Is BOTW a Trilogy?

[Bowsette Plus-Ultra]

There are a few trilogies that exist in Zelda already, so the idea isn't too far fetched. (TWW-PH-ST, TMC-FS-FSA, ALttP-OoX-LA) That said though, I don't want another game in this world unless Zelda TikTok blows my mind, which I have my doubts about. Will it happen though? I mean if sales are as good as BotW's, I think it could be a reasonable expectation. But I don't want it, unless they leave this world alone and let Link go on some kind of new adventure.

Honestly, I'd call two those a stretch. TWW, PH, and ST are definitely a trilogy, but the others only really share an art style. The Oracles games are probably the closest.

 

[Mikey the Moblin]

TWW, PH, and ST are definitely a trilogy

even though PH and ST take place nearly a century apart?

 

[RuMbLePaKk]

Honestly, I'd call two those a stretch. TWW, PH, and ST are definitely a trilogy, but the others only really share an art style. The Oracles games are probably the closest.

Isnt the sword the reason why the Minish Cap, FS and FSA are connected?

 

[Bowsette Plus-Ultra]

Isnt the sword the reason why the Minish Cap, FS and FSA are connected?

By that logic every game with the Master Sword is part of a trilogy.

even though PH and ST take place nearly a century apart?

They are a lot clearer about their continuity than other Zelda games. The hundredvyear gap isnt too significant. Baldur's Gare 3 is the third in a trilogy despite taking place a hundred years after the other two.

 

[Azure Sage]

I'd call it pretty disconnected, but I also subscribe to the idea that a trilogy must have some narrative relation to one another. While AoC borrows characters, it is utterly disconnected from the events of BoTW to the point that it explicitly exists in an alternate timeline with a nice happy ending. It doesn't host some overarching theme, setting, or narrative. If BotW didn't exist, very little of AoC's plot would change.

I can't really agree with that. The Future Champions demonstrably come from a time that's post-BotW. Sidon reflects on it being nice to fight alongside Link again, and Yunobo talks about how the Link from his time inspired him to be braver in the DLC story. There's plenty of tie-in, just the other way around than what you're talking about. AoC likely won't influence TotK (though it would be nice to bare minimum have the Champion Successors retain the development they got in AoC and reference its events somehow) but to say that it wouldn't change if BotW didn't happen is just provably unture. The events of BotW, both 100 years in the past and even its present, both impact AoC's story and the game itself assumes that you know of all these events. That's plenty of narrative relation in my book. Like I said, it's not a sequel or a prequel, but it's not self-contained, either. Calling it a stand-alone game is just flat out wrong, even if you don't wanna think of it as canon.

 

[Bowsette Plus-Ultra]

I can't really agree with that. The Future Champions demonstrably come from a time that's post-BotW. Sidon reflects on it being nice to fight alongside Link again, and Yunobo talks about how the Link from his time inspired him to be braver in the DLC story. There's plenty of tie-in, just the other way around than what you're talking about. AoC likely won't influence TotK (though it would be nice to bare minimum have the Champion Successors retain the development they got in AoC and reference its events somehow) but to say that it wouldn't change if BotW didn't happen is just provably unture. The events of BotW, both 100 years in the past and even its present, both impact AoC's story and the game itself assumes that you know of all these events. That's plenty of narrative relation in my book. Like I said, it's not a sequel or a prequel, but it's not self-contained, either. Calling it a stand-alone game is just flat out wrong, even if you don't wanna think of it as canon.

I would love to think of AoC as canon. I love the Terminator 2-ing of the plot. I genuinely think it's the most interesting thing Zelda has done with its story in years.

Unfortunately, someone (surely at Nintendo) decided the game had to be disconnected from everything else. It is standalone, since its plot is not a continuation of BotW's, nor will it likely have any influence on TotK. If the story were meant as a continuation of BotW and played into TotK, then I'd call it a tie-in.

 

[GZ Zelda]

I can't really agree with that. The Future Champions demonstrably come from a time that's post-BotW. Sidon reflects on it being nice to fight alongside Link again, and Yunobo talks about how the Link from his time inspired him to be braver in the DLC story. There's plenty of tie-in, just the other way around than what you're talking about. AoC likely won't influence TotK (though it would be nice to bare minimum have the Champion Successors retain the development they got in AoC and reference its events somehow) but to say that it wouldn't change if BotW didn't happen is just provably unture. The events of BotW, both 100 years in the past and even its present, both impact AoC's story and the game itself assumes that you know of all these events. That's plenty of narrative relation in my book. Like I said, it's not a sequel or a prequel, but it's not self-contained, either. Calling it a stand-alone game is just flat out wrong, even if you don't wanna think of it as canon.

This is a sloppy comparison, but Ancient Stone Tablets is a game that takes place in the same world as A Link to the Past, references its events, but is not canon or part of the ALttP, OoX, LA conceptual trilogy. I mean, that might be because it doesn't have Link in the game, but Zelda and Aginah are there and they deserve their flowers. However, I still would call this game a stand-alone. Age of Calamity, honestly, did little to advance my understanding about Breath of the Wild narratively (other than a stronger relationship between Mipha and Zelda and Mipha and Daruk). In this, I think it's justified to arbitrarily put in on the "stand-alone" side, especially if it isn't canon.

 

[RamboBambiBambo]

I don't understand how Age of Calamity got roped into this discussion. It's a Hyrule Warriors game first and foremost and therefore not a sequel to Breath of the Wild. To consider it a legitimate part of a trilogy to a completely different genre of games is absurd. Tears of the Kingdom is a sequel to Breath of the Wild, not Age of Calamity.

Age of Calamity is a very strange case, as it is canon and yet contradictory.

Ganon awakens and triggers The Great Calamity.
Terrako goes through a time warp into the past in order to try to warn the people of what is about to happen and protect Princess Zelda.
However, events clearly do not line up with Breath of the Wild's backstory events.

• Link acquires the Master Sword in his late teens and not his early teens
• He is a typical knight within the ranks and not a notable character that the royal family has kept their eye on over the years
• The Champions are being assembled within a week of the Great Calamity instead of months in advance

That's just a few contradictory details that Age of Calamity has to offer.
But despite these contradictions and such, Nintendo has declared this game as Canon.
And I think I know how.

It wasn't just simple time-travel. It was an artifitial form of time travel made by mortal hands and not with the aid of a deity that has control over time. The two Gates of Time was created by Hylia and her worshippers. The Harp of Ages is a divine tool to be wielded by the Oracle of Ages. Teh Ocarina of Time is a tool that allows the user to restart a timeloop.

Meanwhile Terrako does something different.
Not only does this little robot drop into the past, but the simple act of doing so has a ripple effect that streteches through the timeline.

A Timeboom.


Terrako's method of time-travel is a different method than what we have seen previously in the series. By going only a week into the past, a ripple was made in time that saw events prior to the little robot's arrival into the past be altered in minior or major ways, all while not really changing the major course of history until we reach the point in time he little Guardian arrived to the past, in which all events afterward begin to have major differences from the main timeline.

Hence why Link is just a typical knight and that the Champions are not yet assembled.
History plays out mostly the same between Breath of the Wild and Age of Calamity, only some details are altered.
And with everyone acting with new information from the future thanks to Terrako and Corrupt Terrako's actions, it leads to an entirely separate outcome than the events we know from Breath of the Wild.
Add ontop of that the next generation of Champions being warped in from the Future, and you have further shenanigans with the timeline.

Hence why I like to refer to this new alternate timeline that Terrako caused by warping back in time as "The Terrako Paradox".

---

To answer the question of "Is BotW a Trilogy", the answer is currently no.
There are three games in the lineup but one is a spinoff and not a main-line game that is tied to the direct narrative of the game.

Should Nintendo make a third game set after Tears of the Kingdom OR make a prequel game in which we play as the Hero of the Calamity depicted in the Ancient Tapestry, THEN it would be a Trilogy.

As it stands right now, it is a dual-story narrative with a bonus "what if" story attached.
The term for this is a Diptych.
Not a Trilogy

 

[Lawpy’s Fruit Salad]

BotW
AoC
BotW2

Yes i agree with this

 

[Hawk of Light]

Likely is technically considered a trilogy but I'm not sure if I'd count AoC since it starts as a prequel and then turns into some weird alternative universe thing.