- Joined
- Sep 2, 2024
- Gender
- Male
The literal legend theory has been disproven more than once by the developers explicitly saying that individual games are connected to each other. This is also explicit to anybody paying attention to the stories of the games themselves. The Wind Waker isn’t a retelling of Ocarina of Time because The Wind Waker explicitly places itself AFTER Ocarina of Time. Couple this with every other game in the series that is a direct prequel or sequel (or even a distant prequel or sequel) and this narrative completely falls apart, further reinforced by the fact that each game simply doesn’t fit the “legend” narrative. “The Hero goes to Kakariko Village and chops up some grass for rupees and the gets 4 of the Cuccos necessary for the Magic Bottle but then forgets and goes to Kakariko Graveyard and tries to push a gravestone but is told off by a child and can’t push the gravestone so then he goes back to Kakariko and has to start over on the Cucco quest and-“ etc. It just simply doesn’t suffice as an explanation for the series explicitly going out of its way to connect itself. Does Ocarina of Time directly connect itself to The Minish Cap? No, but Ocarina of Time directly connects to Majora’s Mask which connects to Twilight Princess and etc. When breaking the series down into individual arcs, this chronology becomes apparent:Ah, I see the fresh blood likes a bit of sport. Aside from the connections each game has to the others, the order of games has been changed and contradicted on so many occasions that it would be intellectually dishonest to pretend that there was ever anything more than a "this game came after this game" at a few points in the series' history. Of late, to their detriment, Nintendo has retroactively arranged the Legend of Zelda games into a timeline or apparently a "trimeline" as a way of throwing meat to Zelda fans. If you buy the "This is the timeline for when you got a game over" as being a detailed scheme years in the making, you deserve your timeline.
The point is not that a graphic of a Zelda timeline that's been officials recognized by Nintendo doesn't exist, it's that there never was a Zelda timeline. The legend of Zelda is a legend. When one generation tells a story of Zelda, it's about Link traveling to death mountain and Zora's domain and collecting cuccos and welding the hook shot and fighting Ganondorf. Another generation remembers the hookshot looking differently and Link collecting cuccos but not going to Zora's domain- wait, actually the Zora were enemies the way I heard it! And Ganondorf was actually a pig-looking guy. But another storyteller remembers that after that story, Link didn't defeat Ganondorf when he rose again and the next hero lived on Hyrule's mountaintops and sailed the seas but another storyteller says Link actually had a sword that split him into four.
It's a legend, not an exact accounting. Also, welcome to ZD-i.
SS > OoT
OoT > WW > PH > ST
OoT > MM > TP
MC > FS > FSA
aLttP > LA > aLBW > LoZ > AoL
BotW > TotK
There were some specific games I omitted as the connections aren’t immediately clear from a surface glance, but the arcs that I’ve described are very explicit and air tight. Observing the series’ chronology is merely a matter of determining how these arcs fit. This is a conversation I’d be willing to have, but I don’t think you’d be interested to be blunt.
And no, I certainly don’t follow the Hyrule Historia timeline. It’s explicitly created by “fans” of the series and had nothing to do with Zelda Team, as described by Aonuma. It’s effectively Nintendo’s marketing team glorifying a fan theory, no better than anything we could come up, especially given the explicit fictions that Ambit creates that are unsupported by the game.