Search results for query: *

They have actively changed the timeline multiple times, eventually pulling a third timeline out of nothing. I doubt there's ever been serious thought put into series chronology outside of the two books in which the two different timelines were published. Again, I say that if they ever really...

There wasn't. They released one thirty years later. ;)

Is it? Virtually every other non-Nintendo game with a long continuity has a clear timeline that doesn't require a bunch of guesswork. Zelda is just Zelda. If they cared about the timeline, we wouldn't have to theorize about what it is.

If the timeline really mattered to anyone at Nintendo, we wouldn't have to debate it. ;)

Look inside yourself. You know it to be true.

I mean, does it really do more damage to the timeline than the havoc wreaked by stuff like the "downfall timeline", a previously nonexistent branch of the timeline that Nintendo made up one day to try and backpedal into continuity? :eyes:

I agree that they definitely won't produce a followup to Age of Calamity. Unfortunately, my more cynical reasoning is that it's just the sort of followup Nintendo is either unable or unwilling to write. The formula is king, after all. And yeh, there is the issue of their timeline's Ganon not...

Breath of the Wild has no stakes in the series. It takes place in one of three timelines, two of which are completely unaffected by it. Heck, even as much as I enjoy Breath of the Wild and the changes it brought, it still feels the need to reset everything into status quo mode at the end. Age of...

I mean, all the Zelda games take place in alternate timelines that don't affect each other. Age of Calamity at the very least is a drastic shift within its own timeline. Other Zelda games usually end with the status quo restored and no events ever directly referenced again. The games are...

Loosely, but nothing as so immediate as Age of Calamity. It makes definitive, irreversable changes to the status quo (at least within its own timeline) without much wiggle room. I feel like that's the biggest reason fans have been so hesitant to accept it as "canon". If it becomes canon, it...

I mean, none of the games ultimately serve a purpose in the current canon. It's the Zelda pessimist in me, but Age of Calamity is so far the only game to mix up the status quo with its plot. You could pull other games out of the current timeline and lose nothing, because none of them have...

It isn't the biggest leap of logic the Zelda timeline has made. Still feels like chump change compared to the "downfall timeline".

Yes. It's far from the only game in the series to take place on a timeline splinter, so I don't see why it wouldn't be.