Justac00lguy
BooBoo
There are many forms of discussion to have about this series, one of, or was, the most popular was indeed theorising. A series that spanned many years and installments yet in terms of order, was not clear. Fans over many years tried to formulate the correct Timeline, and this became a huge part of the series, as well as other details that were obscure within the lore of the series.
Now I see time and time again people claiming that theorising is "dead" - a pretty strong word, well it's definitely not dead, but maybe not as lively as it once was. Most people's reasons as to why they think this is, yes you guessed it, Hyrule Historia. This, so called, "encyclopedia" of The Legend of Zelda -- for the first time -- revealed the official chronological order of each game as well as many other details. Now HH was slightly controversial for a few reasons; the third split (Defeated Timeline), the fact that Link was actually drafted, odd placements, weird translations and, for some, a lack of depth.
Yes it was odd to see a third split and maybe some placements seem odd, but this is official and it does make sense; however, it's the lack of depth that annoyed me. This is where I see a contradiction into some people's claims that HH ruined theorising. There were details, but these were mostly more structured in game information that was used to connect each game. In my opinion, the information included was not a revelation. Fact is, that very few "new" details were given and a lot of the questions were half-answered.
Now I wanted to address this and ask you guys because I'm quite confused. Hyrule Historia was good don't get me wrong; however, mediocre apart from the revealing of the Timeline and one or two details. It wasn't a revelation in my opinion, more so a book dedicated to concept art, brief details and establishing a brief connection to the games within the Timeline. Truth be told, this book didn't really change all that much within the realm of theorising, yes it may have completely got rid of Timeline theories, but there is still much more to be discussed; due to the series, overall, giving very brief details. A lot of the lore is still obscure, we now just have some canon confirmation of which to go off, resulting in better and more structure theories.
I know theorising isn't for everyone, but I don't agree that it's dead or it is doomed, I think that a lot of people jump the gun and come to the conclusion that there is nothing else to discuss. Well if we look at this section, on this site alone, there are a variety of topics. Yes, it may not be as active as other sections, but I feel that theorising within this series could be revived if people didn't have that state of mind that it's dead or that there's nothing left to discuss.
However, I want to know what is your stance on theorising within this series, as I'm generally interested.
Now I see time and time again people claiming that theorising is "dead" - a pretty strong word, well it's definitely not dead, but maybe not as lively as it once was. Most people's reasons as to why they think this is, yes you guessed it, Hyrule Historia. This, so called, "encyclopedia" of The Legend of Zelda -- for the first time -- revealed the official chronological order of each game as well as many other details. Now HH was slightly controversial for a few reasons; the third split (Defeated Timeline), the fact that Link was actually drafted, odd placements, weird translations and, for some, a lack of depth.
Yes it was odd to see a third split and maybe some placements seem odd, but this is official and it does make sense; however, it's the lack of depth that annoyed me. This is where I see a contradiction into some people's claims that HH ruined theorising. There were details, but these were mostly more structured in game information that was used to connect each game. In my opinion, the information included was not a revelation. Fact is, that very few "new" details were given and a lot of the questions were half-answered.
Now I wanted to address this and ask you guys because I'm quite confused. Hyrule Historia was good don't get me wrong; however, mediocre apart from the revealing of the Timeline and one or two details. It wasn't a revelation in my opinion, more so a book dedicated to concept art, brief details and establishing a brief connection to the games within the Timeline. Truth be told, this book didn't really change all that much within the realm of theorising, yes it may have completely got rid of Timeline theories, but there is still much more to be discussed; due to the series, overall, giving very brief details. A lot of the lore is still obscure, we now just have some canon confirmation of which to go off, resulting in better and more structure theories.
I know theorising isn't for everyone, but I don't agree that it's dead or it is doomed, I think that a lot of people jump the gun and come to the conclusion that there is nothing else to discuss. Well if we look at this section, on this site alone, there are a variety of topics. Yes, it may not be as active as other sections, but I feel that theorising within this series could be revived if people didn't have that state of mind that it's dead or that there's nothing left to discuss.
However, I want to know what is your stance on theorising within this series, as I'm generally interested.
Last edited: