Hyrule Historia Complaint and Denial Thread.

Originally Posted by SuperDecimal

Split 3: The Original Child timespace: With Link in the future, to fight the King of Evil that Ganondorf had become, and then sent back before the seven-year gap the Master Sword created, this original timeline features a Hyrule with no Hero at all and Ganondorf still on the loose after having attacked Hyrule Castle.

Link leaves no timeline behind except the AT. Even if Link would literally travel forwards in time, that would not create a new split.

They could have played with the idea of three timelines being created by the Master Sword and Zelda [this is all just pure theory on my part];

While of course my "New child timline" is flawed due to the Master Sword issue, it's possibly a more elegant and plausible scenario than what the HH puts forward...
At any rate, it doesn't ignore or violate previous game lore and information half as much as the HH does. It just invents a clause/consequence of the time travelling.

---------- Post added at 05:13 PM ---------- Previous post was at 05:12 PM ----------

Originally Posted by Hombre de Mundo

Link leaves no timeline behind except the AT. Even if Link would literally travel forwards in time, that would not create a new split.

Moreoever, if you want to portray time travel in a linear way like that, then there would be no AT or CT. Everything in the AT would be overwritten by Link warning Zelda in the CT and the CT would carry on. The entirety of the AT would be prevented.

Originally Posted by silver arrow

You'd figure that even if Link disappeared for good after touching the MS, the future would end up the same. Ganon would have taken over Hyrule and destroyed the castle. Neither happened in the SW. The only way would be if Link never pulled the sword, then later, Ganon finds a way into the SR like in the ALTTP BS.

would you kindly tell me how OoX doesn't fit in between ALttP and LA?
Please?

Originally Posted by Cayenne Pepper

would you kindly tell me how OoX doesn't fit in between ALttP and LA?
Please?

He doesn't know Zelda. He shows no familiarity when Ganon is first mentioned. LA says he left Hyrule on a journey of enlightenment. In OOX he's called by the triforce and is teleported away on a mission.

Originally Posted by silver arrow

He doesn't know Zelda. He shows no familiarity when Ganon is first mentioned.

Those seem more like minor continuity errors rather than batant contradictions.

LA says he left Hyrule on a journey of enlightenment. In OOX he's called by the triforce and is teleported away on a mission.

Though I can say the same about this, it also seem more like a contradiction. However, it could be explaned as that the Trifirce offered this quest through elightenment.

Basically, if you want to sum it up - the ALtTP BS and manual are no longer canon.

Just think about it.

AT t TP BS?

Originally Posted by Cayenne Pepper

Those seem more like minor continuity errors rather than batant contradictions.

What works better? An arrangement with a bunch of continuity errors, or an arrangement with no continuity errors?

Though I can say the same about this, it also seem more like a contradiction. However, it could be explaned as that the Trifirce offered this quest through elightenment.

A quest of enlightenment is basically when someone leaves their home to go find a reason in life, with no real goal in sight. This isn't what happens in OOX.

If this weren't the official order, I'd have to say the people pushing this order were the ones in denial. They just really like that boat in the ending. That's the only reason anybody put it there in the first place.

I think we really can't make a judgement til we have it.

Originally Posted by silver arrow

What works better? An arrangement with a bunch of continuity errors, or an arrangement with no continuity errors?

It's clearly a minor oversight.

What works better? An arrangement with no contiinuity or blatant intent?

A quest of enlightenment is basically when someone leaves their home to go find a reason in life, with no real goal in sight. This isn't what happens in OOX.

Link's goal in life is to save Hyrule. It could be explained as he left for enlightenment through the Triforce.

If this weren't the official order, I'd have to say the people pushing this order were the ones in denial. They just really like that boat in the ending. That's the only reason anybody put it there in the first place.

They also created the game with the intent of ALttP-OoX-LA.

And this was all during the time that the SZBS was assumed to cover multiple Zeldas.

Originally Posted by Cayenne Pepper

What works better? An arrangement with no contiinuity or blatant intent?

The only blatant intent is ALTTP-LA.

Link's goal in life is to save Hyrule. It could be explained as he left for enlightenment through the Triforce.

Link already saved Hyrule. That was the point. His purpose was fulfilled so he wanted enlightenment.

They also created the game with the intent of ALttP-OoX-LA.

If that were true, I doubt there'd be so many continuity errors.

Originally Posted by SuperDecimal

AT t TP BS?

Made a typo. I meant A Link to The Past's backstory (BS.)

I really hate how the manual of ALttP and the HH have two completely different accounts of how Ganon obtained the Triforce. I'm really stumped on that one. Is there an explanation for that (I really would like to hear one) or are they just going to ignore ALttP when it's convenient?

Originally Posted by Nagumo

I really hate how the manual of ALttP and the HH have two completely different accounts of how Ganon obtained the Triforce. I'm really stumped on that one. Is there an explanation for that (I really would like to hear one) or are they just going to ignore ALttP when it's convenient?

Doesn't ALttP say that the legend became distorted with time?

What ALttPBS says happens: Ganondorf enters the SR and obtains the Triforce. Vague on if its complete or not. Taints the SR. He's sealed inside. ALttP.

What happens: Ganondorf enters the SR. Obtains the ToP and taints the SR. Kills Link. Obtains the ToC. Gets it from Zelda. Sealed inside the DW. ALttP.

Originally Posted by silver arrow

He doesn't know Zelda. He shows no familiarity when Ganon is first mentioned. LA says he left Hyrule on a journey of enlightenment. In OOX he's called by the triforce and is teleported away on a mission.

The Oracles don't recognize Link in a linked game despite having already met him, so it's probably just Flagship making character relationships easier to understand.

And the theory is that Link leaves on a journey of enlightenment after OoX (he's seen sailing away from Hyrule in the ending), not that OoX is that journey itself. EDIT: Actually, Hyrule Historia confirms this is the case.

I think Nintendo sort of rushed it with their timeline for Zelda, as you can see, over the years, the games have developed higher, and more advanced technology.

But actually, the order in which the games were released in, is completely different, take SS for example, it is the most technologically advanced, but yet, it is stated the first Zelda game, but it has Grapple-Claws you control with some... I don't even know, and all the 3D Zelda's have featured some sort of throw-and-pull kind of thing, which is futuristic! We don't have that yet.

So my theory behind this, is that Nintendo will release a new timeline, along the release of the next (Wii U) Zelda game.

Pretty sure Nintendo said there would be gameplay elements that can safely be ignored for a timeline, same with races appearing that don't appear later.

Originally Posted by Raxit1337

I think Nintendo sort of rushed it with their timeline for Zelda

They stayed true to their quotes. Aonuma said MC and FS is the first in the timeline until SS came out. Then they said OoT was after SS. Then they said TWW came after OoT in the AT, and PH and ST came after TWW. Then they said MM is after OoT in the CT, followed by TP. They said FSA was sometime after FS, which is true.

Whether you like the official timeline or not, does it's existance have to change anything? People enjoyed creating and discussing timeline theories before Hyrule Historia emerged, so why can't they continue doing what they enjoy? If you want to make your own timeline then make your own timeline, if you want to share it with people then share it. Why should things have to change just because of a book?

Also the 'official timeline' is really just an interpretion from the book's authors, that's how they've interpretted the timeline. I don't see what's wrong with people having a different interpretation to the 'official' one.

Of course people will be able to discuss the official timeline, but at the same I can't see why people can't create and discuss their own timelines.

Thoughts?

It is hardly an interpretation when it's the people who make the games themselves, as Aonuma has said several times that when a game's storyline comes into the agenda, it is made with a canonical placement in mind. The stories are built into the timeline that they made the games around. For example, Ocarina of Time was made a prequel to A Link to the Past, The Wind Waker and Twilight Princess were made as parallel sequels to Ocarina of Time. A Link to the Past was made as prequel to Zelda 1 and Zelda 2. Link's Awakening was made as A Link to the Past's obvious sequel. The Oracles seemed to have been made as as prequels to Link's Awakening due to how they end. Four Swords was unclear, but the only thing ever said was that it was intended to be set before Ocarina of Time. Skyward Sword was made as a prequel to the entire series.

What this means is, contradictory to popular belief, most of the games are made with timeline placements in mind, some more obvious than the others. The official timeline has existed for many years now, but was left only known to Aonuma and Miyamoto. When making new games, they would pick a spot to put them into that timeline. So the games are made with this timeline in mind. All future games will more than ever likely be made with official placements in mind (as every recent games has been) in the timeline they gave, so anyone looking to make their own timeline is just going to run in an endless hoard of contradictions because new games will be released with the "master timeline" into mind, and continuity will therefore be based on that. As it turns out, the official timeline is the most continuity-free timeline ever given. There are minor errors, but that's inevitable because the games were made out of order and only in recent years has the timeline become important to those in charge. Aonuma has already fixed lots of big errors. Some "errors" are just nit-picks, however, such as no Mogma in Ocarina of Time. Races move around.

To end my post, I would like to point out that all of the placements within the official timeline are exactly how the developers always said they were for years, such as it only ever being said that The Minish Cap and Four Swords were before Ocarina of Time, how someone (Aonuma, Iwata... I forgot who) once said that A Link to the Past, the Oracles and Link's Awakening all featured the same Link, Miyamoto once saying A Link to the Past came before the original two games.