"Is Age of Calamity Canon?" Debate

[Commander_Has]

I think AoC is a timeline split

 

[RuMbLePaKk]

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

I'm agreeing with your statement followed by an example

 

[RuMbLePaKk]

I think AoC is a timeline split

That is exactly what I believe.

 

[Commander_Has]

good to know

 

[DarkDagger52]

According to Age of calamity Terrako's time travel splits the timeline and the DLC shows that Terrako arrived just before the battle for Hyrule field. So in order for Age of calamity to be canon everything before the arrival Terrako in the past must match Breath of the wilds's history.

Age of calamity is non canon because of the drastic deviations in history before Terrako began altering events one of the biggest deviations is when Link gets the Master sword. According to Zelda's diary in Breath of the wilds Link's lack of expression is from him carrying the burden of the hero something that he would need to deal with only after receiving the Master sword and in Master works Vol.1 its stated that Link pulled the Master sword at a very young age while he was still in training. In Age of calamity Link shows the same lack of expression and is a common solder in the battle for Hyrule field discrepancies like these are what makes Age of calamity non canon.

 

[RuMbLePaKk]

According to Age of calamity Terrako's time travel splits the timeline and the DLC shows that Terrako arrived just before the battle for Hyrule field. So in order for Age of calamity to be canon everything before the arrival Terrako in the past must match Breath of the wilds's history.

I've heard this argument before. Yes, Terrako traveling back in time changes a lot of things, including the outcome of the calamity as opposed to the end result being the start of Breath of the Wild.

But if we would go by that, shouldn't we have to go further back and question whether the downfall timeline is canon, because Link being defeated at the end of OoT doesn't match the history of the child and adult timelines? Or even question the if the child and adult timelines are canon because histories don't match?

I'm pointing out how a lot of the arguments seem to pick and choose what they believe to be canon and what isn't, without using the same formula to determine what is and isnt canon for scenarios that occured further back in time in previous games.

I personally believe AOC is canon to the Zelda lore, it just doesnt lead to BOTW. In the beginning of AOC, you see a cutscene of Zelda using her power which then wakes up Terrako causing it to travel back in time. That scene with Zelda is from Memory #17 in Breath of the Wild. So yes, after that, things change which no longer leads to the connection of Breath of the Wild, but instead a timeline split with a happier ending.

Age of calamity is non canon because of the drastic deviations in history before Terrako began altering events one of the biggest deviations is when Link gets the Master sword. According to Zelda's diary in Breath of the wilds Link's lack of expression is from him carrying the burden of the hero something that he would need to deal with only after receiving the Master sword and in Master works Vol.1 its stated that Link pulled the Master sword at a very young age while he was still in training. In Age of calamity Link shows the same lack of expression and is a common solder in the battle for Hyrule field discrepancies like these are what makes Age of calamity non canon.

And in response to that:
(Credit: https://www.reddit.com/r/truezelda/comments/nyzprt/the_misconception_of_when_link_got_the_master/)

The Misconception of when Link got the master sword in Botw and why it likely doesn't invalidate AoC ​

As of late I've seen misinformation of link supposedly obtaining the sword at 12 or 13, this simply isn't the case, although Creating a Champion does also claim that he supposedly had it for a number of years there's a huge lack of evidence to back this up ingame, the most i could find was Mipha stating link had the sword on his first visit to Zora's Domain, which although is before her being asked by Zelda to pilot Ruta doesn't give us much else.

"The details of how Link obtained the sword a hundred years ago have been lost to the mists ot time, but since he was in possession of it for a number of years prior to becoming a Champion, he was likely around twelve or thirteen years old when it happened."- Page 376 (Creating a Champion)
Link came to visit the domain. It feels like forever since he was here last. He no longer resembles the child I first met.He is now an accomplished knight and keeper of the sword that seals the darkness. I am so proud. However...He hardly speaks anymore, and smiles even more rarely. He is still the kind soul I knew, but something has changed.I asked him if something had happened, if something was wrong. He merely shook his head.Perhaps it is his newly acquired height, but I feel he is ever looking past me, into the distance beyond..."
- Mipha's Diary (Page 3)

But seeing as CaC includes a disclaimer that records are based off little information the claim could merely be a guess based on the lack of information present.

The kingdom of Hyrule has a long, long history. […] Hyrule's recurring periods of prosperity and decline have made it impossible to tell which legends are historical fact and which are merely fairy tale. […] No detailed accounts remain. As such, what is listed here is a sketch of Hyrule's history, limited to what little information can be found today.

~ Page 361 (Creating a Champion)
Another thing to note is that in Age of Calamity korok forest is overrun with monsters necessitating the champions aid, so it is very likely Link was simply unable to journey to Korok forest to draw the blade in this timeline, furthermore based on Miphas dialogue this would be the first time she's seen link since he was a child, meaning this is the first visit.

"However the path to victory was strewn with obstacles. Korok Forest , where the legendary sword slept, had been overrun by monsters, and the princess of Hyrule's power showed no signs of awakening."
"Lamenting the Kingdom's plight, King Rhoam sent his daughter to gather pilots for the divine beasts. Alongside Link who's brave conduct had earned him a role as her Knight- Zelda would meet with each of the four Candidates."- King Rhoam narration (Age of Calamity)"Well Link. You've grown since I last saw you. and yet... you have not changed."- Mipha (Age of calamity chapter 2)

 

[DarkDagger52]

I've heard this argument before. Yes, Terrako traveling back in time changes a lot of things, including the outcome of the calamity as opposed to the end result being the start of Breath of the Wild.

But if we would go by that, shouldn't we have to go further back and question whether the downfall timeline is canon, because Link being defeated at the end of OoT doesn't match the history of the child and adult timelines? Or even question the if the child and adult timelines are canon because histories don't match?

The Downfall timeline as it is written in the official timeline is non canon because the games and manuals go against it. I have found an alternate placement for the Downfall timeline that is backed by the games but that's not the topic of this thread. The Adult timeline and Child timeline don't have conflicting pre-split history with each other.

I'm pointing out how a lot of the arguments seem to pick and choose what they believe to be canon and what isn't, without using the same formula to determine what is and isnt canon for scenarios that occured further back in time in previous games.

This is true. I've seen this a lot with arguments around the Zonai.

I personally believe AOC is canon to the Zelda lore, it just doesnt lead to BOTW. In the beginning of AOC, you see a cutscene of Zelda using her power which then wakes up Terrako causing it to travel back in time. That scene with Zelda is from Memory #17 in Breath of the Wild. So yes, after that, things change which no longer leads to the connection of Breath of the Wild, but instead a timeline split with a happier ending.

And in response to that:
(Credit: https://www.reddit.com/r/truezelda/comments/nyzprt/the_misconception_of_when_link_got_the_master/)

The Mipha quotes that you provided prove my point. Mipha's diary page three states that Link has changed but in Age of calamity chapter 2 Mipha states that Link is the same. The change mentioned in Mipha's diary is explained in Zelda's diary when Zelda says that Link became like that to carry the burden of being the hero a role chosen by the Master sword. By all accounts in Age of calamity however Link was always like that even tho the reason was lost.

 

[Bowsette Plus-Ultra]

The Downfall timeline as it is written in the official timeline is non canon because the games and manuals go against it. I have found an alternate placement for the Downfall timeline that is backed by the games but that's not the topic of this thread. The Adult timeline and Child timeline don't have conflicting pre-split history with each other.

Counterpoint: Nintendo is the company that continues to fund and employ the people who develop Zelda games. If creative higher-ups come out and say there's a previously unheard of third timeline where Link dies to Ganon in Ocarina of Time then, like it or not, that's canon. The shorthand for such a thing is "word of god".

As to the thread itself, Age of Calamity is about as canon as everything else. Almost every Zelda game is disconnected from the other, so Age of Calamity feels right at home in its own little pocket timeline.

 

[DarkDagger52]

Counterpoint: Nintendo is the company that continues to fund and employ the people who develop Zelda games. If creative higher-ups come out and say there's a previously unheard of third timeline where Link dies to Ganon in Ocarina of Time then, like it or not, that's canon. The shorthand for such a thing is "word of god".

A half truth is not the truth. You provided only one variable in an attempt to twist the evidence in your favor that is a rookie move. Now what you neglected to mention is the fact that no game or manual has ever backed up that statement and instead have added more evidence against it.

In Oracle of ages Jabu-jabu had been living in Labrynna since he was a small fry. In A link between worlds they call back to the history as it is written in A link to the past instead of the official timeline. In A link to the past they directly contradict the official timeline since Ganon's origin story was completely different Ganon found the Sacred realm by accident, the Temple of light was non existent and Ganon claimed the whole Triforce without it splitting proving his heart to be balanced.

As to the thread itself, Age of Calamity is about as canon as everything else. Almost every Zelda game is disconnected from the other, so Age of Calamity feels right at home in its own little pocket timeline.

Three words: multi game arcs. Zelda I to Zelda II, Ocarina of time to Majora's mask to Twilight princess and Ocarina of time to Wind waker to Phantom hourglass to Spirit tracks, Triforce of the gods to Oracle to Link's awakening to Triforce of the gods II to Triforce heroes, Minish cap to Four swords to Four swords adventures and finally Breath of the wilds to Tears of the kingdom. That leaves only two games out of twenty one that don't have a direct exact connection to another game rethink your argument.

 

[Bowsette Plus-Ultra]

A half truth is not the truth. You provided only one variable in an attempt to twist the evidence in your favor that is a rookie move. Now what you neglected to mention is the fact that no game or manual has ever backed up that statement and instead have added more evidence against it.

In Oracle of ages Jabu-jabu had been living in Labrynna since he was a small fry. In A link between worlds they call back to the history as it is written in A link to the past instead of the official timeline. In A link to the past they directly contradict the official timeline since Ganon's origin story was completely different Ganon found the Sacred realm by accident, the Temple of light was non existent and Ganon claimed the whole Triforce without it splitting proving his heart to be balanced.

Three words: multi game arcs. Zelda I to Zelda II, Ocarina of time to Majora's mask to Twilight princess and Ocarina of time to Wind waker to Phantom hourglass to Spirit tracks, Triforce of the gods to Oracle to Link's awakening to Triforce of the gods II to Triforce heroes, Minish cap to Four swords to Four swords adventures and finally Breath of the wilds to Tears of the kingdom. That leaves only two games out of twenty one that don't have a direct exact connection to another game rethink your argument.

I'm not really sure what you're fighting against here. Zelda is Nintendo's franchise so Nintendo gets to decide what the canon is, full stop. That's how it goes. I'm not going to scuffle back and forth with you on the franchise's loose sense of continuity.

 

[DarkDagger52]

I'm not really sure what you're fighting against here. Zelda is Nintendo's franchise so Nintendo gets to decide what the canon is, full stop. That's how it goes. I'm not going to scuffle back and forth with you on the franchise's loose sense of continuity.

You say that like you believe Nintendo to be one person its not its an entity comprised of many people. Of those many people the Zelda games specifically are created by the Zelda team as such the games are written by many people each knowing only a part of the lore no one person at Nintendo knows the full story and as such have a tendency to give faulty information in interviews when asked about a part of the series that is outside their expertise based on only the lore they know and their understanding of the part in question.

As such the most reliable information is the lore woven into the story itself. The other sources tho are not obsolete they just aren't as canon as the story itself.

 

[Bowsette Plus-Ultra]

You say that like you believe Nintendo to be one person its not its an entity comprised of many people. Of those many people the Zelda games specifically are created by the Zelda team as such the games are written by many people each knowing only a part of the lore no one person at Nintendo knows the full story and as such have a tendency to give faulty information in interviews when asked about a part of the series that is outside their expertise based on only the lore they know and their understanding of the part in question.

As such the most reliable information is the lore woven into the story itself. The other sources tho are not obsolete they just aren't as canon as the story itself.

I say that like I know Nintendo to be the owner of the Legend of Zelda IP. They get to decide what's canon.

 

[DarkDagger52]

I say that like I know Nintendo to be the owner of the Legend of Zelda IP. They get to decide what's canon.

So you believe that if janiter Kenobi of the fifth floor of Nintendo of Japan HQ said that Link is Ganon that his statement would be the absolute canon above all else just because he is from Nintendo.

 

[Bowsette Plus-Ultra]

So you believe that if janiter Kenobi of the fifth floor of Nintendo of Japan HQ said that Link is Ganon that his statement would be the absolute canon above all else just because he is from Nintendo.

I believe that when Nintendo the company issues statements on canon or publish official lorebooks that those are canon, yes. Again, Zelda is Nintendo's IP. They decide what's canon.

 

[DarkDagger52]

I believe that when Nintendo the company issues statements on canon or publish official lorebooks that those are canon, yes. Again, Zelda is Nintendo's IP. They decide what's canon.

So then you are trying to say that every source that I listed that went against the official timeline wasn't made by and distributed by Nintendo. because you are trying to say that they are non canon with your only definition of canon provided being that its from some random from Nintendo.