No Correlation Between Ocarina of Time and Twilight Princess Maps

[Castle]

Erm...

Spoiler

Try taking Skyward Sword for a spin sometime. it might answer some of your questions.

There isn't just one Temple of Time, and Ocarina of Time isn't the only game other than TP with said temple(s) in it.

I used to think that was a problem too.

In any case, I'd say The Wind Waker makes more explicit references to Ocarina of Time. The maps are consistent enough without being so consistent that they feel the same.

True... more confusion :S hehe... idk, is it the same temple? doesn't look like it. maybe there has been more than one temple of time? maybe the temple from ocarina and twilight are not one and the same? that would at least explain the graphical differences.

Perhaps there's a point to the discrepancy in the Master Sword's location from game to game. Maybe it's supposed to be mysterious and unexplainable perhaps due to maaaaaaaagic! Okay, so that may sound trite, but consider its location in an area reminiscent of the Lost Woods in TP, known for its unexplained phenomenon, as well as the Lost Woods in ALttP. Maybe the master swords location changes due to some unexplainable phenomenon. Perhaps as a defense mechanism so it can only find, or be found by, its chosen wielder.

Thread seems to have ventured into the realm of conjecture now.

 

[Curmudgeon]

In any case, I'd say The Wind Waker makes more explicit references to Ocarina of Time.

It does. The contrast between The Hero of Time and TWW's Link is a blatantly obvious piece of the narrative.

 

[Castle]

There is evidence in both games. Whether or not one has more references to OoT than the other is speculative, however, and to me, beside the point. Wind Waker is where the references began, however. Both games are direct chronological successors to OoT on their respective timelines.

If it makes any difference, Wind Waker is at least more consistent in its references and allusions to OoT than Twilight Princess is. Then again, Wind Waker takes place in a vastly different place. Mostly because most of the geography is water. Still, some islands bear resemblance to regions in OoT and even share the same relative position on the map.

 

[SNOlink]

I think that you should take a look at the Gamecube Twilight Princess map. This map has more correlation (though it's not perfect, but none of them are). The main reason the maps are switched is for the fact that most people are right-handed and Link is left-handed. I don't know why they had to flip the whole map, but that's how it is.

 

[Castle]

I think that you should take a look at the Gamecube Twilight Princess map. This map has more correlation (though it's not perfect, but none of them are). The main reason the maps are switched is for the fact that most people are right-handed and Link is left-handed. I don't know why they had to flip the whole map, but that's how it is.

...

Now, I am aware of the usual explanation, "But Castle!! The Map of Hyrule in Twilight Princess is Mirrored on the Wii You Silly!!" Well, yes, but if you flip the map back on its vertical axis so that left is right and east is west again like on the Cube, everything still doesn't fit right!! And in fact I am using non-mirrored maps to mark the positions of everything mentioned in this post.

 

[Hanyou]

Perhaps there's a point to the discrepancy in the Master Sword's location from game to game. Maybe it's supposed to be mysterious and unexplainable perhaps due to maaaaaaaagic! Okay, so that may sound trite, but consider its location in an area reminiscent of the lost woods in tp, known for its unexplained phenomenon, as well as the desert of mystery in alttp. Maybe the master swords location changes due to some unexplainable phenomenon. Perhaps as a defense mechanism so it can only find, or be found by, its chosen wielder.

Thread seems to have ventured into the realm of conjecture now.

I think someone moves it. I like to think of the Master Sword like the Ark of the Covenant--it's an extremely important artifact, so it doesn't always stay in the same location.

Likewise, there is probably more than one Temple of Time. In fact, there are probably at least three.

I used to think this was weird, but it's easier to get used to than the idea of multiple Links, Zeldas, and timelines.

 

[Castle]

Notice:

Did I just say the Master Sword was located in the Desert of Mystery in A Link to the Past...? :S
Major "Duh!"

Obviously I meant Lost Woods. >.<
Previous Post has been Edited.

In any case, Hanyou, it is a solid theory for pure conjecture, and one I've never really considered until you mentioned it. The Master Sword is closely intertwined with Link's destiny. Perhaps it is somehow fated to fall into his hands when needed?

Now if only someone could come up with a plausible explanation for how a river and a mountain somehow switched places

 

[Egregious]

It's often difficult to decide how exactly to understand the geography of this series. Technically speaking, Ocarina of Time and Twilight Princess are both "canon" games, which means that they are both true to the intentions of the developers. However, it gets tricky when you interpret canon as "every facet of the game is exactly true." If you do choose to believe that is true, then you have to make a number of questionable rationalizations for how the maps change. For example...

• An entire mountain range (Snowpeak) grew out of nowhere since the events of Ocarina of Time.

• Zora river completely changed course.

• Zora's Fountain and Zora's Domain both moved... somehow.

• Massive ravines appeared in Hyrule Field. Meanwhile, the Gerudo Valley canyon has disappeared.

• Hyrule Field grew to about three times its original size.

And so on, and so forth. While some of these aren't so farfetched, trying to explain the location shift of the whole Zora area, and the expansion of an ice cavern into a mountain range is ludicrous.

Just compare these horribly marked maps of TP and Ocarina of Time - I tried to show analogous areas and the relative proximity of them with these marks. Obviously, I didn't include Zora's Domain in the marking, and you can see why:

(I found the original maps here and here.)

Even if you generously allow for some wiggle room between, say, the Gerudo Desert, Lake Hylia, and the woods, you can see that Zora's Domain has completely changed its location.

Because of how much certain areas have changed relative to each other, I think it's more helpful to adopt an attitude of "relative" canon as opposed to "absolute" canon.

What I mean by this, is that as the series develops and more and more games are released, you can't expect every fact to line up. There are some very good reasons for this:

• Technology limits how Hyrule moves from the developers' imaginations into the actual game. Because of technological advances between the games, Twilight Princess has a much more detailed and expansive map. I would argue that the Twilight Princess map is closer to canon than the Ocarina of Time map because the technology is better able to express the developers' vision for the game. Which brings me to the next point:

• Recency of the game. While I love Ocarina of Time, it was released over a decade ago. The developers' ideas about the series and the direction they want to go have shifted considerably in the past decade. This is a good thing - they are able to incorporate fresh ideas into their new games. Do we really want to be trapped in the exact Ocarina of Time map for all eternity? Simply put, I believe that in the case of Legend of Zelda, the canon of newer games trumps the canon of older games. If you want to debate this point, fine. But I think in the case of geography, this is especially true.

• Geography is less important to the developers than gameplay AND story. I really believe that the developers don't care about the minutiae of location as much as we do. It's more important to them to show off their new technology, tell a story, and most importantly, entertain the players. This requires that they are able to shift and adapt things, and not have everything set in stone from 13 years ago.

• The Legend of Zelda's status as a "Legend" allows for changes. Note that the timeline already, for better or worse, takes into account multiple possible outcomes and histories. In the same way, each game is part of a legend, in which the details may change, but the overall allegory of the story remains sound. The main elements of the legend - Zelda, Link, Ganondorf, The Triforce, the Three Goddesses - have remained more or less consistent while other things have shifted around them.

I am glad that when making Twilight Princess, Nintendo thought about using the Ocarina of Time map as a starting point. But I am also glad that they didn't treat the map as sacrosanct, and felt free to expand and develop it to the extent that they did. If the Zelda Wii-U game is as expansive as it seems like it is going to be, I expect another map that has ties to previous games but goes beyond them in order to create new gameplay and to more accurately portray Hyrule as it exists in the developers' imaginations.

 

[Castle]

Excellent points, Egregious!! Every. Last. One of em!! and I am glad you posted that map comparison. It was difficult for me to see before but now I can actually see the relative similarities between the two maps. Although that pesky Zora's Domain is a bit of an odd ball.

Thanks to that I can see now more than ever how the two maps can be as similar as many have claimed them to be.

And noncontextual explanations will far exceed contextual ones and for many good reasons. I particularly liked your point about The Legend of Zelda being a legend which is what I have always treated it as. It allows for far greater flexibility in its interpretation. Take Greek Mythology for instance. Many of the myths are consistent and related to various degrees, but not always. There are whole genealogies of characters that figure across multiple myths, some of which may or may not have been actual living people and many of the myths correspond to real world places and events, though perhaps not exactly as they are in actuality.

Since The Legend of Zelda is presented as a legend, or a story being told perhaps in retrospect, it is not constrained by the limitations of consistency.

 

[S. Mario]

Another reason for the change in maps that I didn't see in this thread yet could be how much time is between each game. Except for direct sequels, I think it is safe to say that at least 100 years, if not longer, passes between each game. That's just long enough for the geography to have those slight changes.

This is also a magical realm, so anything could have happened to create a change in the landscape.

 

[Zorth]

Yeah, I definitely understand that gameplay comes first in a Zelda game and we weren't supposed to worry about the story making sense so much, but stories are an integral part of most games in the first place. If stories come off as poorly executed, players often get a little peeved. The Legend of Zelda crafting an overall narrative that makes little sense can similarly peeve people. Hyrule is supposed to feel like a personal place to adventure, somewhere we can explore and learn new things. It could be argued that slightly rearranging the geography could make it "newer" each time, but it still has the negative impression of disjointing the story and losing immersion since we can't immerse ourselves in a world that doesn't take itself seriously, if you get what I'm saying.

Not really?
It feels as if you are trying to say that changing Hyrule too much will make the lore a little worse somehow?

IMO it's not as much about the world as you are implying, I'd rather say it's more how they connect it to the story. A very bad but quick example would be if they made Hyrule a giant desert and tried to say that it was the same Hyrule from TP for no apparent reason, then I'd be mad. While I couldn't care less if the world is exactly the same but there is actually a plausible backstory as to why Hyrule would suddenly become a giant desert.. if this makes sense?

Hyrule can still feel new and make sense. Kingdoms change over time, including their geography. Volcanic eruptions, famines, and, of course, magic, can change the landscape and create new experiences. There can be unexplored parts of Hyrule, kind of like Snowpeak which is generally accepted as being far north of Hyrule proper. Places do change over time, and the inclusion of magic makes that so much more accessible. But Nintendo has admittedly twisted the timeline into a contradicting knot, despite Hyrule Historia's aid in unraveling it somewhat.

When did Nintendo admittedly twist the timeline into a contradicting knot?

The Temple of Time's location and, consequently, the true resting place of the Master Sword, keeps skipping around and is never actually explained. Nintendo can still make Zelda games that feel fresh geographically without contradicting themselves.

Didn't SS explain this as Hanyou mentioned?

In the end, yeah, it's just a game and that's what we should focus on, but the story shouldn't be ignored, either. Games should always improve, and picking up the story by ironing out plot holes is a part of that.

I definitely agree but I just don't think TP's landscape change was that big of a deal, could it have been made better and made more sense?
Yea and hopefully ZU will iron out some of these plotholes but even if it doesn't I won't care that much since I have never cared about the timeline that much.

Okay, so, here comes the part in which I have to explain that I am not ranting or complaining. Clear?

k



IMO it's possible to connect a series story between games even though the games are extremely different from each other?
Nintendo can very well go down both roads, however I do agree they poorly executed this, all one would need to do is read your OP and we have proof of that.

My point being I don't agree that Nintendo has to choose to either focus on the entire Zelda lore or just game lore, if that's what you meant by having two options to choose from, if not then correct me!

 

[Beauts]

The maps do match, roughly, if you subscribe to the 'two north's' theory.

It has been said that the TP map has the true north, and OoT was slightly different. I believe if you rotate the Ocarina map slightly so that it's north-east (possibly west, I can't remember which if I'm honest) corner aligns more with the north direction of the TP map, the two correlate almost exactly, other than Zora's Domain's change and of course, Hyrule Castle moves.

There is also this (though I hate to post a link to Zelda Universe): Solved the Twilight Princess/Orarina of Time Geography Changes - Zelda Universe Forums

Edit: Also, regarding the story: forget the inconsistencies between the games as these mainly centre on dialogue, much of which is mistranslated from the Japanese. The main way the two games link is that TP is the win timeline. Simple. Geographical changes over the century between them are to be expected, as well as just the fact that Nintendo probably wanted to shake things up a little and try to make improvements on the layout.

The only real query (I think) is why the SS and TP maps match up but this format skips OoT. Food for thought?

 

[Castle]

IMO it's not as much about the world as you are implying, I'd rather say it's more how they connect it to the story.

Well, that's just it. To me anyway and I get the sense that Wanderer means similar. It's not that these changes exist, it's that they are unexplained. Don't know if Wanderer means any different, though, but that's what I mean anyway.

When did Nintendo admittedly twist the timeline into a contradicting knot?

I don't know if Nintendo has admitted it, but it is safe to say that whatever little established series lore and conventions there are has been pretty seriously tied up by subsequent installments in the series. This makes any sort of semblance of consistency throughout the series difficult to establish, especially when many of the contradictions remain unexplained. Up until recently, it has never been standard practice to make the Zelda games cohesive throughout the series. Some games reference others one point, then completely contradict another the next. Adding new players to the series, such as new races or even two Kakariko's in TP, only adds to the mess of confusion, especially when they serve to contradict what has been previously known.

Didn't SS explain this as Hanyou mentioned?

Idk... does it? I don't think Hanyou explained anything so much as lead me towards another near baseless fan theory

My point being I don't agree that Nintendo has to choose to either focus on the entire Zelda lore or just game lore, if that's what you meant by having two options to choose from, if not then correct me!

I don't think that is entirely what I meant, no. IDK what you mean exactly by Zelda lore and game lore. If by Zelda you mean consistency throughout the entire series and by "game" you mean simply acknowledging that there is no series continuity, then yes, that is what I mean. Either treat each legend, i.e. game in the series as standalone with no relation to other games in the series (and stop making references to such) or make a greater effort towards a more cohesive world lore between games. The problem with me that has arisen is that Nintendo seems to try to make references to other games in the series, mostly Ocarina of Time, so we would expect the two to be related in the fictional context of the story, yet include a whole mess of unexplained contradictions that are, to put it simply, quite distracting. There are some that are honestly bothered a bit by this, some more than most I suppose. It doesn't detract from my enjoyment of the game but I am just a logical thinker by nature. When there is a reference I expect there to be a plausible connection. I am not the only fan who is like this. It's not a game breaker, but to me it would be preferable if Nintendo committed to one approach or the other. As it is it seems as though they are going for a world building approach. If that is the case then they need to be much more careful to be more consistent and less contradictory in subsequent games.

It has been said that the TP map has the true north, and OoT was slightly different. I believe if you rotate the Ocarina map slightly so that it's north-east (possibly west, I can't remember which if I'm honest) corner aligns more with the north direction of the TP map, the two correlate almost exactly, other than Zora's Domain's change and of course, Hyrule Castle moves.

Interestingly, this is exactly what it takes to make the OoT and ALttP maps fit better. I'll have to try this...

The only real query (I think) is why the SS and TP maps match up but this format skips OoT. Food for thought?

This is nothing more than a vague baseless assumption, but I have previously wondered in this thread if the TP map is perhaps a geographical retcon.

Thanks for posting that article!

 

[PatheticBarrel]

I think by Game lore and Zelda lore, Zorth is talking about the difference between Story and Design. The Zelda lore/Story is something that in a series needs to have references and some cohesiveness, while still allowing each story to be it's own. Kind of how the Story of Hercules can be told without any knowledge of Jason and the Argonauts, even though both could reference each other.

Game lore/Design is a little less important between installments, but still incredibly interesting to discuss. Looking at the idea of design, I'm gonna use LA as my example. The in-game map, as well as the world itself, show Koholint Island as being squarish. However, official artwork shows the island as being crescent shaped, if not circular, with Mount Tamaranch being in the center. As such, we can figure that any 'square' map/world can be more rounded or even have curves we can't readily see in game.

When we look at the 3D games (OoT, TP, and SS) and how their maps correspond to the world, we see that there isn't much difference. This means that what we see in game is a somewhat accurate depiction of the original design. Thus, design over story tends to become the argument. Comparing the 'square' worlds to their 'realistic' counterparts provides very few solid ideas. What's more, starting with OoT, 3 3D games have been set in the same Hyrule, while only 2 2D games can be said to be set there (MC and FSA, which is really just an improved style for ALttP). MC doesn't even have any of the same landmarks, and all of the game takes place south of the castle. Because of this, we only really have the 3D games to work with, as we can't be totally sure about any of the 2D games actual appearance.

Outside of only causing more areas of discussion, I think that TP was a geographical retcon of OoT, but only because of Game Lore and mainly only with Zora's Domain, Gerudo Valley, and the Temple of Time.