• Welcome to ZD Forums! You must create an account and log in to see and participate in the Shoutbox chat on this main index page.

Spoiler Why I Don't Believe The Hyrule Historia Timeline

Status
Not open for further replies.

Norm

God-King of Teh Intarwebz
Joined
Dec 10, 2011
Location
Clearly in ur tube, blockin ur internets.
Before I get into the whole 'thing that this thread is about' bit of the article, I have to get some things straight. First, I'm writing this on the spot, on my phone, so I apologize for any inconsistencies and misspellings in advance. Second, I want to clear up the main source of my information, which is the 'LCD Games from the Legend of Zelda series' Wikipedia page, so you are now free to a.) Slam this fact and the thread it is in, and b.) Check the sources on this page. And finally, I have to define what is 'cannon' in the contexxt of this thread, because if I don't, this will make no sense whatsoever. My definition of cannon in this thread is a Zelda game that is liscensed by Nintendo and created by either Nintendo or Flagship.

The Zelda timeline has caused some confusion thanks to the infamous third split. It states that the first four games are just what would happen if Ocarina of Time Link was killed by Ganondorf or his minions. I do not believe in the third split, and am trying to at least change your perspective with this fact: Nintendo forgot one of the earliest Zelda games. And not just some hokey niche console game, either. They forgot the first handheld Zelda, which was aptly named Zelda. It was released in August 1989, and has the privelige of being the only Zelda released in North America only, as well as being one of the few Game and Watch games to be developed by Nintendo,, which allows this game to be placed under the definition of cannon that I have already laid out. But my point is that it is difficult to place this on the timeline. The plot ties it to the first three Zelda games in that the plot specifically stated that Zelda has been kidnapped by dragons and had scattered the pieces of the triforce. To tie it in with the only sensible timeline branch to use, the third split, is a piece of work. Since we've already ruled out any involvement with Link's Awakening thanks to the mention of Zelda in the plot, that leaves three possible places in the timeline: After ALttP, after ZII, and between the original Zelda and ZII. Since Zelda 1 and ZII are direct sequels, that rules that out. And since Link hadn't met Zelda or her handmaid Impa before the events of the original (remember, this is before the whole reincarnation concept), it's a little hard to send Link on a quest to save Zelda. That leaves the only viable spot as being after ZII, except, if memoryy serves, that game has already been confirmed as the end of that branch, full stop. So, the only way to fit this game into the timeline is to rearrange it, thus disproving the 'official' timeline. Please post comments on my theory, how I can improve it, etc. I plan to fix some issues this Sunday, so plenty of time to show me a few weaak links in my theory.
 
Joined
Apr 6, 2011
If that was the case, why wasn't it mention in all of the other official Nintendo press? Where was it when Nintendo talked about the gaming history of Zelda? I think it's because the game is not part of Zelda canon unlike the major handheld and console Zelda games. There are many Zelda game spin-offs that aren't a part of the timeline like Link's Crossbow Training or BS Zelda:
•Works Not Included in the Chronology
The series contains other works such as Link’s Crossbow Training and spinoff games, but they aren’t included in the chronology.
GlitterBerri Hyrule Historia Page 68
If the game was never acknowledged by Nintendo in official press, then it's unlikely that it is canon with Zelda timeline. If we ignore that, then we might as well try to incorporate the Zelda CD-I games into the timeline.
 
Last edited:

Terminus

If I was a wizard this wouldn't be happening to me
Forum Volunteer
Joined
May 20, 2012
Location
West Coast Best Coast
Gender
Anarcho-Communist
Might I state that The G&W game is not canon? I think you'd make more sense if you put your thoughts in a timeline-ish format instead of a messy paragraph.
 

felipe970421

Mardek Innanu El-Enkidu
Joined
Feb 21, 2012
Location
Colombia
first of all I don't think zelda game & watch is canon, in fact, I think the CD-i games are more canon, so I cannot see the basis for the rest of the arguments

Though yes, the timeline does have inconsistencies, but it's the official one, the one and only, so we have to turn the suspension of disbelief up to eleven

Man, I love when I can link to TV Tropes, hours of content for you without any effort from my part
 

Locke

Hegemon
Site Staff
Joined
Nov 24, 2009
Location
Redmond, Washington
I concur with the others in that Zelda G&W is not canon. It was developed by Nintendo R&D1, which has never worked on another Zelda game before or since. I define canon as material produced by - or on account of and with consultation from - Nintendo EAD, plus other material considered canon by its influential members (producers, directors).

The fact that it was left out of the official timeline should indicate that it is not meant to be considered part of the timeline. Even so, if you wanted to, what's stopping you from placing it after LttP? The only condition is that the Triforce, or at least one piece of it (it seems ambiguous from what I'm reading), is whole and in Zelda's possession. This is satisfied between LttP and AoL's backstory, and after AoL. Any statements that any game is the last on the timeline (if they exist) have been retconned by several recent statements by Aonuma regarding keeping the timeline open for future games.
 

Cfrock

Keep it strong
Joined
Mar 17, 2012
Location
Liverpool, England
I'm gonna differ from everyone else and say that the issue you have is simply cleared up because the Game & Watch game is not an early form of artillery which rendered castles and city walls obsolete and was used by Napoleon to great effect in the 18th and early 19th centuries.
 

felipe970421

Mardek Innanu El-Enkidu
Joined
Feb 21, 2012
Location
Colombia
I'm gonna differ from everyone else and say that the issue you have is simply cleared up because the Game & Watch game is not an early form of artillery which rendered castles and city walls obsolete and was used by Napoleon to great effect in the 18th and early 19th centuries.
Is there a reference I'm missing?
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Users who are viewing this thread

Top Bottom