing has just taken a big hit. But with a series like LoZ I don't think the fanbase will ever just give up. I'll use myself as an example my favorite theory topics have always been the timeline and Sheikah. I poured so much heart and energy my 9th and 10th grade years sure that I would be the one who cracked the great mystery. Then HH was released, I remember clutching my notebook as my terrible internet loaded the first glitterberri translation of the timeline and honestly throwing my notebook to the ground the second I saw the third split. As for the Sheikah I was sure SS would give me something just a morsel of information was all I wanted (a new relic, another character, DEAR MIYAMOTO JUST LET ME WALK IN KAKARIKO VILLAGE BEFORE THEY ALL DIED) but nothing... unless you count Impa....AGAIN!!! I for one am currently frustrated with theorizing as I have a composition notebook loaded with broken theories begging for their missing piece. I kinda forgot the point I was trying to make but I hope you see where I'm coming from otherwise I'm just crying to myself about my current belief that Impa is the only Sheikah and she made the rest of them up.

Regardless of whether or not I'm making any sense I think theorizing will re-surge once some of us obcessive fans get over the hurt of HH telling them all their hard work was for nothing and we get a few games past it. Like wait for Zelda Wii U to come out and hint at Tingle being Link's father and we'll go nuts all over again.

 

[Sir Quaffler]

My own theorizing has taken a downsizing in terms of scale. Before SS and HH my main theorizing was towards the overall timeline and the progression of the races within it. Now that I know the order of the games, I've become more focused on analyzing individual games. It's also around that time when I realized that the overall timeline never really made sense anyways, that it's just one big Gordian knot with no satisfactory answer, and that it was useless to try and get all the games to connect together (as trying to do so would lead me to become dissatisfied with otherwise fantastic games).

This isn't really a bad thing, though. I like dissecting the individual games and coming up with reasons behind somewhat inexplicable instances within them (my favorite being Majora's Mask; there's so much crazy going on in that game, from the theory of the Stone Tower Temple to the theory that the whole game's a metaphor for the grieving process, and so on). Other things I like dissecting includes figuring out exactly what's going on with the Sky Keep (that was actually my very first post IIRC), theorizing about whether OoT would have separate timelines stemming from Link's constant time travel, and so on. It's all fun.

 

[Beauts]

I think theorising is fun, and HH did ruin that a bit. I mean, if all you're going to think about is timeline theories then of course it's "dead". However, I was never that interested in the timeline theories anyway because you could put literally all the games pre-WW anywhere you wanted to and find a way to justify it. There is, in my opinion, plenty of other things in the series to think about and have fun discussing the theories surrounding, for example the origins of various races, the geography of Hyrule, characters, items, etc. I think it's become less though because to be honest a lot of people can't be bothered to be creative with the ideas behind things like that, the timeline was an easy discussion to have that could cause a lot of people to call themselves 'theorists'.

 

[ZestanorLink]

Unfortunately, few people really want to debate about timelines if the correct answer is already available. Even if, say, you're interested in tweaking the HH timeline, few people will be receptive. As for debating other stuff: I think that's much more speculative than the timeline debates ever were. Everything necessary for timeline discussion was readily available; the 'theorizing' was how you decided to piece it together. On the other hand, most other Zelda debates are just open ended, usually trivial, questions. The core of Zelda debate was timeline theory, which was unique, but now it is pretty much dead. That is, of course, until they release a game that breaks the current official timeline, which they certainly will.