"Is Age of Calamity Canon?" Debate

[RuMbLePaKk]

I'm confused about why people consider Age of Calamity non-canon when the beginning of the game clearly explains how its events occurred, creating another timeline split. If we're going to dismiss it as non-canon, we might as well disregard the entire Downfall timeline, which is based on a "what if" scenario—specifically, what if Link died at the end of Ocarina of Time?

In Age of Calamity, it seems that Terrako created a portal to the past after Zelda used her powers, which takes place during one of the memories in Breath of the Wild. This event doesn't feel like a mere "what if" scenario; it feels more like "This is what happened at this point in time, resulting in this outcome."

I understand that the perspective on Age of Calamity makes it feel like a side story rather than a direct continuation, and the introduction of time travel creates a separate narrative path, akin to an alternate timeline, making it feel less essential to the main continuity. However, at the end of the day, it's an event that created another scenario and timeline split (We have literally the first timeline starting with SS, then it splits into 3, and then it converges into 1 with BOTW, so technically theres been 5); it's not a "what if" situation like with Link dying at the end of Ocarina of Time. I just feel like it’s almost hypocritical to say the Downfall timeline is canon because of its circumstances, but Age of Calamity isn’t.

Could anyone elaborate on the arguments for and against Age of Calamity being considered canon?

 

[Commander_Has]

I think it's a timeline loop like we saw in skyward sword, as apposed to a full break as in OoT. the past is set, but when you mess with the future, you change the timeline, that's why the only split is when they went forward in time.

 

[RuMbLePaKk]

I think it's a timeline loop like we saw in skyward sword, as apposed to a full break as in OoT. the past is set, but when you mess with the future, you change the timeline, that's why the only split is when they went forward in time.

It seems that Breath of the Wild represents a new "Downfall" timeline, where Link fails and the champions perish. In contrast, Age of Calamity has a much happier ending. This creates a sort of "what if" scenario: what if Link failed and the champions died (leading to Breath of the Wild), versus what if Link succeeded and the champions survived (the ending of Age of Calamity). However, while the end of Age of Calamity can be seen as a "what if" scenario, the circumstances involving Terrako creating the portal to the past are not.

In Age of Calamity, the champions are saved by the Sages from Tears of the Kingdom (with the exception of Tulin, who is represented by his father). The Sages appear just moments before the champions are killed, intervening to prevent their demise. I feel like the Sages may have planned to travel back in time to create this alternate timeline with a more positive outcome sometime after the events of Tears of the Kingdom. As for why Tulin wasn’t a playable character in Age of Calamity, perhaps his father thought it best to travel back in time this time around—fathers can be overly protective, even when their son is a sage.

 

[Dio]

We can only go off the official timeline which has ToTK and BoTW as in a separate universe/timeline from the other games.

 

[Commander_Has]

I did make a completely different time line, so maybe you shouldn't ask me.

 

[Mikey the Gengar]

Canonicity has nothing to do with plausibility or indeed the very events that take place within the media, and everything to do with whether or not the creators of said media declare it to be canon or not

Hope this clears up any confusion

 

[GZ Zelda]

I'm confused about why people consider Age of Calamity non-canon when the beginning of the game clearly explains how its events occurred, creating another timeline split. If we're going to dismiss it as non-canon, we might as well disregard the entire Downfall timeline, which is based on a "what if" scenario—specifically, what if Link died at the end of Ocarina of Time?

People only consider it non-canon because Aonuma said it wasn't canon and its events aren't referenced in Tears of the Kingdom. But it is totally feasible that the Sages just teleport to the alternate timeline after TotK, and then it can totally be considered canon.

 

[Daku Rinku]

People only consider it non-canon because Aonuma said it wasn't canon and its events aren't referenced in Tears of the Kingdom. But it is totally feasible that the Sages just teleport to the alternate timeline after TotK, and then it can totally be considered canon.

And yet Botw and Totk are now considered offically part of a seperate timeline by Nintendo. This reminds me of Star Wars debates about canon and wither George Lucas deems it canon or the current board with Filoni.

 

[RuMbLePaKk]

People only consider it non-canon because Aonuma said it wasn't canon and its events aren't referenced in Tears of the Kingdom.

Is there an article or video where he stated that?

The video linked below indicates that "Age of Calamity" takes place 100 years before "Breath of the Wild" and Aonuma highlights how it offers an experience of the Great Calamity battles that weren't fully depicted in the original game. Hayashi also mentions in this video that the game allows players to experience the events that occurred a century prior to "Breath of the Wild." There’s no mention in this video of it being non-canon; in fact, the statements suggest the opposite.

Hyrule Warriors: Age of Calamity - A story 100 years before The Legend of Zelda: Breath of the Wild

Announcing a new title set 100 years before The Legend of Zelda: Breath of the Wild, presented by the developers from Nintendo and KOEI Tecmo Games.Learn Mor...

www.youtube.com

 

[Commander_Has]

They tell the story, and an alternate ending, but that isn't the full story, It's the good guy wins tale. a separate timeline.

 

[Malon]

Well, the ACTUAL calamity was a disaster, and if Age of Calamity was canon, you'd lose the game no matter what. Which would be a disappointment.

 

[Commander_Has]

true, a game you always lose is no fun, that probably why we have no game for the downfall timeline.

 

[RuMbLePaKk]

true, a game you always lose is no fun, that probably why we have no game for the downfall timeline.

Oh really (see below)

Well, the ACTUAL calamity was a disaster, and if Age of Calamity was canon, you'd lose the game no matter what. Which would be a disappointment.

That's right! Just like the disaster at the end of Ocarina of Time when Link was defeated resulting in games such as A Link to the Past, A Link Between Worlds, Oracle of Ages/Seasons, Link's Awakening, Triforce Heroes, The Legend of Zelda and Adventure of Link, all of which occurred throughout the confirmed canon timeline which was named the Downfall timeline, or should we not count any of those games because it happens in the scenario that Link was defeated?

 

[Malon]

That's right!

I can't tell if that's a realization or infantilizing me. I think the realization...?

 

[Commander_Has]

I can't either