A Pattern In The 3D Games?

[Zemen]

This has nothing to do with a personal timeline theory I have, but it does have to do with a timeline related theory.

Has anyone else noticed that every single 3D (or 2 1/2D) game is pretty much set in stone where it goes on the timeline. We wait years for 3D games to come out while a couple handhelds come out in between. Now my point is, are the 3D games meant to be big hints for us on the timeline while the handhelds and older games are the puzzle pieces to fill in?

I will show you what I mean.

OoT was the first 3D game. now we know this game takes place somewhere at the beginning (if not, THE beginning) of the timeline.

MM is an obvious sequel to it.

WW is when the split was confirmed and WW was confirmed to be right after OoT on the AT with PH being an obvious sequel and ST has been confirmed to take place 100 years after PH.

TP was confirmed to be after OoT/MM on the CT.

Other than that, all of the old console games and all of the handheld games are nothing but puzzles.

Is this a trend? Are all of the 3D games going to be set in stone like the previous ones?

With that in mind, do you guys think that this new Wii title will be an obvious timeline placer?

Things to discuss:

-your thoughts on my theory of all 3D titles being set in for sure spots on the timeline.
-whether or not you think the new 3D title will be set in a certain spot on the timeline.

Get to it!

 

[basement24]

I agree, the 3-D ones seem to be more definite placement. Although, before the 3-D ones existed, the 2-D ones had a definite placement as well.

LoZ was the original.

AoL was the direct sequel.

ALttP was a prequel to both these titles with predecessors to Link and Zelda.

LA was a direct sequel to ALttP.

Of course, there's all sorts of interpretations of where these show up and the relation of ALttP and LA, but at the time of their release, this was all set in stone. There was no question that this was how the games played out. I know there's been retcon since with the GameBoy ALttP and such, and debunking on the whole ALttP prequel claim, but at the time of their release, this was the definite, be-all end-all timeline.

They set out to place these titles in relation to each other, and although they lost us a bit in prequelling a prequel with OoT, they still managed to place OoT into that timeline as well, and the MM in relation to OoT. So, I don't think it's something that's specifically only a 3-D definite game-producer placement.

I think they might at least throw out that generalization of "100's of years after ____" for titles to come to continue the trend. They seem to like to do that now if a game isn't as evidently a direct sequel.

I would *like* the new Wii title to be a direct sequel to TP, but that seems to be unlikely. I'm not so sure why everyone says the Link in the concept art was "noticeably older". I don't see any difference in age of ZeldaWii (ZW) Link to TP Link. In fact, the ZW Link looks younger than TP Link in the TP concept art. I think it's the shading mainly.

I assume if ZW isn't a direct sequel, then they'll throw out the "100's of years after TP" quote. I don't think it will solve any overal major timeline problems, but they'll give it a quick placement solution in their little E3 (or whatever show it debuts fottage at) press briefings.

I never really noticed this before until you brought it up though. It is kind of funny there's so much debate on timelines for the games that we have answers for. I guess the real hard part is putting the 2-D and 3-D games together to make something coherent in the end.

 

[MrMosley]

I think that any new titles coming out will show more obvious spots on the timeline. As basement24 pointed out above, the older games had a place on the timeline; Its just that now they are hard to place with the newer titles in the way.

Here is my reasoning: Let's take a look on all the games up until MM. The timeline, according to box art, obviousness, and in game evidence, went like this:

OoT/MM--ALttP/LA--LoZ/AoL

The thing is, once the split timeline was confirmed and fans of the series started really looking into the timeline itself, Nintendo became aware of what they had created. No longer were they able to just make continuous sequels or prequels, but they were faced with their games taking place in random spots jumping all over the timeline. Every interview they started having about their new titles, they were faced with a timeline related question about the game. So when they started answering these questions, it mixed up what once was set in stone.

My belief is that Nintendo made many games to tell certain stories and take place certain places on the timeline, but after releasing more and more of them, those ideas didn't work. Ocarina of Time is one of the best examples I have of this. In my opinion, OoT, although it is regarded as the best Zelda game ever by many fans, is a big mess up storyline wise. People still believe, and I think it was stated somewhere by a Nintendo rep, that OoT was supposed to detail the events of the Imprissoning War. I personally don't believe this, as there are too many plot holes that don't match up. But obviously, Nintendo tried to replicate this story told in ALttP through OoT, as it was clearly stated to take place before ALttP or any other game for that matter.

So we may never be able to make sense out of some of the older games in that respect. Unless they remake them and add/take away portions of their stories to make it make sense, we have to go with what we have. And what we have, apparently, are a series of stories full of plot holes that the designers are now trying to fix with each new game. Zelda is now more about the timeline than a lot of people realize. Nintendo can make a game as innovative as they want to and try to make the games as "fun" gameplay wise as possible, but at the end of the day their main concern now IMO is the timeline. They are at a spot where the timeline is not broken or cannot be fixed, but they do have to be careful about doing something that would render it broken.

I assume if ZW isn't a direct sequel, then they'll throw out the "100's of years after TP" quote. I don't think it will solve any overal major timeline problems, but they'll give it a quick placement solution in their little E3 (or whatever show it debuts fottage at) press briefings.

It will definitely be interesting to see where it fits, that's for sure. I know its a bit early to judge based on one piece of art from the game, but the connections between the girl and the MS, as well as Miyamoto referring to Link having no sword when asked about the girl, lead me to believe she will become the essence of the MS, and possibly morph into it by sacrificing her physical form (or some big story like that). Seeing as how this is my current theory about ZW, I believe it would go before OoT, and detail the events that were taking place before the MS was created. It wouldn't hurt anything with the timeline, and really its kinda dodging the timeline by picking out spots where they don't necessarily have to follow any rules or fill and plot holes they have from the previous titles.

 

[lonely_moon]

I completely agree. But to be more specific, I think that the handheld (which are 2D) games are the only ones complicating the matter of the timeline. All of them (with the exception of LA and PH) were made by a different company, and despite Nintendo's best efforts to place them (because the fans keep asking), it still makes it difficult because the creators probably didn't try to adhere to the timeline. If you'll notice, all the Zelda games made solely by Nintendo have a definite placement in the timeline (which are all the 3D games):

WW-> PH
/
OoT
\
MM-> TP

(please excuse the screwed-up diagram)

The only issue would be which timeline the ALttP-> LA-> LoZ-> LoZII chain (as proven by basement24) is in - child or adult (this, of course, depends upon whether you believe the split timeline theory - which is part of the canon, anyway, because Nintendo said so).

What only compounds the difficulty is that there are heaps of retcons and changes to the core elements of the overarching storyline. But I think people shouldn't be so rigid with the timeline. Think of it like actual history - no one knows exactly what happened, and there are lots of different interpretations because originally, history was oral. None of it was written down. Over time, the story changed, which is probably why the Imprisoning War as it's told in OoT is different to the Imprisoning War in ALttP. For timeline theories, I think that people should start looking at similarities instead of exact duplicates.

As for the new Wii Zelda game announced, well, it's too early to make any suggestions, seeing as we've been given barely any information - pretty much just a picture. I'll wait and see on that one.