General Zelda Geographical Consistency

[Justac00lguy]

So there have been 16 games in canon of Zelda, 10 of which take place in the land of Hyrule, I would probably discount Wind Waker due to Hyrule being flooded though. So for anyone who has noticed, and I'm pretty sure most of us have, there is a clear inconsistency with the geography of Hyrule. If one were to analyse each game individually then you would soon realise that very few games have similar distribution of locations and landmarks.

Question is though how do you feel about this? Having a vastly different Hyrule each time really affects continuity in my opinion however having a different Hyrule each time really freshens up the overworld. So taking such factors into account, would you like a more consistent Hyrule or do you think Hyrule should be susceptible to geographical change?

 

[Sydney]

Hyrule should always be susceptible to any and all geographical changes. It's simply how things should function. Not only does this "freshen" things up for the series, but many changes leave room for new ideas and concepts to be implemented.

 

[Ventus]

Hyrule should always be susceptible to any and all geographical changes. It's simply how things should function. Not only does this "freshen" things up for the series, but many changes leave room for new ideas and concepts to be implemented.

Nope. The length of time between titles is typically around 100-200 years by my judging...and geographical changes do NOT occur in a mere 100-200 years. I'm sorry but they just don't. You can relocate towns, sure, but you can NOT change the earth make-up.

 

[Sydney]

Nope. The length of time between titles is typically around 100-200 years by my judging...and geographical changes do NOT occur in a mere 100-200 years. I'm sorry but they just don't. You can relocate towns, sure, but you can NOT change the earth make-up.

It's a video game, geographical changes don't necessarily have to take more than 100-200 years, but if we're going by realistic terms, you'd be correct. If we're still going by such terms, then we would need to count in natural disasters; floods, tsunamis, earthquakes and volcanic eruptions can all cause major geographical changes. Not to mention there are much smaller changes, such as erosion and weathering.

 

[Ventus]

It's a video game, geographical changes don't necessarily have to take more than 100-200 years, but if we're going by realistic terms, you'd be correct. If we're still going by such terms, then we would need to count in natural disasters; floods, tsunamis, earthquakes and volcanic eruptions can all cause major geographical changes. Not to mention there are much smaller changes, such as erosion and weathering.

In the case of OoT to TWW, I definitely agree that the massive changes make sense. A flood of that magnitude would displace everything, I doubt humans/Hylians would even survive but magicks of course. In most other titles, though, the changes are simply too drastic and without any decent explanation. Yes, each title is a Legend, but would it kill to have just a little bit of consistency - in the most unimportant sector possible?

 

[Sydney]

In the case of OoT to TWW, I definitely agree that the massive changes make sense. A flood of that magnitude would displace everything, I doubt humans/Hylians would even survive but magicks of course. In most other titles, though, the changes are simply too drastic and without any decent explanation. Yes, each title is a Legend, but would it kill to have just a little bit of consistency - in the most unimportant sector possible?

Some consistency wouldn't hurt the series at all, but major changes, reconstruction and diversity are what make the world go around, especially the Zelda world.

 

[DarkestLink]

It's a video game, geographical changes don't necessarily have to take more than 100-200 years,

It's a video game. They don't really take place at all. You're looking way too deeply in it. The obvious changes are legitimate, but small things like "Wasn't Hyrule castle three feet north in OoT?" is because the developers don't want to constantly re-use OoT's world and can't perfectly emulate the geography while making the world different.

 

[Cfrock]

Nope. The length of time between titles is typically around 100-200 years by my judging...and geographical changes do NOT occur in a mere 100-200 years. I'm sorry but they just don't. You can relocate towns, sure, but you can NOT change the earth make-up.

I would have thought that Atticus was talking more from a gameplay/narrative/creative perspective because using the same exact world, even with minor changes between titles, would get pretty boring after a while because you'd stop feeling like you were exploring somewhere new. Making the geographical changes make sense isn't as important as giving us a new world in each game. Zelda as a franchise has been built on the idea of exploring a world and uncovering its secrets, and creating new ones for us to explore should be a higher priority than agonising over the details of why it has changed. I mean, I may be wrong and she may not have meant that, but that's what it seemed like to me.

I agree that Hyrule should be susceptible to change. As I've said above, it gives us new worlds to explore and, honestly, as fun as theorising can be, there's scant continuity in this franchise as it is and piecing it all together is a nigh impossible task. Having one more thing be inconsistent isn't going to be that big of a setback. And the more differences there are then the more things theorists have to theorise about so you could argue that changing the world works out best for everyone involved, really.

 

[Spirit]

I dont feel anyhtig untoward about it really. In TP wii it did bug me that the desert was on the right instead of the left because TP was so close to OoT it didnt make sense that the make up of the place was suddenly reversed but all is good in the GC version.

If games bare a very explicit link to one another like OoT and TP then i would like to see a bit of consistency between the two like an entire region being more or less in the same place however different in content it may be. But other games like Minish Cap, Skyward Sword and A Link t the Past i don't think it matters too much. Zelda games are indeed played as stand alone as all games are and most of them aren't straight sequels (and even ones that are make the point of being elsewhere like Termina or another section of the Great Sea) so it isn't all that bad i guess when the land changes from game to game since if everything were to be in the same place all the time then would get very boring very quickly.

 

[videogamenerd10]

Well, I think that the world is so strange
Every new game it changes
The map rearranges
And I don't know where to go
(Slice of cake rewarded to those who got the reference)

 

[Beauts]

Nope. The length of time between titles is typically around 100-200 years by my judging...and geographical changes do NOT occur in a mere 100-200 years. I'm sorry but they just don't. You can relocate towns, sure, but you can NOT change the earth make-up.

This.

However, I also think that it's a good thing to change the scenery a little. So far, in what I would call the main games of the Original going into Child Timeline (SS, OoT and TP), the geography is comparable if not exactly the same, and I think it's good that Hyrule is recognisable, but I also like the fact that the world's are different, especially the TP overworld, which despite the faults of the game (of which there are many) is beautiful and just that little bit more that you would have wanted from OoT if it had been possible, with more interesting places to explore for example Hidden Village. I do like the differences though, like the gorges in the land and bigger mountain range. It's great, even if not realistic.

The one thing that bugs me is the way Lake Hylia seems to grow legs and move itself to the other side of the country every game.

 

[HylianHero]

I think it is ridiculous to stifle Nintendo's creativity by demanding to have the same Overworld for every game. Because that is what some of you are asking for- the same Overworld- every game. If Nintendo keeps making good Zelda games, I could care less if the geography matches up.

 

[Skittles]

Nope. The length of time between titles is typically around 100-200 years by my judging...and geographical changes do NOT occur in a mere 100-200 years. I'm sorry but they just don't. You can relocate towns, sure, but you can NOT change the earth make-up.

Actually, we only have one confirmed time-lapse in the game, between OoT and TP, which was 100 years. The others happen at unknown intervals. Another example, OoT and WW take place hundreds (probably several hundreds from the way the in-game text reads) years apart. So, if there can be several hundreds of years between games, there might be little more allowance for diversity...though, I see where you're coming from on the geographical changes, you should also remember that Volcanos and earthquakes could cause some...major geographical changes in a limited space of time.

While I don't want to touch on every game, let's look at AoL. AoL actually has the biggest "Hyrule" in the games (in a way) because it seems that by that point Hyrule has expanded. Comparing AoL Hyrule to aLttP or even LoZ then really isn't even accurate because of said expansion. Another rather fun point is that after WW there is new Hyrule. Meaning that any games in that said Hyrule should have a geographic landscape in tune with that. I'm not saying they have too, but just felt that some points should be made concerning this...

Personally, I don't care one way or the other as long as the Hyrule presented somewhat matches up with the Hyrule of that given timeline. Remember, for most games we don't have a given amount of time between games, so it doesn't matter if Hyrule changes a little to me... OoT and TP, for example, still have Lake Hylia, the Zora River, and other important geographical features. Since technology and graphics and what they can do with said graphics and tech is evolving, it seems fine to me for them to have an 'inconsistent' Hyrule as long as they (mostly) follow a similar pattern. *shrug*

 

[ILU]

Nope. The length of time between titles is typically around 100-200 years by my judging...and geographical changes do NOT occur in a mere 100-200 years. I'm sorry but they just don't. You can relocate towns, sure, but you can NOT change the earth make-up.

Except you forgot something- Nintendo logic.

Zoras evolved into Ritos- an evolution of extreme opposites- in a matter of a few centuries. If creatures can evolve so rapidly, then it's likely the land can drastically change, too. It doesn't make sense realistically, but Zelda isn't meant to mimic realism, it's meant to create its own sense of in-universe realism. If that means rapid evolution and changes in terrain, so be it. The games aren't negatively affected by it.

I think I feel the same way about this that Nintendo does. They hold creativity over consistency, which is probably better for gameplay's sake. For story's sake, it kind of gets in the way. I do like the similarities they throw in every now and then, like putting the Master Sword's pedestal in the middle of the woods in TP the same way it was in ALttP. Very nice touch. They do a lot of that here and there, especially with key locations like Death Mountain. As long as there is some reference to past geographical locations, I don't mind the inconsistencies, because those little references tell me that they acknowledge they are making a change, but that change is there for a reason.

This isn't to say I wouldn't mind consistency in design. I'd love it if it was consistent! Keeping it the same from one game to the next wouldn't work well unless it was a direct sequel, but having the same general layout of the land with changes in population (like new buildings) or ruins of a location from a previous game would be very nice. It'd be really cool to play a Zelda game and visit Kakariko Village long after OoT takes place and see Impa's house turned into a museum, or to play a game that takes place before OoT and see the Forest Temple in use, long before it became overgrown and haunted. Choosing to use consistent geography would work well so long as examples similar to these were implemented. It'd keep exploration fresh and provide nostalgia at the same time. It's win-win.