Don’t Misinterpret Aonuma’s Words: Hyrule Historia’s Timeline is Fully Canon

Last night we posted a message from Mr. Aonuma regarding the purpose of the Hyrule Historia and the nature of the timeline contained therein. We can expect fellow game sites to devise their own commentaries on what Aonuma had to say, but as so often happens with our beloved series this often results in writers taking massive leaps that don’t quite match the spirit of the legend. A recent article from GamesRadar, in our humble opinion, does just that.

Editor Justin Towell claims that Aonuma’s comments in the Historia suggest that the timeline it lays out is not fully canonical. Naturally, we think this is complete nonsense. The passage in question?

Chapter 2, “The Full History of Hyrule,” arranges the series in chronological order so it’s easier to understand but, from the very beginning, Zelda games have been developed with the top priority of focusing on the game mechanics rather than the story. For example, in Ocarina of Time, the first installment of the series I was involved in, the main theme was how to create a game with pleasant controls in a 3D world. Or in the DS game, Phantom Hourglass, the focus was having comfortable stylus controls. Finally, in the most recent game, Skyward Sword, we focused on an easy way to swing the sword using the Wii motion plus.

Thinking of that way of developing the games, it may be correct to say that the story is an appendix to that. I even think that setting Skyward Sword as the “first story,” was merely a coincidence.

While reading over “The Full History of Hyrule,” it’s possible that some parts may look contradictory. For instance, the Mogma race or the beetle item that appear on the very first story do not appear on any other game that takes place in the future. I’d like to ask everyone just to enjoy the book and to be broad-minded, and to think that those parts are the way they are because of the way Zelda games are developed.

The sentiment here is nothing new for longtime fans of the series. Both Miyamoto and Aonuma have repeated this idea time and again – the Zelda stories are not planned out in advance, nor are they designed with the timeline particularly in mind. They’re each their own tale, with connections added in to please fans in their efforts to work the legends together. What’s more, because the games are developed by many different writers, this often results in inconsistencies.

But this doesn’t make the timeline of Hyrule Historia non-canonical. To the contrary, the guidebook itself claims that this process is an integral part of the way Zelda canon works in the first place:

These chronicles have been put together using information that can be currently confirmed, but there are many parts that still are obscure. The history of Hyrule changes depending on time and those passing down the story, and it will continue to develop. Even if it’s not largely shaken, there will be new legends born and history may be rewritten.

So, while the timeline is very much a by-product of the stories of the individual games, not necessarily a goal of the development process, this shouldn’t discourage us. If anything, it should empower us to examine whatever connections we can find, no matter how obscure.

Source: GamesRadar, translations courtesy of Patras, via GlitterBerri