Zelda Stories Need to Acknowledge the Timeline and Give Link a Stronger Character

What makes a Zelda game… a Zelda game? What’s more important: story or gameplay?

It seems that, lately, public opinion has shifted on how much story matters to the Zelda series. In years past, Zelda fans — and the content of the games themselves — seemed to place much more value on narrative than they do these days. With the release of Breath of the Wild and Tears of the Kingdom, and the start of a new era for The Legend of Zelda, that focus has shifted toward mechanics, player experience, and gameplay loops. And from what I’ve seen, many people are satisfied with where the series is at now, with the latest entries emphasizing gameplay over story.

Some argue that there is no need for continuity between games. A popular idea I’ve come across is that all Zelda games are simply the same legend, passed down orally. This could explain why all the stories are so different, but involve the same characters and settings. And the whole timeline is a retcon anyways, right? So why should we pay it any credence? Meanwhile, some people believe that Link should be nothing more than a player insert. And he should definitely never speak; that would ruin the immersion. Nintendo itself seems to fall into this category. The Legend of Zelda series producer Eiji Aounuma says such things in interviews all the time. 

Now, I’m not here to tell you what to believe. If you don’t want Link to be a character, that’s okay. If you like the “legend” theory, that’s fabulous for you! But I will do my best to play devil’s advocate and entertain other opinions. So, here’s my two cents: the Zelda timeline and Link as a character are integral to the Zelda franchise.

Bold claim, I know. And listen: I have nothing but respect for Eiji Aounuma and the other Zelda developers. However, I think my ideals differ slightly from theirs.

Aounuma has often placed emphasis on experience first, story later. In fact, he said the following to Game Informer last year:

That’s something that the development team recognizes and it considers, but to an extent. And I say, “to an extent” because if we get too into the weeds or too detailed in that placement, it results in kind of creating restraints for our creativity; the process of creating new ideas becomes restricted because we’re so tied up and trying to make this fit into a very specific spot in the timeline. We do consider it, but not to an extent where we feel that our development process feels restricted or constrained.

I can understand this viewpoint, especially as a fiction writer. If one constrains their story based on previous notions they arbitrarily decided, it can be hard to come up with fresh ideas. Stories are meant to evolve, and The Legend of Zelda has been a franchise for nearly 40 years. Of course it has evolved since the timeline was first created. However, since A Link to the Past, Zelda has been crafted for connection. I think if the Zelda team brings the timeline back to the forefront and lets Link be himself, they’ll have more luck delivering a story that pleases every type of fan.

Toto, I’ve a feeling we’re not in Hyrule anymore.

Many were disappointed with the stories in Breath of the Wild and Tears of the Kingdom. A lot of this discontent was due to the lack of linearity and the varied order in which one could experience story moments. But I also think that these two titles lack a certain element that all the other Zelda games had: there’s no official timeline placement. It seems as though the Wild games either completely rewrote Zelda history just for the sake of it, or they take place so far in the future of the series that all other games are basically from the Stone Age. This disregard for the timeline makes the newest games feel so far removed from the others. Sure, there are Easter eggs calling back to older titles from time to time, but it’s different.

To me, the Zelda series would be oddly disjointed without the timeline. Why are the same three randos in every game? Why do they have the same names and look pretty similar, but are different people? (These are questions my mom has asked me.)

The official Zelda timeline, including the split after Ocarina of Time, binds each of the games together in a satisfying way. Without that split, the “downfall” section of the timeline would make the sequence of events far more confusing to follow, with the backstory in one game seemingly contradicting what is seen in another. The lore presented at the beginning of The Wind Waker (from the “adult” timeline), for example, would be completely incoherent without the context of the timeline split. Likewise, Majora’s Mask (from the “child” timeline) would only make sense as a standalone continuation of the previous game, while diminishing what was later shown during Twilight Princess‘ story.

Breath of the Wild and Tears of the Kingdom are proof, at least to me, that forgetting about the timeline is a detriment to the cohesion of the series. When does Tears of the Kingdom, and its version of Hyrule’s creation, even take place? Why has it seemingly thrown away the lore we established in Hyrule Historia? Maybe they’ll patch this up later by claiming the Switch games are from an entirely new timeline or something, but I’m not holding my breath.

On another note, I really love the idea of each Zelda and Link being connected to their past selves. Go read the fan comic Linked Universe by Jojo if you haven’t already. It delves into the iterations of Link having a relationship, a camaraderie with one another in the way that I wish was explored in canon. How neat would it be to see the Links we see in the games acknowledge their past selves? What if they could somehow interact with the others? This idea was somewhat explored in Twilight Princess, and I loved it. I just wish there was more.

Skyward Sword exists for a reason… Skyward Sword, despite being thirteen years old, is one of the most recent games in the Zelda series. As the game that more or less introduced the official Zelda timeline, as its release date was meant to coincide with the publication of Hyrule Historia in 2011, Skyward Sword actively ties each and every game together and wraps up the whole Zelda package in a neat little bow.

It explains the origins of Hyrule. It explains why Zelda has the blood of the Goddess. It explains the Master Sword, the Triforce, and why Zelda, Link, and Ganondorf are constantly being reincarnated. The timeline placement, with Skyward Sword being the “beginning of it all,” was a huge part of the marketing for the game, enforced further by Hyrule Historia weeks after release. It baffles me that the Zelda team went through all the effort to establish the timeline, only to toss it to the background for the Switch titles.

I won’t go into great detail here, but this fantastic video by LUVIIKUU sums up my feelings about how the timeline is incorrectly viewed pretty well. The timeline wasn’t just thrown together to appease fans, as many are led to believe. The series was constructed to be specifically chronological from the start. The older game manuals are proof of that — with The Adventure of Link  declared as a sequel to the first game, A Link to the Past being a prequel to both of them, and so forth.

If the idea of chronology was so important to the Zelda series in the early days, and if Nintendo thought it worthwhile to devote an entire marketing push behind an official timeline with the release of Skyward Sword, it only makes sense for that importance to be respected today.

Now, let’s address my other point: Link should not be reduced to simply a “player insert” character.

Eiji Aounuma has claimed that Link was named “Link” because he was meant to be a link between the player and the game:

“…my desire is for the player to truly become Link — that’s why we named him Link, so the player is linked to the game and to the experience. Of course, the player can always change Link’s name to their own name to further that notion should they want. But if we did give him a voice, that would go against the whole notion of Link being you, because Link’s voice should really be your voice.”

For earlier Zelda titles, I think the statement rings true. Given the technological limitations of those early games, there was no character for players to connect with outside of the context of gameplay. But Zelda stories have evolved since then. The ending of Link’s Awakening is sad, not only because we connected with Marin and the other NPCs, but because Link himself had to sacrifice his friends and go back to reality. We can connect with his sacrifice of an narrative level. Majora’s Mask wouldn’t have the same emotional cadence without its bittersweet ending; the hero of Termina saved the world but never got to complete his personal quest of finding his lost friend. I think it’s safe to say that most players did not connect with Navi as a character, and most probably would not go to great lengths to find her if she left them. But Link did.

This probably boils down to personal preference, but I do not want to be inserted into a game. In the older Zelda titles, I never ever chose a different name for Link at the character creation screen. The idea of doing that throws me off way more than Link expressing emotion. I think “insertion” and “immersion” are different from one another. I personally feel more immersed in a story when I connect with the characters.

I get that you can’t make Link relatable to everyone since Zelda is such a huge series, but how can anyone relate to a guy with zero emotions? I don’t want Link to be a robot. Despite the recent impassive portrayals of Link, in my opinion, he’s been a true character since Ocarina of Time. Even in the latest entries to the series, despite insistence that he’s supposed to be a blank slate, Link is a character. In fact, I really think that Breath of the Wild, and Tears of the Kingdom especially, would have benefitted from Link being even more emotionally involved in the story.

Making Link even more of a character would give Zelda‘s stories a more personal touch. Skyward Sword and The Wind Waker did great in this regard by establishing connections with the characters Link is meant to save. In Skyward Sword especially, it’s a treat to see how Link himself reacts to the events happening around him. He is devastated when Zelda locks herself away. He is angry with Ghirahim for taking her away. I would have wanted to see how Breath of the Wild Link felt about his story. I wanted to see how he felt about Zelda, how he felt about his friends dying. But, instead, we got nothing.

When you give your character a backstory, they’re no longer a player insert. When you give your character a signature outfit, they’re not just a player insert. This is not the Miiverse. You don’t look at Nintendo eShop gift cards with Link on them and think, “Oh, that’s just a random NPC.”

I don’t mind Link being a silent protagonist. If he’s mute, that’s totally cool. But — hot take incoming — I wouldn’t mind if he talked, either. I want Link to have his own agency and be his own person. He has genuinely funny dialogue options in Breath of the Wild and Tears of the Kingdom! Let him say them for real! Let him talk – or sign – during cutscenes if he wants to!

Being stoic, or at least quiet, has become a genuine part of Link’s personality. But that doesn’t mean he has to stay silent all the time.

With the page seemingly turning on the Wild era of the Zelda series, it’s time for the games to once again embrace quality storytelling, narrative consistency, and characterization. As we look to the future, The Legend of Zelda should reestablish the importance of its timeline and take strides to further develop its iconic protagonist.

The Zelda series has always had a defined continuity, as far back as its earliest entries. The timeline, as developed over several decades, explains the lore, the historical context, and the connective tissue between games, for fans interested enough to want it. Without the timeline, I don’t think I would love the Zelda series as much as I do. Likewise, Link has been a genuine character as early as Ocarina of Time. And it is disappointing to see him reduced to a “player insert” when he has so much narrative potential.

If The Legend of Zelda is to tell successful stories, it needs to prioritize these two crucial elements of its identity.

I could probably go on for hours about this very topic, but I’ll end my thoughts here before I end up writing a whole book. What do you think? Is the Zelda timeline important? Should Link stop being thought of as a player insert? Let us know in the comments below!