General Zelda Your Opinion on Hyrule Hystoria

[Ventus]

It's not like it was handled poorly.

LOL. The third split was handled terribly. Everyone still calls it the "cop out timeline". They used an event that just doesn't make any sense - Link's death - to create a whole timeline. It's as if they wanted nothing to do with LoZ, AoL, ALttP, LA, and OoX. Nintendo came out in 2002 and confirmed TWO endings for OoT. They never mentioned a possible third split or any other number of endings. When HH comes upon us, BAM, a sudden third split that simply works as a "what if". It shames theorists. It kills theories in a dishonorable manner. It's just blargh.

 

[surferguy7]

LOL. The third split was handled terribly. Everyone still calls it the "cop out timeline". They used an event that just doesn't make any sense - Link's death - to create a whole timeline. It's as if they wanted nothing to do with LoZ, AoL, ALttP, LA, and OoX. Nintendo came out in 2002 and confirmed TWO endings for OoT. They never mentioned a possible third split or any other number of endings. When HH comes upon us, BAM, a sudden third split that simply works as a "what if". It shames theorists. It kills theories in a dishonorable manner. It's just blargh.

Not like any of the games in the downfall timeline matter that much anyways...

*Runs away from gunshots*

It was a cop out though, and one that I don't really mind dealing with.

 

[Ventus]

Not like any of the games in the downfall timeline matter that much anyways...

That's the thing. Those games are like...the best of 2D Zelda, and they relegated a spot of Timeline Hell? As opposed to the likes of PH and ST. lol.
Anyway, I like the general idea of the downfall timeline; Link dying is a pretty cool twist that I'd love to see ingame. But making it split off OoT is nonsense to me, because Link simply never dies in the game canon.

 

[Azure Sage]

LOL. The third split was handled terribly. Everyone still calls it the "cop out timeline". They used an event that just doesn't make any sense - Link's death - to create a whole timeline. It's as if they wanted nothing to do with LoZ, AoL, ALttP, LA, and OoX. Nintendo came out in 2002 and confirmed TWO endings for OoT. They never mentioned a possible third split or any other number of endings. When HH comes upon us, BAM, a sudden third split that simply works as a "what if". It shames theorists. It kills theories in a dishonorable manner. It's just blargh.

Link being defeated doesn't make sense? Then I guess he didn't get beaten by Ganondorf twice during The Wind Waker, to cite one example. And just because they never mentioned other possible endings doesn't mean there can't be. And don't forget Nintendo did not create the Zelda games with their timeline placements in mind. Naturally that would present a challenge when trying to fit them all together later on. You can't exactly expect them to all go together perfectly.

That's the thing. Those games are like...the best of 2D Zelda, and they relegated a spot of Timeline Hell? As opposed to the likes of PH and ST. lol.

As if our personal opinions on certain Zelda games determine where they go on the timeline.

 

[surferguy7]

That's the thing. Those games are like...the best of 2D Zelda

I don't see Spirit Tracks in that timeline.

 

[ihateghirahim]

The timeline is far from a good thing.

I have to accept that Alttp and the original are what-if? You mean they never actually occurred, but someone thought them up for no good reason? Who came up with that?

The Defeated timeline also assumes the Hero of time was defeated in OoT. Way to show respect to a character and the best game ever.

Why are WW and MM on different timelines when WW clearly references MM, and the events that occurred there, in its opening?

Why can't their be a single timeline? I could make in a day that would be better than the one we got? It's so confusing, franchise trashing, and simply unappealing that it should never have been put to print. I cannot believe couldn't come up with something more sensical than this. I wish they'd left things ambiguous if this the best we got.

But this only applies to the timeline and not the rest of the book

 

[surferguy7]

WW clearly references MM

Umm, no it doesn't. At no point in the opening does WW reference a mask, Termina, or anything of the sort.

And I'm sure your angsty rage Zelda timeline fan-fics won't be any better than what Nintendo has come up with.

 

[Awesomehylian]

I just finished reading through it. I only found one thing I had a problem with, and it could very easily be chalked off to an issue with the translation. And the word they used can also be purposed to make sense rather than not, so it works out in the end. The only confusing part for me was when two games are taking place at the same time, I believe LoZ and AoL were the two, where LoZ leads you to post story-line AoL, with Link being a wanderer. But I'm sure it was just that it was formatted a bit differently than the rest of the book.

I had never considered a timeline before, at least not an official one, so the fact that they took the time at all to make one is pretty exciting to me. This answers a lot of questions about the origins of the "LEGEND" of Zelda. I may not particularly enjoy some of those answers, and it may be a bit rocky at times, like how LA is Link on his way home from another game, but I think, given that whatever behind the scenes timeline they had was probably shaky at best, they rocked this project.

I love mine and don't understand the dislike. It's a beautiful book that reads like a novel, following the reincarnations or descendants of two people as they battle to save the world! And with different enemies even! Being an avid anime watcher, I love the villain dynamics. Having the same guy do the same thing over and over gets old. The timeline helps the player see that it's not just Link kills Ganon, Link kills Ganon. . . .

I dug it. ^_^

 

[CynicalSquid]

"It's not what I wanted so I'm angry!" No offense, but that's what I'm gathering from this.

This is literally the Zelda fanbase in a nutshell. Every time Nintendo releases a Zelda game or something that relates to Zelda, most of the fans are like "Omg, this is so stupid. I overhyped this and didn't get what I wanted boo hoo hoo. Zelda sucks!" and then they look back years later and say "This is awesome!". It just... I have no idea. I don't get Zelda fans at all. There are some who keep an open mind though, so the fanbase doesn't suck that much.

I don't own Hyrule Historia, but I plan on getting it some day. I don't understand why people are complaining about the timeline though. Like, seriously. What's wrong with it? People kept begging for an official timeline and they gave us one. I don't think this was an easy way for Nintendo to get money. It's Nintendo giving us what we asked for. Also, I don't think Nintendo originally planned a timeline for Zelda. I think they did a good job at making a timeline that made sense dthough. Nothing about it seems wrong. To sum it up, quit complaining.

 

[Mangachick14]

This is literally the Zelda fanbase in a nutshell. Every time Nintendo releases a Zelda game or something that relates to Zelda, most of the fans are like "Omg, this is so stupid. I overhyped this and didn't get what I wanted boo hoo hoo. Zelda sucks!" and then they look back years later and say "This is awesome!". It just... I have no idea.

^This right here is so true. It's one thing to criticize, but every time something new comes out, everyone up and declares it the worst addition to the franchise. It's been happening with all the recent the games, and I for one, am getting real sick of such fickleness.

 

[mαrkαsscoρ]

The timeline is how Nintendo thought the games should be connected.

no,its clear nintendo didn't give serious thought about the games in the 3rd split,they just put that **** together to make theorist shut up already
like ocarinahero10

Why are WW and MM on different timelines when WW clearly references MM, and the events that occurred there, in its opening?

...no,bro
the only majoras mask stuff in wind waker are easter eggs [and there's very few of them anyway] the two games are really not connected

 

[Justac00lguy]

The timeline is far from a good thing.

I have to accept that Alttp and the original are what-if? You mean they never actually occurred, but someone thought them up for no good reason? Who came up with that?

Well the "What If" scenario was probably the only way Nintendo could make this work without going into an ultra complicated way to create a flawless Timeline.

Of course they occurred, the Defeated Timeline is a what if, yes, but it's a variant, if you look at the Multiverse Theory, it shows that changes in that moment lead to an alternate universe in which a different event occurred to the original set. The Defeated Timeline is just an alternate set of events, much like the difference between the Adult and Child Timelines. The only difference between them was the fact that we never seen how the Defeated Timeline played out actually in a game, so we can't relate to the events and accept it.

The Defeated timeline also assumes the Hero of time was defeated in OoT. Way to show respect to a character and the best game ever.

Yes he was defeated, it's of course a bit of a shock, but Link has been defeated before right? Every time we hit the game over screen it occurs; however, for game's sake we progress to tell the presented story the way it's meant to go. Having a protagonist die could be a great plot point, it's been done a lot before in story telling and it seems to work on an emotional level. You connect to that character, so much so that you feel something for them when something happens. I think a plot were we see Link dying at the hands of Ganondorf could work on that level, it also differs from the cliché that good always overcomes evil.

I'm sure Ocarina of Time being the best is a topic that can be heavily debated

Why are WW and MM on different timelines when WW clearly references MM, and the events that occurred there, in its opening?

References are nothing more than trivia in my opinion, especially with Majora's Mask and The Wind Waker. There is no established link between the two except for these trivial references that serve their purpose. Look at Skyward Sword for example, that game made a ton of references to games years ahead.

Why can't their be a single timeline? I could make in a day that would be better than the one we got? It's so confusing, franchise trashing, and simply unappealing that it should never have been put to print. I cannot believe couldn't come up with something more sensical than this. I wish they'd left things ambiguous if this the best we got.

Well I'd like to see you try for sure, I've seen many single Timelines before and they defy what happens in Ocarina of Time. Nintendo confirmed this split a while back. What's actually wrong with the set of events? You have many connections that we already knew about:

Adventure of Link was a confirmed sequel to the original Legend of Zelda, A Link to the Past was confirmed to be a prequel to the original game and Link's Awakening, plus the Oracles, were largely perceived - due to in-game and manual evidence - to be sequels to the latter game. Then we have the Ocarina of Time, confirmed to be the first chronological game at that time - Majora's Mask was also a direct sequel to this. Then we have The Wind Waker, a game that we knew proceeded Ocarina of Time and we knew of its two sequels. So there you have a lot of games that legitimately connected, not to mention that Skyward Sword was confirmed as the overall prequel.

The only complication was the split up of the Four Swords games, three games that seem slightly foreign and in their own sort of tale. So when it was confirmed that Four Swords Adventures was separate from the latter two, then it seemed odd. However, I tried to legitimise it's place somewhat in this thread . Honestly, the games connect largely as people expected, but how the connected as one entire series of games was the big question and it was answered by Hyrule Historia. I have no qualms with the connections, there are no real flaws.

 

[Ventus]

@Az
Link being defeated makes sense - as you said there are tons of moments where Link is defeated ingame - but OoT Link never dies ingame by canon. There is no cutscene, set of events, or such when Link is killed outside of normal gameplay. Nintendo made up the idea of Link's death creating a huge split. It would be a lot different if he died ingame as one scenario, with scripted scenes and all that. To compare, I would use this to the anime/visual novel Clannad After Story. We get to see one set of events where the protagonist and his family all die, then later on we get to see the happy ending. There's no concept of a "happy ending" in OoT or OoT3D - there's just the two endings: the desolate Adult Timeline, and the prosperous Child Timeline. No "Link dies" whatsoever, until we run into the realms of what-ifs.

But if what-ifs are to be used, then were are the splits for SS Link's death? Or LoZ Link's deaths? etc etc etc. This is where everyone will get a problem. Nintendo makes up a special rule for OoT Link that technically could apply to anyone. Why? Why not just make the third timeline split, yknow, make sense?

 

[Gamer Miki]

Eh, I'm pretty happy with the book. I think it's pretty amazing, actually... but then, I'm easy to please

Now, the 25th Anniversary Phantasy Star Visual Chronicles (Hyrule Historia for Phantasy Star, basically, only not translated) is a slight let down, even for me, and it's more expensive than Hyrule Historia.

 

[Salem]

Would it have been better if Nintendo didn't reveal the timeline?


Also, the what-if scenario could have been applied at any point in the Zelda games. For example the time of the flood, is it safe to assume that a Link was supposed to fight Ganon at that time but he lost therefore Hyrule flooded? His victory would lead to an even different set of events, you see, it can be done at anytime.

Zelda 2? That game already had a "split timeline"