CrimsonCavalier
Fuzzy Pickles
I'm firmly rooted in the "The Timeline is Bollocks" camp. I've never really adhered to it, and I've become even more against ever since the Hyrule Historia was released. Don't get me wrong, I own the book. It's an amazing collector's item.
My problem with the timeline, and worrying where the game fits, is that the timeline is already broken. The timeline literally makes no sense, so why does it matter if/where this games fits in that timeline?
There is definitely evidence that certain games are part of a loose "series" but for the majority of the games, that evidence doesn't really exist. The only way you can stuff a game into a timeline that doesn't make sense is if you put it at the very end or the very beginning.
Putting it at the end makes the most sense, because you can alter the world as you go (see: The Elder Scrolls). Putting it at the beginning is dangerous, because you can have something in that "prequel" that contradicts something in earlier-released games that take place later in the timeline.
Placing it in the middle is even more difficult, and in the case of The Legend of Zelda, I would say impossible. The series was never meant to be on a timeline; the evidence for this is that they had to make up two realities in order to shoe-horn the games in. One reality just didn't make sense so they made another. So many branches to try to fit the games in. So how do you squeeze this game in? You have to be concerned about all the games previous to it, but also the games after. There will be inconsistencies either way. And adhering to the timeline will severely limit the game, especially from a story perspective.
We'd all be better off if (a) Nintendo just ignored the timeline going forward (b) started a brand-new timeline that actually makes sense.
My problem with the timeline, and worrying where the game fits, is that the timeline is already broken. The timeline literally makes no sense, so why does it matter if/where this games fits in that timeline?
There is definitely evidence that certain games are part of a loose "series" but for the majority of the games, that evidence doesn't really exist. The only way you can stuff a game into a timeline that doesn't make sense is if you put it at the very end or the very beginning.
Putting it at the end makes the most sense, because you can alter the world as you go (see: The Elder Scrolls). Putting it at the beginning is dangerous, because you can have something in that "prequel" that contradicts something in earlier-released games that take place later in the timeline.
Placing it in the middle is even more difficult, and in the case of The Legend of Zelda, I would say impossible. The series was never meant to be on a timeline; the evidence for this is that they had to make up two realities in order to shoe-horn the games in. One reality just didn't make sense so they made another. So many branches to try to fit the games in. So how do you squeeze this game in? You have to be concerned about all the games previous to it, but also the games after. There will be inconsistencies either way. And adhering to the timeline will severely limit the game, especially from a story perspective.
We'd all be better off if (a) Nintendo just ignored the timeline going forward (b) started a brand-new timeline that actually makes sense.