The Legend of Zelda Hype thread... Cause it deserves it.

[Wolf Kanno]

Honestly there are a ton of games without Ganon and Ganon/Ganondorf don't exist in the past, hell Demise barely exists and I doubt he was the first evil. We don't need to go to the future to see a Hyrule without Ganon and the Wind Waker world basically shows us where the series would be heading without him. Skyward Sword barely answered anything, it created new question and while I don't believe another prequel will answer everything, it made me realize that I want to know how Link got roped into all of this nonsense. The future is simply going to be Link facing off against Ganon, Ganondorf, Vaati, or some new demon, hell even Link Between Worlds couldn't get us beyond Ganon and the whole Triforce nonsense so I can't agree it showed us a promising future that hasn't been shown to us before in many of the various non-Ganon games in the series.

I want to know where Link comes into all of this, that's the lingering question, hell I want to know what Hyrule was like before it was nearly destroyed and had to be reborn. To me these are more intriguing questions than what happens next cause the whole Legend of Zelda wraps around the enternal conflict between Link, Zelda, Ganon, and the fight over the Triforce, I don't think they will be able to really insert a new threat after Ganon besides Vaati or by making a prequel to set up another evil to awaken.

[Formalhaut]

Wait, there's multiple timelines?

I'm seriously behind on my Zelda Knowledge, clearly.

[Del Murder]

There are three separate timelines, with the point of divergence being Ocarina of Time. But yes, the games are connected. It's all spelt out in the Hyrule Historia, but you can find a summary at the Zelda wiki.

Interesting.

[Skyblade]

If you believe any of that work on the timeline was planned out before Skyward Sword was being worked on, I have a nice bridge I could sell you...

[Pumpkin]

I don't really feel like there is much left to talk about Hyrule's future. I mean One timeline went to pot, one waffles between destruction and hope, and the last is largely pretty upbeat once you get past the fridge horror that is Wind Waker. I'm more curious about how this nonsense started, where the Goddess Hylia stands in the series origins, see what the hell happened in Zelda's timeline after Skyward Sword showed us that Hyrule used to be very technologically advanced, I want to know where Link falls into all of this cause we now understand Zelda and Ganon but which one of Link's descendants set his soul/bloodline to be a third part of the conflict between the Goddesses and Demons. There is a lot of unexplained crap in the game's backstory whereas I feel the timelines have shown a steady idea of where they all are going.

I mean I wouldn't mind Zelda game set after Zelda II: Link's Adventures, just to confirm that Ganon is gone for good but I'm pretty cool with where Spirit Tracks left off and after Twilight Princess, the middle timeline isn't my thing anymore. I just don't see as much interesting things to talk about going forward except maybe a definitive end point.

I would like one set in the time of Majora's Mask. At the exact same time. That plays the exact same way. And has the exact same characters







basically I just want to play Majora's Mask again

[NeoCracker]

I don't think anyone byus that the timeline was pre-thought of, though they've been talking about the timeline being connected since before Twilight Princess, I even recall them saying it took place after Ocorina at one point,

But it is in fact a thing now, and an official one, and because of that there are things that are in need of answering. And I doubt those questions will come from a sequel, so I'm going with Wolf on the 'I want to know what happened before to get link involved' thing.

[Del Murder]

If you believe any of that work on the timeline was planned out before Skyward Sword was being worked on, I have a nice bridge I could sell you...

Yeah that's what's interesting about it. The fact that people have gone to the trouble to try to piece this all together! Zelda has always been about gameplay over story, but that was still a fun read.

[Wolf Kanno]

I disagree that they hadn't thought about this before. Honestly the first four Zelda games all fit together in a timeline rather nicely. Ocarina of Time is where everything goes weird cause it follows LttP backstory about the sealing of Ganon but doesn't end properly and the Wind Waker feels like a direct sequel. The only timeline that felt odd to me was the Majora's Mask timeline.

Granted it is a different story with most of the handhelds as they do kind of feel all over the place and I doubt anyone thought the Four Sword entries were anything but some quirky spin-off series. So yeah, having all of them kind of... forced into the timeline does feel a bit half assed but I do feel that it's pretty easy to see that the main console entries were being pieced together. Not to mention people have been talking about the Zelda timeline since the N64 days so I', going to have to disagree that the whole thing was spur of the moment.

[Skyblade]

Given that all these questions were raised by a timeline that was created to make sense of the chronology, and a prequel designed to explain the setup of the world, I really don't think another prequel is going to do any better job of explaining things. It's going to force together a bunch of nonsensical points and hold them together through a patchwork story that everyone thinks is ridiculous (exactly the way the timeline did). Trying to set up some grand mythology is the sort of thing that led to the FFVII Compilation.

A prequel will only raise more questions than it answers. Exactly the way Skyward Sword did. Exactly the way the Timeline does.

[Wolf Kanno]

I am honestly not bothered by the timeline because it largely doesn't try to really retcon anything that has already been established which is my problem with the Compilation of VII which took a "go big or go home, let's copy every anime stereotype" approach to a story that was originally awkward but at least sensible. Zelda doesn't really have that problem mainly cause most of the games are set so far apart from each other that it's hard for them to really derail the mythos. A prequel will create more questions but considering this is a franchise that will exist until it stops making money, I, nor Nintendo, don't really see a problem with a story that asks more questions about the mythos.

This is coming from somone who doesn't even like Skyward Sword because of what it does to the plot but I'm willing to let Nintendo try to sell the whole "Zelda is a reincarnated Goddess" and Ganondorf/Ganon is a physical curse caused by a one-dimensional demon from the distant past. Like Del said, the story was never the series selling point it was the gameplay, the developers themselves admit this. I don't see the problem with another prequel, nor do I really see the value of moving forward at this point. Skyward Sword got me curious about Hyrule's past and lore, ignoring it seems like wasted potential.

[Skyblade]

So the new game raises more questions, and we have to have another prequel. Which raises more questions, so we have another one. I think constantly going backwards is just that: Backwards. We've gone back into the history so many times in this series (seriously, compare the timeline to release dates, and look at how much backtracking we've done). I just want to move forward.

[Dat Matt]

That was link in the trailer

[Rostum]

Zelda's always been about the adventure, not the story. The story just serves as mechanism to push players through the adventure. It's never had to be anything more than that.

Whilst it can be interesting to know how all the games fit in a timeline, to me I'm more interested in the potential exploration, puzzle solving and fun combat I could take part in.

[Aulayna]

Just gonna leave this here:

[Ayen]

Wait, there's multiple timelines?

I'm seriously behind on my Zelda Knowledge, clearly.

You're not missing much.