Does the Zelda Timeline even matter?
HTML-код
- Опубликовано: 6 фев 2025
- Does the Zelda Timeline actually matter, or was it only invented to appease the fans? Let's look at the history of the Timeline, and how it has evolved alongside the games.
Check out my playthrough of Ocarina of Time: • The Great Deku Tree - ...
►Follow me on Twitter! / zeltik
or Instagram: @zeltikinsta
► Music in this video:
Nintendo
Sources:
Zeldawiki: zelda.fandom.com/
Takizawa Interview: www.angelfire....
Fujibayashi GameRant Interview: gamerant.com/z...
Aonuma/Fujibayashi Famitsu Interview: www.siliconera...
Fujibayashi TotK Famitsu pastebin.com/9...
► Discord Link: / discord
► Intro music by: bit.ly/RuvenWegner
► Outro music by Clangon: • Zeltik Outro Theme (Wi...
#Zelda #Nintendo #LegendofZelda
![BLACK BAG - Official Trailer [HD] - Only in Theaters March 14](http://i.ytimg.com/vi/Du0Xp8WX_7I/mqdefault.jpg)
Please watch the video first before commenting! It might not change your opinion on the Zelda Timeline, but it will hopefully dispel the myth that a Timeline doesn't exist at all and was only invented to appease the fans.
sadly it does not i respect you opinion on this but my problem is not whit the split is is white skysword and the constant changing of the world begining first skysword shuld not be the first but shuld be in the secred realm remains proteced part before the breath of the wild that would make everything in skysword make more sens and explain things after better and the consant changing of the beginning like there are a race that desendet and help hylians after the world was made i am pretty sure the godness hylia was there at the time was it after the hylians had time stoping stones and machine why did they need help or like now the world is a prison for some all comsuming darkness this is what destroyed my intress for the zelda games if they had just leaft how everything begaun alone i would have no complain about the time line
@@glennjonsson979you can say that to you the timeline doesn’t makes sense but you can’t deny it exist and some form of it always has
That’s the whole point of the video to show that the a timeline has always existed in Zelda and wasn’t just cobbled together in 2011. If it doesn’t make sense to you that’s fine
no, because im not gonna listen to a nut job spew lies
@@songsofthehero_ Whether or not it makes sense is irrelevant, the question is whether or not it _matters,_ and ultimately, it does not.
@@CoralCopperHead Does it not? I mean, they did add Echoes of Wisdom to the timeline. If it didn't matter, why even do that?
I like the new hypothesis that's somewhat going around that the reason why the downfall timeline happens is because ALttP's Link when he wished to undo the evil Ganon had created, it retroactively caused Link to defeat Ganon in OoT since it's the same Ganon. Basically saying the downfall is the natural, original timeline. Like sending the silver arrows into past to Oot as the light arrows since light arrows didn't exist in Skyward Sword, Minish Cap, Four Swords before Ocarina.
I've never heard this theory and it's really cool.
dayum
Wow that's such a cool idea!
This actually works wow
That’s an interesting idea, but that would then mean that after that triforce wish, everything after ALTTP would no longer be in the downfall timeline. Would be quite weird otherwise if the triforce went back and granted a wish in some alternate reality that the wisher never even gets to see.
This is a bit tangential, but I’ve always thought the refounding theory as an explanation for TotK is nowhere near as absurd as a lot of people make it out to be. The idea that one civilization could exist for several millennia without interruption is way more ridiculous (and, btw, why do fantasy stories always insist on using these ridiculous time frames? 10,000 years? Really? That’s nearly as old as literal agriculture is irl). In that way Hyrule could be a civilization like China, which, while ancient, has collapsed and reformed numerous times. History repeating itself is basically Zelda’s MO anyways, so if there can be 20 or so of the same(ish) guy, why can’t there be more than one of the same(ish) event?
I am utterly shocked that no one ever brings up the Adult Timeline in this discussion, Phantom Hourglass and Spirit Tracks are about a "new" Hyrule, so it's entirely possible that after the timelines converged, Old Hyrule was still abandoned, even after the waters theoretically receded. That offers a perfect explanation for the "refounding".
Dune entered the chat
Agreed. Just because a character doesn't look right at the screen and say "This is a new Hyrule" doesn't make it unfounded.
Its not absurd, its just that they don't mention it in the game. And even then, which timeline is that in?
@@husseinrose4883 A merged timeline.
"Are there timeline connections?": Yes
"Are these intentional?": Usually also yes.
"Are they the leading element in designing these games?": Usually no.
"Is the entire timeline, a pre-written thing?": not sure, the 'defeated'-timeline sure feels like a leftover from the moment OoT was supposed to have 3 timelines.
But that (the connection, this video mentions as a tacked on, emergency-move to correct a mistake because people forgot the document) is the closest thing to proof such a plan ever existed.
"Has Nintendo publicly and repeatedly stated, the timeline is not leading?": yes. If it makes for a better story/game to tie it into existing stories, please do so. If 'the pre-established lore' is the obstacle to making a good game, the game takes priority over the lore.
Complete agreement on the:
Those stating "your fun is wrong" are wrong.
- Yes a good Zelda game can also stand on it's own.
- Yes diving deeper into, "not required reading"-lore can be fun. (been there done that)
Preferring one over the other, is fine.
Making a big deal of the existence of people with the other preference... not so much.
My idea for the Breath of the wild timeline was that the three goddesses could no longer keep the three branches separated, and were forced to merge them. Leading to the destruction of Hyrule and the eventual founding by king Raru.
That would be a cool plot point.
@@reimouri8611 Yeah, I thought that because of the references to multiple timelines that there was a dragon convergence and there was only one timeline left.
That kinda works in a weird way.
I kinda like this idea but I think Matpat's idea that Hyrule Warriors IS canon and actually merges the 3 timelimes for botw and totk is what happened.
@jakekiper9294 Why would Age of Calamity not be canon? It's canon to BotW and TotK.
It is pretty funny that OoT was meant to show the imprisoning war of LttP, but now that imprisoning war only happens if you get a game over.
And even there it can't start the events of ALTTP, since Ganon was sealed with only one fragment of the Triforce in OoT.
Completely off screen and with no details. In every other story we'd call that a retcon.
@@clementrenaud4260my guess is that with Downfall, Gannon gets the triforce of courage off of Links corpse, and somehow gets it off of Zelda prior to his sealing. How he gets it off of Zelda without killing her is another problem altogether.
@@johnepants I wasn't speaking about the downfall, just the games' stories.
It's not really even the same imprisoning war with OOT having no completed Triforce, Golden Land, Ganondorf not being a thief, Link's not being the son of a knight who fought in said imprisoning war etc. That being said an actual game that takes place during that time would be amazing with how different it can be from the main series up to this point.
I stand by the theory that Hyrule Warriors should be cannon and explains how the timelines were merged
I just looked up the story of that game and to me it would make total sense
YES. I have been thinking and occasionally shouting this into the void for probably at least five years at this point.
Yup this is my theory too
I will always support BDG's theory that following the events of Hyrule Warriors, Link merged all 3 timelines during the events of Zelda Monopoly
It also fixes the TOTK problem of redoing the events of OOT
It's so refreshing to see someone talking about the Zelda timeline who ACTUALLY knows about the timeline.
Great video, Zeltik.
He thinks OoS/OoA Link is the same as ALttP/LA (they never were even 20 years ago) . I expected better from someone claiming to be a Zelda youtuber
@@Chardan001 They are though. Have you read Hyrule Historia?
@@TheZebbga they made a mistake, and in every other version of the timeline, including the newest one it was fixed.
@TheZebbga They are not that was an error a decade ago, since fixed several years back too. Corrected since because the games themselves say it's a new pair, matched by keyart and their dev notes. New everything, even Impa. It's telling who hasn't actually played the Oracles games when they believe this still. Like a celebration of ignorance
No mistake was made. They just changed their mind and move them later.
Straight up, the only thing about the timeline I refuse to accept, is how in the updated one, they swapped the placement of Link's Awakening and the Oracle games, making LA happen BEFORE the Oracles, which makes no sense at all because in the beginning of the Oracles, Link is riding Epona to a place in Hyrule to check on the triforce, then gets sent to Holodrum/Labrynna, then at the end of the Linked Game credits, Link is show sailing away back to Hyrule, and how does Link's Awakening begin? With him on a boat heading back to Hyrule!
Yea I agree specially when Links Awakening clearly is a direct sequel to A Link to the Past. He even see the past enemies he faced in LTTP when fighting Nightmare in Links Awakening . That was a wrong move on their part
I dunno why they swapped that thing even, but considering the Oracle Games were developed by Capcom, I guess there was a minor error in communication
Based
None of this really contradicts the placement, especially since dialogue in the Oracle games clearly show this is a different Link and Zelda.
They made that change so fans would stop saying the Hero of Legend died at sea. Why it bothered them that fans were saying that, I couldn't tell you. Why they decided the appropriate resolution was to retcon the timeline instead of, say, making a new game featuring the Hero of Legend and saying it took place after he got back from his voyage...I also couldn't tell you.
I’ve always found it funny that people try to act like the Zelda games had no continuity before Hyrule historia, even though it was always blatantly obvious Ocarina of time was meant to be a prequel to a link to the past.
People hand waving away Zelda lore is one of my biggest pet peeves. Thank you for this video
Ok but consider that none of it matters tho
I wouldn't mind people handwaving the Zelda lore more that they accuse Nintendo or the Zelda team doesn't care and act like that case and spread misinformation.
@@aquagiraffe1988 with that thought process nothing ever matters. history doesnt matter, no books or songs ever matter, nothing matters unless it matters to you
@@aquagiraffe1988see this line of thinking confuses me because how do you make it “matter”
do you just have dialogue thats just like “this place reminds me of death mountain from ocarina of time”
Yeah, I've honestly held fascination for the Zelda timeline for years now and I can confidently say that with the exception of Tears of the Kingdom, which we just have to ball with and say that Rauru is the king of a refounded Hyrule eons after the Hyrules found at the end of each of the split timeline games have been lost to time, it all can come together and form a coherent chronology.
(Kinda irrelevant, but you should really listen to the Noble Demon's Orchestral Arrangement of Ciela's theme, it's just as much if not more of a chef's kiss than Z.R.E.O's version.)
20:40 the "literal legend" theory holds the same place in my mind as all the coma theories about other series.
It basically boils down to "The fictional game you're playing is fictional"
Well, it would explain all the slight differences in play thrus, but it'd still have to deal with what setting the storyteller is in.
yea it's so unimaginative, if the zelda team's goal was to let our imaginations run wild with theories, those people did not understand the assignment lmao
Cop out answer
I think the point they're getting at is valid, but they aren't wording it in quite the right way. Because for all intents and purposes, Zelda's stories, the lore, the "timeline", *are* subject to interpretations. *Your* interpretations.
How the games connect and how the lore fits together rarely-if-ever matters to the games and narratives themselves; if it did, then there'd be a lot more direct connections being made throughout, instead of certain aspects just being perpetually ignored or forgotten. What makes them matter is how the players themselves read and interpret the stories of the games, and how it makes them feel.
When you get down to it, most Zelda stories aren't particularly deep. Link's Awakening, for instance, doesn't spend time really exploring or analyzing the existential themes it brings up. Ocarina of Time has Sheik bring up various facets of time passing/growing up (width, not depth), but no time is devoted to really examining those themes. So on and so forth. These games aren't deep, but they're simple and have strong emotional cores - and there's juuuuust enough food-for-thought there to potentially make players think about these things.
Of course, since all this stuff is so steeped in personal interpretation, it also makes discussion of this stuff a lot harder. One person might think TP has a mature, emotionally-rich narrative; another might think the first third is such a slog that they just stopped caring about the story. These are not mutually exclusive notions; the disconnect between them, however, is where the conflict lies.
Sadly I'm 90% sure that's what the devs where thinking about while developing Zelda, it's the most convenient answer when you're only focusing on gameplay and nothing else
I think that there only being a downfall timeline for OoT is actually a very interesting angle in itself. In no other game could Link ever fail. He is fated to succeed in every other game and at every other point in history. In OoT there's so much time shenanigans that it could be the very thing that creates the possibility for failure. Perhaps without traveling back and forth as much as you need to in OoT, Link would have defeated Ganondorf with that same certainty as every other story.
For all non-OoT games, if Link fails to stop the Ganon (or whom ever); it will not branch another “downfall” timeline out of that game. This is because Ganon wins and destroys everything! There is no future.
The reason the branch can only exist for OoT is because if Link fails to kill Ganon, the sage’s still manage to seal him away. He doesn’t die.
Yes, but there are Sages in almost every game. Does this mean that the only Sages that were actually useful existed in OoT and never again?
I suppose this is what Hyrule gets for using kids to fill over 50% of their Sage open positions. At best... WW had a Sage that was a piece of wood that could barely walk...
@@Aidan1488 Only Ocarina of Time had sages who were ready and able to seal him away during the final battle. In other games where there are sages, they're usually doing something else by then. Medli and Makar are busy giving the Master Sword energy, for example. I'm not sure they're even aware that the final battle is happening when it's happening.
@@Aidan1488: I think you’re over exaggerating. The only games with Sages are:
Ocarina of Time, Spirit Tracks, barely two in Wind Waker, Twilight Princess, Link Between Worlds, and Tears of the Kingdom. Only five of them were against Ganon and only two of them had the Sages directly intervene against Ganon successfully (which was Ocarina of Time and Tears of the Kingdom).
@@fishnewt1331That's a lot of games lol
Sorry but “no.” The only game that would apply to is MM. Ganon doesn’t destroy everything, he wants to be a king and rule the world. If link failed to defeat Ganon in LttP. The Dark World would continue on. You can not justify one downfall timeline after oot and not after any other game.
My theory about the Downfall Timeline's existence is that the actual timeline split occured when the Triforce was split, creating three timelines that each embody a virtue of the triforce. The Downfall timeline has the most Ganon, and is the Timeline of Power. The Child Timeline has the most focus on Link, and is the darkest in tone, making it the Courage Timeline. And the Adult Timeline has more of a focus on Zelda, lacks the Spirit of the Hero, and is the Timeline of Wisdom. Of course, this also means that Echoes of Wisdom has three alternate outcomes, but I am willing to accept that.
There are a lot of games where the the triforce is split.
@@GabrielB-cg8rj yes, but when Link goes back in Time in the Credits, he takes the Triforce of Courage with him, wich then splits the Triforce forcefully through time travel, wich could be the reason for the timeline split.
Oh I just posted a similar comment to yours but I had the adult and child timelines split I made the child timeline the timeline of Wisdom cause it was created by Zelda's actions and the resolution to Ganondorfs threat was taken care of with information, but I think you are kinda right tha Adult timeline is the timeline of Wisdom.
Literally just thought of that
@ that wouldn’t make sense, because I feel as if that implies that part of the triforce isn’t available in each of the timelines, which,mobviusly is untrue
I always assumed the reason the timeline was split in three instead of two was because of the three parts of the triforce. Wisdom leading the adult timeline (zelda sending link back), courage taking care of the child timeline (link warning about ganon), and power taking over of the fallen timeline (ganon wins)
I swap wisdom and courage but have the same general theory, each piece of the triforce has a timeline
@@normalBirb Child Timeline being about Courage also makes sense with all the scary things Link faces in this timeline, what with all them satanic masks and cults which created items so powerful it lead to their disappearance from recorded history. The Hero was indeed brave to face all the creepy monsters which appear only in this timeline.
That's so good and I'm a little chapped Nintendo didn't name it so first. The timeline being broken into 3 continuities, each with wisdom, courage or power guiding them, would've been so so good and such a great way to explain it.
that... actually makes sense. Huh. Never thought of it that way.
wait that fits so well
20:01 i really like that interpretation. It makes me feel like we're historians uncovering the ancient history of Hyrule from scattered information.
I also like it because it feels like how we handle actual history. It’s messy, and we retcon a lot of stuff.
YES. I love how Zelda lore is very similar to how we have to make guesses and interpretations with real history, which is often in pieces and has many holes. Most people are used to media clearly laying out all the lore chronologically in exact and specific detail with continuity that is directly evident. Zelda, being a legend, is much more interpretive, with things like the games having varying art styles representing that interpretive aspect. It's true that even Nintendo struggles to make it all work, but it was never the intention to be fully concrete and indisputable. For those complaining that they can't get their lore laid out cleanly in front of them on a silver platter from this specific franchise, they often forget that if it did that, we would have much less to discuss. Sometimes a mystery makes it better.
But that would also mean not rigidly sticking to a timeline.
I strongly believe Zelda being non-commited to a consistent complete plot is one of its greatest assets in story-telling.
What it ends up feeling like is stories being passed down over the course of centuries, slowly changing in the process, being influenced by other stories and sometimes splitting up two different versions of what was once one story.
This is of course not how reality works but it is how actual fairy tales, myths and, dare I say it, legends work.
In that way, some games, for example "a Link to the Past" and "a Link Between Worlds" can be seen as two different versions of what was once one story.
One of my favourite examples to think about is with Wind Waker, which obviously heavily references Ocarina of Time, now, we could say OoT just shows the literal events before WW, but it could also just be the story that people tell each other in WW, which might be generally true, or not at all.
So imo the issue with BotW ant TotK in the timeline, and especially TotK, is that they put them *so far* ahead (with repeating events as we see in TotK) that they work *so much* better as being considered their own timeline. And that's not to mention how TotK doesn't even feel like it's the same timeline as BotW, with there being pretty much no references to anything that happened during BotW's story in TotK
To me it felt like with BotW, they were determined to have some element or another tying all the previous games into that game’s own world building or story (the Divine Beasts being named after Sages for example), but with TotK, they decided cut all of those ties that were so interwoven across BotW that TotK effectively had to distance itself from the game it was trying to be a direct sequel to.
Not to mention the fact that TotK name drops “Imprisoning War” quite a bit early on, and the memory of Ganondorf swearing fealty so closely mirrored the scene in OoT, that I was getting hyped about the possibility that we were going to get a canonical depiction of the beginning of the Downfall Timeline, only to realize that mirroring OoT’s throne room scene was just done for the sake of mirroring that scene, and it’s otherwise completely disconnected from OoT. Why bait me with a match shot, only to do literally nothing with it?
I'm assuming as not to spoil Breath of the Wild too much in case someone bought Tears of the Kingdom without playing Breath of the Wild First.
I saw references to things that happened in BotW literally everywhere in TotK.
@@heffayguap Like the guardian arms grabbing you when you use the first skytower. People love complaining.
I think BotW and majority of TotK don't take place in the same timeline. The start is the same, but once Zelda goes back in time, the story of Ganondorf changes and BotW never happens. The inconsistencies and plot holes between BotW and TotK are caused by the fact that BotW didn't happen in the same form or at all.
I'm just glad and surprised Nintendo placed EOW in the timeline after 9 years of not doing anything with the timeline. It shows they still care about lore and story. Hopefully this means we can still get lore rich more classic Zeldas in the future!
My theory is that when they were creating Breath Of The Wild, and then Tears Of The Kingdom, their idea of "breaking the series conventions" got extended to their integration in the timeline
And that resulted in making both of these games their own separate entities that aren't limited by what was established by the entire series (you could say it fits with their idea of being completely unrestricted in both of these games)
In my opinion it's a great thing. It allows them to create something completely original and new, and that helps making TOTK's story atleast more coherent
This was great to expend the license further, by proposing new ideas of maybe spin-offs that exist by themselves, because by one point, the traditional would have gotten so stale it would never feel fresh
@TorayNix I agree completely. At first I didn't like the Totk "new founding of hyrule idea" until I realized it really just completes the wild eras story from start to finish. And now it's time to move elsewhere in Zelda lore with new stories.
@@craftnjak8030 I think it's because of the implications that the villain of that game brings to the series
They placed EoW right away because they know their fanbase and the ALttP template for that version of Hyrule is to much on the nose to leave vague, or to sell it as something else but the "Downfall Timeline".
Answering the question "why does there need to be a timeline?" is a really silly thing because... there just is a timeline. Thats the nature of a chronology, there's a sequence of events.
It is like Questioning "Why is there a Lord of Rings Chronology" or similar.
Or why star wars has a timeline. Because that's how time works lol
that's a kind of reductive view of art and fiction
I was born before there was a Legend of Zelda. I played the NES games new. By the end of A Link to the Past, I felt like the story had told a complete trilogy. When Link's Awakening came out, Takata said it happened while Link was crossing over the ocean in the middle of Zelda 2. That made sense to me.
A Link to the Past's introduction showed the Imprisoning War as a huge, sprawling campaign and Ganondorf was imprisoned during the final battle. When Ocarina showed none of that, I considered the game a soft reboot. I was totally on board with the first four games not being connected to it and then the subsequent child and adult timelines being descended from it.
Shoehorning the first four games into the chronology never made sense to me. They still don't. To this day I still consider them a standalone saga. The new games that have been added to the downfall timeline make way more sense to me placed in the child and adult timelines.
@@MyScorpion42 not really. That's how the flow of time works. So therefore there should be time lines right?
I've always wondered why only Oot had its own downfall timeline and came up with my own headcanon that it could only happen in an event where time is fractured; basically, Link dying in Oot caused a unique timeline because time was already fractured and unset because of Link's rampant time travel.
honestly, even if there were other timelines for other games where link died, the whole thing will probably get very repetitive to make games that follow a timeline where link dies. Also yes, they probably cared only when link was messing around with time anyways.
I do like learning about the timeline and seen many theories, but I do subscribe to the idea Nintendo didn't have it all planned out to be the way it is. I think there are like, pockets? Of connected games, like ww>ph>ss, but the overall structure is loose
Two points here that get largely dismissed.
1) Nintendo CLEARLY could not have imagined BotW or Skyward Sword when they were working on Zelda 1 and 2. It's not like they're working from a completed map the way a movie or TV show works from a completed book series. They've obviously improvised in a way that prioritizes a fun game ahead of a robust narrative. And that's ok.
2) these games, like basically ALL games, MUST be islands in order to sell well. If you had to understand all the lore so far in order for BotW, TotK, or EoW to make sense, they'd be miserable games. Now that said, these games aren't islands so much as archipelagos - games made in little groups that clearly "go together" with a vague sense of contributing to the overall themes and feelings, while occasionally delivering shaping lore (Demise/OoT Ganondorf/etc)
I like that term - archipelagos of games. Mario, Metroid, Zelda; all series built out of subseries.
Yeah the Overall Structure is loose and Obviously Nintendo Retconned a lot of stuff but Usually some Continuity between Games always Exsists. It's just the games are written to be stand alone.
The Downfall Timeline is Prove that while Nintendo did think about how their Newest Games Fit in the Timeline Compared to a Previous Game but the Fact but not necessarily all the others. Which is why both Ocarina Sequel ended up Contradicting the game Ocarina was Originally a Prequel of and thus needing the Band aid fix that is the Downfall Timeline.
The Timeline Certainly Exsists but it's mostly made up as they go along. Which is Fine.
This is my take too. I've started to kinda just disregard the timeline when games aren't explicitly connected to each other. Like, SS>the rest of the series, then you have OOT>MM>TP but I honestly couldn't care less about whether Zelda 1 and 2 take place after Link Between Worlds or not.
I mean... while that is true, that can be said for a lot of stories. George Lucas didn't make A New Hope with a clear perfect image of Phantom Meance in his head. Tolkien didn't write the Hobbit knowing that he was going to do The Lord of the Rings. While many stories are written a vague idea of the trajectory, not every detail is defined before pen is put to page, and even entire installments are added in after the original was written. It's not like the original Metroid was created by people who knew full well what Metroid Prime 4 was going to do, but people don't say "there is no Metroid Timeline," same with countless other decade spanning franchises.
@@U.Infernothe difference is whether they cared about the timeline when making these series. Star Wars, Metroid, and lord of the rings all were made with a continuity in mind. Zelda clearly was not.
I’m a simple fella. I see a Zeltik video that was uploaded seconds ago, I click.
jokes aside I’ve always cared about the timeline. Part of the reason I love TLOZ so much is the stories and how they can connect since it leaves a lot of room for theories or even headcanons.
I was just rewatching some of your old videos when this one popped up. Thank you for still making these. I have a couple of theories myself that you haven't covered, do you take submissions??
Tloz
If you played Ocarina, Majora, TP, and Wind Waker, it is clear even without an official timeline that those games are directly connected to each other through in-game lore. The connection between LTTP and Ocarina is there, and Majora is obviously connected to Ocarina as well. Wind Waker clearly sets up that this is the future timeline where Ocarina Link was removed. And Twilight Princess clearly sets up that this is the child timeline where crisis was averted and Hyrule atrophied over time.
oh wow games that came AFTER a game that is set before them time waise have betetr connection. wow.
For the downfall timeline, I always took the fact that Ocarina of Time begins with flashes of future events for Link that there is actually one more time travel bit going on. A desperate call sent out by Zelda as she and the sages fought to imprison Ganon after he fell in the Downfall timeline that sends some forewarning that allows for Link to succeed in the Adult/Child timelines. This is paired with the fact Link loses the Master Sword for the first phase of the final boss fight. If he doesn't get that back, he won't be able to beat Ganon.
The final, simple answer, is that the player themself is effectively the force responsible for the good ending. You win where originally Link could only lose. The games only cover the times in which the hero wins. But we know even before the timeline split was revealed, there are situations in which the hero loses in some form, with Hyrule often falling as a result.
i really like that sort of retroactive reasoning behind link's nightmares at the beginning, it feels more substantial than vague premonitions that he's the "chosen one" or what have you
Tears of the Kingdom in particular bothers me because it doesn't even do a good job of keeping its own timeline in check. For example, according to the stones that chronicle the history of Zelda's interactions with the royal family, Zelda and Mineru were the ones that raised the sky islands into the sky. But the dragon's tears memories showed us that after sealing Ganondorf, with Mineru on death's door and Zelda choosing to become a dragon, the mountains on the ground were clearly in full view behind Zelda, the Temple of Time that the two supposedly sent skyward together was still very much rooted in the ground when Zelda became a dragon and Mineru become a robot, so either the writer of the tablet was a liar for no reason or the developers didn't even crosscheck their own lore with the various people working on the different parts.
I played the German version of Totk and it said that the sages caused the uplifting of the Great Sky Island.
Yeah like the guy above said, in spanish it states basically the same thing. It's a translation error. Localizers not being rigorous
Don’t let the timeline ruin your enjoyment of these games. Yeah it’s a fun concept but in reality the timeline was never the focal point, the individual quests were.
imagine gringos sucking at translate stuff, can't imagine that.
4:13 Seeing as how Miyamoto's primary character trait is making confusing comments, this doesn't surprise me
I'm pretty sure he just hates the idea of stories in video games, and genuinely can't be bothered to memorize lore notes.
@@alemirdiksonit was reported a few weeks ago that he always focuses on gameplay first, and then builds a story around it. so that tracks
@@hidekitom0A few weeks ago? We've known this for years.
Damn this was an incredible video, there was a lot about the history of the timeline's creation that I was completely unaware of. Well done.
Thank you! Yeah, there's a lot of "the developers never meant there to be a timelime!" talk floating about online atm. But that's not the case based on what the Zelda team have said since the beginning!
Now this is a cool meeting of legends.
Now just waiting for the AI Zelda lore channel The Zegend of Lelda.
@@ZeltikI think that comes up from the timeline haters every time there’s a new Zelda game doesn’t it?
wait wtf never would have expected to see you here Johnny
I’ve always assumed that there’s only one Downfall Timeline SPECIFICALLY BECAUSE OOT is the only game where Time is a tangible manipulatable concept
This applies even more so when you consider that the only other Zelda with heavy time travel elements has a rigid timeline where everything Zelda did after traveling to the past was already done in the present before she was taken back (Bill & Ted style time travel), unlike Ocarina which uses time travel to the past to continually influence the future and creates branching timelines (Back to the Future style time travel).
@@nategwrightDo you mean SS or OoA? I'd argue two things: Firstly, Ocarina of Time's TT (via the Master Sword in the Temple of Time) doesn't create branching timelines, but Majora's Mask (via the Song of Time played on the OoT) does, which I think is an important distinction; Secondly branching-timelines is more akin to Dragonball Z's model of TT.
@venator-yv1gw There is no Downfall timeline, that's fanfiction made up by Nintendo because they realised they broke their own continuity with the new games set after OoT and needed somewhere to put the 8/16-bit titles. The Adult timeline is the original, and the Child timeline is created by Zelda's use of the Ocarina of Time at the end of the game, after Ganon has already been defeated and sealed in the Sacred Realm. Master Sword time travel only moves Link forwards and backwards between two eras in the same timeline, so there's no mechanism, either in-game, or in the wider Zelda universe [that we know of] which could have caused a branch of the timeline to emerge where Link is defeated during the events of OoT. Even in Majora's Mask, which potentially creates an unlimited number of branching timelines, Link can only eventually succeed if he survives to escape back in time during every 3-day cycle, which we know to be the canon ending.
Omg. Good point. I’ve never thought about that.
@@bombkangaroo "fanfiction created by nintendo" is one hell of an oxymoron
just because the downfall timeline doesn't exist in your personal interpretation, even if you have evidence, it doesn't suddenly erase it from existing officially
There are a couple of timeline theories that bear mentioning:
1. The "downfall timeline" is the original timeline. After Link is defeated, Zelda uses the Ocarina of Time to send Navi back in time. That's why Navi disappears when Ganondorf hits Link with that wave of darkness. In the original timeline, she didn't and was incapacitated, so she couldn't help against Ganon. She only came to after it was too late.
2. Breath of the Wild and TotK take place in a "unified" timeline. Some event in the distant past (possibly directly leading to the events seen in TotK) caused the timelines to unite.
"it's very confusing for us too" and "that's up to the player's interpretation" = we have no idea so you tell us 🤣.
Should Link's Awakening be before the Oracle games? No, because it doesn't make sense for Link or the Windfish to dream about items (like the Rock's Feather) that neither of them have encountered yet. Link actually encounters the Rock's Feather in both Oracle games, and would thus make sense for Link to remember it in a dream in a later game. The ending of the Oracle games also has Link leaving off on a boat that's eerily similar to the one seen at the beginning of Link's Awakening. Finally, Nintendo originally had the Oracle games before Link's Awakening in an earlier version of the timeline, so why won't they change it back?
I agree with you there!
@@Zeltik The moment I fired up the Orcale games and saw that intro cutscene where the Triforce gave Link his mission, my first thought was "Oh, this is what Link is sailing back from at the start of A Link to the Past"
except that the games themselves state that that link never met zelda before.....
@MikePhantom except that Nintendo declared that Link from ALttP, OoA/OoS, LA, and ALBW are ALL THE SAME LINK...
Okay i kinda agree but i also dont..
Firstly, i dont think neither the Wind Fish nor Link need to first see something in order for it to actually appear in the koholint dream, because its a dream, dreams are just weird in general, besides, i think its obvious koholint """existed""" WAY before Link showed up, so Link's memory of what he saw in the real world shouldnt change at all what he sees and finds in koholint (and i think its obvious the roc feather is just a gameplay thing).
HOWEVER, i do agree that the Oracle games should come first, then Links Awakening, just because the Oracles ending is so obviously meant to be Links Awakening start. The ONLY contradiction to this would be that Zelda and Link supposedly meet each other for the 1st time in the Oracles, implying they're different people from ALTTP, however, this is only indicated by ONE SINGLE text box in the games, if they ever remake the Oracle games (pls nintendo) i think it would so much better if they just removed those 7 words of Zelda saying "Hello im Zelda, pleasure to meet you" and it would be fixed, Oracles first, Awakening second, tah tah.
well this is really lame. i see you and everyone else refrencing this "summer 2002 gamepro interview" but can't actually find a source for it. I looked through issues 164-170 on the internet archive and found squat.
UPDATE: It is not "Summer" or "GamePro", it is Nintendo Power: December 6, 2002. This quote has actually been incorrectly attributed like this for actual years. wow.
Classic.
The Wheel of Time turns, and Ages come and pass, leaving memories that become legend. Legend fades to myth, and even myth is long forgotten when the Age that gave it birth comes again. In one Age, called the Imprisoning Age by some, an Age yet to come, an Age long past, a wind rose in Hyrule Castle. The wind was not the beginning. There are neither beginnings nor endings to the turning of the Wheel of Time. But it was a beginning.
Dragon approved 💯
The wheel weaves as the wheel wills. This was awesome! Lol
The difference being, of course, that The Wheel of Time was built from the ground up with repeating ages in mind. The notion was retrofitted into the Zelda games and it shows with the convoluted multiple timeline explanations.
I was not expecting a Wheel of Time reference here. Yet, here we are.
@@mercianthane2503 Considering the story of TotK is just a rehash of OoT, and the idea of time being circular comes from eastern philosophy, it made sense 😅
It's great to see that the Zelda lore does matter to a lot of people.
It really adds to the experience
@@mineralwassser agreed
Hey Zeltik, just curious, I would really appreciate it if you could place the full song list for the video instead of just that the source is from Nintendo. I love the Legend of Zelda series, yet some songs in this video were difficult to recognize on the first attempt. Since there is no song list on this video, I decided to create my own:
0:01 - 0:51 Vs Godhan from the Wind Waker
0:51 - 2:49 Lorule Theme from A Link Between Worlds
2:49 - 4:29 Tal Tal Heights from Links Awakening HD
4:29 - 7:34 Gerudo Valley from the 25th Anniversary Symphony
7:34 - 9:57 from Twilight Princess
9:59 - 10:55 Ballad of the Goddess from Skyward Sword
10:55 - 13:42 Construct Factory from Tears of the Kingdom
13:47 - 16:43 Overlooking Hyrule from Age of Calamity
16:46 - 19:00 Ancient Zora Waterworks from Tears of the Kingdom
19:00 - 20:46 Ordon Village from Twilight Princess
21:02 - 21:41 Legend of the Hero Lofi Remix from the Wind Waker (linked in description)
Also, really loved the video Zeltik. I didn't realize just how much the zelda team built up the timeline over the years with interview and quotes since the series began.
I'll try to fill in your blanks
0:01 - 0:51 (WW) Vs Gohdan
10:55 - 13:42 Actually can't tell myself, sounds either SS, Botw or Totk. I'd probably go Memory from Totk
19:00 - 20:46 (TP) Ordon Village
21:02 - 21:41 This is just a Lo-fi remix of Legend of the Hero from Wind Waker.
@@Logicalleaping Thank you so much for the help!
10:55-13:42 is Construct Factory from TotK after a particular point in its associated quest.
@@frozenthirdyear Thank you so much! I thought it was a depths theme from Tears of the Kingdom, but I couldn't place my finger on it.
If a timeline didn't exist, many games we would never have had.
ALTTP was partially the origins of LOZ Ganon
OOT was the birth of ALTTP Ganon
MM and PH are sequels that use the prequels' stories
TWW is built on the future of OOT
TWW, PH and ST are 1 big story
FS, FSA and MC are all 1 story too
SS was made as the ultimate prequel
ALBW is made as the sequel to ALTTP
(AOL, LA, the Oracle Games and TH are sequels, but can be their own thing)
The timeline was an idea ever since the third game and they always built on it, never against it.
It always mattered AND ALWAYS MADE SENSE contrary to what the timeline haters will say.
FACTS MACHINE
Im still mad that totk's ganondorf was just another ganondorf. Litch ganondorf that was held up for 10000years+ was way more badass. The idea that it could have been the same dude from oot all the way to totk would have shown a level of perseverance thats almost scary. Nah instead he got fisted by some bird king and is just a retelling of oot. Not the same dude at all. Story went from epic to meh for me
I am so mad that I was hyped for Ganondorf, but got some never seen rando.
He literally was just a 1000 year old lich Ganondorf.
@@PauLtus_B That's what I thought when I saw a trailer. But then it turned out that he's a different guy with the same name.
@@PauLtus_B He was "a" lich ganondorf. Not THE ganondorf
I know people like swole Ganondorf, but I honestly would’ve preferred if he kept that litch-like design we see him with at the start of TotK.
It could have been something new and interesting with the character, to set him apart from the original Ganondorf.
You could really lean into the unmatched magical abilities of the character, instead of his usual focus on melee combat.
Then he’d seem a lot less like an inferior copy, and a lot more like a truly unique spin on the character, even if he’s not the same Ganon from OoT.
He’s also a lot more threatening with that design, imo.
I'm really glad that they gave Echoes an official placement, and also that they made the placement something that even a pretty casual Zelda fan like me could figure out just from the context of the game before they even made the official announcement
My only gripe with the Timeline is that the Downfall timeline is a completely hypothetical timeline, while the Adult and Child timelines exist as a direct result of the same action. I wish they had written it in such a way where all three timelines could coexist within one continuity.
Also them swapping Link’s Awakening and The Oracle Games when the Oracle Games end with Link setting off on a Raft to return to Hyrule. I can’t fathom why that ending no longer leads directly into LA.
Not hypothetical. It’s a parallel universe.
To reconcile the downfall timeline's lack of causal action, I like to think of it as the prime timeline. By saying that the hero of time was originally meant to lose, but that Link's Triforce wish in ALttP to undo Ganon's evil resulted in an aptly titled 'link to the past' that changes history, we can directly attribute to in-game action the triumph we experience in Ocarina of Time. This keeps Ocarina as the SNES-era prequel we know it was intended to be, but also retroactively turns it into a pseudo-sequel that dovetails with the chronological release.
@ That’s an elaborated theory, but it doesn’t make sense in terms of how the series is laid out. First there needs to be an imprisoning war without Link for the events of Alttp to even happen and that Link to not disappear the moment he wished his very own world not to happened, and more importantly the events of Alttp still happened regardless of Link wishing things to go back to how they were before Ganon and Agahnim’s plot, even directly referenced in Albw and others down the line.
@ Also, as poetic as your “a link to the past” part is, it’s not even relevant when you considered that’s not even the original Japanese title, just the localized version.
@@AarturoSc The downfall timeline doesn't need to disappear after the wish. As we see in Ocarina of Time, the creation of a new timeline does not negate the existence of the old. Likewise wouldn't the imprisoning war originally referenced in ALttP simply have happened after the hero of time's defeat?
See, I can deal with BotW and TotK being so ambiguous with their placement in the timelines and TotK seeming to almost retcon the past games, they left it vague enough that there are a lot of "plausible" explanations. What frustrates me the most is that TotK is an absolute mess of wanting to be a sequel and wanting to be a standalone game. Some locations clearly reference that BotW happened, like the roll the rock down the hill korok puzzle from BotW returning as bringing the rock up the hill in TotK, but then you have the fact that there is not a single reference to the BIGGEST plot points of BotW being all the Sheikah tech around Hyrule. The only reason we have the "it all just mysteriously vanished" answer is from an interview after the games release. And not a single person in Hyrule, including Zelda who was obsessed with this stuff in BotW, seems to even remotely care. And then you have the whole debate of NPCs who don't remember Link at all. Like, I get random shopkeep #3 or small child #22 not remembering him, but there are some pretty significant discrepancies amongst some of the important NPCs and some major NPCs just don't exist. Like, how did not get Kass back? He was literally the main NPC of the DLC, and his wife and kids just don't seem to care or even remember him. Like, there's so many plot holes in TotK that just didn't need to be there. If you didn't want Kass to be part of the story again, just say that he wanted to stay home and teach music to his kids. TotK mechanically was a fun game, but the story and environment was just so awful and it sucks that it came out like that.
The only game not making sense to me timeline-wise, is TotK. It is clear from the in-world lore of BotW that people do remember OOT (both Zoras and Gerudos explicitly refers to events of the games sometimes in impressive detail), ToTK directs all events in BotW to the past of its own game. Suddenly, Calamity Ganon is not an incarnation of Demise's hatred, but a strange aura emanating from a banished Ganondorf corpse underground, the kingdom of Hyrule was not founded by the ancestors of Bosphoramus Hyrule, but a goat in the distant past, same goats are also the original inhabitants of the skies and not the Hylians (and also of the underground for whatever reason?).
While BotW was hard to place because it refererred too many timeslines, TotK is ahrd to place because it severed ties to all timelines.
It also leaves a situation where two timelines still have a poor Zelda flying around for eternity, should there not be a merging.
@@Chardan001
I'm sure Fujibayashi said that "Zonai Rauru's Hyrule" is actually a new one, making hin imply that this is a Refounding taking place no matter what happened before, meaning even this takes place at the Very end
It would have been better if this was Ingame Information tbh
With the specific wording of Calamity Ganon as having "given up on reincarnation", even in Breath of the Wild I always interpreted it as some iteration of Ganon who's Demise essence went rampant for some reason (which was obviously revealed to have been because a Ganondorf had been in a restrained suspended animation for 10,000 years).
While it does play fast and loose with some things like what races are around at what time in Hyrule, I feel like Tears does pay much more attention to the lore than people give it credit for. I think one thing that throws people off is the assumption that introducing the Zonai and saying Rauru founded Hyrule contradicts Skyward Sword, but even in 2011 the year it came out Hyrule Historia clarified that Skyward Sword's ending wasn't actually supposed to be the kingdom's founding. It even says that the banishment of the Twili happened between the end of SS and Hyrule being a thing, and considering certain Zonai design motifs I think that's meant to tell us where Hyrule's Zonai population went.
@@Chris-gx1ei So there's two Ganondorfs then? OoT and TOTK both tell the story of human Ganondorf getting his powers, both can't be true at the same time. That's TOTK's main problem. Zelda games are loosely related but the timeline is an aferthought and not considered when planning the story.
@@BoxoSpoons And it's even more egrigious when you have the Calamity be stated to be Ganon from OoT having lost his mind to malice after a long cycle of defeat and resurrection in BotW's Masterworks book.
Its not even that complicated.
In fact, I have personally never had a problem with it. Makes sense.
Yeah, It is quite easy to connect the dots, I still wonder why it is so difficult for them and why it is it is "so complicared and unlogical that it is Bullshit" to them.
Did they lose their brain-energy to the Puzzles of the Dungeons or what?
As someone who doesn’t play Zelda, I just like the massive amounts of lore…it’s semi complicated for me.
It's only as complicated as one makes it...
Yup, not complicated, just bad. And they don't care. So should we.
The one thing I want to know is how much thought is put into a game's place in the timeline during active development. It's one thing to come up with a different take on the Link/Ganon conflict to center the game around, but I'm curious about how much actual talk goes into the timeline between the main brains at Nintendo while they're making that installment.
I’ve been saying this for years, thank you for spreading the word.
The games are islands, yes, separate from one another, but they also form part of an archipelago. You don't talk about Maui, Oahu, Kauai, Molokai, you talk about Hawaii. They're separate from eachother but they don't exist on complete isolation and their proximity adds to their identity
Okay, but that's not how this game was designed. Fans literally forced this connected time line BS onto Nintendo. There are several separated time lines in the Zelda lore, but they're different universes. Well, until recently, when Nintendo let the patients run the asylum.
Worst analogy ever
Yeah.. Not the same thing. Hawaii is the official name for the largest island AND the collective group of islands. If you're a local, you might need to specify which island but US law applied to Hawaii only says Hawaii, they don't need to add the other islands separately.
"We didn't create things haphazardly. By the way the Sheikah tech all just randomly despawned in between games except for Robbie's lab and no one in the entire kingdom cares"
"Weird things happen in hyrule all the time, people just move on with their lives. What do you mean people immediately made an organized effort to figure out what was going on when something new and mysterious happened in both games? I don't see how that's relevant."
I always took the divine beasts stopping to work at the end of BOTW as a sign of the tech going away, but I agree that it going completely ignored in TOTK was a mistake, they should've included at the very least some throwaway line from Purah mentioning what happened
Honestly most of my criticism about TOTK's storytelling would always wrap back at everything they did to make that game work as a standalone entry, huge mistake in my opinion
Pretty much the one game that was created haphazardly. Probably from being forced to merge DLC and a new installment together with pandemic communication issues.
@@amandaslough125 Sure, but the Haphazardly quote was specifically about TOTK
This didn't bother me that much because there were still Guardian arms in the towers. It's not like there was no trace left of Sheikah tech.
I 100% agree with everything you had to say. The Zelda games’ timeline is what ties everything together, and part of what makes this series so special to me.
What would change if it didn't exist?
@Quinhala11 then it would be us playing a bunch of random fairy tales with the same characters just slightly different happening. For me the timeline makes me feel more connected to the series...like I'm not wasting my time and I'm playing out an epic tale that's all connected even though alot ofbthe games are decades and centuries apart
@@Quinhala11 It's kinda obvious. There would be even more arguing about which game goes where which would make the fandom even more toxic which for that reason alone I'm glad we have an official timeline of the series...
@@Quinhala11
for me nothing as i've only played 1-5 and no timeline was necessary.
each one of those was self-contained.
@@Key-Knight87
why would "the fandom" matter? at all?
i play my games. i dont really care what anyone else says or thinks about those games.
Literally the first two games of the Zelda series are sequential to each other. There's always been a timeline.
So many people left comments before watching the video and failed to realize this.
Tears of the Kingdom killed my love of Zelda Lore. The whole "we wanted to leave room for imagination" is such a cop out answer for sloppy story telling. TotK doesn't just fit poorly in the overall timeline, it doesn't even work as a compelling and coherent sequel to BotW. The developers just didn't care about the rest of the story enough to make it work well, and I'm not going to bend over backwards to cover for them.
In regards to real life history, many locations across the planet have been established, inhabited, destroyed, re-established (sometimes several times) over the Thousands (or Millions) of years mankind has existed on Earth. Additionally, many historians have noticed similar events throughout history that tend to "repeat themselves" albeit in different ways. Why should we expect anything different from the LoZ timelines?
Every single video you make reminds me why you're the only Zelda theorist I follow, but you definitely outdid yourself with this one. There's so much headcanon and fanfiction in fhe Zelda lore community.
This is a great video, totally agree with the sentiment and good on you for doing the leg work of compiling official statements that confirm the timeline’s influence/shaping throughout the series
I will admit that i don't particularly care for the zelda timeline as a whole. I typically only care about it when the game is a direct sequel to another. Beyond that, though, I just enjoy each zelda game as it own story without questioning how it affects the lore at large. That said, I respect other people's passion for the subject and love seeing what bigger lore buffs think of things. Great video, Zeltik! It has given me a lot to think about.
Pretty much agree with this- zelda timeline stuff is coolest when it's explicitly said and referenced within the game. Wind waker continuing on from OOT and how hyrule was washed away and its past erased is some pretty compelling stuffs. There doesn't need to be universal continuity and consistency across the lore. When there is some direct continuity it does enhance the story of the games, and makes it feel like we're going somewhere on a bigger level.
Can... can you guys just stop having fun, please? How can you even have fun with a videogame where some of the story details don't fit perfectly with each other? How can you even enjoy a videogame without making a mental map of every minor thing in its story and trying to fit it all into an overarching fictional story?
Everything needs to fit perfectly, or else is wrong. You people are having fun the wrong way.
@@GianniLeonhart Apologies, but I have a severe case of enjoyidis, where I just enjoy things for what they are. It's a real problem.
The principal problem people forget is that Miyamoto and Aonuma aren't writers.
They mainly focused on making the games good, leaving most of the writing to other people.
Aonuma even admited he does not understand the scene of Zant breaking his neck at the end of Twilight Princess. He just approved the scene because, in his words: "He didn't have the authority to question art" (of the artist that produced the scene)
Fantastic video! I have been working on a similar one for a while now.
A couple of things, its not just the JP website of LA which mentioned its a direct sequel to ALttP, but also the manual.
Forgive me if you've mentioned this elsewhere, but in Nintendo Dream Magazine issue #41 it was mentioned that the Oracle games were sequels to ALttP, taking place "some time" afterwards featuring the same Link.
The original manual for LA makes it clear it is the most immediate sequel to ALttP, meaning Hyrule Historia retconned this a bit, and we can see the redux timeline in Encyclopedia was just making the placements of LA/Oracles back to their originally written order, undoing the retcon introduced by Historia.
Also in an interview with Game Informer in 2004 Aonuma mentioned that Four Swords was what they considered to be the first tale in the Zelda chronology. With Minish Cap being a prequel to FS, we could see that it would be the first story in the series at the time, followed by FS.
3:25 I really appreciate you pointing out that there are some discrepancies between ALTTP and OOT. Most people don't even know enough about the narratives of the two games to point that out.
It's because people pretend to know everything about the games without ever experiencing them.
Friendly reminder that Nintendo's official take on this is the timeline is their own interpretation and not as "canon" as everyone likes to make it out to be. Any individual's interpretation or theory is equally valid in their eyes...
Saying there’s no need for a timeline in a video game is like saying it doesn’t matter Halo Reach came before Halo CE, especially since it was released after CE.
The series is better with lore, official or otherwise.
My personal fan interpretation of the events that has helped me make the Downfall Timeline more palatable and less what-ify is that it is actually the correct unadulterated timeline, simple as that.
So originally in the events of OoT, things played out different from what we see in the game, perhaps the Sages let Link sleep for more than 7 years (the minimum amount of time), perhaps letting him slumber until he'd reach his early 20s, but in doing so something happened, maybe Ganondorf found a way into the sacred realm and killed him, maybe most of the Sages were lost leaving only a lonesome Zelda, maybe just the land was so broken by the extra years of Ganondorf's rule that even if victory was achieved, it couldn't be considered a win.
Regardless of what or how it happened, it lead to the events in the Downfall Timeline and prompted Zelda to make use of her time manipulation powers to send a message to the past and urge the Sages to wake up Link as soon as possible, which then prompts the events we see in the game.
So in other words: The Downfall timelines is not one in which Link is defeated; it’s one in which he never travelled through time, and is a sort of default of sorts. It sort of makes sense to me, as a Link who had not had the benefit of time travel wouldn’t have been able to get all the necessary things to stand up to Gannon, and time travel appears to be the main causes of the other splits.
For me the timeline does matter.
Also I just wanted to say this with echoes of wisdom finally released
My favourite Zelda games
21 Four Swords
20 Oracle of Ages
19 Oracle of Seasons
18 Tears Of the Kingdom
17 Tri Force Heroes
16 The Legend Of Zelda
15 Spirit Tracks
14 Phantom Hourglass
13 Skyward Sword
12 Echoes Of Wisdom
11 Twilight Princess
10 Four Swords Adventures
9 Link Between Worlds
8 Adventure Of Link
7 Links awakening
6 Ocarina of Time
5 Link To The Past
4 Majora’s Mask
3 Minish Cap
2 Breath Of The Wild
1 Windwaker
Btw this is just my personal opinion and I do not have anything against any Zelda game they are all amazing masterpieces even though some like Four Swords we’re not the best they were still great games also Tears Of The Kingdom is low because I felt it was just a repeat/dlc for breath of the wild
Tears of the Kingdom definitely threw the timeline into question. I personally prescribe to the theory that it's Imprisoning War is a separate event from the OoT one. That is the only way any of it makes sense. Zonai King Rauru founded a new Hyrule long after the previous one collapsed. History then repeated itself by having a new Ganondorf plot against him and a new Imprisoning War took place.
8:04 Can someone tell me what song this is? I’ve been looking everywhere and can’t find it
It sounds like a riding theme, like maybe a twilight princess theme
Should be “Hidden Village” from Twilight Princess
@@Schwamy56 Thank you so much 😊
Yes, it's nice to think of all the games being connected, and it does elevate some games stories in some ways.
BUT the timeline will always be an afterthought of each games narratives, which are themselves only there to elevate their gameplay and main design elements. It's a narrative tool like any other. Need a story about grief and finding new purpose in a new world ? Make it a direct sequel to your last game. Want a story about carrying the legacy of an old legend ? Make it a distant but still explicit sequel to your most beloved game. Actually, make it twice ! Want a story about founding a legend ? Make it the first in the timeline. Want a story about exploring the ruins of a very old kingdom ? Make it very far away in the future, so far that every other story merges together as myth.
It's all supposed to be about myth and legend. You're supposed to feel these stories, feel their themes and how they resonate across time. Not anally force each of them into a neat rational succession. Worldbuilding is always secondary to themes and characters, even in very detailed stories, and even more so in loose collections of legends like Zelda.
I like thinking of all the games as one big continuous legend. I like knowing the heroes shade in TP is OOT Link. I like Demise cursing Link and Zelda to be reincarnated over and over again. But I like all these things because they relate to the themes and the characters in the games. I like them because they make me feel stuff. What does trying to forcefully connect Four Swords Adventures to Twilight Princess achieve apart from insatisfaction in all the ways that it doesn't fit together ? What do people feel knowing that The Minish Cap comes between Skyward Sword and OOT ? You say that the dowfall timeline was a necessary evil, but how was it necessary exactly ? The only reason it was made up is because some people needed an explanation for why ALTTP could still be a sequel to OOT when there was no satisfying rational explanation possible, because some people ALWAYS need an explanation vor every little detail and will complain VERY loudly when the games don't deliver.
I guess it all comes down to preferences regarding storytelling in general, and I'm tempted to say "to each their own". But then I see another person criticizing TOTK "retconning" the timeline and I sigh at how big of a disconnect there seems to be between what has been the artistic vision of the creators for decades now and some (very marginal but very vocal) parts of the fanbase. And I'm left to wonder what do these people even enjoy in these stories ? There are plenty of IPs out there with very well laid out continuities and heavy emphasis on worldbuilding (even if, and I'll say it again, characters and themes almost always come first, and in those cases you often find the same type of people complaining), but Zelda isn't it. It never has, and never will.
I think going to either extremity of “it is the only thing that matters” or “why do they care at all” are not the best ways to look at this timeline either. It’s messy. It echoes human history, where we have literal recountings of people burning literature, losing media of the past to time because of stupid reasons like prejudice and religious fanaticism. Cultures becoming extinct because of the world changing or wars stretching for too long. This parallel the Zelda timeline follows is what makes it utterly fascinating.
Yeah, but most people really don't like when others enjoy things in a different way than theirs.
Yeah I agree that their are opposite extremes in this discussion about the Zelda Time line. My take is that you can like the timeline or not, all I ask is for people to be understanding of other peoples prefences on how they like to think about the Zelda series.
The original vision of Ocarina being the Imprisoning War from LttP's manual is the perfect example of what the timeline should be. The blurbs that happen outside of an existing game are soft lore and can be retconned, but all the games are hard lore and are ultimately connected chronologically.
TotK itself is just not compatible with the timeline unless the past segements also occur after the previous games. In trying to suggest the IW are the same, it devalues the point of a timeline where the events like Ganondorf's sealing, the destruction of the castles and the Dragons are not compatible with it.
Can you explain in detail why you think they're not compatible?
I adore the timeline it breaks it down to be able to really deep dive into the lore which makes the games that much more enjoyable. Having them actually connected is so cool especially taking into mind the Curse demise placed on the trio in Skyward sword
a bit of head canon I like to implement to explain the downfall timeline for myself is that the events of OOT became a “nexus” point in the time stream, and with the timeline already branching into the child and adult timeline - it couldn’t be helped that it would split further into a sort of “withered branch”.
The Downfall Timeline for me always implied that Link dies exactly during the battle against Ganon, as the Gerudo form isn't seen in the later games. It would still be a heroic story where Link fought and probably wounded him, but it wasn't a battle in he came out of alive.
I really dislike the “it’s so far in the future it doesn’t matter” it makes it all feel meaningless. Hyrule could get flooded or Link in OoT can lose but ultimately it all becomes BotW anyways
21:10 link doesn't appear to be in the description @zeltik
Nice joke there 😂
Haha😂
If you squint and look really, really hard...
The problem with timelines is that you need to look outside of the games themselves to confirm that Nintendo had a vague timeline project at some point.
And that's the problem: if the Zelda game you're playing never explicitly mentions events or characters from the old games, you can assume that there's no specific need to establish a connection between all of those games. If you need to dig up random interviews with Aonuma/Miyamoto/whatever to confirm a timeline, then the Zelda games were never really intended to be sold as sequels (which sell less when labeled as such).
It's irrelevant because it doesn't add anything to the story that stands on its own. Is it really that hard to understand or are we still cherry picking?
What Aonuma says about the BOTW timeline is a polite way of saying that he's bored with this timeline thing where he's asked to take into account all the previous Zelda games since 1986 to tell his own story and push his own ideas. Do you understand better now why the TOTK story exists? He's throwing away the timeline on purpose because it's a creative straitjacket.
"if the Zelda game you're playing never explicitly mentions events or characters from the old games"
Do you even pay attention when you play Zelda games?
The thing is that, with very few exceptions, all Zelda games reference at least one or two previous Zelda titles INSIDE THE GAMES THEMSELVES (or in the case of the pre-OOT era, in the Instruction Manual, but those were considered part of the narrative itself back in the day, not only in Zelda, but video games as a whole). And I'm not even talking about vague paragraphs of lore hidden under a rock in the middle of nowhere. I'm talking about places that are very likely the player will look, if it's not part of the main story itself. That's how the practice of theorising started in the community in the first place, not because the developers said so in interviews. Quoting the developer interviews is just to reinforce the point for people who willfully ignore that.
And games don't need to be sold as explicit sequels for a timeline to exists. "Timeline" is just another word for "continuity", or "extended universe" if you will. Nor does it have to be all prepared decades in advance. Nobody believes that Nintendo had a plan to create the story of OOT, let alone TotK, back in 1986. What you need to do is just to make sure you don't contradict yourself too much when you write a new story. Which is not as difficult as some people makes it out to be! The funny thing is that Zelda is quite flexible when it comes to this shit, thanks to its massive time jumps from one era to the next.
The thing is, if Aonuma is really bored with the timeline thing, (as in, he doesn't want to be bothered with continuity) then the solution is simple: STOP REFERENCING PREVIOUS GAMES AT ALL.
Don't start a game like TWW, PH and ST, which all of them start with a freaking montage of sorts summarizing of the plot of the game that came before. Don't put Ganondorf being arrested in TP because his plan in OOT was thwarted before it started. Don't reference Princess Ruto in BotW and on top of that have an echo of her story with Mipha. And specially, DON'T TEASE US BY CALLING A CHARACTER "RAURU" IF THEY AREN'T SUPOSSED TO BE RELATED TO A PREVIOUS CHARACTER OF THE SAME NAME JUST BECAUSE THEY HAVE A VAGUE "LIGHT SAGE" MOTIF! All of those are examples just from the top of my head, all of them are from inside the games, and all of them are gonna be seen by pretty much everyone who plays the game to completion.
Following this is not "a creative straitjacket". It's just freaking "competent writing".
Is it really that hard to understand or are we still cherry picking?
@@XanderVJ When you play Dragon Age Inquisition, it is the indirect sequel to Dragon Age 2. It introduces very specific characters and events that were encountered in the previous games: the universe is the same and continues in a chronological and story continuity. You meet characters who evoke the choices you made in your previous games. You are told about events that your character has experienced.
Even The Elder Scrolls mention the events of the previous games more explicitly than the Zelda games, and yet they are not even necessary to properly understand the main plot each time (example: Skyrim mentioning the Oblivion crisis).
There is none of that in Zelda. You can play all the Zelda games independently without ever noticing anything, because the intention is to remain extremely vague from the beginning. The only thing that varies little is the threat of Ganon and/or his henchmen that weighs on Princess Zelda and the kingdom of Hyrule. These are the only points that come up most often (and still, not always ...). How do you want to build a timeline with so few elements? It's deliberate.
Edit: I first played Zelda 1 on NES in 1990 and the other games after, I never considered them as sequels to anything. The game was so stripped of context and narration that it was never even considered. The following Zeldas were perceived as more evolved iterations of the same concept that evolves and improves over time. Nothing more.
And then sorry, but knowing that there are several centuries, a villain Ganon ravaged the land of Hyrule which ends up engulfed under the waters does not allow you to know that it is referred to the era of Ocarina Of Time where Link returns to the past. If you are not told outside the game (once again), you can only formulate hypotheses that are supported by absolutely NOTHING in the game. You just know that the hero of time did not come back to save the kingdom. You do not know why and that will not prevent you from finishing the game and enjoying its story.
And you tell me that we are not going to look for the statements of Aonuma quoted in this video to explain the "chronology" of Wind Waker? But that is exactly what is done here in the example I just cited. Wind Waker NEVER gives you these contextual elements that allow to explain the events that precede the game. Never.
If you want a coherent chronology, you have plenty of games (Japanese in particular) that do that very well (the Trails In the Sky series for example), and that do not elude the most basic elements of a series of games that take place in the same universe. Zelda is not one of them, sorry my friend.
The Zelda chronology is meaningless. It brings nothing to the story, except to please hardcore fans who want to see references worthy of the Da Vinci Code. It has never been anything other than that.
Do you want proof? Breath of The Wild. It's all there. Breath of The Wild's map is a giant open world filled with easter eggs from all timelines that pays homage to the old games by offering a totally different and new formula. There is nothing to theorize about it because nothing makes sense: it was deliberately done so that everything would be vague references to legends that are more than 10,000 years old. You can't get any vaguer and more stripped down than that. It's totally deliberate.
The ultimate proof that fans don't want to admit because it ruins their monetizable narrative on RUclips? Tears of The Kingdom which definitively breaks all connection with the old games through its story and Ganondorf and which confirms once again the creators' message: "we don't want a timeline". And so we saw videos appear saying that TOTK was disappointing.
Except that Nintendo or Aonuma never promised to fit BOTW and TOTK into any timeline --> they did exactly the opposite from the beginning, and no one wanted to see this huge red flag.
The day Nintendo wants to offer you a game sequel, you'll know it and you won't need to theorize about it with dozens of videos to monetize. Oh but wait, isn't TOTK the direct (very imperfect) sequel to BOTW? Yeah, it's so much the case that we haven't really had any videos on the subject to theorize about nothing.
But almost every game keeps using the same character names, same purposes, same elements, and speak of past events as to why the current thing is happening and why you, as link, is now involved in it. So what do they expect?
At least something like Link's awakening or Majora's Mask is great style of standalone, are they dreams, are they even real? It leaves tons of things in the air and they are kind of their own dead ends of the timelines unless specifically called out on as "HEY THIS GOES AFTER THIS!" It's not a straitjacket.
Aonuma just really is tired of Zelda being his only outlet, he has said many times he wished he could make different games like he did in past and use Zelda for it. Spirit Tracks was literally because his son liked trains... come on man.
We don't really need that kind of heavy handed influence on an established series. What seems to be happening is, the guy who is going to take over Zelda series from Aonuma is very interested in pulling from asian culture more than the original european culture it mostly was based around. So now its honestly becoming a real mixed bag of confusion. They could actually make an entirely alternative IP to bounce between it and Zelda and stop feeling so stuck in a box.
As somewhat of a writer myself, a proper timeline is important in any series or project; our history is part of what defines us in the present, and a good backstory can build great characters. But I've also similarly looked over the Zelda Timeline, and I know that Nintendo's MO has always been "fun over all else", but things can get confusing fast if you're paying enough attention.
A favorite art piece I've done is my variant of Princess Zelda (kinda long story) recreating the "Pepe Silvia" meme from "Always Sunny"; she's spent her whole life figuring out the Timeline, too. We believe there was some sort of event at the end of every other timeline, a convergence moment, that led into the final timeline of BOTW/TOTK (and eventually her time, the modern age). Our best guess involves "Hyrule Warriors" somehow.
There's even a few notes we've taken, too:
- She wonders if the Ocarina of Time might be made of the same material as the Time Stones from Skyward Sword
- She's also not sure if 4 Swords Adventure is even canon
- We know the Oracle games happen simultaneously (somehow), but she wonders if there was a missing 3rd story featuring Farore (there was, but it got cancelled during pre-production)
- She had an existential crisis playing TOTK after finishing the Tears quest, but that was remedied by beating the final boss
- There's a lot of unexplained loose threads, like the true origins of Majora's Mask, Demise, Tingle; how much time has actually passed in this timeline; the presence of Earth religions in Hyrule...
Wow these are all points that I also thought about deeply from time to time.
"It was a duct tape fix" is a good line.
I'm as happy with the official timeline as I would be buying a new Switch held together with duct tape.
Every game ever released except Four swords adventures has had a "timeline" placement and it's pretty sad many fans are ditching the whole timeline because there 2 games they refuse to locate on that timeline
It's honestly rather cringe
@mineralwassser the fans thing or the four swords timeline thing?
@@Marz776 the fans thing
Four Swords Adventures *does* have a timeline placement. It's set in the Child Timeline, after Twilight Princess.
well the majority of the current zelda fans came because of BOTW so they probably dont care about the timeline that existed prior to it
I think the Timeline made sense when they wanted to link all sequels/prequels to Ocarina of Time. Nintendo clearly lost interest in that and now it's an Albatross.
Since OoT was a failed prequel of LttP (the stories don't mesh), Fallen Timeline never worked
You described my positive feelings on the timeline perfectly.
It's just so much more fun when the games are connected.
Thank you very much, Zeltik.
I can't speak for every "timeline denier", but when I personally say "there is no timeline; Nintendo just cobbled something together to please the fans", this is exactly what I mean.
There is an overarching story, and the games do share some connections. But the connections are not solid enough to actually create a defined, fixed timeline.
They want to create interesting stories, using a mythos that they have been slowly building over the last 4 decades. They do put care to it. They do pay attention. That's the main requirement to "make a good story". But as it evolves, they want to have the freedom to explore new ideas, without being chained to a rigid lore timeline.
And that's why the "Fallen Hero" line exists, and that's why people like me say that "the timeline doesn't matter" Is NOT that the lore doesn't matter. Is NOT that the games aren't connected. It's simply that Nintendo wants to create an evolving story, and if they suddenly said that the Link to the Past TL was no longer valid, because the story evolved in a way they like more and it doesn't fit anymore, then fans would've raised in arms. So they made up the TL to allow all the games to fit in, even if it wasn't really necessary.
And that's why the TL doesn't "exist". It does exist in a vague way that allows creators to build a new game's mythos easily, but it doesn't really matter in a way that is going to clip their creativity. And if Nintendo themselves have said that letting fans believe whatever they want to believe is more fun, then even they think it's not that important anyway.
Why wouldn't anyone want a timeline? It's a beautiful showing of a generational story
Yes and it makes playing a new game just so much more impactful
Because Zelda isn’t a generational story, it’s your story. It’s your individual adventure. There doesn’t need to be a connection, everything exists well on its own.
Literally the biggest problem I have with the timeline is just the existence of a branch where "game over in OoT" is canon at all. It's clumsy and awkward because that's clearly not the intention of OoT's story, and it can't coexist with the other two timelines.
Valid. But how else would you solve the problem of placing the "downfall" games on the timeline though?
@mineralwassser I don't really have a solution to be honest. It's a consequence of them losing sight of the series' original vision for its continuity. I don't know how else to fix it other than this clumsy what if scenario, but that doesn't mean it isn't stupid anyway.
Although you could just consider some games part of a separate, disconnected continuity entirely, unrelated to the main timeline. Nintendo already does this with Fire Emblem, where not all games in the series are connected to each other and exist in their own separate continuities.
@@mineralwassser But maybe that's the point? It doesn't have to be solved if it is not considered part of a massive single timeline that includes every game.
the "timeline" was just a way to sell some books to a bunch of unimaginative people; even in that book they say it doesn't matter and that they disregard it when they make a new game. LTTP was basically a remake of TLOZ with better tech and then OOF was basically a remake of LTTP with better tech, just like with many other videogames back then. There wasn't a grand narrative planned and it doesn't need to be. Also it makes little sense, why doesn't EVERY game branch out into the hero dies and hero succeeds? because it is a bunch of bs made up to fit where it wouldn't fit. Zelda is like Final Fantasy: a bunch of mostly unrelated games, some of them sequels and prequels, with references and easter eggs between them.
Do i want a timeline? Yes... do i think a timeline needs to exist? No.... would i be happier without a timeline? No.... do i wish Nintendo actually made the timeline work? Yes... does Nintendo care about the timeline? Absolutely not
This is spot on.
Some people will pretend to know everything about a Zelda game without having experienced it in any meaningful way.
I also HATE how people get so worked up about being AGAINST the Zelda timeline. Thank you for putting it into perspective with a vid like this. We can have our fun with the timeline all we want, but for some reason people are SO against the idea that this shit is all at least a LITTLE planned out. While it's fast and loose, and half of this shit doesn't make sense ultimately, history makes it blatantly obvious that almost every single entry in the series had a very specific place in the timeline from its inception.
EDIT: I was happy to see that reminder of the "master lore document" as well, I'd forgotten about that. I can't tell you how hard I've argued that there is a guy - or more likely, a whole team - in charge of a master lore book of Zelda, that they have to basically go over when a new game comes out. It may not be as important or grandiose as I make it sound, but I've ALWAYS known it's real. The thing is, they can choose to ignore some aspects, or bend some rules, to make the newest game more interesting. The lore isn't the end-all, be-all. The lore is supplementary to the experience of each individual game, which I think it what makes timeline doubters stir. But it's always been there, and it's always been vital to the story. The thing is, the lore is SUPPOSED to be vague, and leave so, so, so much to the imagination. The beauty of Zelda lore, is the fact that us idiots have been wondering, theorizing, and yapping about it for about 30 years, and STILL we can have channels like Zeltik completely dedicated to those ideas. I think it's truly a beautiful thing.
I honestly didn't know they have even thought about the timeline before the historia in 2011. It's not disingenuous to think they cobbled the timeline together at that time, it's apparently just ignorant.
not confirming and giving enough hints and references to people theorize was the best choice they made. People saying its a reboot/retcon or that they discarded the timeline is really frustrating
The easiest solution is not to argue about that and see their opinions as their own personal interpretation, even if it's objectively wrong.
I retroactively like that the Downfall timeline makes so the timeline split mirrors the triforce.
The adult timeline happens because Link's courage defeated ganon
The child timeline happens because adult Zelda uses her powers to send link back to the past, where he warns Zelda and they with the Knowledge (Wisdom) of what happened in the future, they can lock him away early
The Downfall timeline happens because Ganons Power is enough to win against Zelda and Link
I think its a cool angle that makes the timeline split more unique to the Zelda series in a world where multiverses and multiple timelines happen in every other story. That being said, the existence of the Downfall timeline is still dumb and unexplained and i get why some people still hate it to this day (i used to hate it to)
That's a cool way to look at it
The whole notion, botw and totk's story, is up to the player's imagination, just comes across as lazy storytelling to me. This isn't some choose your own adventure book, guys.
Exactly especialy when god awful characters like sonia and rauru exist. Botw was the chance the franchise’s storytelling squandered: better continuity, storytelling, and a more cohesive timeline were ruined when aoc came alone. Eiji aonuma is the reason we have such garbage continuity in the first place with his bs creative freedom.
@@clonetrooper2003 welp I guess we hate creative freedom now
@@oranjesus49 no we hate lazy storytelling and bad continuity as a result of it like in TOTK #FireAonuma
I appreciate the visual and music edits.
The timeline is annoying because it really does feel like it's cobbled together, whether real or not.
As you noted, what I strongly dislike about the timeline - namely, the ‘downfall’ timeline - is that it’s based on a hypothetical. The hero could be defeated in *every* Zelda game. So, why is it only OoT which stems a downfall, other than because they accidentally shoved ALttP aside when they created additional direct sequels to OoT and needed to shoehorn it back in somehow?
it is silly cause oot 3d released 2011 when they dropped that change to the timeline, so they could’ve given it a bad ending cutscene or something lol
You're looking for an answer to a problem that doesn't exist. You didn't like the real reason they had to make a third timeline and you're looking for a different answer.
@@mineralwassseryour comment makes zero, rationale sense. The problem *does* exist because the developers suddenly realized they had too many direct sequels to OoT and couldn’t fit ALttP in without creating a whole new “hypothetical” timeline.
No matter if its in a game or in a series
For me there is nothing more beautiful to find places mentioned in previous parts where I know that they have had a story and imagine the connections between both moments in time at the same spot
EXACTLY
If it doesn’t matter, what is the purpose of your channel?
I used to be a Timeline defender. Then I played Tears of the Kingdom and realized that they don't care to even make a direct sequel align with the established timeline. Great game, TotK (and BotW), but the fact that so many characters act like they've never met Link before in their life despite the inclusion of cross-game save imports? My horses stay and a picture of the champions sticks around but everyone outside of the main cast has completely forgotten me?
Preach. Hell, even the people in Hateno village forget about Link and attribute his house as Zelda’s.
Well the game takes place 8 years later and I don't really remember anyone I briefly talked to 8 years ago.
@@mineralwassser Link was living in Hateno with Zelda directly before TOTK starts.
I don’t mind the re-founding theory at all, but it’s hard for me to let go of the idea of Zelda flying above the clouds as a dragon during every other game we ever played. I just love it so much, especially while I’m playing those other games.
God... 5 second in the video and already we have "Timeline has always existed".
Why is it so hard to absorb the fact that they're the same franchises and that anything people have ever imagined being a "timeline" is only due to fan being fan and creating one. Go ahead and have fun doing so but god damnit, can't people be reasonable and just accept facts?
They have never been created with it in mind, and nintendo (and miyamoto) have always said so until they got tired of people asking for it.
Yes, there are reference in some more recent game and you can clearly see that some come in order due to that. Wind Waker especially strongly do that with oot.
But a timeline is a stretch, and a very big one even with the official one that has been created because fan asked for it. This is a fun thing to think about for sure but trying to say it super important and that it matter?? common...
Why do you people get mad when you are told that Zelda 2 was a sequel to Zelda 1 in 1987?
It's not that deep bro
It really doesn't tbh. The games will always exist as standalone pieces regularly featuring new reincarnations of familiar characters, with such a wide variety of possibilities for overall plot justifications and gameplay-stitched loops of player engagement so as to avoid getting too stale again. I'd rather every new Zelda be as creative as possible and never have to worry about sticking to an arbitrary continuity than potentially lose something in its intended design because they don't want fans fighting over whether it happened before or after Minish Cap.
Worse still is the presumption that fans must adhere to timeline theory for fear of missing out on major talks about plot beats because somebody decided once that the continuity matters and no talk of story critique can exist without it being in the room like an 800 lb gorilla.
I always loved the timeline concept and this has renewed my faith in it, thank you. This also fixed my Ancient Rito continuity problem😂
No. It doesn't. It's kinda cool and all to ponder, but in the end the timeline is only significant for the basement-dwelling 'akshully' crowd. Normies just say 'neat' and proceed with enjoying the game. Those that fret and obsess about the timeline are too personally invested in a game.
You've said this in a very condescending tone but you're right.
@mineralwassser True, lol, but I think it's accurate. People invest too much of themselves in this stuff.
@@commontater24601 i think it's fine for people to nerd out on something if they enjoy it. As long as they don't overdo it or force it on others to the point where it becomes annoying.
@mineralwassser True. Fandom in general has gotten obsessive. This stuff isn't real life.