Behind the Rupees: "On Time"

This thread is reserved for discussion on Pipking's edition of Behind the Rupees, "On Time".

Enjoy.

Excellent editorial Pipking. I'm glad BtR is back; I got a bit worried after the lack of it last week.
I agree with most of your points. When I first started browsing Zelda sites I was obsessed with trying to figure out the timeline. Now I am pretty much sick of timeline debates because people seem to take them a bit too seriously. I create my own timeline theories for fun to entertain myself; I doubt whether any of the conclusions I make are shared by Nintendo. Carefully thought out timelines aren't important to the Zelda games themselves. To keep the series going, I think Nintendo just needs to give each incarnation of Link his own separate part in the timeline with occasional vague references to past events that may or may not be Zelda games. Of course, the series also needs more variety than just the traditional story, so new villians, characters, situations and lands need to be added and/or removed from time to time. For the most part I just trust Nintendo to know what they are doing timeline wise.

^ Agreed.

btw, i kind of see the Zelda series as sagas.

Ex:

The Legend of Zelda: Saga 3: Link to the Past

The Legend of Zelda: Saga 5: Ocarina of Time

The Legend of Zelda: Saga 6: Majora's Mask

The Legend of Zelda: Saga 10: The Wind Waker

That sort of thing.

So, to me, FSA would be Saga 11 and Zelda '05 would be Saga 12.

(The Sagas are like the travels of Link from each diffrent game)

I have to agree with everything mentioned in the article. I am especially fond of how he mentioned that there is no official timeline and it is only the fan's hunger to have that many timelines were created. But I also noticed that he didn't disagree with timeline theorizing, "...it's part of the fun, part of the way we keep connected to the games in the long wait between them..."

Well I have to say that was a kickass edition of Behind the Rupees Pipking, I agree with everything said there. Well done mate top marks

First of nothing, an excellent article; and like Hylian Dan saids, I'm also agree with many poibnts in the "Behind the Rupees discussion".

I have to admite someting, I started to search on the web many Zelda related-sites because I was interested about the TimeLine of the games. The reason: I have my own manga-style comic (about Zelda, of course :razz: ) and I needed to ubicate it inside A Timeline of the games. Of course a found someting: this timeline had never existed ... officially. That was an invention of US the fans; an invention to try to understand ourself about many of the situations that appears on the games, try to give it an explanation in the terms of the ordinary world, our world (or just, to try to ubicate your own-fan-invention :embrsd: ). And, this "monster", the need about a timeline to "order" the games in a way that make it have "sense" like we see in our living world, has reached the Headmasters of Zelda games (Miyamoto & Co.)

Maybe, we just need to remember the reason of the games itself: to be THE HERO in a world who needs to be rescued; and try to get-tiny the need to adjust the games to our rules. Let's remember that Link is allways Link, no matter in wich (alternative) time ... or land.

Saludos :cool:

PD: I hope I have explained my self...

That's one of the best game articles I've read.

Thank you for spreading truth and fighting ignorance.

Gee... the reaction is much more positive than I expected. Though some of the usual suspects haven't chimed in yet. Thanks everyone.

And I've checked the main site page for comments... I'm sorry, but if they're any indication of the average Zelda fan....

*shudders*

Seriously. People didn't 'get it'. I don't get what it is they didn't get. It's a much more obvious point than my last piece. I can get not liking it...

I don't know why people wold think only one hundred years passed before tww, in game, kotrl says *hundreds of years have passed since then* he says this right before you go down to hyrule to fight ganon.

I completely agree with what you've said, there was no timeline, and now they are trying to piece together pieces of different puzzles. We already have some timelines that seem to work to hold it barely together, but some new games make you start over your theory. during the process of making your timeline you will start out thinking *hey, this won't be too hard* a couple minutes later, a battle is happening in your brain, soon you will be confused, you will start to get overwhelmed with the concept, you will viciously attack the theory in your mind, then it will all become clear as it seems you have discovered a perfect theory, you will rush to the forums with confidence and show your superior timeline, only to have people point out how incredibly wrong it is as they name the numerous things that can't work. After many theries you will grow continuously wiser untill you know seemingly everything and end up correcting and pointing out your own mistakes before you post them and you end up never posting them again because you just can't get it. but you'll just keep on trying .

That was a summary of my trying to come up with a timeline, I'm sure many of you can relate, we just keep trying to look at the big picture, which turns out to not exist. . But I'll still keep trying, it may not sound cool :cool: , it may seem a bit embarassing :embrsd: , I will fail many times , I will gather hidden pieces of supprising info. , and I'll make a theory so great it will leave you all speachless.

edit: I spent a long time on this post trying to include every smiley, and it turns out that I can't do that

Hrm. I thought it seemed a little erratic, and tried too hard to appear meaningful in places ("a boy and a cave etc.). It wasn't exactly new stuff, either.

A hundred years (or, again, hundreds, the debate of which itself shows the unrelenting avarice of fans in their quest for story)

So far as I can see, there isn't a debate. Hundreds of years and many generations etc. are mentioned frequently in-game--I've never seen anyone debating that it was just a single century.

Originally Posted by Terranix

So far as I can see, there isn't a debate. Hundreds of years and many generations etc. are mentioned frequently in-game--I've never seen anyone debating that it was just a single century.

Hmm. I'm sure you've never seen Antartica, but it exists.

Meaning I did research on a few Zelda sites, and on The Legends of Zelda, as well as a few threads here at ZU, and Zelda Elements, I believe, all mentioned the 'verbal slip' of 'a hundred years' versus 'hundreds of years'. Which to me indicates that Zelda fans are all-too willing to read into things.

I've also seen a few arguments on the "a hundred years" quote. I remember when I first read that in the original interview about two or so years ago. For a long time, I thought of it that way, even when I actually played TWW. Then I got into an argument with someone who thought differently and I really thought about it, then it was just so plainly obvious (plus I saw it mentioned in the game as "hundreds of years.")

In any case, I really wanted to congratulate you, Pipking. I was very impressed with your insights in this article/editorial. I've thought of the fact that there really was no "big picture" in Nintendo's mind before, but I've always continued to theorize and argue. I'd like to think that, now, when I theorize on Zelda, that I try not to make assumptions.

I still try and fit the games together in a timeline, even though I know they're not meant too. I just really want them to. I want them to make sense. I love The Legend of Zelda. It greatly inspires me.

Even if there never is a solid timeline, I will still love the Zelda series because one of the best things the Zelda series has going for it is that it doesn't tell us "everything." Vague statements and unfinished stories are intentionally built in. Many legends and histories are left as blank canvases for us to fill.

Imagination is the one of the greatest abilities of the human mind, and Zelda nurtures it so very well.

The Legend of Zelda is just a game. How each of us perceives it is what makes it so great.

This was a super-duper-absolutelywonderful addition to "Behind the Ruppees"

-at first i was like, "Oh no..." b/c i thought it was gonna be another elaborate "multiple vs. single" timeline discussion-- and i've really seen enough of those to know that none are supportable truth.

Originally posted by pipking
And I've checked the main site page for comments... I'm sorry, but if they're any indication of the average Zelda fan....

*shudders*

Seriously. People didn't 'get it'. I don't get what it is they didn't get.

That was IMO the best BtR yet. Each installment so far has been better than the previous ones. I can't see how those people can't figure out the point of the article when you say "It's really all quite pointless."

Contrary to our Articles section, which focuses on helping to understand the Zelda series as a whole, Behind the Rupees is more aimed towards the harcore Zelda fans who already know the series inside and out.

I'm guessing a lot of the people who posted comments on the main page didn't read this description when they post about how this article isn't helping to understand the series as a whole.

In an interview with Gamepro doing the press rounds for the impending release of The Wind Waker, Eiji Aonuma (who should be considered the Messiah of this Trinity, the holy ghost being that swelda we each feel in our hearts), and Miyamoto got into a little argument.

Q: Where does The Wind Waker fit into the overall Zelda series timeline?

Aonuma: You can think of this game as taking place over a hundred years after Ocarina of Time. You can tell this from the opening story, and there are references to things from Ocarina located throughout the game as well.

Miyamoto: Well, wait, which point does the hundred years start from?
Aonuma: From the end.

Miyamoto: No, I mean, as a child or as a...

Aonuma: Oh, right, let me elaborate on that. Ocarina of Time basically has two endings of sorts; one has Link as a child and the other has him as an adult. This game, The Wind Waker, takes place a hundred years after the adult Link defeats Ganon at the end of Ocarina.

Miyamoto: This is pretty confusing for us, too. (laughs) So be careful.

Be careful indeed. Good advice, as the nascent Zelda community hungrily searches for meaning. The Legends of Zelda website blames this oft quoted interview with opening the debate beyond just the proper order of the games. Aonuma alludes to the enticing possibility that there are two time-lines; the world Link left after defeating Ganon remained, and his trip back to childhood created a new reality. From this second time-line he tumbles into Terminia to get his horse, while some-when the world left ruined by Ganon rebuilds itself, spends a hundred years (or hundreds of years, you never know, and this small point of pluralization has led to many a row) speaking of the hero who once saved them.

From the Holy Trailer, I have a sneaking suspicion that Zelda GC, if Aonuma and Miyamoto hold to the potential of what they've said, might just be the further adventures of a familiar hero in a world where Ganon once reigned. It would give them an opportunity to distance themselves from The Wind Waker which, despite being a widely renowned game, suffers the stigma of it's graphics to this day. The Wind Waker was Zelda, but didn't really look it - not as fans had come to expect after the fantasy-realism of the two N64 offerings. The game in appearance was perfect for me, a refinement of all the dreams Miyamoto still has about being an adventuring boy. This new game seems to be leaning back towards Ocarina of Time in style, so why not in story? We'll see - and I expect Timeline enthusiasts to watch carefully what Aonuma and Miyamoto say.

Regardless of where The Wind Waker fits, it's set at least hundred years into the future - a goodly distance, and a telling one. All previous games in the series circle inconsistently around each other, but never at a set date. A hundred years is significant - it suggests the Prime Movers of this affair are taking a step towards definition. Why now?

You do know that is misquoted. It actually is "hundreds of years", but there is no set plural in Japanese. And it is well known the story elements of any Zelda game can change drastically before it's official launch. This interview was done before Kaze no Takuto came out in Japan - or anywhere. Interviews before the release of a game are good for insight into the development process. They usually aren't great for reliable info about the game itself before it's finalized.

The Zelda community we have today is a relatively recent phenomenon. Most of the big Zelda sites, such as Ganon's Tower and Zelda Legends, went online 1998-99. In November of 1998, Ocarina of Time debuted to much acclaim and has remained touted as one of the greatest games of all time, untouched by further advances in gaming technology. OoT can be seen as the definitive point in Zelda fandom, and the ensuing community - though there are many of us who've played the games since the original NES, we didn't really rally around the Legend of Zelda until OoT. The seeds of the collective were certainly planted with A Link to the Past, bringing the franchise to a critical point in direction and tone, but it was with the perfection of these principals in OoT that a large group of otherwise diverse people decided to express their affinity by fattening and dissecting the loose myths laid out. Backward reflection started in an attempt to knit it all together in a neat package, and a rush of Zelda societies began building on the internet.

If you're going to say Ocarina of Time is the definitive point in Zelda fandom - the time when everyone jumped onto the bandwagon, you have merit there. But the whole online-community-debating-about-the-timeline phenomenom is thanks to Master of Hyrule and his little Storyline section of ZHQ Not only did it begin the storyline debates well before Ocarina of Time - nearly every big Zelda site since has tried to copy them at one point or another. Note the "timeline" of ZU and then the timeline of ZHQ. Yes, Ocarina of Time "increased" the quantity of participants, but having actually been there myself to witness all of this, I can tell you without bias it began with Master of Hyrule.

Less than two years later, a short time in game development, Nintendo surprised fans with Majora's Mask - a new game under the direction of Zelda underling Aonuma. The infallible OoT was Miyamoto's baby, and now he had passed the task off to someone who showed a lot of promise. Fan reaction was mixed, but it was generally agreed that it was a worthy, if flawed, successor. It certainly fanned the flames that had been burning since OoT's release - here was another piece of the puzzle to this world that has enchanted millions.

In 1999, your once-solitary Zelda fan became a member of a visible community through the dozens of sites cropping up on the net. Miyamoto and the game's developers, buoyed by the success of OoT, rush out a sequel - which, if you notice, followed the history of the games so far in being a quest outside the primary mythology. In a 2003 interview with Superplay Miyamoto states: "We actually see A Link to the Past as the real sequel to Legend of Zelda. Zelda II was more of a side story about what happened to Link after the events in Legend of Zelda." Zelda games can be divided into two categories: real Zelda games and superfluous ones (in terms of story).

Zelda II didn't sell as well as the first - complaints came the old fashioned way, through letters and embarrassing confrontations at gaming conferences. The creators decided to take the series back to its roots, back to the story. They took the essential elements posited in the first game, and made the whole thing bigger to great financial and critical success. But it wasn't until after OoT that the consequences started coming ripe.

Wow. First of all, you're research is flawed. Zelda II: The Adventure of Link sold more than The Legend of Zelda. Find that Eiji conference pick of all the game sales. AoL sold more.

Aonuma and Miyamoto have always seemed... a little embarrassed when confronted with continuity issues. In the same Superplay interview, Miyamoto admits the cohesion of the storyline is not forefront in the minds of the game developers: "For every Zelda game we tell a new story, but we actually have an enormous document that explains how the game relates to the others, and bind them together. But to be honest, they are not that important to us. We care more about developing the game system... give the player new challenges for every chapter that is born."

This from an interview in 2003, well after the fever had hit the fans. I'm not doubting that such a source document of inspiration exists, but Miyamoto admits to deviating from it willfully when the opportunity presents itself. Similar sentiment is expressed by Aonuma in a 2004 interview with Game Informer: "We didn't necessarily feel there was a need to have an infinitive connection between everything, because it was this idea that Link is the hero no matter what." Both creators are distancing themselves from this idea of unity - what does it matter when the game is the most important thing? The positioning of The Wind Waker a hundred years after the fact of the last game can be viewed as an act of rebellion against enthused, devoted fans; a chance for the series to start anew, free from the loose threads of its past. It also shows the two developers aware of what they've caused, and sets the whole project of The Wind Waker in a new light. This was not just the next game in a successful series. However flawed you may think it is, this latest Zelda was a treaty offered to fans. A hundred years (or, again, hundreds, the debate of which itself shows the unrelenting avarice of fans in their quest for story), and a new beginning - they flooded the world! How big of a sign do you want?

While it is true Miyamoto may not be so concerned with "connecting" the games, he never said the current game's story wasn't important. The manuals to the NES games and to ALttP are very story rich, both the North American and Japanese versions. Shigeru Miyamoto may be the producer, but he isn't the only force working on Zelda. He may not care, but others could. Yes, the older games had rich stories thanks to official manuals, but let's move into the modern age. Ocarina of Time and Majora's Mask were two story rich games, as were Oracles and The Wind Waker. Hyrulean Adventure also had a nice story. But what strikes me as interesting is that Eiji Aonuma slowly has gained control, and you see more active attempts to connect the series. Look at the ALttP/FS game. NCL with CAPCOM helped redo the text, which makes it flow with the timeline even better. Inconsistencies were fixed. With Eiji stepping into the lead role of Zelda's development, I think we should know that he actually DOES care about the storyline and connecting it.

http://www.gameinformer.com/News/Sto...1915.59084.htm

"BB: As far as the storyline, there was kind of a certain progression of the way Link progressed through the original Legend Of Zelda, to The Link To The Past, To Ocarina Of Time, and the rest of the titles, until Wind Waker. Miyamoto stated that the Link in the Wind Waker was really another Link. Can you explain that? It’s a little confusing for some people that this is a different Link. Did Wind Waker start a whole new chapter, or a whole new story?

EA: I think the easiest way to explain this is that Link is always the main character in Zelda titles. With new games, naturally people are going to think how does this Link relate to the Link from the last game? The thing is, when making a new Zelda game, we don’t necessarily start with the storyline first, we start with the game, and we think, “What’s Link going to be like in this game? What kind of a character is he going to be, and what kind of a personality is he going to have?” In that sense, for us, we didn’t necessarily feel there was a need to have an infinitive connection between everything, because it was this idea that Link is the hero no matter what. He’s here, and he’s part of the story. Obviously for people that are fans, it’s something that they pay a lot of attention to. If you start thinking about that, then you’ll have questions, say, if this Link is related to that Link in this way, what does that say about the four Links in Four Swords? How does that all fit in?

To me storyline is important, and as producer, I am going to be going through, and trying to bring all of these stories together, and kind of make them a little bit more clear. Unfortunately, we just haven’t done that yet."

Eiji admits he knows fans care about the storyline, and to him it is important. You also nicely pointed out Miyamoto admitted a document giving some form of connectivity for all the games. I believe Aonuma has the tools to construct a coherent timeline. Give him his time, and it will make sense.

The storyline is peppered with allusions to happenings in the history of Hyrule because those details are what make each game seem so real. Fans read into the games so deeply because they inspire further thought and discussion - we want to know this world, and all it's ins and outs. Every side-quest, every mention of past and future elaborate the world just enough to give it this illusion of completeness, and as fans we're caught wanting more. We, because we are so enamoured with the half-formed mythology, insist there be ties between everything past and present. To us, Shiggy is god and Hyrule his Eden.

Shigeru Miyamoto gets too much credit. Notice the "credits" at the end of a game? Those people had a hand in the game, too...

The history of the games' development indicate that each one, while not being an island, attempts to be different things - responds to the need for freshness and change and is ultimately just a game to be played, not a story to be read. Aonuma, upon being appointed as producer for the Zelda series, admits: "To me storyline is important, and as producer, I am going to be going through, and trying to bring all of these stories together, and kind of make them a little bit more clear. Unfortunately, we just haven't done that yet." He hopes to bring unity to the series because the fans demand it - but, and here's something you must understand, it is an process which must be done retroactively and has not yet begun. This is the definitive point in discussions about the Timeline - until Zelda fandom started to really collude into a community, the games' creators saw no need to be certain in their legend-making. A loose association between the games was sufficient. There is a direct correlation between the development of the Zelda community and the creators' addressing this concern of time-line and story.

[i]Maybe they decided to react to fans. Miyamoto said the decision to change from Cel Shading to the new look was not motivated by fan outcry, but during Majora's Mask's release - Eiji Aonuma had a Team Zelda feedback e-mail - he wanted to know what fans thought in Japan. Eiji is a man who cares about fans. But I must also say that Shigeru Miyamoto has known that fans have cared about story, and he has addressed it before. He once gave a timeline order to Dan Owsen of Nintendo. It was proof he actually thought of a timeline, or new it outright. The Legend of Zelda and The Adventure of Link connect to each other strongly. No fan doubts this. If they do, they're GANNON-BANNED and morons. A Link to the Past and Link's Awakening connect to each other. The Japanese Official Site says so. Ocarina of Time and Majora's Mask connect. So they usually come in pairs. But The Wind Waker referred to both Ocarina of Time and Majora's Mask. A Link to the Past speaks of events in Ocarina of Time. And Eiji is just going to tweak stuff so they make sense in a coherent storyline - whenever he decides to reveal it. So while they've been clever in keeping the fans guessing, and that Shigeru Miyamoto recently said storyline is not important (though 10 years ago he could have felt differently), it is obvious SOMEBODY is making them connect.[i/]

There is no Timeline. Until the fans started begging for it, there never needed to be.

...I'll ignore you said that.

I think the Zelda games function best as the episodic wanderings of a hero. Until The Wind Waker, in which a date in relation to the rest of the games was stated, each game functioned as a re-imagining of the basic concept - a boy and a cave. Aonuma's suggestion that there are now possibly two time-lines is further evidence of the developers looking for an easy out that will both please fans and let they themselves wander far and free in their ingenuity.

TWW says "hundreds of years ago" is when the flood occurred. ALttp said "many generations ago" was when the Imprisoning War was. TWW was not the first game to date another game. But if you claim they are episodic - then maybe we can go intoa GREAT episodic narrative realm - TV. True, TV episodes have their own individual "arc". But there is a seasonal "arc" as well, connecting some thread that is continued in each episode in some form. Of course, there is a "series arc" as well. Look at anime for the best examples. Each episode has a story, but there is an overall story. So while it is OBVIOUS each game is an episode, they're parts of a larger tale.

The Super Mario franchise doesn't get saddled with this burden. Each game begins with a "Once Upon a Time" mentality, free from the trappings of its predecessors and successors. Because the nature of a Mario game is vastly different that a Zelda game, this is to be expected. Mario is fun, but contained - an eternal present. Every Zelda needs to mention some sort of history, because a history contributes to the severity of the current situation, the consequence of inaction - it makes the world more real, and that much more valuable. All in-game references to the past serve this function, and are primarily concerned with developing the story as an element of involving game play.

Somebody made a Mario timeline, but I don't care about Mario so I won't go there.

Quote: