How Was Skyward Sword As A Prequel

[JuicieJ]

Taking a gander at the official timeline, it really seems that Nintendo has been working backward a lot--since the franchise debuted in 1986. So, maybe the next game will cover what I've been looking for.

I may be wrong, but I'm about 95% sure Aonuma said they weren't going to do another sequel right away.

 

[Hero of Time]

The words "good" and "bad" can be thought of as subjective, but not here. If you say that using the words "good" or "bad" automatically makes it subjective, then there would be no such thing as a "good" or "bad" video-game, they would all just be games. There would be no "good" or "bad" movies, they would all just be movies. You couldn't have "Good" or "bad" teeth, you would just have teeth. And so on and so forth. Its all about having a mutual understanding of what you mean by "good" or "bad".

Also, saying that the only element require for a prequel is for it to proceed a story, is like saying the only requirement for a video-game is for you to be able to control digital elements on a screen. That means if I make a game with horrible frames per second, a cliche story, and gameplay that is unpopular. I'm still, by that definition, making a "good" game.

When you say something is "good" in literature, you can be asking multiple things. Here we are asking did Skyward Sword followed the correct structure that is known for making prequels. One major point, perhaps the major point of making a prequel is not just to have a story before a story, but to answer questions. A lot of times, people leave mysteries in their tales just so the prequel can answer it. SS did not deliver in answering the questions that the series had established. A prequel with many unanswered questions is by definition, a bad prequel.

Even in that regard, it is still highly subjective. While mutual understanding can lead to a common agreeance, it will still not be a collective of everybody's opinions. There were many unanswered questions, but that doesn't make it bad. That may make many people think it's a bad prequel, but nothing more. It depends on factors like how many questions you expected to be answered: if you expected only a few questions to be answered, then you wouldn't think it was bad.

I think it was a bad prequel. It left many questions unanswered that I would have liked for it not to have. But my point is, it isn't bad. It cannot be a bad prequel. It can only be a prequel that is considered bad by most people.

 

[Dio]

Put it this way,it's not the prequel I hoped for. I hoped for something that made more connections between the two games. Bosses from OOT such as Volvagia and Bongo Bongo should have had their origins explained. I thought any connections between the two games were pretty vague, Nintendo should have done more.

 

[A Link In Time]

Skyward Sword was a good prequel not only for Ocarina of Time but the entire franchise. Nintendo did an excellent job of answering more question than it asked for once.

It appears to me as though most people were expecting too much from the game. The game effectively explained the origins of the Master Sword and Triforce. That's all it had to do. Nintendo, however, was more ambitious. Through Demise the developers crafted an excellent origin story for Ganondorf and the three dragons-Faron, Eldin, and Lanayru provided some backstory for the three goddesses that had created the land of Hyrule. This connected to Twilight Princess and in turn Ocarina of Time. While the title certainly could have focused more on Hylia and Demise from the point of explaining more why the humans lived in the sky as well as why the Triforce was kept away from Demise, it chose instead to center on Fi and Ghirahim, the legendary blades of good and evil and it did so in a very powerful and moving way. In this respect, I found it very fitting that the Hyrule Historia timeline was revealed immediately following the release of Skyward Sword.

 

[NotOfThisWorld]

I agree completely with ALIT ^ in that Skyward Sword was a great prequel, and to me explained a lot of history of the origins of Hyrule Field, Ganon, the swords, the dragons, etc.

Here's the only thing that really bothered me. In OoT and MM, Link couldn't have been more than maybe 12 years old (figuring on stature). Well if Skyward Sword is supposed to be the start of the WHOOOOLE story, Link just graduates from Knight Academy, and he's roughly about 19 years old. THAT is what doesn't make sense to me.

 

[Random Person]

Skyward Sword was a good prequel not only for Ocarina of Time but the entire franchise. Nintendo did an excellent job of answering more question than it asked for once.

It appears to me as though most people were expecting too much from the game. The game effectively explained the origins of the Master Sword and Triforce. That's all it had to do. Nintendo, however, was more ambitious. Through Demise the developers crafted an excellent origin story for Ganondorf and the three dragons-Faron, Eldin, and Lanayru provided some backstory for the three goddesses that had created the land of Hyrule. This connected to Twilight Princess and in turn Ocarina of Time. While the title certainly could have focused more on Hylia and Demise from the point of explaining more why the humans lived in the sky as well as why the Triforce was kept away from Demise, it chose instead to center on Fi and Ghirahim, the legendary blades of good and evil and it did so in a very powerful and moving way. In this respect, I found it very fitting that the Hyrule Historia timeline was revealed immediately following the release of Skyward Sword.

Well first, SS did not explain the origins of the triforce, but that's not a big deal because OoT already did that. I'm curious as to why you believe that a prequel to the series of Zelda only needed to explain the triforce and Master Sword. Some games do not have the master sword, nor the triforce in them at all. Also, there are other major plot points that several games make other than just the triforce and the Master Sword so I'm curious as to why you feel its okay for these points to be ignored. I'm also failing to see your connection with the dragons explaining Din, Naryu and Farore's involvement. Please help me!

Here's the only thing that really bothered me. In OoT and MM, Link couldn't have been more than maybe 12 years old (figuring on stature). Well if Skyward Sword is supposed to be the start of the WHOOOOLE story, Link just graduates from Knight Academy, and he's roughly about 19 years old. THAT is what doesn't make sense to me.

Most Links in the series are different people. The Link in SS is a completely different Person than the Link in OoT.

 

[A Link In Time]

Well first, SS did not explain the origins of the triforce, but that's not a big deal because OoT already did that. I'm curious as to why you believe that a prequel to the series of Zelda only needed to explain the triforce and Master Sword. Some games do not have the master sword, nor the triforce in them at all. Also, there are other major plot points that several games make other than just the triforce and the Master Sword so I'm curious as to why you feel its okay for these points to be ignored. I'm also failing to see your connection with the dragons explaining Din, Naryu and Farore's involvement. Please help me!

Perhaps I was too quick to judgment regarding the dragons, since they barely seem to tie in to the Goddesses but I doubt there is a coincidence with their names. The three regions are named after the dragons. You are right, perhaps the Goddesses influenced the naming of the dragons and not the other way around.

I never stated that Skyward Sword only needed to explain the Triforce and Master Sword but rather that its story centered on these elements the most. Perhaps I worded this wrong in my last post but Skyward Sword essentially showcases how the Triforce of Courage chose Link. As I maintained earlier, however, most of the story revolves around Hylia's sending the Triforce into the sky to protect it from the clutches of Demise, a demon who attempted to usurp its power for his own selfish needs.

If you really want to know what else Skyward Sword explained, it also detailed how the Temple of Time came to be with the last half of the game focusing on what the building used to be coined as, the Sealed Temple. Skyward Sword also shed further light on the Sheikah race as one destined to protect the power of the Goddesses from the hands of evil be it Impa the Triforce from Demise in Skyward Sword or the woman of the same age Princess Zelda and her Triforce of Wisdom in Ocarina of Time.

 

[NotOfThisWorld]

Most Links in the series are different people. The Link in SS is a completely different Person than the Link in OoT.

Why in the world would they make more than one Link?? Link is Link. Unless specified somewhere that I missed, it's likely one character.

 

[Random Person]

Why in the world would they make more than one Link?? Link is Link. Unless specified somewhere that I missed, it's likely one character.

No this is common knowledge that the games have different Links and different Zelda's.

These are the games with the same Links in them.
LoZ and AoL - the original hero
OoT and MM - the hero of time
WW and PH - the hero of winds
ALttP and OoX -I forget this hero's title

The games generally take place a long time before or after other games. TP takes place some hundred years (or more) after OoT while SS takes places a good time prior to OoT. Unless the game (or Hyrule Historia) specifically tells you the Links are the same, they're most likely not.

 

[JuicieJ]

No this is common knowledge that the games have different Links and different Zelda's.

These are the games with the same Links in them.
LoZ and AoL - the original hero
OoT and MM - the hero of time
WW and PH - the hero of winds
ALttP and OoX -I forget this hero's title

The games generally take place a long time before or after other games. TP takes place some hundred years (or more) after OoT while SS takes places a good time prior to OoT. Unless the game (or Hyrule Historia) specifically tells you the Links are the same, they're most likely not.

ALttP, OoX, and LA (you forgot that one) don't have a title. Only the Hero of Time and Hero of Winds have actual titles.

 

[Garo]

ALttP, OoX, and LA (you forgot that one) don't have a title. Only the Hero of Time and Hero of Winds have actual titles.

I thought TP Link was the "Hero Chosen by the Gods"?

 

[JuicieJ]

I thought TP Link was the "Hero Chosen by the Gods"?

Every Link is a hero chosen by the gods. That's just a term. He has no official title, although it's assumable it'd be the Hero of Twilight if he had one.

 

[Garo]

Every Link is a hero chosen by the gods. That's just a term. He has no official title, although it's assumable it'd be the Hero of Twilight if he had one.

Aww. I liked that title.

 

[Turo602]

Since when was the Zelda series about good sequels and prequels? Every game has a standalone story, even when it's a legit sequel to another Zelda game. When you put the games together, it becomes a giant mess that was forcefully made to fit another game. Hyrule Historia was proof of that.

 

[Random Person]

Since when was the Zelda series about good sequels and prequels? Every game has a standalone story, even when it's a legit sequel to another Zelda game. When you put the games together, it becomes a giant mess that was forcefully made to fit another game. Hyrule Historia was proof of that.

Every story, no matter the type, has this responsibility. I've seen some people say "well Zelda is different so its all good." Zelda chose to be different and some still like it but that doesn't make it right. This isn't referring to what the Zelda series is supposed to do, its referring to what any story series is supposed to do. Zelda being a story series maintains the same responsibilities as any story series.

If these games were all meant to be separate, I wouldn't be making a fuss. Nintendo, however, decided to connect them with their timeline, thus putting the responsibility of the stories to connect with each other. Thus far the games weren't doing too bad of a job. In fact, I thought the recent releases prior to SS did a relatively good job of fixing the problem Nintendo had started. However, that came crashing down with Hyrule Historia. Hyrule Historia does seem like the proof that putting everything together is a bad idea, but it's not a good example to use. Hyrule Historia does not follow the rules of using continuity to back up its claims, as a continuing story should, it just said what was true. If you look at the Zelda games, you can find clues that Hyrule Historia is wrong but you can't say that it's wrong because it's official so now everything feels messed up. Thus you can't really say "putting stories together makes a mess of things because Hyrule Historia makes a mess of things." Hyrule Historia did not make a mess of things because it put the stories together; Hyrule Historia made a mess of things because its method to putting the stories together was bad.

I understand that people want to say the games are good and don't need to be related to each other, but the reality of it is the Zelda series is a continuing story and as such has responsibilities. They can still be good games, but when the series fails to meet the requirements that a story telling series has, it is considered bad literature and bad literature to any form of story telling art (books, movies, video-games, etc) makes the art itself worse than what it could have been.