Hyrule Historia Book: A Bunch of Bull?

[Shadao]

Are there example other official timelines? Before Hyrule Historia there was never an official timeline, only vague statements of where the new games goes. I don't ever recall that Nintendo made other official timelines beside the flubbed Miyamonte's Order. As for the flaws, where are so-called big inconsistent problems aside from the third split? I've been hearing inconsistent problems from many people and yet I don't know what they are. I think that no matter what timeline Nintendo, there is always going to be backlashes and denials. Fan-theories of the Zelda timeline rarely work despite loads of evidence, simply due to errors in endings and backstories like FSA ending has Ganon sealed in the Four Swords or there was no hero between OoT and WW.

 

[Rando Roots]

There was an official timeline when only 4 games existed... It wasn't in some fancy book but the order of things was pretty clear and it was supported by official Nintendo statements. That timeline and most of anything else Nintendo has ever said about the order of these games was completely ignored when making this "official" timeline. In other words, if all those "vague statements" don't matter, than why does this book matter?! I haven't seen any mention of this book on an official Nintendo website and the Nintendo seal of approval on the book has not been seen by any of us in reality... just photos on the internet. Nintendo have admitted time and time again they don't really care about the timeline, they care about making good games and making money. If they don't care about a timeline, why should we buy into one they've allegedly created? As of right now, I'm having trouble believing ANY timeline (even my own) but most of all one where the hero of time fails. The only thing about this "official" timeline I am considering is from another thread on this forum proposed by "Fierce" with the concept of three and the elements of the triforce. http://zeldadungeon.net/forum/showthread.php?27340-Explaining-the-3-Split-Timeline-Theory

Other than that, I see no plausible reason in witch the hero of time should fail...


EDIT: By the way, I have not said that Nintendo's current timeline was inconsistent (yet), I said those past statements made by nintendo were inconsistent (myamoto's order as you said) and if those statements eventually became useless and non cannon than I don't see how the same can't be happen here with this timeline.

 

[Shadao]

When I says vague statements, I mean statements from interviews that are not really absolute about where these games goes here and there, like stating Minish Cap came before OoT. Hyrule Historia on the other hand, is the official statement from Nintendo as it has artworks never seen in history, words from the developers of Nintendo, and even edited by Aunoma. I personally believe that the Hero of Time fails thing comes from the fact that the old classic games were a burden, especially when the prequel OoT is more popular than the rest of the series. OoT doesn't exactly follow the Seal War aside from Ganondorf and people wanted sequels of OoT as opposed to AoL. This meant however that the freedom of making new Zelda games are limited by the classic games if they choose to follow ALttP, hence the split timeline. And thus they created a third split for the classic games. It might be a cop-out, it does work in a sense that Seal War is more accurate to the legends.

As for the Official Timeline, I doubt that current timeline will change aside from having new games. Skyward Sword was pretty much a self-contained story with no need of sequel and the timeline left 3 open endings for new Zelda games. So the while timeline may change, the core of the official timeline form Hyrule Historia is still there.

 

[Rando Roots]

Okay but those vague statements were made by developers too! you yourself brought up the Myamoto order... He created The Legend of Zelda and his order was a crock. Does Aunoma have more say than Myamoto? Isn't it possible that his involvement, his statement on the timeline is just as whack as Myamoto's? I do agree with you on why the third split may have come about (not wanting to make sequels to the original games) and I also agree that the Sealing war makes more sense with a third split... but! They didn't really put themselves in a good position for sequels with this timeline or any other (thus the prequel and timeline split hysteria) First off the timeline with the classic games ends... Adventure of Link has always been the end, and sequels to Four Swords Adventures or Spirit Tracks would be useless too, those legends are complete and they are still limited in making another title... until they tweak the timeline or get lazy. I don't see 3 open ends, I see 3 dead ends.

It works! in a sense but I don't think it works better than any other timeline nor do I believe Nintendo shouldn't have to support themselves and that's the point... It may very well be a cop out, but as far as creating a theory on a Zelda timeline, Nintendo are the only ones that CAN cop out. Fans aren't going to make money, they're going to make sense!

 

[Shadao]

The Miyamonto's Order was in an interview, not written down by developers. The Miyamonto's Order is a slip-up as AVGN puts it, "He was caught on the spot and he didn't have time to think about it clearly." As for the closed legend endings, every Zelda game is a self-contained story. You don't need to play Ocarina of Time to understand the Wind Waker. New Zelda games have more freedom for creativity than the 2 split timeline. If the 2 split timeline was canon, that would mean that every new Zelda games would either have to come in-between OoT and AoL or after AoL (save for the adult timeline). They would be interquel, rather than sequels and thus the endings to these new games would either contradict or forced to follow the next game's story. Spirit Tracks is a good example of having potential Zelda games. The ending has no real closures to the Zelda series, as Link and Zelda may have a new adventure like in the Wind Waker ending. There is no previous Zelda games that come after Spirit Tracks chronologically, so the new games can go anywhere they want.

If there is one thing the timeline does, it's to bring Zelda fans into one idea instead of the random, multiple ideas. Now Zelda fans would have a general idea of where things go and can debate of how things go without constant debates of the Zelda Timeline. I have seen so many Timelines that placed the classic games into the adult timeline, others in the Child Timeline. Now with an Official Timeline, such debates would actually progress and now new theories can be made out of the Official Timeline.

 

[Rando Roots]

I see what you're saying... but I think this timeline scatters things instead of bringing it together, and that's not really a bad thing. To me, the timeline ... or the existence of the timeline and it's background/content says that any timeline is plausible. Almost like Nintendo saying "alright you nerds! you wanted the truth, you can't handle the truth! deal with this timeline!" and I'm alright with that. Like I said, I don't think Nintendo cares much about a timeline and only put one out there to put a stop to the constant dissecting of the series. It seems though that it has only made people look even closer to ether check Nintendo's theory or further prove there own. I honestly feel there are many plausible theories and this "official" one is just not one I'm yet willing to except.

 

[SNOlink]

As for the flaws, where are so-called big inconsistent problems aside from the third split?

I realize you and Rando Roots have had an extensive conversation since this point, but I feel I should answer this. One thing that I saw that was inconsistant was actually in another post, the Zelda Theory: Kaepora-Gaebora. In it, it is pointed out (by you, actually) that in the Hyrule Historia, it says that Rauru is Kaepora Gaebora while in the game, the Sheikah Stone says Kaepora-Gaebora is a reincarnation of someone in the past. According to the game, they are two different people (as pointed out by TheGermanLegend) while the Hyrule Historia states they are the same.

 

[Shadao]

Well, Rauru is pretty ancient himself. Why he stated that he was one of the ancient sages that build the Temple of Time, long before the Ocarina of Time:

I am Rauru, one of the ancient Sages... Ages ago, we ancient Sages built the Temple of Time to protect the entrance to the Sacred Realm...

Not to mention the fact that Rauru was the popular candidate for Kaepora Gaebora, even when Gaepora came. You might say that is impossible because Kaepora Gaebora existed in the Adult Era, but that doesn't mean that Kaepora Gaebora wasn't a vessel for Rauru's spirit. Think of the King of Red Lions. The King of Red Lions is almost like Kaepora Gaebora to the point being an actual character rather than a puppet. Yet it turns out that the King of Red Lions was a vessel for the King of Hyrule, Daphnes Nohansen Hyrule, who ironically looks alot like Rauru.

 

[SNOlink]

I never said I disagreed with your statements (which I do, but I never said that). If I were to argue with you about it, I'd put it in the appropriate thread. I was merely pointing out that that was one of the controversies put in by the Hyrule Historia.

 

[Shadao]

The problem with Hyrule Historia convtroversies is that many of them seems to be just personal opinions or easily explained or just the plain third split. I'm more curious of what the errors everyone is saying about Hyrule Historia are as I don't really see any major errors in the general storyline, not counting the third split.

 

[Rando Roots]

The problem with Hyrule Historia convtroversies is that many of them seems to be just personal opinions or easily explained or just the plain third split. I'm more curious of what the errors everyone is saying about Hyrule Historia are as I don't really see any major errors in the general storyline, not counting the third split.

The Four swords trilogy is split up and in the wrong place, Minish Cap is not the second game in the timeline and I don't see how Four Swords Adventures comes after Twilight Princess. In my opinion the third split is only created because too many people complained about the events of Ocarina Of Time being very similar to the back story of A Link To The Past but still not being the exact same events... so Nintendo created an incident that was similar to Ocarina Of Time to be the backstory of A Link To The Past AND the reason for the third split. The thing is though, It's not in the game and it does not make sense. You're saying you don't see any major errors except the third split, and well that's a pretty major error, not to mention it's obviously going to effect the placement of the rest of the games before and after the split(s). Now I think It's obvious that this timeline is an attempt to cover up their mistakes and still leave room for more games without explanation. That's alright, it's Nintendo's franchise and they have the right to ensure they can continue to sell games but remember that that is what they are doing. Their timeline does not make sense and of course it's going to be personal opinions that go against it... otherwise they'd just be excepting opinions, and not really opinions after all.

 

[Shadao]

And how is the Four Sword Trilogy in the wrong place? This is the Four Swords Trilogy: MC-FS-FSA
------------------------------------------/WW-PH-ST
And this the Zelda Timeline: SS-MC-FS-OoT-LttP-OoX-LA-LoZ-AoL
-----------------------------------------\MM-TP-FSA
Still in the same order. And Minish Cap was considered one of the oldest tales of the Legend of Zelda as well as the Four Swords. Four Swords Adventure has to take place after Twilight Princess due to the fact it features a new Ganon. It can't before OoT nor ALttP due to his different motive: Steal Trident, not Triforce. When I say except for the third split, I meant is there any other major errors that makes it absolutly flawed, like if Nintendo said that ALttP happens between OoT and Ww. If you really want to disprove the third split, explain how OoT doesn't lead to ALttP's Seal War with the death of Link.

 

[Ninten*]

The translation just says that the Hero is unsuccessful. Who said anything about death? The third split is just showing what would happen if Ganondorf got the Triforce. But this is Link we're talking about. Link always ends up killing, stopping, or sealing the villains. So that third split wouldn't happen.

 

[Shadao]

But the thing is, Link can die. Link has a chance of loosing like Ganondorf, hence the game over sequence. Without that chance, the Zelda series would be very stale and boring because there is no tension. ALttP is basically the result of the Game Over from battle aganist Ganon. And it makes sense as Ganondorf would then have the Triforce in his possesion and would explain why the Triforce was whole in ALttP. The easy way to explain the third split is that there are two parallel Zelda timeline that are exactly the same, with different results. One leads to the Victory-Split Timeline and the other leads to the Defeat Timeline. It's a Schrödinger's cat example: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Schr%C3%B6dinger's_cat

 

[Rando Roots]

And how is the Four Sword Trilogy in the wrong place? This is the Four Swords Trilogy: MC-FS-FSA
------------------------------------------/WW-PH-ST
And this the Zelda Timeline: SS-MC-FS-OoT-LttP-OoX-LA-LoZ-AoL
-----------------------------------------\MM-TP-FSA
Still in the same order. And Minish Cap was considered one of the oldest tales of the Legend of Zelda as well as the Four Swords. Four Swords Adventure has to take place after Twilight Princess due to the fact it features a new Ganon. It can't before OoT nor ALttP due to his different motive: Steal Trident, not Triforce. When I say except for the third split, I meant is there any other major errors that makes it absolutly flawed, like if Nintendo said that ALttP happens between OoT and Ww. If you really want to disprove the third split, explain how OoT doesn't lead to ALttP's Seal War with the death of Link.

It's not the same order! One happens after another, if you put a game (or three) in between two games that are part of a trilogy than you have successfully messed up the order, how is that so hard to understand? Four Swords Adventure DOES NOT "HAVE" to take place after Twilight Princess, The entire Four Swords trilogy CAN take place after Spirit Tracks and the motive still works out. Again... YES, I believe there are major errors in the timeline, I don't think Skyward Sword leads into Minish Cap, I also do not believe that the Four Swords trilogy is split up over that much time with all these other events happening in between, I believe A Link To the Past takes place after Twilight Princess AND I believe all five games in the third split are in the wrong place. One thing that really bothers me about your communication skills is that you're telling me what absolutely HAS to happen and I'm telling you what I THINK. The third timeline cause errors all through out the rest of the timeline because five titles are removed from the order of things and put off to the side, of course that's going to cause problems for the continuity of the timeline before the split and afterwords in the adult and child timelines... OF COURSE IT"S GOING TO EFFECT THE PLACEMENT OF OTHER GAMES!

And once again... I don't believe that Ocarina of Time leads into A Link to the Past's seal war because it's not in the game... IT"S NOT IN THE GAME! The original split timeline had a little more logic behind it.. WE SEE Zelda send Link back in time and we read her explanation. In no way is there ever any mention of any of the events leading up to this third split. There is no in game evidence to suggest that Link should fail or die or whatever, none whatsoever.

Nintendo has attempted to make more sense of things and explain why the events of Ocarina of time and the backstory of A Link to the Past are different and they've failed to do so... why? because all they did was make up an explanation, somebody just wrote it down... "alright! I've got it! Link fails and all this other stuff happens instead!". But we all know that's NOT what happened because we all played Ocarina of Time.

If they made a game taking place during these events or reference it in a cut scene it would be more official, but that too would probably just mess up the order even more and create new timeline issues to work out.

I think the safest way to think about the timeline is to assume nothing and only base the placement of the games on IN GAME evidence. This timeline is not based on in game evidence, it's based on a bunch **** made up later on to cover up mistakes. That alone should be reason enough to write it off.

The Hero of Time does NOT fail! I WAS THERE!