Associate
- Joined
- 4 Mar 2008
- Posts
- 1,605
- Location
- Scotland
I agree - some games (especially some of the earlier ones) were never designed to fit a timeline, or at least there wasn't any indication of it in the games. However, parts of the timeline (some of the most significant) where revealed over 10 years ago.
Since Ocarina of Time, Nintendo have thought more seriously about how each game fits in the timeline and mentioned it even drives some high level design decisions - Eiji Aonuma stated this in an interview last year, and after playing Skyward Sword it's obvious they are being more transparent about the timeline of the series. While playing it, I felt it obvious that the setting was in a very early era - with Zelda just being a friend of Links initially and not a princess, the forging of the Master Sword, demise and his references to the future etc.
I think it's meant to be vague, because the games which are not direct sequels/prequels of one another are set so far apart, i.e. we are only told what the residents of the world know about the 'Legend', which is in fact a true legend. I think they do this to allow more development freedom, but it also means that enjoyment of the games will not be heavily affected by a players experiences of playing other Zelda games - i.e. the games can be played 'stand alone'.
But the links are not always vague, for example the Wind Waker introduction:
Where the next Zelda game will fit in the timeline is anyone's guess right now, but I'd be surprised if there's not a direct link in the game - either within the introduction or the ending.
I haven't watched any theory videos and I'm not going to as it kind of defeats the point for me. Today was the first time I've seen the GameTrailers overview on theorists and the official timeline.
I already had a general idea of where the main generational instalments sat in the timeline just from playing the games. That's one for the great things about the series, there are some direct links, then there are just the 'clues' that let your imagination run a bit wild with the finer details.
Since Ocarina of Time, Nintendo have thought more seriously about how each game fits in the timeline and mentioned it even drives some high level design decisions - Eiji Aonuma stated this in an interview last year, and after playing Skyward Sword it's obvious they are being more transparent about the timeline of the series. While playing it, I felt it obvious that the setting was in a very early era - with Zelda just being a friend of Links initially and not a princess, the forging of the Master Sword, demise and his references to the future etc.
I think it's meant to be vague, because the games which are not direct sequels/prequels of one another are set so far apart, i.e. we are only told what the residents of the world know about the 'Legend', which is in fact a true legend. I think they do this to allow more development freedom, but it also means that enjoyment of the games will not be heavily affected by a players experiences of playing other Zelda games - i.e. the games can be played 'stand alone'.
But the links are not always vague, for example the Wind Waker introduction:
Where the next Zelda game will fit in the timeline is anyone's guess right now, but I'd be surprised if there's not a direct link in the game - either within the introduction or the ending.
I haven't watched any theory videos and I'm not going to as it kind of defeats the point for me. Today was the first time I've seen the GameTrailers overview on theorists and the official timeline.
I already had a general idea of where the main generational instalments sat in the timeline just from playing the games. That's one for the great things about the series, there are some direct links, then there are just the 'clues' that let your imagination run a bit wild with the finer details.
