Skyward Sword Series Continuity: Why I'm So Biased

[Random Person]

Sup peeps, Random Person here.

This thread is similar to certain threads currently out as well as others, but I felt they didn't capture the essence of what I wanted to say, so I decided to start a new one. If a mod moves it, than so be it.

As you all know, I is one of the loudest complainers of SS. One of the reasons is that SS's continuity in relation to the rest of the series sucks. Since, I have been bombarded with comments about why my opinion is wrong how people don't agree with my point of view. After being hit with these, it finally came to me that maybe I should answer the concerns. Thus, I decided to share my thoughts in detail in this long post. (I should probably just write an article, but who's got time for that?) Be warned, there will not be nice things about SS in this post.

What the dealio with continuity?

Continuity in general is one of the most important aspects of telling a story. Any story that is connected should have a decent amount of continuity. This is because of immersion. Without continuity, the audience is continually pulled out of the story. Here's a hyperbole...

Story: Johnny finds an apple. Johnny wants to give the apply to Jenny. Johnny dies. Johnny gives the apple to Jenny The End

Wait, what? Didn't Johnny die, how did he give the apple to Jenny?

Oh don't worry about continuity, just enjoy the story for what it is.

Now imagine something like this happening over and over. You are constantly being pulled out of the immersion. Why do I expect continuity from SS, because it has a story and stories should have continuity.

The stories in the Zelda series are good by themselves, you don't need them to connect. The continuity is consistent in Skyward Sword without the rest of the games.

Well, that last sentence is debatable, but lets pretend that it isn't and that SS has a great story by itself. It's easier to excuse the lack of continuity when only looking at the games separately, but the problem is (and you're going to see me say this alot) Nintendo established Zelda as a connected series. Treating the games like they're not one (three) big flowing timeline(s) but each their own stories may give you some form of peace, but it'd be like treating the Hobbit and LotR as their own. Sure each story can be enjoyed by themselves, but you would notices if something in the Hobbit went completely against something in LotR because they're supposed to be apart of the same continuing series.

The Zelda series has never been good with continuity, why are you so hard on SS?

Four reasons.
1. Its the prequel to the entire series. The purpose of a prequel is to elaborate on a series. Therefore not having continuity hurts even moreso when its a prequel to an entire series

2. Time. I'm aware that Zelda isn't the best when it comes to continuity, and I don't blame most of the games for that. Nintendo couldn't have known back in 1986 that Zelda would be such a hit. They obviously stumbled when deciding when to make ALttP a prequel. (or was it a sequel?) But it's not 1986. People believe that I'm biased against SS because I criticize it for not having perfect continuity, when really I criticize it for not having better continuity. I actually feel that the continuity of Zelda was getting better with the progression of games, Twilight Princess even hinted towards Skyward Sword with its City in the Sky. Not only did SS not continue the increase of continuity that the series was taking, it took a HUGE step backwards. Many concepts were simply ignored, including very important details like the Sages creating the Master Sword.

3. This reason is less important, but I also have other issues with SS. WW was the first game I noticed to have a decent amount of continuity issues, but I could look pass it due to its other perks with its story and gameplay. With SS, there's not much that I like about the game, so I can't look passed any of its faults.

4. This is the main reason. While Zelda has never been coherent with continuity, I could forgive it moreso because it was never firmly established as a continuing series. Mario is not a continuing series and therefore I have no concerns when it comes to continuity for that series. The only continuity I cared about in Zelda were those that had direct sequels. But HH released just before SS did with a canon timeline. This is the equivalent to Nintendo holding a press conference and telling everyone that the series is connected. Not only that, but that whole prequel to the entire timeline was announced way before HH was. With these concepts, one would expect the next game to begin establishing continuity. Essentially, Nintendo said their games were connected without making the games connected. It's a promise with no delivery.

There were other prequels to the series and they didn't have continuity. Why are you so hard on SS?

Well first off, read the last couple of points. Added to those, I was not there when these other prequels came out. I have no idea what kind of hype they were given or what kind of expectations one should've had for those games. Therefore, I am unable to get upset at those games for delivering false promises when I don't know what we were promised.

Lack of continuity is a part of Zelda tradition. It's a 'legend' not a 'history.' Fi even says that the telling of legends will make data incorrect.

I don't believe that Nintendo is purposely leaving out continuity because "it's a legend." If you have a quote that can prove me wrong, please present it, I can handle being wrong. But these games are not the telling of a story, they are actually happening in the games. I'm not entirely sure Fi's comment was meant to excuse the Zelda continuity. I moreso believe that it was just apart of SS. But if was indeed meant to excuse the continuity of the series, it has to be the biggest cop-out I have ever seen. *Thinks about Demise* Second biggest co-out I've ever seen. It's true that word of mouth is going to have inconsistencies but going from something like Link making the Master Sword to the sages doing it can't simply be explained by the fact that things were lost by the passage of words.

Zelda games have always been great, we don't need continuity.

No excuse. If you're telling me you don't want continuity because that will mess up a Zelda tradition, that's fine. If you believe continuity will make the games worse, that's fine. But if you're telling me not to worry about it because the games in the past have done fine without continuity with no other reason, you're essentially saying that the Zelda series, while great, has not been the best it can be and should stay on that path.

****************************​

I may have had more to say, but I've been typing so long that I can't remember. Anyways, here's the jists of my thoughts of why I dislike SS in regards to its continuity of the series. Feel free to disagree with them, agree with them, make fun of them, turn them into a book, etc. I just wanted to get it out why I (and maybe others) have such big issues with this game in particular with its continuity to the series... and maybe perhaps convince some people out their to join our side

 

[Ventus]

It's truth that word of mouth is going to have inconsistencies but going from something like Link making the Master Sword to the sages doing it can't simply be explained by the fact that things were lost by the passage of words.

You said that the events in each game are what actually happened. This is very conflicting, however, you must remember that the "Master Sword" exists in two - the True Master Sword (enhanced blade in OoT, TP, TWW, ALttP) and the Goddess Sword (regular blade in SS). The actual blade part is the GSword and could be what is referred to by the Ancient Sages. The Master Sword itself was forged by Link, apparently, and that is excusable.

 

[DarkestLink]

Overall, you're right. As a prequel, SS was weak. But Zelda in general is weak when it comes to story and continuity, no matter how much fans want to delude themselves otherwise.

Many Zelda fans fooled themselves into thinking SS was going to be a giant *** explain-all prequel. All Nintendo did was tell us it was going to be a prequel and nothing else and, despite this never happening in any other prequel, fans convinced themselves that this would explain everything. A small minority, including myself, knew Nintendo better than this and didn't believe it for a second, as well as the fan claims of really hard difficulty *eyeroll*. The hype was created by you and your friends. And when it failed to deliver, you led yourself into disappointment. I, however, felt SS had far more explanation than I thought it would (still not much) and was pleasantly surprised.

And you're right. The lack of continuity isn't because "It's a Legend" this is something fans have made up. It's because this just isn't Nintendo's priority.

In short, I had lower standards than you. In general, I have high standards for games as do many of us, but we need to recognize where to keep our expectations low.

Zelda hasn't, did not, and will not ever have strong continuity or story, but fans will continue to fool themselves otherwise. Zelda will never be a difficult series. But we can always hope for difficult sidequests as this is reasonably possible.

Mario is not likely to return to a sandbox like game as it was in SM64. Likewise, I doubt Mario's gonna get harder.

SSB will not include the hordes of characters we are begging for, it will almost certainly not become a 3D styled fighter, and, no, Geno will not be playable.

 

[Justac00lguy]

I have many gripes with the game as a whole but getting onto your point about continuity I don't think I could agree more!

Skyward Sword was the first full console release I was actually anticipating, I was there for the announcement, I was there for the hype and so on. Many people would say this is my own downfall and to an extent I would agree, maybe I did over expect or over anticipate but who could blame me?

Skyward Sword promised very much, the only thing I think people saw that blocked its way was either motion controls and the graphics, as many people expected a more, lets say realistic style. However one could look past this, Skyward Sword was the continuation of what I believe is the best Zelda game to date Twilight Princess. It was 5 or so years in the making, 5 years of waiting this was one of the biggest modern waits we have had for a console release and I could say this made things a bit more special. Skyward Sword was a celebration of 25 years of Zelda, a huge milestone and tk celebrate this we were actually getting a significant plot, the origin story.

Now like many people have stated Zelda isn't meant for continuity, it is essentially a collection of legends. I do believe this was Nintendo's first view of what the series should be, I mean with a collection of legends you have a near unlimited potential for story telling and you have no boundaries. However the Zelda series became more tha this, a lot of the fans fell in love with the series, so much so that a lore of the series was created, people started speculating about connections. I think Nintendo realised this and thus created more connections, subtle hints, sequels Etc.

Upon Skyward Swords release I think we were all expecting many questions to be answered, it seemed this was the game many of us fans had been waiting for. I mean this was the origin story, I know I know the likes of LttP and OoT were meant to be origin story however this was when the Zelda series didn't put emphasis asmucb on story and continuity. It promised to tell the great tale of how the Master Sword came to be, it promised to show us the origins of Ganondorf too. I think me like many were expecting some more connections and answers as well, maybe an explanation o the Oocca, more origins on the Sheikah, maybe some other myths.

However what did Skyward Sword offer us? Well of course it did offer us a tale on how the Master Sword was created, however I found this to be very bland. I mean the original Goddess Sword was nothing special and it only took a couple of dungeons to gain the sacred flames, and what was all this for? The greatest and most significant item seemingly inthe series. Fi could have maybe made the tale better but she was very lifeless, she didn't really impact the story and she was used as a a tutorial as sorts and a database for enemies. Now for the explanation of Ganondorf...

Spoiler

Ganondorf is the main Villain of the series, he is the single most powerful being we have come up against, he deserves to ahve a great origin story. However what we got was Demise. Demise was in many ways similar to Ganondorf, basic appearance, build, presence, his words, even his battle sequence. When I was awaiting the connection I was greeted with a line that Demise said, basically he explained what we already knew, we knew that Ganondorf was bound to us by the balance of good and evil. Where there is evil there has got to be good to save the world, basic balance of power in mythology, now why did we get this god awful curse outlining what we already knew? I wanted something more, this actually in a way hurt Ganondorf because Demise was a particularly easy final boss and the fact that Ganondorf is just a descendent of his hate in a way lessens the significance of him.

Now onto other connections such as the Oocca and the Sheikah. Many people may just snub the Oocca and call them pointless however in TP it stated that the Oocca helped form Hyrule and are the closest race to the gods, even closer to the Hylians. Now this makes this specific race significant in the grand scheme and if they helped form Hyrule they must be ancient and therfore could have easily been present in SS. However we never got anything, I mean the game was based upon the Sky World, they could have easily gave us some sort of origin story, even a hint but no. Now the Sheikah was another one lf my gripes with the game. Impa or some sort of incarnation has appeared in several Zelda games now and in SS she had probably the biggest role yet, so much so that she was one of the main characters. However did we get any information actually about her or the Sheikah which many of us theorists had been wanting for ages? We actually didn't get nothing.

It seemed Skyward Sword focused a lot on the in game story rather than the connections in between games, as a so called origin story it is meant to not only explain multiple things but also give a good foundation for the rest of the series to follow. Truth be told Skyward Sword in a sense well in "my opinion" failed to do its job story wise. I would like to think that there would be another prequel in the future and there were actually a few hints in the game itself, as I feel that Skyward Sword as a whole is too poor of a so called origin story to be the prequel of the entire series.

 

[Spirit]

I did want a lot from SS, but i wasn't expecting it in the story. Where SS let me down personally was the game itself, the gameplay and level design, it felt like half the game it should within every element of itself. so while this constantly disappointed me i turned my attention to the fact it was a prequel to try and distract myself from the hideously lacklustre game that it was and tried to think of it as a chapter in the Zelda mythology and i couldn't even do that.

Like JC mentioned, we didn't get anything about the seemingly pivotal race to Hyrule's creation in the Oocca, and despite Impa having a large lead role we also got nothing about the Shiekah, and as for other races like the Gorons who we come across, they were just.... already there. The forging of the Master Sword wasn't anything special (in fact it was tedious to me) and the Demise curse (as JC said, told us something we already knew, we just have to think of it as a curse now that Demise can apparently throw on us in his death throes) did pretty much cheapen Ganondorf wholesale for me.

But did i actually mind the continuity when i played SS? well, the answer to that is yes and no. To put it bluntly if Nintendo and the trailer, and the posters and the box and even the game itself at some points had NOT have said that SS was a prequel, then i wouldn't have known it was supposed to be one. I wasn't expecting any great questions answered because i know nintendo aren't the types to do that, i've been waiting a long time for the series to make sense and granted since OoT the continuity has been getting better but not by much and you could still tell nintendo weren't giving it that much focus but with SS, like the gameplay, the continuity felt like it had less than it should have which is saying a lot considering the games didnt have much to start with. it is just to me SS was lacking in every respect, even in the elements where i expected nothing.

For a slight defence of SS though (i hate it for how much it let me down and could have easily included after 5 years of waiting and being a 25 year celebration, i do like and don't hate what is actually there [aside from The Imprisoned and the sheer amount of repetition]), the game itself perhaps started too early and in the wrong place. SS seemingly takes place before Hyrule has any law or governing rule or established political hierarchy, perhaps the story itself should have began where SS ended... but even then there is a continuity gripe. IF Skyloft IS the City in the Sky in TP, then why aren't there any Ooccoo's living on it? Where did that race come from to help found Hyrule? THAT, as RP mentioned with some other continuity issues is far too big to try and get around. But hey... its a 'legend' right?

 

[JuicieJ]

First off, I want to say that I think it's fine for you to be disappointed with SS's "lack of continuity" (quotation marks due to that being a slightly inaccurate choice of words), but that's never what you bring up with this topic. You always try to use it as an objective reason for why it's a weak entry into the series, which is, as the title flat-out states, a bias. That's unfair in every possible way. That's like someone saying Majora's Mask is a bad game because they didn't like the time mechanic. Thing is, not liking something and considering it bad don't automatically go hand-in-hand. It's entirely possible to dislike something that's actually good and vice versa. With that said... let's get to the thread shredding.

What the dealio with continuity?

Continuity in general is one of the most important aspects of telling a story. Any story that is connected should have a decent amount of continuity. This is because of immersion. Without continuity, the audience is continually pulled out of the story. Here's a hyperbole...

Story: Johnny finds an apple. Johnny wants to give the apply to Jenny. Johnny dies. Johnny gives the apple to Jenny The End

Wait, what? Didn't Johnny die, how did he give the apple to Jenny?

Oh don't worry about continuity, just enjoy the story for what it is.

Now imagine something like this happening over and over. You are constantly being pulled out of the immersion. Why do I expect continuity from SS, because it has a story and stories should have continuity.

This confuses me. Are you saying SS didn't have continuity within its own story? If that's the case, then you're wrong. There aren't any plot holes or inconsistencies. If that's not what you're saying, but rather that it doesn't have continuity with the rest of the series... then you're also wrong. It filled in a decent amount of gaps and explained things such as why Hylians are called Hylians (Hylia) and gave a bit of insight to the Demon Tribe that has appeared numerous times throughout the series' existence. If anything, you should simply be saying that it didn't explain enough, which is a fair point, although I can't agree that it's one of the game's (few) downfalls since all of Zelda's stories are skimpy on details.

The stories in the Zelda series are good by themselves, you don't need them to connect. The continuity is consistent in Skyward Sword without the rest of the games.

Well, that last sentence is debatable, but lets pretend that it isn't and that SS has a great story by itself. It's easier to excuse the lack of continuity when only looking at the games separately, but the problem is (and you're going to see me say this alot) Nintendo established Zelda as a connected series. Treating the games like they're not one (three) big flowing timeline(s) but each their own stories may give you some form of peace, but it'd be like treating the Hobbit and LotR as their own. Sure each story can be enjoyed by themselves, but you would notices if something in the Hobbit went completely against something in LotR because they're supposed to be apart of the same continuing series.

Then you should be criticizing every Zelda game... including Twilight Princess. Which brings us tooooooo...

The Zelda series has never been good with continuity, why are you so hard on SS?

Four reasons.
1. Its the prequel to the entire series. The purpose of a prequel is to elaborate on a series. Therefore not having continuity hurts even moreso when its a prequel to an entire series

Again, it does have continuity. The story was just light on details.

2. Time. I'm aware that Zelda isn't the best when it comes to continuity, and I don't blame most of the games for that. Nintendo couldn't have known back in 1986 that Zelda would be such a hit. They obviously stumbled when deciding when to make ALttP a prequel. (or was it a sequel?) But it's not 1986. People believe that I'm biased against SS because I criticize it for not having perfect continuity, when really I criticize it for not having better continuity. I actually feel that the continuity of Zelda was getting better with the progression of games, Twilight Princess even hinted towards Skyward Sword with its City in the Sky. Not only did SS not continue the increase of continuity that the series was taking, it took a HUGE step backwards. Many concepts were simply ignored, including very important details like the Sages creating the Master Sword.

You gotta keep in mind that Zelda's backstories are always treated like legends. Things get obscured by the mists of time in legends. The Wind Waker is a prime example of this, what with the people not knowing that the Hero of Time was 16 or 17 years old rather than 12 when he defeated Ganon. Prequels have always played out differently than the backstory we had previously been told in Zelda because of this. That's just how the series is. If that frustrates you, that's fair, but you can't pin that on Skyward Sword alone. Skyward Sword also went into more detail in its story that pretty much... no, literally every other Zelda game. So, considering how simple Zelda's storytelling has always been, it's only fair to say that Skyward Sword improved on this issue. It may not have fixed it, but that was never Nintendo's intention, so why care?

I also fail to see how the series was improving its continuity. The Wind Waker was an obvious sequel, but fans were torn as to whether or not it was on a different timeline from the other sequels to Ocarina of Time. Four Swords, Four Swords Adventures, and The Minish Cap's placements were a complete mystery. Twilight Princess was on a separate timeline from The Wind Waker. The DS games were sequels to The Wind Waker. The series was constantly jumping back and forth creating massive confusion as to what went where to the majority of fans, not to mention it was never going in a straight line with its canon placements. That's not improving continuity. At all. I really don't see how you can try to make a point like that.

3. This reason is less important, but I also have other issues with SS. WW was the first game I noticed to have a decent amount of continuity issues, but I could look pass it due to its other perks with its story and gameplay. With SS, there's not much that I like about the game, so I can't look passed any of its faults.

Again, bias. This is literally saying, "Skyward Sword has more problems than this, so I can't look past this detail that I can look past in every other Zelda in existence". That's a logical fallacy. It's playing favorites. You can't do that when trying to create objective criticisms towards a game.

4. This is the main reason. While Zelda has never been coherent with continuity, I could forgive it moreso because it was never firmly established as a continuing series. Mario is not a continuing series and therefore I have no concerns when it comes to continuity for that series. The only continuity I cared about in Zelda were those that had direct sequels. But HH released just before SS did with a canon timeline. This is the equivalent to Nintendo holding a press conference and telling everyone that the series is connected. Not only that, but that whole prequel to the entire timeline was announced way before HH was. With these concepts, one would expect the next game to begin establishing continuity. Essentially, Nintendo said their games were connected without making the games connected. It's a promise with no delivery.

You actually hurt yourself with this. Hyrule Historia came out AFTER Skyward Sword. About a month later, actually. That book also explains things not touched on in, not just Skyward Sword, but nearly every Zelda game. It was lazy on their part, yes, but that's their problem, not the game's. If you're gonna rip on Skyward Sword for this, you're gonna have to do the same for all the others... including The Wind Waker and Twilight Princess. Because they're part of this connection thing.

There were other prequels to the series and they didn't have continuity. Why are you so hard on SS?

Well first off, read the last couple of points. Added to those, I was not there when these other prequels came out. I have no idea what kind of hype they were given or what kind of expectations one should've had for those games. Therefore, I am unable to get upset at those games for delivering false promises when I don't know what we were promised.

Again, bias. I know that's the point of this entire thread, but you're not using this as a personal reason to dislike the game (at least I'm pretty certain you're not). You're using it as a reason to call the game a weak entry into the franchise. Just because you weren't there for the hype of past prequels doesn't mean that they didn't explain much, either. They're just as guilty as Skyward Sword on this, and that's a fact. And, again, Skyward Sword put in more detail than those games did. You're acting like it put no thought or detail into its prequel status at all, which is objectively false. It didn't do a great job, no, and that's certainly worth being disappointed over, but it did better, so that's at least something.

Lack of continuity is a part of Zelda tradition. It's a 'legend' not a 'history.' Fi even says that the telling of legends will make data incorrect.

I don't believe that Nintendo is purposely leaving out continuity because "it's a legend." If you have a quote that can prove me wrong, please present it, I can handle being wrong. But these games are not the telling of a story, they are actually happening in the games. I'm not entirely sure Fi's comment was meant to excuse the Zelda continuity. I moreso believe that it was just apart of SS. But if was indeed meant to excuse the continuity of the series, it has to be the biggest cop-out I have ever seen. *Thinks about Demise* Second biggest co-out I've ever heard. It's truth that word of mouth is going to have inconsistencies but going from something like Link making the Master Sword to the sages doing it can't simply be explained by the fact that things were lost by the passage of words.

First, how is Demise a cop-out? His reasoning for being the reason Ganondorf is the main villain of the series was pretty brief, yes, but that doesn't make it a cop-out. It's a perfectly legitimate explanation. Dwayne Hicks still being alive in Aliens: Colonial Marines with the reasoning of what's basically "lol just because" is a cop-out. Demise is not.

Second, I point you to something I said earlier in the post. The Wind Waker is the ultimate example of Zelda's stories always being legends. Sure, what happened in the game itself is what really happened, but backstories told to us are always mildly different from what actually plays out in the backstories' revelations. Or, in The Wind Waker's case, the other way around (but still the same principle).

Zelda games have always been great, we don't need continuity.

Wait, that's one of the reasons? That's bullcrap. THAT'S what you call a cop-out, ladies and germs!

You said that the events in each game are what actually happened. This is very conflicting, however, you must remember that the "Master Sword" exists in two - the True Master Sword (enhanced blade in OoT, TP, TWW, ALttP) and the Goddess Sword (regular blade in SS). The actual blade part is the GSword and could be what is referred to by the Ancient Sages. The Master Sword itself was forged by Link, apparently, and that is excusable.

Hm. I didn't think about that. Which is strange, because that's something I normally would think of.

Ventus: 1
JuicieJ: 0

 

[Random Person]

You said that the events in each game are what actually happened. This is very conflicting, however, you must remember that the "Master Sword" exists in two - the True Master Sword (enhanced blade in OoT, TP, TWW, ALttP) and the Goddess Sword (regular blade in SS). The actual blade part is the GSword and could be what is referred to by the Ancient Sages. The Master Sword itself was forged by Link, apparently, and that is excusable.

Indeed, you are right, and there are more examples that you could find in SS and say "well, this would explain that." This is why I underlined the word "simply." Because you are now throwing in another explanation. If what you're saying is true, that's fine, but we the player have no way of knowing alot of these things. I could see if they were hinted at by Fi saying something like "the sages of old created the goddess sword" but we're not given things like this.

Remember my hyperbole? I could say that Johnny at the end of the story is clearly a different Johnny than at the beginning since it stated that the first Johnny died. but the story didn't say nor hint to that. It's easy for the audience to fill in the holes themselves, and in some cases they should, but enough evidence should still be provided to do so.

I repeat, the inconsistencies in SS can't be explained simply due to word of mouth errors.

Many Zelda fans fooled themselves into thinking SS was going to be a giant *** explain-all prequel. All Nintendo did was tell us it was going to be a prequel and nothing else and, despite this never happening in any other prequel, fans convinced themselves that this would explain everything. A small minority, including myself, knew Nintendo better than this and didn't believe it for a second, as well as the fan claims of really hard difficulty *eyeroll*. The hype was created by you and your friends. And when it failed to deliver, you led yourself into disappointment. I, however, felt SS had far more explanation than I thought it would (still not much) and was pleasantly surprised.

By simply saying "it's going to be a prequel" that is making hype. If Miyamoto said one sentence about SS and that sentence being "it's going to be a prequel to the entire Zelda timeline." and that was it, he said nothing else about SS, that alone creates a hype for the audience to expect the features of a prequel. As I said, I understand that past games weren't as coherent with continuity as we'd like, including the prequels, but I wasn't there for them AND it's time to move beyond this. A continuing feature of a game, if disliked highly by many fans, should not continue, including lack of continuity. Not to mention, Nintendo showed other signs that they were getting better with continuity with their other games and their official timeline. What I got from your post is that I expected continuity when I had no reason to, but there were plenty of clues showing that SS was going to have continuity, it just didn't.

 

[Ventus]

Indeed, you are right, and there are more examples that you could find in SS and say "well, this would explain that." This is why I underlined the word "simply." Because you are now throwing in another explanation. If what you're saying is true, that's fine, but we the player have no way of knowing alot of these things. I could see if they were hinted at by Fi saying something like "the sages of old created the goddess sword" but we're not given things like this.

Remember my hyperbole? I could say that Johnny at the end of the story is clearly a different Johnny than at the beginning since it stated that the first Johnny died. but the story didn't say nor hint to that. It's easy for the audience to fill in the holes themselves, and in some cases they should, but enough evidence should still be provided to do so.

I repeat, the inconsistencies in SS can't be explained simply due to word of mouth errors.

Oh, yeah, you're right. My example can't remotely be said as "the truth" - Nintendo hasn't confirmed it and the games for all intents and purposes say otherwise. Oh, yeah, Skyward Sword itself says otherwise: apparently Hylia created the GSword, NOT the sages (unless one considers Zelda herself to be a Sage, but even then there's a difference in plurality).

 

[JuicieJ]

I repeat, the inconsistencies in SS can't be explained simply due to word of mouth errors.

Sure they can. It's something called a retcon. Zelda's done that a lot. Remember how A Link to the Past's backstory said 7 wise men sealed away Ganon? Yeah, it wasn't 7 wise men in Ocarina of Time, was it?

What I got from your post is that I expected continuity when I had no reason to, but there were plenty of clues showing that SS was going to have continuity, it just didn't.

I seriously don't see what you mean by saying it doesn't have continuity. That is absolutely not true, as I already went over in my original post. It didn't explain everything, but that doesn't equal a lack of continuity.

 

[Ventus]

Sure they can. It's something called a retcon. Zelda's done that a lot. Remember how A Link to the Past's backstory said 7 wise men sealed away Ganon? Yeah, it wasn't 7 wise men in Ocarina of Time, was it?

Sage:

a profoundly wise person; a person famed for wisdom.
2.
someone venerated for the possession of wisdom, judgment, and experience.

Sage | Define Sage at Dictionary.com

It wasn't too much of a retcon there.

 

[JuicieJ]

Sage:
Sage | Define Sage at Dictionary.com

It wasn't too much of a retcon there.

Except an image showed 7 humans and all the Maidens in the game were humans. It was a pretty big retcon.

 

[Justac00lguy]

I seriously don't see what you mean by saying it doesn't have continuity. That is absolutely not true, as I already went over in my original post. It didn't explain everything, but that doesn't equal a lack of continuity.

I think it was not that Skyward Sword didn't have any continuity, it just didn't have as much as we expected. Now before you call me out on "expectation" its not like Skyward Sword didn't hint to us that it would explain many unanswered questions. Like I explained in my previous post the whole origin of the MS was acceptable but not anything special and the explanation on Ganondorf was nothing more than we already knew. Demise just basically told us the balance of the universe, which is basic mythology. Skyward Sword had the perfect opportunity to answer many other questions, key word opportunity, not many Zelda games have the ability to answer many questions in just one game and imo Skyward Sword ultimately failed at doing this. An origin story in a sense should be the groundwork for a series, it should set the base for many things in the future. Because SS was a prequel it could and probably should have explained a lot more.

All this makes me believe that Skyward Sword simply isn't worth of being the origin story and I really do hope Nintendo actually make a decent prequel to the series.

 

[DarkestLink]

Skyward Sword promised very much, the only thing I think people saw that blocked its way was either motion controls and the graphics,

But this is all Skyward Sword promised. Difficulty, continuity, and non-linearity are all things the fans made up to hype themselves more.

I know I know the likes of LttP and OoT were meant to be origin story however this was when the Zelda series didn't put emphasis asmucb on story and continuity.

You make this statement as if the series has changed in that aspect.

It promised to tell the great tale of how the Master Sword came to be, it promised to show us the origins of Ganondorf too. I think me like many were expecting some more connections and answers as well, maybe an explanation o the Oocca, more origins on the Sheikah, maybe some other myths.

Link created it

Ganondorf spawned from Demise

The Sheikah were a tribe that served the goddess and moved on to the royal family who are blood relatives of the goddess

But I will admit I was shocked and disappointed to hear nothing more about the Oocca--even I expected some more details on that. Regardless, this was more information than I expected the game to give us.

By simply saying "it's going to be a prequel" that is making hype. If Miyamoto said one sentence about SS and that sentence being "it's going to be a prequel to the entire Zelda timeline." and that was it, he said nothing else about SS, that alone creates a hype for the audience to expect the features of a prequel. As I said, I understand that past games weren't as coherent with continuity as we'd like, including the prequels, but I wasn't there for them AND it's time to move beyond this. A continuing feature of a game, if disliked highly by many fans, should not continue, including lack of continuity. Not to mention, Nintendo showed other signs that they were getting better with continuity with their other games and their official timeline. What I got from your post is that I expected continuity when I had no reason to, but there were plenty of clues showing that SS was going to have continuity, it just didn't.

Let me just disappoint you now and save the trouble later...

Zelda has not and will never have a consistent continuity or a well-told story. It's not the focus, was never the focus, and never will be the focus. If you still have hope for it, let me just snuff it out now. It's not going to happen. The timeline wasn't made for the sake of continuity, but for the sake of making us shut up about it. Even Nintendo tells us to not pay much attention to it because, in reality, it was half-haphazardly put together and drew little attention or concern from Nintendo. The Zelda series focus on gameplay and gameplay only. The story is only an annoying obstacle for Miyamoto that he places in for the sake of standards, game goal, and nothing else.

Wind Waker has the strongest continuity of the series, but it's still weak, poorly put together, and made no sense. At best, you'll get a game like tWW or Spirit Tracks that makes specific mentions to past characters, but when it comes to continuity itself, you'll be lucky to get what you got in Wind Waker: A bunch of references you don't remember actually happening and are expect to roll with.

 

[ihateghirahim]

Random Person seems to be the one person that I can agree with. Now I got to this forum so late that most everything has been said, but I won't let that stop me.

We have an established canon. Nintendo made a total point out of Skyward Sword being a prequel to the rest of the series. We still got very little substance. There were surprisingly few connections to the other games. The Master Sword was forged, but in a way that contradicted the other games in the series. We can try to create some BS explanations, but there's no official or easily discernable answer.

Also the Triforce begs questions. At the end we see it atop the statue of Hylia, but that's not where it next appears. It's supposed to be in the Sacred Realm. There's future possibility for this being explained, but we've no statement that Nintendo will actually do this. SS really does fail as a prequel.

I mean really where is the origin? Where are the clear connections to the timeline. SS feels just like another game; which just happens to be located early in the timeline. More questions were raised than answered. How did the Triforce enter the Sacred Realm? How did the Sacred Realm even come to be? How does the Master Sword end up in Temple of Time? Did the people of Skyloft move down to the Surface at some unforseen point (We can sort of assume this, but we have no explanation and nothing to go off of when we imagine how the story goes)? Is Fi active inside the Master Sword when it is used in the future? What does she mean by "another life"? By what method is Link reincarnated?, or are his future appearances just chance? Why isn't the Triforce split when Link wishes on it? Is he truly balanced?, or is the splitting mechanism installed at a later time period? Is Demise actually Ganon (That may have been mistranslated)? How are the Sheikah formed? Where do they come from? Are they a separate tribe on the Surface? What is Ghirahim's relationship to the Master Sword and Fi? What does his shape tell us? All of this on top of the fact that we have a new previously-occuring war to theorize about. Ugh.

How can a prequel feature no discernable explanation about so many important things. I know they probably shouldn't have tried to answer all of these questions, but a prequel should serve to generate answers, not questions. Wow, I meant for this to be short.

Anyway, we now have an official timeline. We need answers. Not more ridiculous excuses for origins.

 

[Random Person]

Let me just disappoint you now and save the trouble later...

Zelda has not and will never have a consistent continuity or a well-told story. It's not the focus, was never the focus, and never will be the focus. If you still have hope for it, let me just snuff it out now. It's not going to happen. The timeline wasn't made for the sake of continuity, but for the sake of making us shut up about it. Even Nintendo tells us to not pay much attention to it because, in reality, it was half-haphazardly put together and drew little attention or concern from Nintendo. The Zelda series focus on gameplay and gameplay only. The story is only an annoying obstacle for Miyamoto that he places in for the sake of standards, game goal, and nothing else.

Wind Waker has the strongest continuity of the series, but it's still weak, poorly put together, and made no sense. At best, you'll get a game like tWW or Spirit Tracks that makes specific mentions to past characters, but when it comes to continuity itself, you'll be lucky to get what you got in Wind Waker: A bunch of references you don't remember actually happening and are expect to roll with.

Let me retort with this...

Despite any traditions or expectations Nintendo is putting on their games, connected stories need continuity to keep immersion, especially ones of the "adventure" genre. If you tell me your story is connected, I will expect continuity or I will criticize the story for not having it. The more words like "prequel" "sequel" and "timeline" are tossed around, the more times continuity is abandoned, the less forgiving I'll be; especially when your past games were improving on their continuity.

If you don't want me to expect continuity, don't promise a connected series. That's like handing me a pizza and then saying "I never said there'd be cheese on it." Not all pizza's have cheese, but I surely will expect it, especially when your previous pizzas had more cheese than the one you gave me now.