New timeline dropped

[Bowsette Plus-Ultra]

It’s like talking to a wall, frankly. If something is so blatantly necessary to the point the story only makes sense with it as an occurrence, and the director of the game also acknowledges it, it’s literally just an active grudge for the sake of being a pessimist to avoid the obvious. I’m sorry Zelda hurt you or whatever, but it’s kind of amazing to see these attempts at ignoring clearly unknown information.

If you can point to a single indication in game of a fallen Hyrule followed by the renewing of wedding kingdom vows then I'll capitulate.

 

[mαrkαsscoρ]

It truly isn’t surprising, see the Valentia Accordion and the Mario Encyclopedia also making **** up that doesn’t make sense. The website and the intro feature the same dialogue and in fact the website even uses Four Swords Adventures art to depict the events of Four Swords.

are we to assume then that "for a time" means like what, a few months?

 

[Bowsette Plus-Ultra]

are we to assume then that "for a time" means like what, a few months?

Long enough for everyone to grab a bite to eat and maybe get a nap in.

 

[Somasoa]

are we to assume then that "for a time" means like what, a few months?

Correct. That’s why, unlike the account of the Four Swords backstory to the events of Four Swords, it doesn’t then go “ages flow by.” It just says that for a period, people thought their troubles were over.

If you can point to a single indication in game of a fallen Hyrule followed by the renewing of wedding kingdom vows then I'll capitulate.

The Zonai’s presence in Hyrule explicitly came to be after, at the minimum, relatively late in the timeline. Considering even the masters of the Lomei Labyrinths - likely some of the first Zonai who were present on the surface considering they predate Rauru’s kingdom - consider Ocarina of Time Ganondorf to be ancient per their description of the Evil Spirit Armor. This is further reinforced by the Seven Heroines of the Gerudo and the Eighth Heroine predating the Zonai arriving on the surface, hence why the Temple of Lightning and other Zonai-Gerudo aesthetics utilize the Heroines (and the Eighth Heroine statue is even literally just a giant Zonai puzzle.) I’ve already explained the first part, so I assume the second part will be received the same way, but I can only hope other people are reading and interpret what I’m saying in good faith.

And no, this isn’t the only evidence, as established.

 

[Bowsette Plus-Ultra]

Correct. That’s why, unlike the account of the Four Swords backstory to the events of Four Swords, it doesn’t then go “ages flow by.” It just says that for a period, people thought their troubles were over.

The Zonai’s presence in Hyrule explicitly came to be after, at the minimum, relatively late in the timeline. Considering even the masters of the Lomei Labyrinths - likely some of the first Zonai who were present on the surface considering they predate Rauru’s kingdom - consider Ocarina of Time Ganondorf to be ancient per their description of the Evil Spirit Armor. This is further reinforced by the Seven Heroines of the Gerudo and the Eighth Heroine predating the Zonai arriving on the surface, hence why the Temple of Lightning and other Zonai-Gerudo aesthetics utilize the Heroines (and the Eighth Heroine statue is even literally just a giant Zonai puzzle.) I’ve already explained the first part, so I assume the second part will be received the same way, but I can only hope other people are reading and interpret what I’m saying in good faith.

And no, this isn’t the only evidence, as established.

I'm guessing that's a no, since it didn't actually address the issues of us meeting someone explicitly described as the first king of Hyrule in blatant contradiction to SS and OoT, and the Rito existing in those flashbacks despite being nowhere in SS and OoT.

 

[Somasoa]

I'm guessing that's a no, since it didn't actually address the issues of us meeting someone explicitly described as the first king of Hyrule in blatant contradiction to SS and OoT, and the Rito existing in those flashbacks despite being nowhere in SS and OoT.

Brick wall.

 

[Bowsette Plus-Ultra]

Brick wall.

Welp, I'm glad we wrapped that up.

 

[mαrkαsscoρ]

Correct. That’s why, unlike the account of the Four Swords backstory to the events of Four Swords, it doesn’t then go “ages flow by.” It just says that for a period, people thought their troubles were over.

I don't know why I always accepted that FS and FSA are just different incarnations of link and zelda again but this is extremely funny, they really overlooked this detail 3 separate times and said FSA is way after all this ganondorf and twilight stuff, I both can't and can believe this

 

[Somasoa]

Welp, I'm glad we wrapped that up.

Before we get out of here, can you prove using dialogue in Spirit Tracks that Hyrule was refounded?

 

[mαrkαsscoρ]

Before we get out of here, can you prove using dialogue in Spirit Tracks that Hyrule was refounded?

I know you're not asking me but spirit tracks literally has niko, a character that was alive during wind waker, along w/ other references to that and phantom hourglass, whereas you even said yourself the refounding in tears is a theory, not quite the same thing

 

[Somasoa]

I know you're not asking me but spirit tracks literally has niko, a character that was alive during wind waker, along w/ other references to that and phantom hourglass, whereas you even said yourself the refounding in tears is a theory, not quite the same thing

What you’re describing is evidence that supports the idea that Hyrule was refounded. That is what I’ve provided for why Hyrule has to have been refounded in the Zonai era for Tears of the Kingdom to make sense. Neither are explicit statements that Hyrule was refounded, but they’re identical in what they prove.

 

[Azure Sage]

If you can point to a single indication in game of a fallen Hyrule followed by the renewing of wedding kingdom vows then I'll capitulate.

It's hard to take this in good faith because, when he did provide you with a lot of evidence you can find in game if you're even half-paying attention, you just ignored it, but also the way you engaged with the game's lore from the get-go shows a lack of willingness to take it seriously anyway. You've already decided in your mind that it's bad and doesn't make sense so you don't accept anyone coming along to try and show you that it actually does. I still remember you telling me about your first visit to Link and Zelda's house in TotK; how you discovered Clavia inside keeping it tidy while Zelda was away, assumed she was living there, and got so mad at that assumption that you left without talking to her or investigating the house. You ran with the assumption that the house was just "some random person's" now and that Zelda was living in the well next door, without bothering to do the bare minimum legwork required to disprove it. How do you expect to have credibility in a theory discussion if this is how you engage with the game? You didn't even know Zelda had a diary in the house until I told you about it when we talked about this. You engage with theory discussion the same way you do with the game. With the way you claim to love Dark Souls lore, I gotta wonder if you play those games like this, too.

 

[Bowsette Plus-Ultra]

It's hard to take this in good faith because, when he did provide you with a lot of evidence you can find in game if you're even half-paying attention, you just ignored it, but also the way you engaged with the game's lore from the get-go shows a lack of willingness to take it seriously anyway. You've already decided in your mind that it's bad and doesn't make sense so you don't accept anyone coming along to try and show you that it actually does. I still remember you telling me about your first visit to Link and Zelda's house in TotK; how you discovered Clavia inside keeping it tidy while Zelda was away, assumed she was living there, and got so mad at that assumption that you left without talking to her or investigating the house. You ran with the assumption that the house was just "some random person's" now and that Zelda was living in the well next door, without bothering to do the bare minimum legwork required to disprove it. How do you expect to have credibility in a theory discussion if this is how you engage with the game? You didn't even know Zelda had a diary in the house until I told you about it when we talked about this. You engage with theory discussion the same way you do with the game. With the way you claim to love Dark Souls lore, I gotta wonder if you play those games like this, too.

EDIT: I want to cut out my original response to say something a bit less hostile. I think I let the thread get me riled up.

I just get frustrated with the Zelda lore because sometimes it feels like I've grown up, but it hasn't. I'll acknowledge the dumb mistake with Zelda's diary in TotK. I think that mistake on my part was exacerbated by my growing frustration with that game's story.

 

[Daku Rinku]

I’ve decided to just accept the new timeline.

 

[Ryuu Kage Desu]

Ivalice 100%, but mainline FF isn't at all comparable to this which is what I assume mikey meant

They did make their thought behind the question clear, yet I think it reveals quite a bit more. Oftentimes the best questions are asked without realizing how great they really are. In this case, a lot was revealed.

Don't get me wrong, I love a bit of mystery to my stories. A story that lays all its cards on the table from the get-go just doesn't have anything else left to play. Heck, I've been enjoying Dark Souls games except for Dark Souls 2 and their ilk for more just over a decade now and those have are infamously cagey with each shred of lore, but even those games don't **** around with when they take place. They're chronologically in order aside from the Dark Souls 3 DLC that explicitly tells you it takes place at the "end of time".

And not to belabor my Baldur's Gate 3 shaped stick or whatever, but mainline Baldur's Gate is a franchise that has been developed across just short of 30 years by six or so different developers and even it doesn't have to play some nonsense card about obscuring its timeline and literally editing the chronology of individual games within that timeline across different source books.

Yet, the creators of the Zelda series have gone on record, many, many times, stating that they want the fans to arrange the games how they see most fit. If there was one definitive timeline, it would defeat what they are going for. What you have been complaining about for as long as I can remember knowing you (as far as this site counts as knowing anyone), is not bug; it's a feature. "Official" timelines change, not because the team changes their mind, but because they embrace the different points of view on the subject. Calling for a definitive, solid, timeline is not calling for clarity, but calling for the art/intent to be fundamentally changed.