How Was Skyward Sword As A Prequel

[unknown]

Yes: It was clearly predating all of the other games on the timeline.

 

[Turo602]

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 its wrong because its official so now everything feel 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.

The Legend of Zelda was never this huge continuing story. They all have different stories with vague references to other games in the series. That doesn't make it one giant story. The Legend of Zelda tells different stories with each game. It's like saying all the Super Mario games make up on epic story. Nintendo has stated it themselves, gameplay comes first when it comes to The Legend of Zelda. It's not a story centric series, nor was it ever meant to be. Giving The Legend of Zelda a proper story only limits what Nintendo can do with the series. They have also stated that themselves. They admitted that Hyrule Historia has its flaws, and that's because gameplay comes first. But I can see through Nintendo's BS, a proper timeline featuring every game in the series never even existed. They were forced to make up something that makes no sense just to please fans.

 

[Random Person]

The Legend of Zelda was never this huge continuing story. They all have different stories with vague references to other games in the series. That doesn't make it one giant story.

No, what makes it one giant story is that one game happens first and the other games happen after it.

The Legend of Zelda tells different stories with each game.

Indeed it does, however, the games try to connect themselves with each other. WW demonstrated that it was continuing the legacy of the Hero of Time. Twilight Princess demonstrated the evolution of Hyrule after a long period of time from OoT. ST showed how the people of New Hyrule were able to reestablish society after the events in WW (or PH, but I haven't played that game). These are just the games that took place many years after certain games, and they are clearly demonstrating their connections to their predecessors. The direct sequels using the same hero showed this connection even more so because they didn't even need to remind you of their history. You already knew what happened and the history of the Link you were currently playing as.

The games are also connected through various passages of traditions. Ganondorf is the same "entity" in several games. The Master Sword is the same weapon with the same origin in every game.

The games tell their own stories, yes, but they do so by relying on elements that were established in their prequels. This shows you that they are not their own, but a continued line throughout the land you already visited once. This is good as this is what a continuing series should do.

It's like saying all the Super Mario games make up on epic story.

No it isn't. The Super Mario games are not story telling games, they are games that have stories in them. (If that makes sense).

Nintendo has stated it themselves, gameplay comes first when it comes to The Legend of Zelda. It's not a story centric series, nor was it ever meant to be.

I've always believed gameplay to be the most essential aspect of any game, however, I believe story is very close behind it. That's not to say that a game will be bad if it doesn't have a decent story, minecraft and TF2 are considered awesome games, but the story to the game should fit. You mentioned Mario earlier, Mario games are incredibly silly and don't really need an in depth story because the platforming type of game that Mario has established has allowed it to be like it is. The original LoZ did not have a terribly complex story, but it fit fine as during the NES day and age, this type of story was acceptable.

The Zelda series has established itself as a continuing series and therefore, as I said before, must behave like one or suffer from missed potential.

Giving The Legend of Zelda a proper story only limits what Nintendo can do with the series. They have also stated that themselves.

I'm not saying that Nintendo's goal is to follow the elements of proper literature, but by not doing that, they have only hindered themselves. My point is that what Nintendo is doing is making the literature of their games suffer. If Nintendo wants to do that, or has no choice but to do that, then there's nothing I can do about it.

As I said, I've always considered gameplay first, but I think story is a close second. I hear people say that story should suffer for the gameplay. While ultimately I think that is true, I feel people say it with a mindset that the ultimate goal of a video-game should have good gameplay. My take is that the ultimate goal of a game should have good everything. That is to say, video-games should have good gameplay and an adequate story. If we have no choice but to let the story suffer because of the gameplay, then we take that step because we must, not because we can. If when doing something, you don't make everything about it as best as it can be, it suffers.

I honestly believe that people misunderstand the importance of a relatively good story to games (admittedly, that's a bit pompous on my part). People settle for less than the best because that's what they've been given. SS was the first "clearly" established prequel we got to the Zelda series after the sequel had already been made (though you may want to count MC, I don't). People say "it was good, it answered the most basic questions"; but if those same people had experienced what I feel is a legit prequel to the series, I honestly think they would feel different. (No offense to anyone who said SS was a good prequel). When a story and gameplay are really good, the game tends to get more appreciation than just one that had good gameplay. Those who understand literature really appreciate the effort that was put into it, and those who don't understand literature still tend to know that the game had a good story.

If its still hard to see the importance of story, imagine if the next Zelda game had no story at all. You were just Randomly doing things. This extreme case, albeit highly unlikely, would most likely be uncomfortable as Zelda has established itself as a game that tells a story. When you understand what certain types of stories are supposed to do and they don't meet that requirement, this is similar to a game like Zelda not having a story. It may be fun and liked, but it seems wrong and not up to its full potential.

They admitted that Hyrule Historia has its flaws, and that's because gameplay comes first. But I can see through Nintendo[...], a proper timeline featuring every game in the series never even existed. They were forced to make up something that makes no sense just to please fans.

Its clear that Nintendo didn't initially have a timeline. However, (and I said this in my last post) I believe they were doing a good job up until SS filling in their holes. That's one of the reasons I'm so disappointing in HH and SS. They were the opportunity to make Zelda the fantastic series it was meant to be, and they really underperformed imo.

 

[Turo602]

No, what makes it one giant story is that one game happens first and the other games happen after it.

Indeed it does, however, the games try to connect themselves with each other. WW demonstrated that it was continuing the legacy of the Hero of Time. Twilight Princess demonstrated the evolution of Hyrule after a long period of time from OoT. ST showed how the people of New Hyrule were able to reestablish society after the events in WW (or PH, but I haven't played that game). These are just the games that took place many years after certain games, and they are clearly demonstrating their connections to their predecessors. The direct sequels using the same hero showed this connection even more so because they didn't even need to remind you of their history. You already knew what happened and the history of the Link you were currently playing as.

The games are also connected through various passages of traditions. Ganondorf is the same "entity" in several games. The Master Sword is the same weapon with the same origin in every game.

The games tell their own stories, yes, but they do so by relying on elements that were established in their prequels. This shows you that they are not their own, but a continued line throughout the land you already visited once. This is good as this is what a continuing series should do.

No it isn't. The Super Mario games are not story telling games, they are games that have stories in them. (If that makes sense).

I've always believed gameplay to be the most essential aspect of any game, however, I believe story is very close behind it. That's not to say that a game will be bad if it doesn't have a decent story, minecraft and TF2 are considered awesome games, but the story to the game should fit. You mentioned Mario earlier, Mario games are incredibly silly and don't really need an in depth story because the platforming type of game that Mario has established has allowed it to be like it is. The original LoZ did not have a terribly complex story, but it fit fine as during the NES day and age, this type of story was acceptable.

The Zelda series has established itself as a continuing series and therefore, as I said before, must behave like one or suffer from missed potential.

I'm not saying that Nintendo's goal is to follow the elements of proper literature, but by not doing that, they have only hindered themselves. My point is that what Nintendo is doing is making the literature of their games suffer. If Nintendo wants to do that, or has no choice but to do that, then there's nothing I can do about it.

As I said, I've always considered gameplay first, but I think story is a close second. I hear people say that story should suffer for the gameplay. While ultimately I think that is true, I feel people say it with a mindset that the ultimate goal of a video-game should have a good gameplay. My take is that the ultimate goal of a game should have good everything. That is to say, video-games should have good gameplay and an adequate story. If we have no choice but to let the story suffer because of the gameplay, then we take that step because we must, not because we can. If when doing something, you don't make everything about it as best as it can be, it suffers.

I honestly believe that people misunderstand the importance of a relatively good story to games (admittedly, that's a bit pompous on my part). People settle for less than the best because that's what they've been given. SS was the first "clearly" established prequel we got to the Zelda series after the sequel had already been made (though you may want to count MC, I don't). People say "it was good, it answered the most basic questions"; but if those same people had experienced what I feel is a legit prequel to the series, I honestly think they would feel different. (No offense to anyone who said SS was a good prequel). When a story and gameplay are really good, the game tends to get more appreciation than just one that had good gameplay. Those who understand literature really appreciate the effort that was put into it, and those who don't understand literature still tend to know that the game had a good story.

Again, that doesn't make it one continuous flowing story. Almost every game is a regurgitation of the same Legend. Ganon breaks out of some realm, kidnaps Zelda at some point throughout the game, Link defeats him... Someone is trying to revive Ganon, Link stops them... You have those two stories repeating each other the majority of the time throughout the series. That literally deserves a "Cool Story Bro". Each Zelda game stands on its own. You don't need to play one to understand what the other one is about. That's exactly like the Super Mario series. Just because each Zelda game has a stronger story than any Mario game, doesn't mean that they're not alike. They're both very diverse in gameplay and in story. You can do whatever you want with either one, but it doesn't affect the next game.

If The Legend of Zelda was truly about story, then Link wouldn't be a half baked character and each story wouldn't be a retelling of something that has been done before. Again, I don't know where you got the impression that The Legend of Zelda as a whole, was about story. No such connection between any of the Zelda games prior to WW ever existed. It was WW that kept the whole Hero of Time thing going because OoT was the most popular Zelda game and the "timeline" was also very popular among fans. It was fans who wanted there to be a connection. Not Nintendo. You had The Legend of Zelda and Zelda II The Adventure of Link. From there, anyone with logic would expect another sequel, but instead you get another Zelda game with no number and just a subtitle of "A Link to the Past". Who wouldn't be confused? But Nintendo's goal wasn't to ever have this massive story. The Legend of Zelda wasn't really established with the first two games. It was A Link to the Past that really established new ground for Zelda. It wasn't trying to tell a story of the past (lol get it?) or continue a story of an already existing game. It was telling its own story. But even then, regardless of what story it was telling, Nintendo wasn't even focused on that aspect, because that's not what their series is about. It's about gameplay and coming up with the next way to play.

The entire Zelda series doesn't need to be connected in order for one game's story to be appreciated. Because they're all standalone titles. Ocarina of Time isn't gonna be praised any less because of SS, MM, or WW. It's judged and appreciated for what it is, a video game. No one ever goes into a Zelda game saying "oh, it has so much rich literature behind it", they go in expecting a brand new experience. It's not like Halo 3, where it ended on a cliff hanger that left you wondering, what happens next? Or, where does it go from here? The Legend of Zelda is just a bunch of games with their own individual stories that can fit in a chronological order (at least from Ocarina of Time and up). And that is truly false, a video game doesn't need to have a great story to be remembered, if that's not the game's goal, then it's not needed and it'll end up just being forced in. The original Super Mario Bros. has got to be one of gaming's most memorable titles. Personally, I believe every aspect of a video game is not more important than another, but it also depends on what the game is trying to achieve as well.

If its still hard to see the importance of story, imagine if the next Zelda game had no story at all. You were just Randomly doing things. This extreme case, albeit highly unlikely, would most likely be uncomfortable as Zelda has established itself as a game that tells a story. When you understand what certain types of stories are supposed to do and they don't meet that requirement, this is similar to a game like Zelda that doesn't have a story. It may be fun and liked, but it seems wrong and not up to its full potential.

This can be said about Mario as well. If the game just started with you in a level and went on like that for 8 worlds just for the end to have nothing... then something is clearly missing. Almost every game, if not, every game (with a cause, not like Minecraft where you're just building crap for the sake of building crap...) tells a story. It's just up to the player to decide whether or not it was a good one or if it even hurt or helped the game. Lot's of games tell stories and take place after another game in its series, doesn't mean it's a story centric series. Zelda games have deeper plots than games with simple or vague plots, I get that, but it does mean it's a story driven franchise. That one deep plot is specific to that one game. You don't need to experience that to understand the next game.

Its clear that Nintendo didn't initially have a timeline. However, (and I said this in my last post) I believe they were doing a good job up until SS filling in their holes. That's one of the reasons I'm so disappointing in HH and SS. They were the opportunity to make Zelda the fantastic series it was meant to be, and they really underperformed imo.

I fail to see what exactly they were doing a good job of, that apparently they're not doing anymore... they've been doing the same thing since A Link to the Past. Trying to innovate and revolutionize.

 

[Random Person]

Again, that doesn't make it one continuous flowing story. Almost every game is a regurgitation of the same Legend. Ganon breaks out of some realm, kidnaps Zelda at some point throughout the game, Link defeats him... Someone is trying to revive Ganon, Link stops them... You have those two stories repeating each other the majority of the time throughout the series. That literally deserves a "Cool Story Bro". Each Zelda game stands on its own. You don't need to play one to understand what the other one is about. That's exactly like the Super Mario series. Just because each Zelda game has a stronger story than any Mario game, doesn't mean that they're not alike. They're both very diverse in gameplay and in story. You can do whatever you want with either one, but it doesn't affect the next game.

You didn't address the major point I was trying to make. The games can be played alone, this is true. But, they use the history of past games to help them do so. For example, you can play WW without playing OoT and still know what its story is talking about. However, those figures on the windows in the Master Sword chamber have meaning that isn't explained in WW. You have to play OoT to know that those are the sages. Another example is TP. You can play TP without playing OoT and still understand the story. However, there is a picture in the fishing hut showing the fisherman from OoT and Hena says he was a legendary fisherman from "long ago." These are but a few things that the games do to relate to their predecessors. The elements are their own story, but they play off of the past of other games.

It seems to me that when I say "continuous series" you think I mean Lord of the Rings type of stories where one giant story continues to flow and reading the second book won't make much sense if you didn't read the first, but that's not what I'm saying. I'm referring to a series whose stories share the same history. I'm thinking more of the LotR to the Hobbit type thing. You can enjoy LotR and not know the story of the Hobbit, and vice versa, but LotR is a continuation of the Hobbit. It played off of the history and the events of the Hobbit to make its own story. The Zelda series does this too.

If The Legend of Zelda was truly about story, then Link wouldn't be a half baked character and each story wouldn't be a retelling of something that has been done before.

I don't understand you're logic here. I've never really seen Link as half baked as they all have Personalities in their own right, and even if he were, there are plenty of reasons to explain that which would help to emphasize the story elements of the game.

Again, I don't know where you got the impression that The Legend of Zelda as a whole, was about story. No such connection between any of the Zelda games prior to WW ever existed. It was WW that kept the whole Hero of Time thing going because OoT was the most popular Zelda game and the "timeline" was also very popular among fans. It was fans who wanted there to be a connection. Not Nintendo. You had The Legend of Zelda and Zelda II The Adventure of Link. From there, anyone with logic would expect another sequel, but instead you get another Zelda game with no number and just a subtitle of "A Link to the Past". Who wouldn't be confused? But Nintendo's goal wasn't to ever have this massive story. The Legend of Zelda wasn't really established with the first two games. It was A Link to the Past that really established new ground for Zelda. It wasn't trying to tell a story of the past (lol get it?) or continue a story of an already existing game. It was telling its own story. But even then, regardless of what story it was telling, Nintendo wasn't even focused on that aspect, because that's not what their series is about. It's about gameplay and coming up with the next way to play.

Here is what I got out of this, correct me if I'm wrong.

"Zelda wasn't originally about story. That element came into play later in the Zelda series and continued from there. Fans wanted connections which is why Nintendo started making them. ALttP does not show elements of continuing a history."

If this is what you meant, all of this is true. Nintendo didn't have a timeline until after OoT, and it wasn't their goal to make one. Originally, the series was not heavily oriented on story nor connecting the games. The earlier games will of course not have the continuity, because Nintendo was not trying back then to make a series, just a bunch of games. But the continuing story element exists now in Zelda games because even though it wasn't their intention, Nintendo made a series. They told everyone the games are connected, even though they weren't originally made that way. In doing so, Nintendo put it on themselves to make future games have that connection because that's how a continous series works. Otherwise, the series would be more like Final Fantasy, in which the history of certain games aren't connected, they just share the same title. (As far as I know)

The entire Zelda series doesn't need to be connected in order for one game's story to be appreciated. Because they're all standalone titles. Ocarina of Time isn't gonna be praised any less because of SS, MM, or WW. It's judged and appreciated for what it is, a video game. No one ever goes into a Zelda game saying "oh, it has so much rich literature behind it", they go in expecting a brand new experience.

I've actually seen numerous times where games are praised or downgraded because of their overall story (and other elements) to the other games in their series. I've also seen numerous times where the story has won people over for a game. And I've seen more times than I can count where the literature impact of stories have been mentioned in the game's praising and insulting, including Zelda on both counts, so I can't agree with any of this.

It's not like Halo 3, where it ended on a cliff hanger that left you wondering, what happens next? Or, where does it go from here? The Legend of Zelda is just a bunch of games with their own individual stories that can fit in a chronological order (at least from Ocarina of Time and up). And that is truly false, a video game doesn't need to have a great story to be remembered, if that's not the game's goal, then it's not needed and it'll end up just being forced in. The original Super Mario Bros. has got to be one of gaming's most memorable titles. Personally, I believe every aspect of a video game is not more important than another, but it also depends on what the game is trying to achieve as well.

The bolded part makes me believe you didn't read my post all the way. I specifically said that a game doesn't need to have a good story, but a story relevant to it. A game can have no story if the game's atmosphere permits it. Zelda is a continuation series and therefore has certain responsibilities. SMB is a fast pace fighting game more focused on the "nintendoness" (not a word) of the game than anything.

This can be said about Mario as well. If the game just started with you in a level and went on like that for 8 worlds just for the end to have nothing... then something is clearly missing. Almost every game, if not, every game (with a cause, not like Minecraft where you're just building crap for the sake of building crap...) tells a story. It's just up to the player to decide whether or not it was a good one or if it even hurt or helped the game. Lot's of games tell stories and take place after another game in its series, doesn't mean it's a story centric series. Zelda games have deeper plots than games with simple or vague plots, I get that, but it does mean it's a story driven franchise. That one deep plot is specific to that one game. You don't need to experience that to understand the next game.

The point I was trying to make is that when you understand stories more and you see what literature aspects they're missing, it feels a lot like a Zelda game without a story. I was also trying to show that when people say "the story doesn't matter" that statement isn't as completely concrete as some see it.

I fail to see what exactly they were doing a good job of, that apparently they're not doing anymore... they've been doing the same thing since A Link to the Past. Trying to innovate and revolutionize.

*Scratches head*
Its kinda hard to explain without going into a literature lesson.

 

[Shadao]

The Legend of Zelda games must stand as a great game on its own before it finds its place on the timeline. Most Zelda games have vague connections to each other, even in games like Spirit Tracks. Spirit Tracks did not exactly explain on how New Hyrule was founded or what happened to WW Link. Likewise, Ocarina of Time is a distant direct-prequel to A Link to the Past but the connection between OoT and ALttP is confusing because so much of the details do not fit. ALttP Ganon has gotten the whole Triforce and there was no hero who has taken the Master Sword while OoT Ganondorf just got the Triforce of Power and OoT Link defeated him with the Master Sword. To make direct connection of the Zelda games just limits creativity of the games and the imagination of the players who are looking for hidden and subtle connections between the games.

 

[Ventus]

As a prequel to Ocarina of Time, Skyward Sword did poorly to my own expectations but within the frame of OoT it did perfectly. Nothing in Skyward Sword aside form the Hero of Time and the Master Sword is even remotely referenced in OoT. So it is fitting.

As a prequel to the Zelda series, I think it did great. It referenced every game just nicely.

 

[PokaLink]

I believe that the prequel was perfect, it filled in alout of the gaps about the beggining of Hyrule, of course it does open more questions and contreversy, but what game doesnt?

 

[robocrobat]

I felt that skyward sword did not relate to other games as much as it should have.

 

[TheMasterSword]

Skyward Sword was an amazing prequel that answer many questions, had a great story line, and left more questions in typical Zelda Fashion. It introduced a wonderful new playing platform, and it should not be changed in any way shape or form. Skyward Sword recieves an over 9000 in my book.

 

[EeveeChan]

Heck Yes it is! At first, in the beggining of the story, it's a bit confusing. An example of this would be the Goddess. They are praising one goddess instead of the usual 3. However, as the story proceeds, you find out where the master sword came from, who the goddess is, why Hyrule is named Hyrule (if you think about it), where are the other 3 goddesses are, where the triforce is, & most importantly why Link & Zelda always have to deal with a evil being. In my opinion, Skyward Sword did extremely well as a prequel to the entire series.

And the best part is Nintendo has no reason not to keep making Zelda games. After all, Demise put a curse on them to have a never ending cycle of chaos, so they should live up to that.

 

[PhantomTriforce]

Skyward Sword, without doubt, is a good game. However, Skyward Sword is a terrible prequel. It felt like this game was on its own separate timeline. First of all, if you're going to make a prequel to the series, you don't make a separate backstory that has nothing to do with the rest of the series. Secondly, what's up with the new tribes? I was really expecting connections and origins to the tribes we see in OoT, but instead we get brand new tribes without any explanation of what happened to them (except the Gorons, which for some random reason are reused in Skyward Sword). Thirdly, the deities we see in the rest of the series (Jabu-Jabu/Jabun, Great Deku Tree, Valoo) should have been introduced in Skyward Sword, but instead we have three new dragons and a flying whale. Finally, Skyward Sword felt too much like Spirit Tracks (story wise) with elements from Twilight Princess and poorly developed and utilized time travel. There are some more points, but I think these are my major issues of how Skyward Sword was a bad prequel.

 

[Zelda_Ali_Baba]

I believe it did a perfect job as a prequel. No, it didn't answer ALL the questions but there are way too many to get all of them answered in just one game. It may have roused new questions, but I think that is part of the fun of playing a Legend of Zelda game. Some of it is up to your imagination.

 

[Kupsacker]

Yes. I think it is a great prequel to the whole series. The only thing missing, I think, is the sages' involvement in creating the master sword. But, who knows, there can be mistakes in recorded history, even virtual video game history.