So, Iguess the fact that the events of of OoT are constantly mentioned in TWW means nothing? Or the fact that Ganondorf, who is the very same one from OoT acknowledges the HoT?
What about the fact that Zelda II says that it's a sequel to LoZ in its intro? Or that ALttP says on the back of its box that it's before the NES games?
you can still have specific games as direct sequels,
Nothing about what I said prevents specific games being explicitly connected. I say this in my post, you must have chosen to ignore it.
Also, legends talk about real people, and the MS is described as ''Legendary'' in TWW, and yet we see it with our own eyes and obtain it.
you can still have a thriving theory scene as people can try to piece together the meta history of the true history these legends are based on, the real events they are a corruption of.
Again, nothing about what I said prevents there being a true, factual, canon version of Hyrule's history, you must have chosen to ignore that, too.
There have always been chronological connections.
Between certain games, yes, but I never said there weren't. What I said was that making those connections coherent was never a priority.
Take The Wind Waker as an example. It broadly references Ganon's defeat in Ocarina of Time and then later you find stained glass windows depicting the sages. But Hyrule Castle is entirely different in its architecture. It's also built on a lake. The landscape of Hyrule doesn't even remotely match that of Ocarina. They say the islands of The Great Sea are the mountain tops of Hyrule but not only does Ocarina not feature even one mountain tall enough to suit that purpose, the mountains we see when in Hyrule in Wind Waker don't go above the surface. The connection between these two games only exists because we are told it exists, the developers didn't put any effort into making the two games coherently line up beyond 'It's after Ocarina', 'Look, the sages', and 'The Master Sword is here... in a different location from Ocarina despite it being said only a true hero can move it.'
Twilight Princess is also explicitly connected to Ocarina and yet, again, the geography of Hyrule is entirely different, the Castle is entirely different, the sages are suddenly glowing ghosts and not people from around the realm, and there's a gigantic prison in the desert with a portal to another realm. The connection exists but it is not important enough to the developers for them to make sure the world matches up. The coherency of the connection was not their priority.
Adventure of Link and A Link Between Worlds are the only direct sequels that don't mess about with things like geography. Adventure of Link has the original game's Hyrule in the south west corner of the map, everything else is lands beyond it. A Link Between Worlds is the same Hyrule as A Link to the Past, the only notable difference being they built a temple where that fairy fountain was in Lake Hylia. These connections are more coherent, but when you consider that 90% of Adventure's map is brand new and the original map is no more than a playful nod to the first game, and that A Link Between Worlds was born from Miyamoto wanting to do a straight remake of A Link to the Past, it becomes clear why these exceptions exist.
If these loose connections are enough for you to accept all the contradictions and questions they raise then you do you. My entire point is that these contradictions, and the fact that the timeline still doesn't make sense even after an official version, demonstrate that Nintendo don't bother with coherent continuity. And if they're not going to bother with it, I think they should stop pretending they do. Framing each game as
a version of a true story, like I said in my above post, not only resolves existing issues with continuity but frees the writers and designers up for future games to not have to consciously consider them. Nothing is lost. Hyrule still has a real history, it's just supplemental and left more for theory hunters to piece together (or you could have a meta-plot like in Assassin's Creed or something, but this would require Nintendo to think stories are important). Nintendo can continue designing Zelda games the way they always have without the added pressure of 'How does this fit into the timeline?' And the games themselves aren't beholden to any fixed world, landscape, or concepts and can thus branch out in whatever way they want and be as imaginative as they want.
I never said continuity doesn't exist. I said Nintendo don't consider it to be important and would, I believe, be better off reframing the series in the manner I suggested.
