The timeline is a very popular aspect of the Zelda fan base. Some people only buy Zelda games simply so they can rush to the nearest community and begin theorizing about every possible aspect. It's engrained in us that it's a unique and fun experience that is ultimately to the major benefit of Zelda and its fans. Zelda Informer itself was founded by a group of theorists who primarily got their start by theorizing about the timeline. To this end, the timeline is responsible for your ability to even read this article. However, setting theorizing aside, there is a chance that the idea that Zelda games have to fit in a timeline may actually be hurting the Zelda franchise.I know the notion seems crazy. I say it out loud to myself and I can scarcely believe the thought comes to my mind. There are several quotes from both Eiji Aonuma and Shigeru Miyamoto that talk about how the timeline is more of an afterthought, and has little bearing on the development of each title. Still, part of me says that I know better. Something is out of place. Would Zelda actually be better if there never was a timeline?
One could look no further then to Nintendo's mascot, Mario. The series doesn't have any sort of timeline, nor could it really fit into one. The story is usually lacking, and it's literally all about plat forming madness. The biggest advantage that Mario has over the Zelda franchise is creative freedom. Mario can be anything, do anything, and not worry about a conflict of interests with any previous title. He can go from zipping around the universe to teaming up with Bowser and traveling inside his belly. He can climb ladders to save the princess and take out Donkey Kong, or become a doctor and give us a pill based Tetris title. Mario can do anything.
Of course, I am not saying I want Zelda to become a Mario clone. That would be silly, but the creative freedom doesn't really end there. If we stop a take a look: Most long standing franchises tend to not have an overarching timeline that connects everything, and there may indeed be good reason for it. One example that always sticks out in my mind, especially since my roommate has been on a recent marathon of the series, is Final Fantasy.
Each game is its own game. Sure some things are carried over - Swords, magic, Chocobo... but each game has nothing to do with the last. New characters, new environment, new story. Anything can happen, because they don't have the restriction of making things fit together. As great as timelines in game franchises can be, it is indeed partially restricting.
Often times when I see timeline related talks come up I hear about the Metroid series. It's the series that "got the timeline right". It goes in order of the release of the games, and there is no confusion. But is it really better for the series? It's not nearly at the popularity level of a Mario or even Zelda, for that matter. Of course, one could argue it's because they are marketed less, which is possibly true. Still, with Metroid, like Zelda, all one can do is say what if.Remember all the complaints about the train in Spirit Tracks? Now imagine the complaints if suddenly Link is in outer space. Creative freedom means being allowed to the leave the realm in which has been created. Thanks to a timeline, that can't really happen for the Zelda franchise. A game in outer space would be out of place. Likewise, a game that goes steam punk would end up being out of character. While I want Zelda to change, part of the reason it can't is it in essence restricts itself. While the timeline is essential to Zelda, it may be why Zelda can't advance.
Obviously, this is really all just speculation. In reality, the timeline may be the reason Zelda is more popular than it ever use to be. I enjoy debating about it, and I find it a really great hobby when you have the time to spare. Still, is it possible that it also isn't allowing the franchise to advance? I guess all we can really say at this point is... "what if".
Categories: Articles
The Metal Gear Franchise is the one that jumps out at me where the timeline is much more elaborate than Zelda, yet it works. The games follow a more historical timeline with years and events. While there are a few non-cannon games, they are easily distinguished. Developer's quotes are not arbitrary, and they have released a timeline at which there is no argument as to order of games, but just minor plot details. After the series started, there have been many sequels, prequels, and in recent years games that fit in between games... yet it all seems to work.
In addition to MG, I think the Resident Evil series is the next most popular series that is heavily popular based on the storylines and connections from game to game. I'm not too sure with Metroid as you mentioned, as while I don't follow the series much, I don't hear too much about the stories.
Zelda isn't nearly in Mario territory, but it seems clears that unlike Konomi with MG, and Capcom with RE, Nintendo isn't overly concerned with the storyline of the game.
I don't think the timeline restricts the Zelda games. I mean, the series contains all sorts of magic and supernatural principles, time travel and alternate dimensions, that's a lot of freedom.
Just look at Wind Waker. You go from a land based Hyrule to a huge and seemingly limitless ocean, and no one really questions why because the story is that the goddesses summoned a flood. Being a world of magic, that simple explanation allows for the freedom of an ocean world.
I think the series's is limited only by its established conventions. LoZ has established itself as taking place in a magical and medieval style universe, where wooden shields can save your life and arrows are the best ranged weapons that exist. The ST train was shocking because you didn't see trains in medieval days, but the timeline explained it by using rails as chains for a demon. It would be very farfetched to send Link into space not because of the timeline (the goddesses may have wanted to make some sort of space kingdom to escape a demon-run Earth or something), but because that wouldn't make any sense given LoZ's medieval roots.
I think the timeline isn't as bad as we're making it out to be. From not playing much of the Zelda games before N64 I can't say much about them but the timeline as I see it is; The Legend of Zelda, A Link to the Past, Ocarina of Time, Majora's Mask, Twilight Princess, Wind Waker, Phantom Hourglass, Spirit Tracks. As I said I know little of before the N64. I didn't include the gameboy titles because I like to think of them as not necessarily part of Zelda canon. As far as Spirit Tracks and Zelda becoming steam punk, I'm fine with it. I recently got Spirit Tracks and was not disappointed. I've nearly beat it and to be honest I liked it a lot more than Phantom Hourglass. I am actually fine with the games progressing in time because it helps create a more solid timeline even if that means going steam punk which really isn't that far of a stretch for LoZ. As long as the games are still good I'm fine with steam punk. I wouldn't be surprised if we got some form of musket or early gun in the next game. I mean they have crossbows if you count Link's Crossbow Training and since they have successfully developed the steam engine a gun could be right around the corner. That's just my opinion, however, anything could happen. We just have to wait and see.
Good article.
Of course I'm going to disagree. From the right or left wing perspective, I believe a timeline forces a series to expand into new things. Nintendo has a perfect balance in letting the fans only know part of the 'truths' when it comes to the timeline arks of the series. Because of these gaps in the series' overall chronology, this still allows room for fans to speculate and as well allow for the development of new concepts.
Technology is obviously not a barrier in contrast to how our own reality works - proof of this quotation below:
2009 Interview between Kataku and Aonuma:
---------------
"Kotaku: Spirit Tracks features a train, which may be the most modern piece of technology included in a Zelda game. How modern do you think the Zelda universe can get? Could it include, for example, a radio? A car? A gun?
EA: Technology actually was not a major concern for us when we decided to use the train. In The Legend of Zelda: Phantom Hourglass, the boat was the key mode of transportation. Now that Spirit Tracks takes place on land, we needed a new way for players to get around, and felt that the train offered the best sense of exploration and discovery. We don't think it feels out of place in the game world. Trains are also a popular mode of transportation in Japan. My children and I still feel a great sense of adventure when we ride trains in Japan.
Regarding use of other forms in technology in the future, as long it adds to the overall game experience and is something we feel the player would enjoy, we wouldn't be afraid to implement it. As a matter of fact, we have used the Hook Shot in several previous games, which would be considered a very modern type of technology, even by today's standards."
Source: http://kotaku.com/54...n-can-zelda-get
----
So the timeline isn't really hurting or being hurt with how developers handle storyline and technological elements within said eras Zelda games take place.
I furthermore feel that fans want to hear about a previous era you experienced with a Link. Nintendo used MM, TWW, and parts of TP to reflect back on the grand adventures you had playing as the Hero of Time. That sense nostalgia is important and I cant imagine anyone who wouldn't fully appreciating such fan service (not saying you don't at all Nate).
All in all... so long as Nintendo keeps parts of the series from ever connecting fully, there will always be room to expand the series between the plot holes. Thus no harm done.
you can always go fa enough in the future that the past has little bearing on the game. The timeline is one of my favorite aspects of the series, bu if they developers really wanted to step away from that for one game or two, so that they may have more creative freedom, they could just place those games further away from the others on the timeline.
Your conclusion doesn't follow your theory. You're saying "Zelda can't advance because the timeline keeps it the same." But that's not it at all. You even say:
"Remember all the complaints about the train in Spirit Tracks? Now imagine the complaints if suddenly Link is in outer space."
That has nothing to do with the timeline. That's just Zelda fanboys not wanting any changes in the franchise. I was fully welcoming of the train (though it did get old eventually), and I feel Spirit Tracks is one of the best Zeldas of all time.
Hell, if they made a Zelda that took place in "outer space", that could be pretty awesome. They could easily fit it with the timeline (either technologically or magically); the only thing preventing it from happening are (some) fans.
You made one major mistake with this article: Zelda is nearly as free as final fantasy. Zelda just has to feature Link and take place in Hyrule. You can connect the time line dots afterward.
off topic but the Link at the very top of that artwork rules
It's not nearly as free as final fantasy. It has to "take place in Hyrule" - that alone is extremely restricting, a big restriction that FF does not have.
I mean, "a new land" was founded in ST... and they STILL had to call it Hyrule.
It's very restricting, imo.
Take place in Hyrule is a very general statement. Because there are at least 3 different "Hyrules" out there. There's the classic from OoT and TP the Aquatic world from Windwaker and Phantom Hourglass and then the world from Spirit Tracks. So "Hyrule" isn't any sort of limit at all when you say it "takes place in Hyrule".
>One could look no further then to Nintendo's
mascot, Mario. The series doesn't have any sort of timeline, nor could it really fit into one.
Says who exactly? Just because Mario doesn't have a large community as interested in theorizing its chronology doesn't mean it doesn't have one as well.
>One example that always sticks out in my mind, especially since my roommate has been on a recent marathon of the series, is Final Fantasy.
That's a horrible example as whether FF has a chronology or not is only determined by how much profit a potential sequel to one game could make, hence FFX-2, Chrystal Chronicles metaseries, FFIV The After Years, etc. If the irony the irony that a series whose namesake of "Final" was originally intended to be literal and yet has spawned about 50 games doesn't demonstrate the lack of importance of its chronology I don't know what does.
Thank goodness Miyamoto and Aonuma would never pull such bullshit or we would be waiting for Zelda Wii, Zelda Agito Wii, and Zelda Versus Wii right now.
>Often times when I see timeline related talks come up I hear about the Metroid series. It's the series that "got the timeline right". It goes in order of the release of the games, and there is no confusion.
That's not true. Metroid games don't all follow the order of release. The only difference is the events in Metroid games are straight-forward and any chronological references are obvious and not open for dispute.
The Metroid timeline is not as simple following release dates since Metroid Prime was released...
And I really don't think the timeline really hurts Zelda's freedom in anyway... The Trains in Spirit Tracks should be proof enough... Nintendo could easily make a Final Fantasy-esque Hyrule (with a high technology level, but still having it's share of sword and sorcery) if they wanted, and say it comes "in the end of the timeline"...
Honestly, sometimes I feel like only Ocarina of Time, Majora's Mask, The Wind Waker, Twilight Princess, Phantom Hourglass, and Spirit Tracks should be considered canon. They have the most to do with the time line, and if it was only them, them there would be no problems or plot holes. Or at the very least, the first four games should be taken out, and maybe the Oracles.
I have to agree with several posters, believing that BECAUSE of the series taking place in the same world, following a specific timeline, there should be space for a futuristic Zelda game. It's always struck me as odd that there are hundreds of years between certain Zelda titles, without the technology advancing even one bit.
I'd love to see a Zelda game take place in a NYC like environment, with a new Link discovering the ruins of Hyrle underneath the city. Now THAT would be awesome.
I'd say the series hasn't evolved that much because of the backlash of the 'fans', not because of the timeline.
I'd like to add that a steampunk themed Zelda would also be incredible. Think Steamboy. ^^
(Seriously, YouTube 'Steamboy', watch a trailer and just switch around the main character for Link and add some distinctive Hyrule landmarks. Instant win)
First of all, I LOVE Zelda timeline discussions, so thanks for making this little article. Also, there's no reason for people to take it so personally or get so super into it, re-LAX guys! Sheesh! that being said, I have my own little timeline, which is probably the only timeline any of the developers have in mind too. There's OoT, MM, and TP, with WW and it's sequels coming in as a "what if something went wrong during TP?" scenario. As for every other Zelda game, it's pretty obvious the developers had no thoughts for a timeline (minus Zelda 1 and Link's Adventure), so why try to force them in to a timeline? Even my personal little timeline seems a bit wonky, but it works for me. Also, as long as they give reason for new technological developments, I'm completely down for the Legend of Zelda: A Link to Uranus!
lol theres no tiemline- nintendo sed so.
In all seriousness, I love theorising and the timeline. It's still fiction and the fact they brought in trains shows they maintain freedom. In the universe anything can happen- an anti-train-matter bomb can go off after ST and we go back to old, or forward to new.
Timeline or not the developers can do what they want whether we like it or not! :)