- Oct 6, 2016
- Manly man
This is like saying that FSA can't be after TP because there are no members of the Gerudo(aside from Ganon, obviously) in TP, but we see them in FSA. Or that the Minish have to be in every game because they're responsible for why there is rupees and **** like that under bushes. The most reasonable explanation is that, for example, the Rito aren't relevant to the plot of the other games outside of BotW and TotK, wheras they are in BotW/TotK. Hell, we only even visit Tabantha in one other game outside of BotW/TotK(TMC), which appears to be the stomping grounds of the Rito.There's too many contradictions. The Zora and Rito already exist in Tear's past era, but are nowhere to be seen in Skyward Sword. Races from Skyward Sword like the Paralla, Kikwi, and Mogma should be around but aren't in the past shown in Tears of the Kingdom.
Hyrule looks pretty close to what we see in FS and OoT, though, with it being very heavily forested and there being smoke rings around Death Mountain like in those games(the fact that there are no smoke rings around DM in both BotW and the present day of TotK is very telling; the developers went out of their way to add that detail).Geographically, Skyward Sword has no resemblence at all to Hyrule from BotW and TotK,
I'm arguing that the founding is the one between SS and TMC; only one user here believes in a founding before that one.Rauru wouldn't need to found Hyrule in Hylia's timeframe of being alive anyway, unless we're trying to assert that Rauru set up for Hylia's era, which I don't see as being likely.
The fact that both games make it clear that OoT happened means that they aren't as ''separated'' as you're making them out to be, though.or even viewing it as a completely seperate continuity works, because making it so far removed from all other games basically does that anyway.