Coming back to the video to acknowledge that Nintendo dropped a new timeline with BOTW and TOTK in it to reveal that they are their own thing separate from everything else in the timeline, basically conforming the duology as a reboot of some kind 💀 I personally think that’s a stupid decision but at least we have some kind of official confirmation on what these stories are. I can now enjoy the cool moments on their own knowing it doesn’t mess with anything else on the timeline
Kinda defeats the whole point of the timeline if your just gonna ignore And all the fans who said the timeline didt matter pretty much got proven right.
Approaching media with rules like this is so boring to me. Totk is beautiful next step from botw that offers so much. Genuinely sad to see someone be like "it breaks the lore." Zelda has never been about lore. Or even story! These games dont have stories as much as they establish a presentation and a reason for you to adventure. The real beauty is IN that adventure and your experience exploring and discovering secrets around the world. Nintendo gives us games that masterfully exemplify the very nature of adventure and people go "ermmm it broke the lore" like you are missing the forest for the trees.
The thing about Nintendo saying the Sheikah Techs "Purpose was fulfilled", is that there is another, much more reasonable explanation they could've gone with: After Link defeats the Calamity, the Towers and Shrines deactivated and sank back into the ground, leaving behind only the deactivated Guardians and Divine Beasts. The people were worried that the deactivated tech might be used for evil again, so during Hyrules reconstruction it was Dismantled and Disposed of, with some of it being repurposed for use in the Skyview Towers. This explanation would've been far better than "It just Disappeared"
Why is it okay for the Sheikah to "just disappear" but not their tech? Impa just disappears in Skyward Sword after her purpose is fulfilled. All the monks in the shrines just disappear when you've finished them. Seems like a reoccurring element of the Sheikah. But most of all, I don't understand why people are so hyper fixated on that detail when it's just dumb gamey shit for the player in Breath of the Wild the same way the Zonai stuff is in Tears of the Kingdom. There doesn't need to be an explanation for it because it's just there as a challenge for the player like dungeons were in past games, yet no one seems to be complaining or wondering where all those dungeons have gone, especially those that were attached to the goddess springs.
@@Turo602 you okay dude? A game that is so focused on World building and gaming experience literally didn't manage to make a Lore building that works on their own world? How can you say is just something "small" when they focused on a lot of things. but the story again is really lacking of important things. Is the worst way to do "a sequel" and being worst than Age of Calamity story (a NON canon story inside the BotW timeline) is kinda 💀. There's a lot of inconsistencies between both games. And is not like "oh but in Majora's there's nothing from ocarina more than the ocarina". Okay but are two different realities. Here are the exact same world and characters. What people critized about BotW is that their storyline was more about theories and "researching" stuff more than a explicit lore, and the storyline progression was about dead characters that fullfilled their duties, the DLC complemented the characters. And people hoped TotK to fix and give a complete full story about BotW researches and "lore construction" they were doing on BotW's. And it ended on scrapping almost ALL from BotW. Is a really bad sequel.
The purpose was fulfilled is more the real world explaination for why they disappeared. Why keep something in the game, that doesn't fit a purpose anymore? This is kinda a design ethos of Nintendo. If it doesn't serve the gameplay, it will be rationalized away. And that can include the story.
@@napoleonvasquez5034 There's been at least 5 years between BotW and TotK, so why would it matter how and when the tech disappeared? Most people in that world likely stopped caring.
You forgot something, that Nintendo split the zonai tribe in two, AND GAVE US NOTHING on the warrior like sub race except a little lore in a quest and the weirdest 100% reward I'd ever seen
Is it just me or was anyone annoyed that they used the name “Rauru”. when I was first playing I thought they meant the guy from ocarina of time but instead they made a completely separate character with the same name. I felt pretty disappointed because I thought that they were going to use another character already established in the lore but instead it felt like they were just making a slight nod without doing anything with it.
I have an issue with Nintendo nostalgia baiting fans but then not understanding why fans are nostalgic for older Zelda games. They only see nostalgia as a way to make money, not to tell a coherent story.
@@ShallBePurified like the temples! Made it look like all the old dungeons but it fixed nothing about what people didn’t like from the divine beasts! (Except for the looks of course)
On a similar note, why did they use the name "Imprisonment War"? That's a pretty big event in Zelda lore that was the foundation of the stories of both ALTTP and OOT. But they used the name for something that was utterly unreleated. The thing is that even as a nostalgia bait it doesn't make any goddamn sense. Why baiting at all just to betray expectations that you are creating yourself?
You saying you were 12 when BOTW came out made me literally pause the video and stare off into space in shock at how old I feel 💀 but I’m only 26 anyway
This video explains my grievances so perfectly. It's always bothered me that BOTW put so much care into showing how the difference between legend and history has been lost to time and what the actual timeline is, or if it connects at all, of up to personal interpretation, but then TOTK just flatly contradicts the established history so it is either a new canon entirely or so disinterested in the subtle, vague world building of BOTW and it's connection to the rest of the series that it might as well have been
Just curious… but if you were to rework the plot of TotK to better fit the pre-stablished narrative, what would you do? For example, if Ganondorf is to be the main villain, should he have been the one from the Child timeline or the Adult timeline?
@@geoffreyrichards6079 For me, I'd do this: The Imprisoning War is shortly after the war of Demise and Hylia. The Depths are the 'cracks in the earth the demons came through' - AKA where Demise and the monsters are from. The Zonai were the ones who built the constructs in Lanayru Desert to mine timeshift stones, as well as the Temples of Time seen in Skyward Sword. Hylia the goddess was actually Hylia the zonai, who was remembered as a goddess for her assisting the Hylians. She rose Skyloft into the sky at the end of the war with Zonai tech, and created the basis of the Master Sword in response to the curse of Demise. After Demise's defeat, she sacrificed herself to incarnate into the Hylian bloodline, causing the chain of Zeldas to be born into the Hyrule royal family. The Ganondorf we encounter in TotK is the first incarnation of Ganondorf, who attempted to retrieve Demise's power from the Master Sword left by Skyward Sword Link a generation or two later. He was able to gain the power of Malice but was sealed away by Hylia/one of her colleagues who is NOT named Rauru, but fills the role "King Rauru" filled. This allows the Tears Ganondorf to be the purest form of Demise's hatred but leaves the main Ganondorf of the Zelda timeline untouched. The BotW Calamity Ganon is revealed to be the remnants of the Ganondorf commonly seen in the timeline - meaning BotW's main baddie and TotK's are two different incarnations of Ganondorf, both sealed away under Hyrule Castle at different points in history. From there, the plot is largely the same. Zelda goes back in time to the founding of Hyrule just after the Imprisoning War, at a time when Ganondorf has just incarnated for the first time. Her ancestor, Hylia's first incarnation, Queen Sonia, is killed by Ganondorf. 'Rauru' forms a team of sages to seal Ganondorf away in the Depths, where Demise came from, to try to keep Hyrule safe. Link goes around on the surface in what I'd much rather be a linear story solving problems and learning about past incarnations of himself and Zelda who fought various Ganondorfs throughout history, perhaps even playing short segments from past games in the form of memories focused around Ganondorf. Ganondorf is also more active. Eventually Link defeats Demise-Ganondorf and the normal ending happens, and Hylia's great plan to defeat Demise is finally fulfilled.
Why do you assume it contradicts anything? That's like saying Wind Waker contradicts Majora's Mask or that Twilight Princess contradicts A Link to the Past. You're working based on an assumption without the proper context of its timeline placement. For all you know, these games are a brand new timeline branching from the exact moment Zelda shows up in the past, making all the other games much more irrelevant to its story and whether or not they actually occured how they did in the games because Zelda altered history. There's even evidence for this in Breath of the Wild if you apply information learned from Tears of the Kingdom. Nintendo already made 3 different timelines and even went back to the beginning with just about every mainline game after Ocarina of Time. Would it really be surprising that these games are on yet another timeline? For all we know, Echoes of Wisdom and other future titles take place on this expansive timeline as well and will provide further context for what's really happening in this timeline that we initially didn't understand in BotW/TotK.
"BOTW put so much care into showing how the difference between legend and history has been lost to time" "but then TOTK just flatly contradicts the established history" It's like you almost get it in that first line, but then drop the ball in that second line. If you rewatch the BotW scene from the King when you get the paraglider, he explains that there is a prophecy while the game shows the tapestry that's behind Impa. And he even says that tales of the hero of the sword, the princes, and the calamity have been told and retold through legends and fairy tales (previous games in the series). Everyone else including Impa tells you that it's a record of a constant cycle coming back (much like Demise said). Except as Purah says in one of her TotK diaries, there's royal legend that doesn't even know of the stairs leading to Ganondorf's chamber, so there's a difference between royal legend that's closer to real history of the world as told by the King, and normal legend that everyone else knows. Then in TotK we see what the actual history is that those legends and fairy tales are based from, we see how the real history has been lost to time (as you said) and people only know of the legends thinking those are the real history. So, it's not a stretch to realize the King probably hadn't even told all of the royal legend to Zelda, I mean heck, that prophecy we're told at the start of BotW is the warning that Zelda gave them in the past about Calamity Ganon in TotK. It's possible part of the royal legend (the prophecy) establishes who the princess is and when the Calamity actually comes back, the King knows it's his daughter and that's likely why he's so adamant about her unlocking her powers, to prevent the tragedy he knows is coming based on royal legend. I mean, are you going to tell me there's a real historical figure named Paul Bunyan who was a giant with a blue ox, that was so large when he was slapped by Nanabozho and fell on his butt it really formed the Red Lakes?? No...those are fairy tales and legends. Heck, if I remember correctly, King Arthur is based on at least two historical figures. The problem with people making videos like this saying it trashes established lore...is that it doesn't. Nintendo has long said there is no continuity between most games (aside from the obvious ones that ARE connected) and that the games are just legends. BotW/TotK takes that long standing idea by the series creators (not a timeline established by a book) and creates a new story where the old games serve as legends based on the historical events we see and learn in BotW/TotK history. Heck, Dylonic is so on about the "established timeline", but then acts like one of the three branches of that "established timeline" is the red-headed stepchild we must never speak of, even though it's the one of those three branches with the most games in the series. So basically trashing a big chunk of lore right there calling it a "what if" scenario while complaining about the lore being trashed. If you're willing to look at it like him, complain about ruining lore while ignoring a big chunk. Then I implore you to take a step back, put the full mess of a bad timeline to the side, and look at BotW/TotK as its own world and look at how the old games can be legends within that world. The appearance and sealing of Ganon/dorf (and Demise) are legends based on the 10k years ago Ganondorf. The reviving or unsealing of Ganon/dorf (and Imprisoned One) are Ragnarok style legends warning of the future where the Calamity will come.
TotK kind of broke me when it came to caring about Zelda Lore. I remember having long, drawn out conversations and debates with friends about BotW and how it slotted into the timeline, enjoying hours-long lore exploration videos, etc. Now, however, TotK has almost retroactively made me disinterested in BotW's presented lore, because the answer to all of the questions we had was just "stop overthinking it." If they wanted to reboot the franchise, fine. Do that. Forget the past and start fresh. If that is the goal, though, don't bring back full remakes of the Temple of Time or other major named locations and act like this is somehow connected to the rest of the games. It feels like they were trying to have it both ways, and at the end of the day, it just feels hollow.
me too brudda, i wish they would just establish an entire new mythology if they clearly want to do something different. but they dont want to change the regular zelda shpiel
Anyone trying to form a solid timeline for a series of games where a key plot point is Magical triangles capable of changing the entire world, interacting with alternate dimensions and time travel, is fated to find failure.
Zelda lore and timeliness are complete bullshit and always have been. They were always fan headcanon post OoT, but nintendo eventually capitulated and tried to shoehorn together some weird timeline that never made sense I. Order to appease those who cared.
@chowdaire7343 So, like... If you're including the 2D games, absolutely. However, looking solely at the 3D games, we can see an attempt at an honest to god timeline being made by the devs, and this isn't headcanon or retcons. It is directly stated in the text of the games. 1. Ocarina of Time is the beginning of the 3D Era, and creates two distinct timelines for the 3D games to follow. 2. Majora's Mask is a direct sequel to Ocarina, placing it firmly in the same timeline. 3. Windwaker states in the opening cutscene that it takes place in the adult timeline after Link is sent back. 4. Twilight Princess takes place several generations after the Child Timeline, with several direct in-story confirmations of this fact. 5. Skyward Sword is the prequel which depicts the origins of Zelda, Link, and Ganondorf in the 3D timeline, taking place centuries before OoT. Up until BotW, EVERY SINGLE 3D console Zelda game had taken place in a single cohesive timeline. Yes, trying to staple on the original Zelda, Link's Awakening, etc. is absolutely a fool's errand, but you can't act like there was never any cohesiveness. Hell, Windwaker has not one, but TWO sequels on the DS, expanding the Adult Timeline even further. What upsets me isn't the fact that BotW and TotK don't fit into some grand narrative that I've convinced myself has been going on since the very first Zelda game. What upsets me is the fact that they acted as though they would tie into the 3D timeline (the existence of which is beyond debate), with several direct, textual references... And they don't. They actively contradicted them. And honestly, I'm fine with a reboot of the series. I'm fine with a brand new mythology, lore, and origin for all these classic characters. If you're going to do that, however, don't act like this is somehow tied in by making empty gestures towards the past games in the series.
THis is how I know many Zelda fans still care about the story/lore. Many big channels that made videos theorising about Zelda all throughout the BotW pre-release period to after its release and then leading up to Tears just STOPPED when Tears came out, maybe one or two half-hearted ones, but in general Zelda theorisation is at an all-time low, even lower than when Hyrule Historia came out and canonised a timeline. People obviously care about the series' story/lore more than is given credit for when an entire genre of videos died.
@@HunnysPlaylists Looking it up that is the same person behind Majora's Mask. Given how much that game diverged from the series and is one of the only games to ever not feature Ganondorf. I suspect he is not that happy about being the lead writer.
@@HunnysPlaylists Many agree. Point is it is clearly far different in storytelling than other Zelda titles. And it was apparently made as a challenge as the person in charge did not like the direction the Zelda series was going.
The idea that the Sheikah tech disappeared because Ganon was defeated is straight up incorrect, as it is still present during the true ending. Nintendo did not play their own game it seems.
It's one thing for Rauru and Sonia to build a new Hyrule, but then why do NPCs in BotW mention events that happened in OoT? Why do we have Lon Lon Ranch and the Temple of Time? If OoT was set long before Rauru and Sonia built this version of Hyrule, characters wouldn't know about the events of OoT, since they took place before their kingdom was even built. Heck, why do they know far more about Ruto and OoT Ganondorf than they do about the Zonai and the Imprisoning War? BotW could've gotten away with being a reboot, but they shot themselves in the foot by referencing OoT so much. Edit: As much as I love BotW, 10,000 years is wayyy too big of a timeskip. 10,000 is a comically large number.
Either Easter eggs orrr they treat the other games as kind of a legends. That would make sense as well. Like the games before did not happen in that game but just exist as a legend
@@melinarose3645 Thy second option is unacceptable 😂 (auto correct made me sound like the Great Deku Tree, so I didn't fix it) If any of the games are just legends, it's the two new ones. They feature names, likenesses, places, weapons, and clothing from EVERY timeline, including from several parallel worlds and even a world that ceased to exist when the Deity that has dreamed it into existence woke up. These disparate timelines can't coexist, as specific events led to vastly different outcomes; so two new games that feature so much from every other game demand that the new games are just anthology titles.
@@hanburgundy4317 no what im trying to say is that botw und totk plays in a new timeline. In that timeline the og timeline are just legends. About a hero that goes through time, a hero that explores the shadows etc. It would make sense. The zelda timeline never made sense at the first place. The games were never supposed to be in the timeline. That would just cage the developer. And as we know the team thinks about gameplay first and then story. The zelda team does want to distant themselves form the timeline.. And I can understand that
Because there are legends left behind from those times. Majority of historical records have been destroyed or lost, which is why OoT and other games are known as the "Era of Myth." Because it's unknown what is fact and what is myth. You can still pretty easily infer the actual placement of the games if you don't get caught up by the Easter Eggs, like Zelda's speech in BotW that made people think there was some convergence.
Hold up. Hang on, I think you missed something. The Gerudo in Zelda's memories have emerald eyes and pointed ears. A trait they ONLY picked up when they abandoned Ganondorf and "opened their ears to the wisdom of the Goddess". Ganondorf still has the yellow eyes and small ears that the Gerudo had BEFORE they abandoned him, as seen in OoT. This would imply that not only does the "founding of Hyrule" we see take place long after the events of Twilight Princess/Wind Waker, but that this is STILL the same Ganondorf we're following. If he was a modern Gerudo, he should have been born with green eyes and long, pointy ears. Unless, I dunno, getting Reincarnated means he kept the same traits as his previous incarnation did? Regardless, the appearance of the Gerudo PROVE that the "founding of Hyrule" took place after all the previous games, and did NOT take place before Ocarina of Time. And, I mean, Hyrule was already founded. By Link and Zelda in Skyward Sword. They founded the first Hyrule. We also know Link and Zelda founded a new Hyrule in Spirit Tracks, so its not too far fetched to think Rauru just founded a New New Hyrule. But NOTHING in the game implies this, and with several actual locations from the old games reappearing, it can't just be a reference while at the same time HAVING to be a reference. You're telling me a Lon Lon Ranch happened to be built roughly in the same spot on Hyrule Field separated by 10,000+ years, but is clearly only a couple hundred or so years in ruin? It can't be the same Lon Lon Ranch! Yet, here it is in Hyrule Field. Similar location. So is it an easter egg, a reference or is it actually meant to be the OoT location I DON'T KNOW ANYMORE AND QUITE FRANKLY I THINK I STOPPED CARING. Tears of the Kingdom has proved that Nintendo really doesn't care about story or narrative. They focus on gameplay and the Rule of Cool above all else. And until now, they've been getting lucky. But by trying to craft a more complex story, they've shown that they quite simply don't have any writers. Anyone can make a "Hero beats Villain, saves Damsel" story, its basic A B C. But you'll need a writer if you want to craft a STORY story. And Nintendo just doesn't have any.
It isn´t the same Ganondorf if it was the same he would remember Zelda, Link and the Master sword. SS Zelda didn´t found Hyrule it was her descendants who did. There is things in-game that implies that Rauru´s Hyrule isn´t the first the biggest is Hyrule castle which was built over where Ganondorf was sealed to maintain the seal, Hyrule castle is completely destroyed in two of the timeline splits and moved in the third. Nintendo do care about the story and narrative but you need to look for it.
@@novustalks7525A deus ex machina ending with no learned lesson or sacrifice is not an effective or powerful story. Characters being out of character or passing around the idiot ball doesn't help.
@@amandaslough125 No one is out of character. The ending is literally foreshadowed from the very beginning of the game. It is the complete opposite of deus ex
He is not the same guy. The only time he is the same guy is in Twilight Princess and Ocarina of Time, and that Ganondorf only ever fights 1 Link in either timeline.
I thought he was the same guy in wind waker. Am I wrong about that or do you consider that a different ganondorf because it's a separate branch of the timeline
@@Ajam-lz1ou I don't think he is the same guy, because that timeline should be after the adult ending of Ocarina of Time, so if it was the same Ganondorf he would be aware of Link since he got killed, or sealed, by that guy. Yet he doesn't seem to react to Link, only to the Master sword. It could very well be that sealing Ganondorf, with the master sword specifically, in a way kills him and when he is unsealed he is reincarnated without the memories of his past lives.
@@imatiuit is the same ganondorf as OoT. He just escaped from the sacred realm after a while. TP ganondorf got caught before anything ever happened so they are different but the same.
Totk doesn’t have a writer credit. they really didn’t care with the story/world building in this game and it make me sad. Also, All the fun hating people who’ve been saying to give up on the lore Nintendo doesn’t care about it, have kinda been proven right at least with this game. As mixed as a reception as this game gets, the story seems to be universally hated, and I hope the next big game actually tries next time
no you got it wrong, you shouldn't give up on the lore because Nintendo doesn't care, you should look at the lore of each game individually and let your imagination go wild for future entries without being restricted by arbitrary timeline rules
@@pokemonduck i still do, my opinion on totk hasn’t made me give up on the older games lore. But it does make me worried going forward with future games.
@pokemonduck I think it's a zelda problem rather than nintendo. It's hard to get invested when you know they're just going to ignore it in the sequel, and all the references are just empty nostalgia bait. Metroid and Xenoblade have amazing lore that isn't 90% fanfiction or headcanon.
Let’s not forget the first reveal trailer. It looked so much more immersive and expanded as a world than what we got just from the fact the underground passages leading from the castle to the tunnels was much more detailed. We had rats in the trailer for goodness sake. Small creatures! It wasn’t much but who know what else could’ve been! Zelda and Link riding the Dondon down and having to abandon the poor creature due to bad roads! The sealing symbols that held Ganondorf looked more like Gerudo script rather than zonai symbols! Like I was expecting something WAY different from what we got. Honestly I’m happy with what we have but I feel… there was so much more meant to be. We don’t even get names of the ancient sages ; w ; I wanna say they’re basically the divine beasts + the sages from OoT/WW. Idk it’s a stretch. In any case, this video is awesome, you’re awesome and I’m glad I subscribed to see it!! :)
Having literally just watched a video from GuyMRY about how TOTK makes perfect lore sense and fixes the Zelda timeline, I’m fascinated to immediately pivot to this haha Curious to see your take After having watched, yeahhhhhhhhh TOTK has a rough story I definitely agree. The prior video I watched did a lot of… bending over backward to make TOTK work, and after the bending it makes sense for sure, but it would have been so much nicer to have a well polished and clear story directly in TOTK, rather than handing it over to fans to… “correct” their mistakes
To be fair, the story for TOTK isn't exactly the strongest we've gotten. If anything BOTW had references to all the games that could take place anywhere in a timeline perspective and paid tribute to the past, while TOTK's story seems to act as an alternate reality of sorts, not being in any timeline or acknowledging much of the older games aside from a few things here and there, turning both games into their own separate continuity. I know people don't like it or think it's stupid, but by this point, it really seems like the timeline and lore in the newer games are really stepping away from a timeline amd being their own thing, Nintendo even admiting they didn't care for the timeline.
I'm a big proponent of BOTW and TOTK not being in continuity with the rest of the series (and that's okay) but if you have to make it run in a clear continuity, the founding of Hyrule isn't actually a problem, nor is Ganondorf being a different guy. For one, founding and re-founding of Hyrule has precident: you have New Hyrule in Spirit Tracks, for example. You also have Ocarina of Time, which indicates that it took place shortly after Hyrule's unification despite the kingdom existing in a unified state in Minish Cap. So, Rauru's Hyrule is just another re-founding of the Kingdom. As for Ganondorf, he's another reincarnation like in Four Swords Adventures. He rose, took control of the Gerudo, and retraced his former self's steps from Ocarina of Time in taking over Rauru's Hyrule.
I do agree with the stance that BOTW and TOTK are in a separate continuity, and I find it odd that people are choosing to get mad about continuity now when it’s never fully made sense for Zelda before, let alone literally every other Nintendo franchise. Nintendo never really cared about maintaining continuity within a franchise, they’ve just been more up-front about it in recent times with games like TOTK and Pikmin 4.
@@XanderVJ Alright, points for having official confirmation that the games are within a grand continuity. Doesn’t have much of an impact on the rest of what I said though. Zelda’s continuity has always relied mostly on fan interpretation, that’s part of why it’s so engaging. So I can’t bring myself to care that much when TOTK continues to do more of the same- establish strands of loosely connected information for fans to theorize over until it makes sense.
@@XanderVJ Personal theory, another split timeline. Not entirely out of continuity but not in any other timeline we see. TOTK's flashbacks being that timeline's OOT era, and BOTW and TOTK are that timeline's Zelda and Link's Adventure. That... or we're so far behind in the timeline that Hyrule fell, was re-established and everything prior was forgotten and told as legends.
I think what baffles me the most with these theories about the TotK founding being the OG founding is that people think the geography of Hyrule would change so drastically between the games, and then magically just go back after enough time. It's like thinking in another billion years, Pangea is gonna be back and exactly how it used to be, lol.
And that the races would evolve away from the forms of the ancient Sages only to go right BACK to those forms. Like...the forms of the ancient Sages in the Founding Era are identical to the forms of the races in the modern day. There's a goddang map of the geoglyphs that was built shortly after the Founding Era that is STILL ACCURATE in the modern day, you are NOT convincing me that the Hyrule landmass went from that, to the forms it took in the other games, and then right back to where it was. Nah. Not buyin' it
Honestly, I've always thought that geography should be left out of theorizing altogether. The reason why Hyrule changes geography in the vast majority of games is because it's needed for the game's overall level design. As a matter of fact, TotK has proven why reusing the same map in different games is just not a good idea unless you are EXTREMELY careful about it.
@@XanderVJ Yep, it's always been a game design reason. The whole point is pretty much to not alienate the player base while at the same time not making them feel like it's exactly the same. Usually they'll achieve this by just taking the same character but put them in new place to explore To me sticking to nearly the same topography as Breath of the Wild is what hurts Tears of the Kingdom the most. Makes it feel more like a software update than a new game entirely
@@meteorain2940 There's nothing wrong with Zelda II's map. Look it up, it has the entirety of the Zelda1 map in the southwest corner, below Death Mountain where it always was. Or rather, the mountain range with Death Mountain was always at the northernmost part of the map.
That's... literally impossible. That memory only appears after you've found all the other tears 1st. At most you would've found one that showed her _deciding_ to do it, but not actually doing it yet.
@@King_Luigi I saw the "Light Dragon" - the only one without a name - and then saw the memory with Mineru mentioning Draconification and was like, "oh, Zelda turns into a Dragon. Lame."
@@hanburgundy4317 Well that's just you making assumptions, though you were ultimately correct for where things were going, it's entirely different from actually _seeing_ her become the dragon.
@@King_Luigi sorry, no, its really just putting 1 and 1 together. Even the hair color of the Dragon was enough evidence to realize this is Zelda. When someone now speaks about becoming a dragon, its like putting 1 and 1 together while there is a box with possible numbers and one of them being a 2.
I don't like these new type of Zelda, at first i found BOTW only "meh", but then when TOTK released, i realise they put the exact same gameplay, and now i HATE both of them. I hate EVERYTHING about these new zeda : I don't like the music, and yes i have listen to the OST, and most feel generic, or just "music in background" (AND that's NOT an excuse, Oblivion/Skyrim have music like that and they are good). I hate the weapon system. i hate that they removed the metroidvania aspect by giving you everything directly. I hate they way they handle the story like it's optional. The dungeons in BOTW were a joke, and are laughable in TOTK. i liked the shrine, but all lack personality since they all look the same, therefore even if they had good idea, they feel like a chore. i hate how much time you pass in the menue to do cooking, changing weapon etc. i'm not a bad gamer, i play mostly rogue like normally, but god for some reason, the way they map the controller for BOTW was bothersome to remember. Zelda was never about combat, but about puzzle, even the boss were puzzle in a way, now with this formulas it's all about combat.. but it's not even that good : i prefer playing Elden ring, or thing similar if i want a thing focus on the combat. I like having a clear goal, even in open world, and they don't really do that in those game. so.... I'm now pretty hype for the Echoes of Wisdom nonetheless
@@Goudlock the combat in BotW and TotK is a joke too, all the weapons work the same way. Remember OoT, MM, WW and TP? Every weapon was different and had it’s own function, now they are all the same crappy sword, spear and bigass sword
@@JCardo2502 true and most of it, i forget this most important reason why i hate those game : ALL THE REWARD ARE USELESS ! a new weapon? i don't care, i already have 1451 weapons already. Money ? I'm already loaded.. the game give you no real reward for exploring exepct for the shrine but like i said shrine are souless
Actually there was only one kind of "Reboot" in the Zelda-Series and it was Ocarina of Time. Ocarina of Time was and is meant to be a prequel of A link to the Past. It tells the story of how Ganondorf searched the Triforce and finally entered the Sacred Realm and obtained it, which was the backstory of AlttP. BUT Ocarina of Time changed the outcome because Ganon was defeated in the end and never obtained the whole Triforce while in AlttP Ganon has the power of the full Triforce. Still it was only a soft Reboot because the now called "Downfall"-Timeline which followed AlttP was still expanded upon. The fact that the Downfall-Timeline is a alternate reallity where Link dies in Ocarina of Time is actually true to the original AlttP lore because it never mentioned a hero that defeated Ganon. Yet people ridicule the Downfall-Timeline and say it is proof that Nintendo never cared for the timeline and lore, when in TRUTH it is apparent from the marketing and interviews from before OoT that it was meant as a prequel to AlttP. All Zelda games have connected stories and are prequels or sequels of each other. There are only 3 outliners that don't really connect to the stories of the "Main Games". The Cap Com games have rather independent stories, yet still the Oracle Games make an effort to connect themselves to the beginning of Links Awakening and the ending of AlttP where Ganon dies (also Twinrova from Ocarina of Time appears again(!). They are still allive because Link didn't succeed in the Downfall-Timeline) and Minish Cap was meant to be a prequel to the Four Swords Multiplayer games. It doesn't connect to the "Main Games", but its story and placement in the timeline also does not contradict them, so it is fine.
The problem with this logic is that the LTTP lore never says a hero died fighting Gabon either. It.literally says NOBODY was found who could wield the sword, and all but stated the sword was created at that time. "But the.downfall timeline makes more.sense!" No it doesn't. If you take LTTP verbatim not a.single game made after LTTP can actually be set before LTTP. OOT rewrote LTTP's backstory by having Link defeat Ganon with the Master Sword and disappearing from the timeline. Ganon is still sealed into the Sacred Realm, there's no need for it to be exactly "Ganon was sealed bybthe sages and had all three triforve pieces" if they're already retconning so much of the other lore anyway. The maidens are descended from the Sages, but people believe the Sages of OOT died making this impossible. The Sages are also all of different races while the maidens are hylian. Yes OOT did reboot the story and rewrote LTTP's lore. But the outcome still lead to the events of OOT-- Ganondorf became Ganon and was sealed in the sacred realm, which later becomes an evil realm he corrupted. It wasn't until WW where this was broken because they wanted a sailing game.
ToTK doesn't even make sense as a Sequel to BoTW The Tears of Dragon Zelda alone and the Landmarks should have been visible in BOTW. ToTK has to be some sort of parallel dimension or dream or alterante dimension. From a Meta Perspective, it really just was an attempt to add other mechanics to the same World which did not fit into the first installation. I think the Story should be considered something similar. For my part, I imagiend that the events in the Past of ToTK might be at the Time of OOT and add a fourth time branching due to Zelda's arrival. The King Rauru would be the actual King of Hyrule in OOT. The founding of the Kingdom is actually the King's unification after the War in OOT, and due to BOTW-Zelda's arrival, thigns take a new turn, Sonjia doesn't get a child named Zelda, Ganondorf wants the Secret Stone and not the Triforce, Ganondorf is sealed. In BOTW we have the "merging"-Timeline and all things come together, kinda. While others are left out, like the Dragon Tears Symbols across the grounds. However, it still feels a bit far fetched and a lots of stuff in TOTK is just immersion breaking. To me, it is either a fourth Timeline from OOT or a parallel dimension entirely.
The problem yall have with Ganondorf is taking the idea of reincarnation like its confirmed in the series. Demise is not literally reincarnating into Ganondorf, Ganondorf is just a byproduct of the eternal Demon Tribe hatred. Ergo theres no issue with TotK Ganondorf coming before OOT Ganondorf. With that in mind you can place the Zonai as having happened in the Era kf Chaos and the Imprisoning War as happening at the end of the Era of Prosperity.
The Zonai can't happen in the spot after SS. They would know Hylia reincarnated into mortal form named Zelda. But Sonia and Rauru have no knowledge of ever previously hearing that name.
@@amandaslough125 not really. We don't know how much time exists between SS and the kingdom being founded, all that Rauru and Sonia know is that they founded Hyrule, they probably have no idea if people before or during their time are named "Zelda" and if they did know the name of the first Zelda, the Goddess reborn, they would have no reason to assume that TotK Zelda is that same Zelda, because the historical records regarding SS Zelda wouldn't include elements like the Kingdom of Hyrule existing, because it didn't at that point, nor would it include references to a person named "King Rhoam Bospharamos Hyrule" because no such person exists during Skyward Sword, and all of this information is how Zelda immediately introduces herself to Rauru and Sonia, as when she first sees Rauru and Sonia she says she is the princess of Hyrule and the daughter of the king.
You made a mistake here. This era of prosperity is a different one to the one after Skyward Sword and this Kingdom of Hyrule is a Second one not the one we seen before. Everything in these games ARE meant to be a departure from the past games, the future of the series set in the distant future of the series. The Easter Eggs where just that, Easter Eggs to spur discourse among fans. This however does not make Tears a good game or even good sequel. I do NOT like Tears' story or lore anymore than the next guy but it should be said that it is slightly improved by being so distant, if only because we can ignore them if we ever go back to classic Zelda again.
"I was twelve when Breath Of The Wild came out, and by the time Tears rolled around I was nineteen and working a job at Sherwin-Wiliams." Jesus _Christ,_ I'm old. I remember a time when I really wanted to play A Link To The Past and Ocarina of Time was this brand new thing I'd heard about but didn't really understand.
You know, at first I don't think too much when people bring up that it took 6 years for totk to come out until I realize how old all of us were when botw came out. I'm actually really glad Echoes of Wisdom is releasing soon because I don't know if I could handle waiting another 6 YEARS for a Zelda game, especially if the story is anything like totk.
As someone who was once a fan of the Kingdom Hearts series, 6 years of wait time between releases doesn't faze me. What really annoys me about this is that we had to wait 6 years for what is essentially DLC content the size of TES: Oblivion's The Shivering Isles for the price of a full game...
Personal head-cannon. BOTW and TOTK are their own separate timeline/ continuity. It takes place somewhere after Skyward Sword, then goes onto its own road. The Zonai arrive and begin the events of the Flashbacks of TOTK, and Ganondorf is sealed, acting as that timeline's version of OOT. then, over time, we got Phantom/ Calamity Ganon appearing every so often until the time period of the Original Games, Zelda 1 and Link's Adventure.
First, you are wrong about Ocarina Ganondorf being the only Ganondorf that we had until TOTK. Four Swords Adventure featured a new Ganondorf. That is actually officially confirmed. I personally would also argue that Ganon from Zelda 1 (NES) was a different Ganondorf. Secondly, you do know that Hidemaru Fujibayashi suggested that the Hyrule that was founded by Rauru and Sonia was likely a re-founding of Hyrule after the old Hyrule had been destroyed, right? In other words, the events of TOTK's memories still take place long after the events of any pre-BOTW game. Even if we ignore that little tidbit of information and say that TOTK's imprisoning war did take place some time between Skyward Sword and the Minish Cap, it still doesn't raise that many problems really. Zelda already stated in the beginning of TOTK that even the royal family had been forbidden for generations from going down to the depths below the castle. They knew that something was down there, but they did not know what, and they were forbidden from going down there. That is why nobody throughout the pre-BOTW games would have known of Ganondorf being down there. As for why they didn't seal him in the sacred realm, that would have been a horrible idea at the time! Yes, seal him in the place where the complete triforce is, all the while knowing from Zelda's warning that Rauru's seal would eventually weaken and Ganon would be able to move again (meaning that once Ganon could move again, the triforce was all his). Sealing Ganon in the sacred realm worked fine in Ocarina of Time because the triforce wasn't there anymore. Link, Zelda and Ganon already held the pieces of it. Similarly, in ALTTP's imprisoning war, Ganon already held the complete triforce when he was sealed into the dark world, so there was no risk to sealing him in the sacred realm. In the era of the Kingdom's founding however (if we ignore Fujibayashi's statement), the triforce would have been safe in the sacred realm. Sealing Ganondorf there would have just been giving Ganon a free ticket to divinity. This comment is getting too long. I'm going to stop here for now.
Even if you wanna assume that statement is true, why are locations like Lon Lon Ranch and the Temple of Time (locations that are destroyed across all timelines) still standing. Even ignoring the timeline split/merger, those locations would have been long gone even before the Calamity
@@connorharnage6697Lon Lon Ranch was still around pre-Calamity. We see that in AoC. The Temple of Time is likely the original one from OoT, considering it has the ruins of Castle Town around it. Also, there was never a Timeline Convergence. That's just a fan theory with no actual backing.
@@AmirPrinceling And that makes no sense. Lon Lon ranch should be long gone even before Age of Calamity and the Temple of Time can't be the same one as it's either destroyed or absorbed into Faron Woods Also yes, the timeline merger was confirmed by Nintendo themselves
The reason for all of this isn't because Nintendo doesn't care about Zelda Lore, it's because they don't care about Zelda Continuity. The timeline has a lot of logical flaws, even before Tears of the Kingdom was introduced. It's clear that an official and concrete timeline that connects all the games is NOT something that has always existed in the minds of the creators. They regularly reference events and characters from other games, sometimes even incorporating them into major plot points like Ganondorf's execution in TP being a consequence of foiling his plans in the beginning of OoT. But actual continuity will ALWAYS be sacrificed by the Zelda devs in service of the current Zelda project, which is why BotW references all the branches of the timeline in a paradoxical merging of different realities. It's why the Zora and the Rito and the Koroks all exist together at the same time as locations like LonLon and the Forgotten Temple and the Twilight Mirror. Continuity is pieced together after the games are made, if it can be, and if it can't than an excuse for another timeline link Link's death in battle with Ganon is created. Nintendo loves Zelda Lore, they just don't care how it all fits together between games.
Love people saying it's nostalgia. I hated BotW, my disappointment with TotK has nothing to do with nostalgia. It's simply a direction I don't care for. The storytelling is worse than past games, that might be nostalgia, but it's nostalgia for when the storytelling was good, not just "new bad". I loved Skyward Sword when it came out.
I really hope we can come back to more classic Zelda games in the future. Yeah the "Full Open World" thing it’s cool… but man… when you have no limits, archiving something feels… boring. Yeah I did something cool… there’s no limits so… what’s the fun on that?
We won't. In the time frame it took to make 2 open world zeldas they released Ocarina up to Skyward. 3D zeldas just aren't a thing anymore, best we get are remakes and ports.
If botw was 10000000000 bajillion years in the future couldnt the "formation of hyrule" referenced in totk be more of a "reformation" or a "formation again" making it also set in the future of the other games. It may not have to be two events on either side of the whole time line but instead two events plopped right at the end of it.
While that is possible and almost certainly the intent... Why Hyrule? Like we know why. Hyrule is the setting for most Zelda games but in universe, what reason does Rauru 2 have to call it Hyrule? Because from what are see in the flashbacks, there are no traces of the old Hyrule. It also doesn't account for locations like the Temple of Time and Lon Lon Ranch which, if we assume the old Hyrule is long gone, those locations should've been destroyed long before the Calamity
@connerharnage6697 If I had to guess, Rauru was naming the Kingdom after the name already given to the land by its people. When Ganondorf references the queen to Rauru, and the first contact between their races, he distinguishes between Zonai and ‘Hyruleans’, which he labels the queen. This implies that the Hylians were already names such, after their own heritage.
Also, to be fair to those who’ve studied BotW, we understand the references aren't always conclusive. There are many conflicting references to past Zelda games in BotW/TotK. It was intentional, to inspire thought, and harken back to the series as a whole, while they reevaluated its formula, based on its origin.
I’d argue resounding theory is bullshit plus it has to be the original founding, because we see when rauru’s temple of time existed on the surface, the oot one was not yet built, plus there’s no reason it isn’t so it being a refunding would be an unnecessary contrivance Plus in the cutscene where ganondorf pledges false allegiance, you can see in the background a stained glass mural that is heavily reminiscent of the minish cap, alongside Rauru’s castle as a whole, being so, the Rito also don’t work, as they are most definitely a different species of rito from the one in wind water, likely lived in hebra the whole timeline, since we never see them
re: Gloom and Malice My working theory based on what we were presented with in the games is that Malice was a weakened form of Gloom. Calamity Ganon is stated to have emerged from "deep below Hyrule Castle" by King Rhoam, and...where's Ganondorf? Deep below Hyrule Castle. Calamity Ganon was "hatred and malice incarnate", and Ganondorf is, according to Zelda lore, an incarnation of Demise's hatred for Hyrule. So the Gloom seeping out from Ganondorf became weakened due to Rauru's seal purifying Ganondorf's evil, but Ganondorf was still strong enough that even the weakened form of Gloom was still EXTREMELY harmful, and over time, the Gloom/Malice coalesced into a form that would single-mindedly carry out Ganondorf's wish to destroy Hyrule. Also: the monsters in Birth of the Demon King (the memory that shows Ganondorf becoming the Demon King and summoning his army of monsters) shows the monsters with the fancy horns we see them with in TotK, while in BotW, they had the more basic horns. At the time of their creation, Ganondorf would have been at full power and his Gloom at full potency, but after he was sealed, the monsters would have been powered by the weakened Malice, then when Rauru's seal was fully broken during the Upheaval, the monsters would have been powered with pure Gloom again, hence the horns in TotK's present-day that match the ones in the memories. The murals in the Forgotten Foundation depict the monsters with the basic horns, but these murals were carved AFTER the Imprisoning War, when Rauru's seal was active and the Gloom would have been weakened, so the monsters that still existed would have been in their powered-down state re: Timeline Fully 100% *unconvinced* that TotK's Founding Era takes place anywhere near Skyward Sword. The landmass is too similar between the Founding Era and the modern day, it did not shift into where it was in the other games and then go back. The Ancient Sages look identical to their modern counterparts, they did not evolve away from those forms and then go back. The geoglyph map that was created in the Forgotten Temple shortly after the Founding Era is STILL ACCURATE in the present day. Hyrule Castle was destroyed BY GANONDORF during OoT, and since the castle is what's holding TotK Ganondorf back, it would have...released him? There would be two Ganondorfs? But then Ganondorf is still sealed in the opening of TotK, so the only POSSIBLE explanation is that this is a founding of a brand new Hyrule AFTER the end of the previous timeline(s), and that this Hyrule Castle was built after the Imprisoning War and then LEFT UNTOUCHED until it was partially destroyed in the Calamity 100 years before BotW, which is what weakened Rauru's seal and allowed Ganondorf to escape (this is explicitly stated in Ganondorf's Character Profile in TotK). And...how would the other Ganondorfs exist while TotK Ganondorf was still sealed? If TotK's Founding Era/the Imprisoning War took place before OoT, that means there would've been two Ganondorfs existing simultaneously in Hyrule, one sealed beneath Hyrule Castle and one trying to steal the Triforce (and it would not have been like there being "two" Master Swords and "two" of the same Secret Stone existing simultaneously in TotK, which were the same objects existing alongside an earlier version of themselves; this would have literally been two Ganondorfs, two completely separate people, existing at the same time) re: Sheikah technology Was fumbled. No other excuse for it. No it did not "just vanish one day", that's a lazy explanation that the devs pulled out of their ass because they *have* no explanation, and this explanation is even disproven *by the game itself!* There's old Sheikah tech EVERYWHERE in this game. Ancient Blades scattered in chests as well as being excavated from the Depths by a Zonai Construct, Sheikah Tower and Divine Beast warp pads in the Skyview Towers, Sheikah Tower and Guardian parts in the Skyview Towers (the bottom of the launching platform is the hull of a Guardian Stalker, not to mention the Guardian arms that attach the wire coil to Link's belt), the Guardian on top of the Hateno Tech Lab, hell there are still miscellaneous Guardian parts in the Hateno and Akkala Tech Labs (the Hateno Lab even has heads from the mini Guardians, the ones that could only be found inside shrines). The Divine Beasts are mentioned in character dialogue; the spire above Rito Village is referred to as Vah Medoh's Perch, Yunobo says that the Vah Rudania Divine Helm is "equipment named after a Divine Beast", Vah Naboris' rampage is described as a "major crisis" by Rima in Gerudo Town, and The Turning Tide (the new statue in the middle of Zora's Domain) depicts Link and Sidon's battle against Vah Ruta! You're tellin' me that four *GIGANTIC* mechs that were considered quasi-deities by Hyrule's races just vanished one day and everybody *just accepted it?* Even the Sheikah researchers who had spent their entire lives researching this stuff?? /text wall man it has been a year and I still have BIG FEELINGS about how hard they fumbled the lore in this game
The only explanation is to have a timeline split immediately after skyward sword. Then all the OoT events can still take place but in its own, different way where Rauru is instead a Goat man etc. then it works.
What most people don't realize, is that for the first 15 years of the franchise: February 21, 1986 - February 27, 2001 there was only one, singular, unbroken timeline. Every game fit perfectly, with no ambiguity at all, even the "Excuuuse Me Princess" cartoons, the Valiant comics, and the CD-i games, everything up until the two Oracle games was a single timeline. Everything changed when the Wind Waker attacked: December 13, 2002... I mean, that's the first time the lore could be considered "complicated," anyhow. Previously, it could be assumed that after Ocarina, the Imprisoning War happened as described in ALttP and what we now call the Adult Timeline had erased itself, Sonic '06 style. WW changed it so we had two games continuing off the two endings of Ocarina. Still fairly easy to follow. Then Twilight Princess overwrote ALttP, and created what we now call the Child Timeline... and I forget exactly how long it was before Aonuma decided to even _tell_ anybody about the three timelines. But wasn't it around Skyward Sword? So, technically it was only from November 18, 2011 to March 3, 2017 when he abandoned the timeline concept completely; so only 6 years out of the last 38 have actually had the three timelines. Tears of the Kingdom, of course, had the opportunity to show a merging timeline, or uh, I mean you _just_ went over what it _could_ have done, and _why_ it failed.
That sums it up perfectly, Nintendo really doesn't care too much about the timeline, they just want to make good games and tackle it on wherever they think it fits or has a place to explain something, even if it contradicts itself at times. Personally speaking, they could've just had Majora's Mask be the time split for ALTTP and TP since you can say Link vanished in MM when he went back in time, the Triforce returned to Hyrule and the Imprisoning War occurred when people, including Ganondorf who should had the Triforce of Power from the divine prank in TP, an alternate timeline of sorts, practically curbstomped everyone, killed the Gorons, the Kokiri, turned the Gerudo into monsters and had the full Triforce until he was sealed by the sages and so on and so forth until ALTTP. Meanwhile in the timeline Link restarts the 3 days and defeats Majora's Mask, the Triforce is still kept a secret, he returns to Hyrule to help defeat Ganondorf as a Hylian Knight/ Hero's Shade and there is no Imprisoning Wars, no Sealing of Ganon in the Sacred Realm, but instead the events of TP play out. Leading Link to become the Hero's Shade, Skull Kid guarding the Master Sword and the Triforce of Courage remaining in his bloodline in Ordon Village for safety if Ganondorf ever returned.
@@wolfzend5964 Hunh... I've never heard anyone suggest splitting the timeline at Majora's Mask. Except, of course, making well nigh infinite splits, causing millions of doomed futures for Termina... no one ever talks about Hyrule in those. Your theory certainly makes a lot more sense than that "KK, this _one_ time Link died, and _only_ this one time, we got an official split! Dude, trust me, bruh, I'm the producer!" theory... or... I guess, _technically_ canon explanation.
The comics, cartoons, and CD-i games were never canon. I do agree about the timeline though. Wind Waker is what really fucked the timeline. And when you think about it the logic behind why Wind Waker HAS to be flooded because of Ganon doesn't make any logical sense whatsoever. The only reason it happened is because they wanted to make a Zelda game with a sailing mechanic. In other words, they didn't care about the lore.enough back then over finding new gameplay mechanics. So why the fuck is TOTK the one people complain about when they've been doing.this since AT LEAST Wind Waker? I hated all the BOTW theory videos because I knew this EXACT thing would happen. The reason the theory videos stopped is because they built mountains of theories on nothing except fun things they Zelda team decided to use as filler in BOTW's map.
@@jrconway3 My point was that the cartoons, comics, and the CD-i games didn't _break_ canon. They take place during and around Zelda 1 & 2, and although the CD-i games reviving and dispatching Ganon again 3 times is silly, they don't contradict anything. Just about everything, on the other hand contradicts _something_ about one or more of the proposed three timelines Aonuma had going for about 6 years. Then he gave up.
@@Wendy_O._Koopait could work differently depending on whether he’s being sent back individually as opposed to the whole world being reset to a specific time. It would require having only the user of the song of time(and maybe certain others like tatl)recall anything though.
Well I was excited that you didn't say the Spring of Power was the Skyview Spring but then you went and said the Forgotten Temple was the Sealed Temple. :( The Forgotten Temple is its own thing, the Sealed Temple has the OOT Temple of Time built over it, this is foreshadowed in SS with the Sage Medallions being found in the Sealed Temple and further confirmed in Hyrule Historia, and then later BOTW by having the BOTW Temple of Time be placed in close proximity to Faron, Lake Floria, and The Spring of Courage (Skyview Spring.)
I think the explanation for where the Sheikah tech went is in breath of the wild. They found all of it right before the calamity because that’s when it would be needed. Most of it- the guardians, the towers, the divine beasts, were underground. Probably even the Sheikah slate, which we find can only be used by Link. And since some of the shrines are underground until you finish their quest, it’s not too crazy to think that the rest of the shrines could hide underground too. And the towers didn’t even appear until link woke up 100 years later, so it’s possible that this tech was programmed to only exist when it’s needed. And since the calamity is sealed, it’s no longer needed.
@@connorharnage6697I remember people being really divisive about the downfall time. Even though people have crafted good theories to make it work, like the wish theory or Zelda using OOT time travel to get a second chance, Nintendo never gave an official explanation for how the Hero of Time could have simultaneously died and lived to make all three timelines happen.
@@firestarex3544 I mean the explanation is very simple. Nintendo fucked up the terminology. The Downfall timeline isn't a timeline at all. It's an alternate reality
@connorharnage6697 Not really. It's been implied that the wish made by Link in ALttP is what made it possible for the Hero of Time to defeat Ganon and create the Adult and Child timelines. That's why all the way back then, OoT was stated to be a prequel to ALttP, even though the ending is distinctly different than the backstory of ALttP (Ganon gets sealed with the full triforce, while Ganondorf only gets sealed with the Triforce of Power in OoT). People need to pay more attention.
@@AmirPrinceling Where is this implied ever? I has never seen this implied. Also Ganondorf is sealed with the Triforce of Power because he didn't get Link. In the Downfall Reality (doesn't have the same ring to it as Downfall Timeline tbh), Ganon kills Link and presumably Zelda causing the remaining Sages to seal him in the Sacred Realm
I wanted to buy a super thanks so I could help clear things up. I am of the belief that the ancient past depicted into the kingdom still takes place at the end of the timeline. The fact that the Gerudo and the Rito we're both existing at the same time to be the sages to fight Ganondorf proves that this was the end of the timeline (gerudo showing up first in ocarina of time, and rito in windwaker). It was confirmed that breath of the wild had a timeline reformation with all three timelines converging into one, and in the child timeline there is new Hyrule (I don't think this is new hyrule, just stating that hyrule's new foundation isn't new to the series) I think Rauru instead founded a new hyrule after the convergence and that is the ancient past in tears. It isn't a perfect answer but it is the one that makes the most sense and I think it explains a lot without the need of speculation. The timeline merge, rito and gerudo isn't speculation at all, it is confirmed and the fact they are in the past (when the 2 species didn't exist before at least ocarina) proves this can't be in the age of prosperity. Overall I think the Zelda Lord is a jumbled mess but I don't think that tears of the Kingdom inherent breaks everything. You just have to work a little closer and then it makes sense. If you'd like I could elaborate more but I hoped I helped.
I feel what really shot themselves in the foot here is that a few years before tears came out, they released Skyward Sword again. If you weren't going to use any of that story in it and actively ignore most of it, then why did they release it again? If you didn't want the game fresh in our minds, then why put it there? So much of its story was either retconned or just ignored in this game. I feel like that's what pissed me off the most. I have been following the lore of Zelda since the very beginning, so when they just skip over large parts like this, it just kinda stings. It didn't need to be a perfect game. It just had to respect all the games that came before it. Just because you bought a new tire, that doesn't mean that you have to go throw the old one into the heart of a volcano... No matter how tempting it is. My point is that they wanted to do a new story but couldn't resist throwing the old one away in the process.
@@HunnysPlaylists Sounds like a pretty stupid excuse. Good for him? Oh well. It's been a fun run. I guess we just have to add Zelda to the growing list of video game series that just no longer give a fuck. What an absolute shame.
TOTK's Hyrule is very likely not actually the first one, I don't know why some fans insist on trying to fit it after SS. The re-founding theory has been around since release and Fujibayashi even said it was possible. I agree overall but some of your explanations are confusing. Of course Ganondorf is a vehicle of evil, he _is_ the incarnation of evil. In Four Swords Adventure he had a different canon incarnation. But I guess like me you're annoyed they didn't give him more interesting scenes here. I really don't care about malice vs gloom but essentially, malice was a form of his power while he was sealed and Calamity was an enraged form as he was stuck, while gloom is "the raw stuff" when he's free. In BOTW it's hard to say what places were the original ones, I ready to bet the writers themselves never fully decided. But the Forgotten temple for example is not the original.
From my own lore-digging: Malice and Gloom are more of an apples and oranges case. They're not the same thing, although they are related. Malice (Grudge) is a substance associated with demons and monsters. It is a corruptive substance made of negativity that infects and consumes life. Gloom (Miasma) is a gaseous substance associated with Ganon. It is toxic and drains the life force both from the world and its inhabitants. One corrupts, the other decays.
Zonai are seen in the Silent realm guardian statues they’re the exact same visage And the game makes sense if it takes place after Windwaker. Humanity is rebuilding the zonai descend. The zonai help rebuild humanity and the other races. The Gerudo who potentially survived in the gerudo highlands meaning they had a peaceful place to live and plenty of space. Are suddenly thrust back into a desert. Then ganondorf is reborn in hatred with legends telling him how the gods took his people’s livelyhoods away. He wants power and land just like the last ganondorf. The only difference is unlike the last ganondorf he had to fight a war with his own people meaning instead of wanting to give them anything he just wants to gain power himself. His people who joined him would’ve survived but past that he probably didn’t care. Also gloom doesn’t seem to be malice but instead seems to be a poison. Gloom destroys your health mentally and physically until you completely succumb and die. It’s not Malice we see malice when bosses are killed. Ganondorf wants to poison the kingdom so nobody can fight back.
I really hated totk. I loved botw because it has a beautiful, yet simple, story. And it didn't contradict the lore, it made it even better, and expanded it.
I believe the devs have stated that Hyrule has been destroyed and rebuilt countless times across history and the newly founded Hyrule we see in the past of TotK is just the newest version, now with Zonai and it's own new Ganondorf. This Hyrule doesn't predate Minish Cap. Every game in the series before BotW is the "distant past" super far removed from the Wild games. No other games are set between the this Hyrules founding and when we see it in BotW for the first time.
BotW's interpretation of Calamity Ganon very clearly (and explicitly in Creating a Champion) tied him to OoT Ganondorf. I really liked the idea of him devolving into pure hatred. Them apparently choosing to retcon this into another Ganondorf might still make sense _if they actually explained who he was._ Malice was the very essence of Ganon, and I was intrigued to see it in the trailer only for that to be "gloom". Now Gloom is called "miasma" in almost every other language, the idea of it being it makes people ill by sapping their life force, but when they don’t explain what it is at all (and the localization's strange choice only serves to obfuscate it further), no wonder everyone thinks it's the same as Malice. It's disappointing because Malice had a lot of interesting lore and gloom could have too, whether related or not, but nope. On a broader note, lots of people say "the Zelda timeline was just made up haphazardly for fans", and while I don’t think it should be taken as the be-all-end-all, that’s clearly not true. Since the beginning the games were all intended to be connected, and after Ocarina of Time the games themselves played into this further. BotW was more loose with its connections, but it still made sense and fit in with the other games. Then TotK comes and takes a crap on everything, and worst of all the game whose lore it ruins the most is its predecessor. The devs said they didn’t want games to be restricted by the timeline, which is absolutely fair, but instead of addressing it they purposely don't answer so it's "left up to your imagination". Like, based on a lot of evidence I'm 90% sure the developers' intention is that the founding of Hyrule here is not the original, and Fujibayashi confirmed they had such an intention but refused to confirm it, only saying "it's possible". Yeah, we do want to theorize, but we can hardly do that when they give us so little to work with in the first place.
The Wild-era games are either so extremely far in the future that even the Zonai-era of Hyrules (re)founding was waaaays into the future from the last games in the existing timeline.... or Nintendo set these two games up in their own continuity and took existing games (hence the multitude of references) only as a blueprint.
I wouldn't say TotK ruined the Zelda Lore, but it ruined everyone's perception of the lore because of how ambiguous it was, along with the answers given by the directors. In reality, TotK doesn't retcon anything. Rauru "refounded" the Kingdom, after it had been in ruins for a long period of time. It's been stated several times that the Kingdom goes through periods of destruction and reconstruction. There was also a distinct lack of historical records of the time before Rauru. Everyone knows Rauru is the "First King" of Hyrule, but the previous events and kings were forgotten, likely because past records had been destroyed. This is why I think it's all but confirmed BotW/TotK take place in the Adult Timeline, considering how the Zora monuments confirm Sidon is a descendant of OoT Ruto, who was said to have become a Sage and fought alongside the hero and princess to seal Ganon, which is exactly what happened in OoT, specifically the Adult Timeline. Ruto never becomes a Sage in the Child Timeline. You could argue for the Defeated Timeline, but the Hero of Time died during the battle so it wouldn't be as fitting if it was said they worked together when Link died before the battle was one. Then there's of course the Koroks and Rito, a divine beast being named after Medli, Naboris clearly being stated to be named about the sage Nabooru from OoT, etc. Also, something major most don't know is the fact that the Ganondorf who became the Calamity was the last male Gerudo born, as stated in Creating a Champion. No other Male Gerudo were born after him, which would make it impossible for the events of TotK's past to take place before SS or any other game realistically. I have huge issues with BotW and TotK, but I wish people didn't exaggerate its story issues to go as far to say it "destroyed the lore."
Distinction without a difference. The first few weeks I played TotK I was convinced that Aonuma and Fujibayashi had decided during the development of TotK to just straight pull the trigger and essentially de-canonized all games before BotW. After all, BotW had brought so many new fans to the franchise, they could afford to start a new and the vast majority of their current player base wouldn't care. Of course, then Fujibayashi told us that wasn't the case. But having to learn that such a cataclismic event took place in a freaking interview felt insulting. The last time Hyrule was destroyed, it was the backbone of the story of an entire game (TWW), and it was given a ton of gravitas and thematic meaning. But this? Said on an interview with no real hints in the game whatsoever? It felt like Fujibayashi had thrown the old Hyrule away as if it was yesterday's trash. Couple that with the laughable continuity between BotW and TotK themselves, and you can't trust what comes out of the developers mouth when it comes to taking continuity seriously.
@XanderVJ I've always been of the belief that the likes of Aonuma and Fujibayashi never gave a lick about the continuity, but others on the team did. Aonuma has said ad nauseum that he's there for the gameplay, not the story. Him and Fujibayashi pay little attention to the stories of the games they develop, they just decide how much story they'll allow the Team to add in. I firmly believe others on the team care about the lore and continuity, they're just stifled because of the new "nonlinear approach." I'm not defending BotW and TotK's stories, just saying that the lore hasn't been utterly shattered and retconned like many have led themselves to believe. It doesn't change how upset I am to see such little regard for the stories of the past and how much Aonuma wants to just forget about it by setting BotW/TotK so far in the future, after most of previous history has been lost for one reason or another. His belief that nonlinear games like TotK being what Zelda should have always been about is a damned shame. I will say that Hyrule has been destroyed and reconstructed numerous times, specifically in the Downfall Timeline, but also of course in the Adult Timeline with Old and New Hyrule. TotK does leave some hints that the original Hyrule had been destroyed, but they're quite vague so it's understandable most wouldn't catch it and assume Rauru had been around before Skyward Sword. Fuji and Aonuma just were too busy trying to cater to all the BotW fanatics.
@@AmirPrinceling "I'm not defending BOTW or TOTK's stories." I am. Breath of the Wild's story was pretty damn good. Period. It's just not of the scale we're used to from Zelda. The only real flaws in TOTK's stories were >Repeating the sage cutscene at the end of the first four dungeons, which isn't even as egregious as it sounds on paper since it's a three-minute cutscene and from the player's perspective it's going to be 10+ hours in between each one. I didn't even realize they were repeated almost verbatim until it was pointed out to me. >The game's open-ended structure makes it really easy to do things out of order. This is a pretty big one I admit. And as for the lore? Who cares about the lore? Not Nintendo, that's for sure. "Zelda lore" has always been fans trying to turn cool references to past games into a super intricate story on the level of Kingdom Hearts or Metal Gear Solid. The "timeline" in Hyrule Historia was basically made up for fanservice and is held together by duct tape and spit.
@HunterStiles651 This is just gaslighting. Zelda lore has always been important and rich, just not the main focus of Aonuma, but others on his team have put serious effort into it. The timeline also wasn't hashed together, if you would just look at past interviews (like the pre-release interview for OoT and how it was stated as a prequel for ALttP, and countless other examples). And let me just add a footnote, I don't despise BotW's story. I actually love the Champions. However, the story itself was done no justice as its hard to tell a good story in just 10 minutes of cutscenes. It easily could've been one of the best stories in the series...had the game took place in the past instead. Which is why I personally vastly prefer AoC's story, as the characters get much needed screentime and fleshing out, as well as interactions with each other. TotK had a lot of potential too, but had a rushed and half-baked story that was also very dumbed down. Cliche villain Ganondorf, Puppet Ganon disguised as Zelda being obvious from the start, each story being self-contained, and so on. The Sages weren't bad, though Tulin had next to no development (or at least, he was only a minute long).
@AmirPrinceling OOT being a Prequel to LttP was always dumb. Really, there shouldn't _be_ a Prequel to LttP because it would either suck or be inaccurate. There is zero room for a traditional Zelda game unless you just made up a new antagonist and had Ganon be a side presence that never gets directly referred to by name.
Big agree. My first Zelda game was Oracle of Ages and I fell in love with the story of the series with every subsequent game up until BotW, which felt directionless, aimless and like story was an afterthought. I figured sure, it's a new formula, they're trying it out; it'll be better next time. And then Tears came out and felt like a reboot of the franchise. Barely even connected to the game it's a direct sequel to despite sharing the same world, even. I'm so disappointed.
Isn’t BOTW a sort of reboot to the franchise? it has old locations as reference and little nods to the original series. This is a complete different timeline
It's only a "sort of" reboot, the mystery of BotW was how could relics and tribes from different timelines coexist. Which are still mysteries that can be solved. But TotK openly calls out that, the relics that was mentioned and seen were just not the ones we seen before. Hence a reboot.
BOTW is a sequel to all of the other games. TOTK is a sequel to nothing, and a retelling of BOTW. The lore that is does have is too vague to care much about. Why does Ganondorf hate Rauru so much? Where did all the Sheikah tech go? Where do the Secret Stones come from, and how did Rauru get them? Were Farosh, Dinraal and Naydra once Zonai, and why don't we interact with them if they are? Why does no one remember Link? "Who cares? Just build wacky stuff with your ghost hand!" People praise TOTK's Ganondorf to high heaven, but that's just because of the voice acting. He's not the survivor of a harsh desert from Wind Waker, not the reincarnation of Demise from Skyward Sword, and not the formless essence of pure hatred born from countless failures from BOTW. He's just a bandit who eats a magic rock, sleeps for a thousand years, and becomes a dragon.
The problem with Tears of the Kingdom story is that it has the same memory formula as Breath of the Wild. It’s a linear story that’s told in a non linear fashion and the vast majority of players will go through the game collecting the tears out of order. This worked better for Breath of the Wild because Link just woke up after 100 years and lost all his memories and you basically go around the post apocalyptic land trying to rediscover yourself and what happened to the champions. I witnessed Sonia die in one cutscene and then she was back alive in another because the memories were out of order. The sages aren’t really all that fleshed out because every cutscene after each dungeon has the sages say the same exact thing line for line word for word as all the other cutscenes in the game. It’s tedious and annoying from a story perspective. They also made it completely obvious from the start that Zelda was a puppet. Lastly, you can pull the master sword and discover that Zelda is the light dragon before doing any of the dungeons which means you will have to sit there and watch the sages see puppet zelda and you’ll know it’s an imposter but can’t do anything about it. The ancestors of the sages also witness zelda turning into a dragon and yet none of them inform Link about it at all. I just think the story is all over the place and doesn’t make that much sense. Breath of the Wild had a simple story but at least it made sense and had interesting characters. I didn’t really care about the new characters like Sonia and Mineru. I also think the Sheikah Tech from Breath of the Wild is more interesting especially from a lore perspective than the Zonai are in Tears of the Kingdom. I will admit that Zelda turning herself into a dragon was the ultimate sacrifice in the series besides maybe The King flooding himself and Hyrule in Wind Waker in hopes for a better future. It would have been better and more impactful if Zelda stayed a dragon but instead she wakes up and doesn’t remember anything. Almost like taking a nap for thousands of years and never had to suffer because of it. The cutscene where Rauru tells Ganondorf about the hero with the sword that seals the darkness was one of the greatest cutscenes ever. And the final fight in the sky with the two dragons has some of the most beautiful music in the entire series. I can hate on the game but also recognize when it does get it right. Overall, I thought the story could have been told so much better and at the end of the day it leads us with more questions than actual answers.
no offense but botw ruined the lore first. Like you point out Lon Lon ranch still being around in botw but how does that possibly make sense with how far down the timeline botw is compared to everything. Theres a minimum of 10,000 years between them but somehow lon lon ranch still stands? Its just kind of dumb already totk was another steak in the heart
i feel like a lot of people are overthinking the lore of the games. the games are legends. they can controdict eachother because they are the LEGEND of zelda. we have the same type of stuff IRL too. i think the lore in totk makes perfect sense its simply a new hyrule after the destruction of the one we knew and love in the old games. i love the lore and it makes me sad to see fellow zelda enthusiests having a hard time
I love how Breath sets up all these mysteries about Zonai, the world, the possible location of Ganondorf, the secrets of the map, and stories that have yet to conclude, only for it to be slid into your throats through direct exposition, or just forgetting it entirely. Thanks nintendo
My brother in Christ...Zelda lore was NEVER coherent. Twilight Princess says the Master Sword was constructed by ancient sages, only for Skyward Sword (the very next game) to have it be Goddess Hylia and Link be the ones who make it with no sages at all. This was never a series that cared about it's lore. TotK just made it obvious. But it's not anything new.
To be fair in Skyward Sword you just kinda power the sword up and give it a new name, but the Goddess Sword existed already. I dunno. Either way, Skyward Sword _is_ infuriating because of Demise
I personally believe the reason for why totk doesn't feel good in the story is because it was supposed to be a DLC but grew too big for it to be a dlc and became a game somewhere between game and dlc.
All i gotta say, age of calamity does a better story and lore than totk. Why- dunno- even though the zelda team worked on all 3 titles... just didnt think of growing the story.
AoC has a really well-done story. BotW and TotK have poor stories because Aonuma didn't want to let the team allocate too many resources to the story, he wanted mostly gameplay. At the very least, TotK further cemented the Wild Games as taking place in the Adult Timeline, just a shame the story was so lazy and underdeveloped.
I prefer TotK to BotW. I didn't really like BotW, the story was practically non-existent and it didn't really give me any reason to keep pushing forward. TotK at least has some sort of story and fun gameplay mechanics. It doesn't have to be the best story ever, it just has to do more than BotW.
I find it funny how unimaginative and uninspired Zelda fans are now that rather than speculate and theorize how the pieces fit, they just assume the lore is broken as if Nintendo doesn't have an idea of what's going on behind the scenes like they did while everyone was speculating about the timeline without the proper context of a downfall split. Just because we don't understand how elements make sense right now, doesn't mean we're not gonna get further context later through future games or from the devs themselves whenever they want us to buy the next book of answers. There's still tons of mystery in BotW/TotK's world and lots of details that people haven't or refuse to pick up on because it's just easier to say Nintendo doesn't care anymore.
I think a lot of people take The Lore™ as it exists today for granted. The canon lore has been a mess from the word go. And after OoT, the direct connection between games might have gotten stronger, but the overall lore of the world would only get messier and messier with each new title. It just doesn't feel like it because fan theories have been filling the gaps so well over the years. At some point though, people convinced themselves it was all Nintendo from the start and that all the fan theories weren't actual, ya know, theories made by fans, but simply intended canon that had been planned from the start In reality, TotK is just another brick in the wall of a game that prioritizes its own story over the existing lore. But if you've convinced yourself that Zelda is a franchise with a carefully woven story that's been meticulously plotted out on a chart by Nintendo for almost 40 years, I guess I can see why it would feel so jarring. Still wrong, but I get where they're coming from
I mean that was with the well written story of OoT, ToK isn't exactly a well written classix thats worth expanding, exploring and explaining from best thing would be to do a Tok retcon with come back in 10 Years and try again or just reboot it all together.
@@melkormorgothbauglir.4848 I mean...no it is well written in TOTK really and it is worth expanding, exploring and explaining. I mean none of that is needed reall.
@@Jdudec367 Not really I mean Story it's still a fun game at times the stories trash and every interesting place is desperate needing of some expanding.
It's different from the usual element confusion. The game intentionally mentioned existing names like Rauru and Ruto, and firmly contradicted their stories. So if the developers had any idea in mind, it was to diverge from the story we knew for 30 years
"Wouldn't that make holes in the ground?" Yeah.... If you actually compared the map many if not all of the holes where you go to the depth was Sheikah Shrine locations
I am surprised how many people miss the simple equation: BotW is set untold thousands of years in the future, of whichever timeline it sits on, and TotK gives us the obvious truth that this Hyrule wasn’t founded under a continuous kingdom, that has stretched forward since OoT. It was reformed by Zonai with remnant ‘Hylians’. If Hylians already existed when the Zonai helped form Hyrule, than we can confirm this is a reformation. Simple. The difficulty comes with the assumptions that people make regarding BotW-particularly those who are convinced of a Downfall Timeline placement, and have built up a massive headcanon surrounding the theory. I remember people saying that Ganondorf could never reincarnate in BotW’s timeline ‘because he has revived as a mindless Ganon ever since OoT, hence Calamity’, and because that would leave an Adult Timeline placement more plausible. Then the trailer dropped. People need to stop conflating canon with headcanon. A bunch of people on the Internet declaring a particular timeline placement, doesn’t make it any more conclusive.
It really isn't that simple. If this is a refounding, then we also have to assume Rauru somehow had the knowledge and desire to rebuild iconic structures from the kingdom that hasn't been a thing for thousands of years, because we see in the past that there are no structures from old Hyrule around. Nothing in-game remotely suggests it to be a refounding.
Keep in mind, Rauru didn’t have a hand building any of that stonework, which wasn’t present in TotK’s past, nor did Mineru (the only other Zonai present, contemporaneously), because they both died. Rauru was trapped with his spell and Ganondorf, and Mineru died of her illness shortly after. Also keep in mind, Ganondorf distinguished Zonai separately from what he called ‘Hyruleans’ when he spoke about the queen, and the first contact between Hylians and Zonai, implying that ‘Hyruleans’ already existed. Why would they be named such, if not due to their heritage? Most of all, Denise is explicitly stated in lore to be the originator of this evil. So Ganondorf showing up before hand, only to be replaced by Demise, and then replaced again by Ganondorf in OoT does not hold up. What’s happening in this game is clearly meant to parallel Skyward Sword, but there is no true indication that it subverts it’s place on the timeline.
Finally, someone with sense. Everyone is mad that the game doesn't confirm their ridiculous convergence headcanon or whatever. BotW/TotK have several issues, both as stories and as games, but it's extremely obvious they take place in the Adult Timeline. Based on the Zora Monuments, the names of the Divine Beasts, the Koroks and Rito, the lack of historical records, the fact the Triforce was forgotten, and etc.
@@AmirPrinceling BotW/TotK make explicit references to all three timelines, and anyone who claims that it favors one over another is huffing copium. I don't think you understood a single thing @nickcurrant2254 said?
@@Wendy_O._Koopa People always say that, yet they can't provide which explicit references they're referring to. Unless you mean Zelda's speech in BotW that references past games? Something that can very easily be a reference to the Era of Myth and how some entries are in actuality legends while others are fact in BotW/TotK's continuity, but due to being so long ago it's unknown what is Myth and what is Fact, which is why Zelda's speech makes reference to all three timelines. However, majority of this "explicit evidence" you and others mention are just easter eggs, like the name of a lake or whatever. You really don't understand anything, and are just parroting nonsense people who also don't understand BotW/TotK's lore spout. The Zora Monument confirm the games don't take place in the Child Timeline (confirms Ruto becomes a Sage, is an ancestor of Sidon, fought alongside Link and Zelda to defeat Ganondorf, and was the patron deity of Jabu Jabu which makes it clear this wasn't some other Ruto), so it's either the Defeated or Adult Timeline. The presence of the Koroks (an evolution that only occurred in response to the Great Sea) and Rito hint towards the idea that the games take place in the adult timeline, whereas there is not much of anything to suggest the game takes place in the Defeated Timeline. I could of course go on, but the point is that placing BotW/TotK is not some monumental task, and is quite simple if you actually pay attention. Those who hyperfixate on some random easter egg or DLC item are the same ones who believe in the "Convergence Theory" which is easily the most asinine Zelda theories around.
You definitely have a point regarding the 'disappearance' of the sheikah tech. I'll bet nintendo finished the game and the day before launch they were like "how are we going to explain the tech's disappearence to the fans" and Aonuma said "fuck it, we'll talk about it in an interview"
Could they maybe be hinting that “Demise” was just a moniker and that Ganondorf was the original “Demon King”?? Idk why that just popped into my head when I saw the sealing scene. I mean these are all supposed to be “legends” which are told differently based on who is telling them and when.
"Why do you care so much?" The real question is, _why WOULD'NT you care so much?_ Zelda is a long running franchise spanning decades, with millions of fans around the world. It sure as heck matters, just as much as any other art form (because yes, despite popular belief video games classify as art). The fact that the CREATORS of the franchise itself didn't put much thought into it is a little insulting.
I'm not sure why, but there's a huge collection of Zelda fans who's parents were killed by consistent continuity or something, and they will get personally offended whenever someone _dares_ to care about this stuff. No, I don't understand it either...
There is no next 3D zelda. In the same time frame it took to make Ocarina up to Skyward we only got 2 open world games, only 3D games we got were remakes, no way we are getting more of them. Maybe we get an Ocarina Remake for Switch since they already rereleased up to skyward anyway.
all i heard is that you were coping INMENSELY for breath of the wild easter eggs but you purspoly choose not to on tears of the kingdom even tho its an objective superior succesor with a far more cleaner story and far more emotional scenes , scenes on wich you *actually* are in and interact 11:15 perfect example no it wouldn't , there's no mention of the shika tech bc nobody care about it on the prev games outside of the ppl fighting the calamity on research field , it got lose 5 years ago and ppl move on because they already have the tech without the need of a giant army that can turn against you ; weapons included there's no reason to exlain whyh a main theme on a prev zelda is replace on the next game ; nobody care for why the triforce of power suddenly appear on ganondorf in twillightt princess , nor why ganon was green instead of blue or more importantly , why the hero of the eind was nowhere to be reference on new hyrule don't let me start with the kokiri it just doesn't make sense to reference something like that if you won't use it and ofc you won't use it , bc the story isn't about that anymore 17:10 pure bullshit again if the era of prospery was really the founding of this hyrule there wouldn't be monster around the kingdom , that's the whole point of the minish cap. also the lack of the triforce alongside the temple of time is telling
There was a recent interview with Aonuma for echoes of wisdom that gives me hope that they have at least gotten the memo on totks story reception and hopefully they can address it in the next big game. Echoes already has a story that is leagues better than tears so that is a hood sign.
I remember one person mentioned there was a possibility that totk (the past sections) may be taking place after all the other zelda games. And the reason hyrule was being founded again is because it had been so long that the kingdom was forgotten to time so from the perspective of the new founders they were the ones initially founding it Doesnt solve the lack of a link incarnation for ganondorf but that explanation atleast makes it make a vague amount of sense (its been like a year since I saw the video that said this was a possibility so I cant really link it, im sorry)
Remember everyone. Totk started out as dlc so a lot of the complaints about geography and the geogliphs can be chalked up to that. How do we know the glyphs werent always there and that the upheavial made them visable again? Or maybe zelda was using her dragon magic to keep them hidden until the time was right.
No it hasn't. Say what you will about the timeline, it made sense and the games were so independent there was literally no way to contradict each other
Just because you lack media literacy doesn't mean the timeline doesn't make sense. Many children were able to connect the dots between games before the Hyrule Historia published.
I was terrified of what totk was going to do because I saw the writing on the wall that the devs didn't care about lore in botw. Bringing back Fi, bringing back Hylia, not mentioning the triforce, they just didn't care. It's been heartbreaking to watch Nintendo throw away their #2 game series to create something that could have been its own new successful thing. You've spent your entire adolescence in the wild era and even Echoes of Wisdom looks like its going to follow the same sandbox style of totk. I'll never lose my love for the series, but Nintendo is rejecting fans who cared about the world they made. The lore is only worth exploring if it adds richness to the world and the characters in it.
they clearly took the gamefreak mindset when it comes to lore but where gamefreak doesnèt give a single shit about lore and only uses past lore for easter eggs and throws everything else away the zelda devs at least give a single shit about the lore at least in breath anyways but clearly donèt give two shits at least when it came to tears
Context on what? Context on the kingdom's founding? We already knew that and if anything this refounding of Hyrule a bazillion years later only makes things more confusing as locations that were destroyed across all timelines are still standing. It sure as hell doesn't explain Ganondorf or his relationship to Calamity Ganon since now there's apparently been a Ganondorf between BOTW and Four Swords Adventure. It introduces ANOTHER Imprisoning War which makes no sense. ToTK just makes the lore more confusing
Zelda lore made more sense before there was a continuous timeline. Back in the day, I always just thought it was the _Legend_ of Zelda. It's just an ancient myth with several different interpretations. Each game, aside from a few direct sequels, is just a retelling of that old story but with details different.
the timeline is a piece of advertising to promote skyward sword and make it feel more special, its entirely valid to say "yeah right" and ignore it. it never actually appears in any game. i ignore it, its just nonsense to me
While your complaints are valid I really just... dont care. Like does everything HAVE to connect? Can Totk not just be in it's own universe? And even if it really "ruined" Zelda lore, doesn't that automatically mean it isn't Canon, thus resolving the issue anyway?
Things have to connect because it adds to the experience of a game series like this to have lore that makes sense, especially when every game before has set a standard of the lore making sense
@bagelenjoyer3437 OK? That doesn't mean it HAS to connect even if it adds something. If it doesn't connect with everything before it then it doesn't bring down the previous entries in any way. I really don't see any reason to be upset if it doesn't affect any of the previous games that ARE connected. Just consider It non-canon and move on.
@@OChunks 'Canon' is a term used to denote the official material- as TOTK is an official game, it is Canon and thus has lore implications. As such, any problems it creates with the lore cannot be ignored- it is a part of the Zelda timeline, one way or another. As for the idea of 'does it have to connect'. It doesn't. But if so, why did they add so many references? SO many little easter eggs? Why not just make it its own thing? So much of what made me enjoy BOTW's sparse story were these setups that teased better reveals coming forward. It doesn't bring down previous entries, but it permanently ruins attempts in the future to link the games more closely. More to the point, it feels like a betrayal to the people who put the most time into the zelda games trying to dig through all the lore and put it together.
@rakshithanand8262 Well if you care THAT much about the lore, be my guest to complain about it. Even if I did care about Zelda lore it doesn't impact the gameplay so it doesnt really matter. Though I don't really see how that game being official means it's one hundred percent tied into the past games. If it bothers you that much then maybe you just have to learn how to turn off your brain and just stop caring.
@@OChunks first of all, lore does affect gameplay just like how story, atmosphere, music and charecters affect it. And second of all "oh you have a problem with this game in a franchise you care about? You should just stop caring and turn your brain off instead of voicing your issues and having an opinion"
I'm hoping they'll just come back to it and explain ganondorf existing since the beginning with him possibly going back in time. Maybe through the fallen hero timeline (which also needs explaining) he gained access to the ocarina of time. And through weird time travel shenanigans he was able become ganon in the fallen timeline and go back to the founding of hyrule.
Zelda fan ruined the lore. These games clearly aren't meant to connect over the entire franchise but muh lore howling forced nintendo to pretend they intended as such. They have literally changed the timeline twice. This lore hunting is stupid, some of you don't play games for the actual gameplay but for lore.
Ah yes blame the fans. A shill's favorite weapon. How are you gonna say that when Ocarina of Time was DESIGNED to connect to Link to the Past, both Wind Waker and Twilight Princesss were MADE to connect to Ocarina three of the known Links all have sequel games further connecting them? No, Zelda's always cared about its lore to some degree or another. Nintendo's just gotten lazy
@@Ahouro Only the direct sequels are meant to connect to each other. They sprinkle in references to the other games, those references aren't suppose to be anything more than that. Might as well start adding crossovers in your silly timeline too. Soul Calibur in the middle of OoT and MM.
Hyrule Warriors feels more canon than Tears of the Kingdom. I like to think of The switch version of Tears of the Kingdom and Breath of the Wild as a separate timeline from even Skyward Sword. I like to think of the Wii U version of Hyrule Warriors and Breath of the Wild as being at the end of the main timeline
I don't see it a ruining lore. The way I see it, during Skyward sword when Link traveled back in time, he created a timeline split. This is why BOTW & TOTK don't follow the same timeline.
What makes the most sense is that TOTK/BOTW come ages after other games, this is not the first Hyrule. Fujibayashi gave credit to that idea without confirming.
My current theory (I have no way to back this up) is the "past" that Zelda is brought to, is at the end of the timeline. Hyrule I believe has been desolate and needed to be repopulated. If it's a culmination of all timelines, could make sense after the flood of Wind Waker, all that water would have taken so many years to be absorbed by the land. The Ganondorf of this game is a whole new reincarnation and is the first NEW reincarnation of Ganondorf we see after both versions were killed in Twilight Princess and Wind Waker. This way, there aren't two Ganondorfs existing at one time (which makes no sense) and it also explains why the Triforce is absent from both games and why Ganondorf has no knowledge of it, the past of Tears of the Kingdom is so far in the future, the legend of the Triforce is forgotten. It's just a symbol found on ancient relics of the past that cultures integrate into themselves.
Coming back to the video to acknowledge that Nintendo dropped a new timeline with BOTW and TOTK in it to reveal that they are their own thing separate from everything else in the timeline, basically conforming the duology as a reboot of some kind 💀
I personally think that’s a stupid decision but at least we have some kind of official confirmation on what these stories are. I can now enjoy the cool moments on their own knowing it doesn’t mess with anything else on the timeline
Kind of a shame Nintendo dropped this info only 4 weeks after this video 😭 aged like milk real quickly
Kinda defeats the whole point of the timeline if your just gonna ignore
And all the fans who said the timeline didt matter pretty much got proven right.
Ngl, I basically assumed this was the whole shtick with botw and totk anyway, and it always confused me that no-one else got that
Approaching media with rules like this is so boring to me. Totk is beautiful next step from botw that offers so much. Genuinely sad to see someone be like "it breaks the lore." Zelda has never been about lore. Or even story! These games dont have stories as much as they establish a presentation and a reason for you to adventure. The real beauty is IN that adventure and your experience exploring and discovering secrets around the world. Nintendo gives us games that masterfully exemplify the very nature of adventure and people go "ermmm it broke the lore" like you are missing the forest for the trees.
Why give story info if it dont matter?
Anyway
The thing about Nintendo saying the Sheikah Techs "Purpose was fulfilled", is that there is another, much more reasonable explanation they could've gone with: After Link defeats the Calamity, the Towers and Shrines deactivated and sank back into the ground, leaving behind only the deactivated Guardians and Divine Beasts. The people were worried that the deactivated tech might be used for evil again, so during Hyrules reconstruction it was Dismantled and Disposed of, with some of it being repurposed for use in the Skyview Towers. This explanation would've been far better than "It just Disappeared"
Why is it okay for the Sheikah to "just disappear" but not their tech? Impa just disappears in Skyward Sword after her purpose is fulfilled. All the monks in the shrines just disappear when you've finished them. Seems like a reoccurring element of the Sheikah.
But most of all, I don't understand why people are so hyper fixated on that detail when it's just dumb gamey shit for the player in Breath of the Wild the same way the Zonai stuff is in Tears of the Kingdom. There doesn't need to be an explanation for it because it's just there as a challenge for the player like dungeons were in past games, yet no one seems to be complaining or wondering where all those dungeons have gone, especially those that were attached to the goddess springs.
@@Turo602 you okay dude? A game that is so focused on World building and gaming experience literally didn't manage to make a Lore building that works on their own world?
How can you say is just something "small" when they focused on a lot of things. but the story again is really lacking of important things. Is the worst way to do "a sequel" and being worst than Age of Calamity story (a NON canon story inside the BotW timeline) is kinda 💀.
There's a lot of inconsistencies between both games. And is not like "oh but in Majora's there's nothing from ocarina more than the ocarina". Okay but are two different realities. Here are the exact same world and characters.
What people critized about BotW is that their storyline was more about theories and "researching" stuff more than a explicit lore, and the storyline progression was about dead characters that fullfilled their duties, the DLC complemented the characters. And people hoped TotK to fix and give a complete full story about BotW researches and "lore construction" they were doing on BotW's. And it ended on scrapping almost ALL from BotW.
Is a really bad sequel.
It would have been so cool to find the deactivated Divine Beasts and maybe portions of BOTW's shrines in the Depths.
The purpose was fulfilled is more the real world explaination for why they disappeared. Why keep something in the game, that doesn't fit a purpose anymore? This is kinda a design ethos of Nintendo. If it doesn't serve the gameplay, it will be rationalized away. And that can include the story.
@@napoleonvasquez5034 There's been at least 5 years between BotW and TotK, so why would it matter how and when the tech disappeared? Most people in that world likely stopped caring.
You forgot something, that Nintendo split the zonai tribe in two, AND GAVE US NOTHING on the warrior like sub race except a little lore in a quest and the weirdest 100% reward I'd ever seen
Is it just me or was anyone annoyed that they used the name “Rauru”. when I was first playing I thought they meant the guy from ocarina of time but instead they made a completely separate character with the same name. I felt pretty disappointed because I thought that they were going to use another character already established in the lore but instead it felt like they were just making a slight nod without doing anything with it.
I have an issue with Nintendo nostalgia baiting fans but then not understanding why fans are nostalgic for older Zelda games. They only see nostalgia as a way to make money, not to tell a coherent story.
@@ShallBePurified like the temples! Made it look like all the old dungeons but it fixed nothing about what people didn’t like from the divine beasts! (Except for the looks of course)
Yeah I was confused at first because I thought he was Rauru from OoT
Bro when they leaked the name rauru i was dying of hype i thought the game will be about time and the game is but with terrible story
On a similar note, why did they use the name "Imprisonment War"? That's a pretty big event in Zelda lore that was the foundation of the stories of both ALTTP and OOT. But they used the name for something that was utterly unreleated.
The thing is that even as a nostalgia bait it doesn't make any goddamn sense. Why baiting at all just to betray expectations that you are creating yourself?
if totk was a pimple would you call this video how totk ruined the pore
Did you come up with that yourself, bud?
I want to dissect you and study your brain
Absolutely
😗🍅
. . .
You saying you were 12 when BOTW came out made me literally pause the video and stare off into space in shock at how old I feel 💀 but I’m only 26 anyway
The same time frame between Ocarina and Skyward Sword is SS to present day.
This video explains my grievances so perfectly. It's always bothered me that BOTW put so much care into showing how the difference between legend and history has been lost to time and what the actual timeline is, or if it connects at all, of up to personal interpretation, but then TOTK just flatly contradicts the established history so it is either a new canon entirely or so disinterested in the subtle, vague world building of BOTW and it's connection to the rest of the series that it might as well have been
Just curious… but if you were to rework the plot of TotK to better fit the pre-stablished narrative, what would you do?
For example, if Ganondorf is to be the main villain, should he have been the one from the Child timeline or the Adult timeline?
@@geoffreyrichards6079 For me, I'd do this:
The Imprisoning War is shortly after the war of Demise and Hylia. The Depths are the 'cracks in the earth the demons came through' - AKA where Demise and the monsters are from. The Zonai were the ones who built the constructs in Lanayru Desert to mine timeshift stones, as well as the Temples of Time seen in Skyward Sword.
Hylia the goddess was actually Hylia the zonai, who was remembered as a goddess for her assisting the Hylians. She rose Skyloft into the sky at the end of the war with Zonai tech, and created the basis of the Master Sword in response to the curse of Demise. After Demise's defeat, she sacrificed herself to incarnate into the Hylian bloodline, causing the chain of Zeldas to be born into the Hyrule royal family.
The Ganondorf we encounter in TotK is the first incarnation of Ganondorf, who attempted to retrieve Demise's power from the Master Sword left by Skyward Sword Link a generation or two later. He was able to gain the power of Malice but was sealed away by Hylia/one of her colleagues who is NOT named Rauru, but fills the role "King Rauru" filled. This allows the Tears Ganondorf to be the purest form of Demise's hatred but leaves the main Ganondorf of the Zelda timeline untouched. The BotW Calamity Ganon is revealed to be the remnants of the Ganondorf commonly seen in the timeline - meaning BotW's main baddie and TotK's are two different incarnations of Ganondorf, both sealed away under Hyrule Castle at different points in history.
From there, the plot is largely the same. Zelda goes back in time to the founding of Hyrule just after the Imprisoning War, at a time when Ganondorf has just incarnated for the first time. Her ancestor, Hylia's first incarnation, Queen Sonia, is killed by Ganondorf. 'Rauru' forms a team of sages to seal Ganondorf away in the Depths, where Demise came from, to try to keep Hyrule safe.
Link goes around on the surface in what I'd much rather be a linear story solving problems and learning about past incarnations of himself and Zelda who fought various Ganondorfs throughout history, perhaps even playing short segments from past games in the form of memories focused around Ganondorf. Ganondorf is also more active.
Eventually Link defeats Demise-Ganondorf and the normal ending happens, and Hylia's great plan to defeat Demise is finally fulfilled.
Why do you assume it contradicts anything? That's like saying Wind Waker contradicts Majora's Mask or that Twilight Princess contradicts A Link to the Past. You're working based on an assumption without the proper context of its timeline placement.
For all you know, these games are a brand new timeline branching from the exact moment Zelda shows up in the past, making all the other games much more irrelevant to its story and whether or not they actually occured how they did in the games because Zelda altered history. There's even evidence for this in Breath of the Wild if you apply information learned from Tears of the Kingdom.
Nintendo already made 3 different timelines and even went back to the beginning with just about every mainline game after Ocarina of Time. Would it really be surprising that these games are on yet another timeline? For all we know, Echoes of Wisdom and other future titles take place on this expansive timeline as well and will provide further context for what's really happening in this timeline that we initially didn't understand in BotW/TotK.
"BOTW put so much care into showing how the difference between legend and history has been lost to time"
"but then TOTK just flatly contradicts the established history"
It's like you almost get it in that first line, but then drop the ball in that second line.
If you rewatch the BotW scene from the King when you get the paraglider, he explains that there is a prophecy while the game shows the tapestry that's behind Impa. And he even says that tales of the hero of the sword, the princes, and the calamity have been told and retold through legends and fairy tales (previous games in the series). Everyone else including Impa tells you that it's a record of a constant cycle coming back (much like Demise said). Except as Purah says in one of her TotK diaries, there's royal legend that doesn't even know of the stairs leading to Ganondorf's chamber, so there's a difference between royal legend that's closer to real history of the world as told by the King, and normal legend that everyone else knows.
Then in TotK we see what the actual history is that those legends and fairy tales are based from, we see how the real history has been lost to time (as you said) and people only know of the legends thinking those are the real history. So, it's not a stretch to realize the King probably hadn't even told all of the royal legend to Zelda, I mean heck, that prophecy we're told at the start of BotW is the warning that Zelda gave them in the past about Calamity Ganon in TotK. It's possible part of the royal legend (the prophecy) establishes who the princess is and when the Calamity actually comes back, the King knows it's his daughter and that's likely why he's so adamant about her unlocking her powers, to prevent the tragedy he knows is coming based on royal legend.
I mean, are you going to tell me there's a real historical figure named Paul Bunyan who was a giant with a blue ox, that was so large when he was slapped by Nanabozho and fell on his butt it really formed the Red Lakes?? No...those are fairy tales and legends. Heck, if I remember correctly, King Arthur is based on at least two historical figures.
The problem with people making videos like this saying it trashes established lore...is that it doesn't. Nintendo has long said there is no continuity between most games (aside from the obvious ones that ARE connected) and that the games are just legends. BotW/TotK takes that long standing idea by the series creators (not a timeline established by a book) and creates a new story where the old games serve as legends based on the historical events we see and learn in BotW/TotK history.
Heck, Dylonic is so on about the "established timeline", but then acts like one of the three branches of that "established timeline" is the red-headed stepchild we must never speak of, even though it's the one of those three branches with the most games in the series. So basically trashing a big chunk of lore right there calling it a "what if" scenario while complaining about the lore being trashed.
If you're willing to look at it like him, complain about ruining lore while ignoring a big chunk. Then I implore you to take a step back, put the full mess of a bad timeline to the side, and look at BotW/TotK as its own world and look at how the old games can be legends within that world. The appearance and sealing of Ganon/dorf (and Demise) are legends based on the 10k years ago Ganondorf. The reviving or unsealing of Ganon/dorf (and Imprisoned One) are Ragnarok style legends warning of the future where the Calamity will come.
The Zelda lore has always been nonsense, if you're just figuring this out now then that's on you
I have a hunch that you and a certain SkittyBitty would get along well! 😅
TotK kind of broke me when it came to caring about Zelda Lore. I remember having long, drawn out conversations and debates with friends about BotW and how it slotted into the timeline, enjoying hours-long lore exploration videos, etc. Now, however, TotK has almost retroactively made me disinterested in BotW's presented lore, because the answer to all of the questions we had was just "stop overthinking it."
If they wanted to reboot the franchise, fine. Do that. Forget the past and start fresh. If that is the goal, though, don't bring back full remakes of the Temple of Time or other major named locations and act like this is somehow connected to the rest of the games. It feels like they were trying to have it both ways, and at the end of the day, it just feels hollow.
me too brudda, i wish they would just establish an entire new mythology if they clearly want to do something different. but they dont want to change the regular zelda shpiel
Anyone trying to form a solid timeline for a series of games where a key plot point is Magical triangles capable of changing the entire world, interacting with alternate dimensions and time travel, is fated to find failure.
Zelda lore and timeliness are complete bullshit and always have been. They were always fan headcanon post OoT, but nintendo eventually capitulated and tried to shoehorn together some weird timeline that never made sense I. Order to appease those who cared.
@chowdaire7343 So, like... If you're including the 2D games, absolutely. However, looking solely at the 3D games, we can see an attempt at an honest to god timeline being made by the devs, and this isn't headcanon or retcons. It is directly stated in the text of the games.
1. Ocarina of Time is the beginning of the 3D Era, and creates two distinct timelines for the 3D games to follow.
2. Majora's Mask is a direct sequel to Ocarina, placing it firmly in the same timeline.
3. Windwaker states in the opening cutscene that it takes place in the adult timeline after Link is sent back.
4. Twilight Princess takes place several generations after the Child Timeline, with several direct in-story confirmations of this fact.
5. Skyward Sword is the prequel which depicts the origins of Zelda, Link, and Ganondorf in the 3D timeline, taking place centuries before OoT.
Up until BotW, EVERY SINGLE 3D console Zelda game had taken place in a single cohesive timeline. Yes, trying to staple on the original Zelda, Link's Awakening, etc. is absolutely a fool's errand, but you can't act like there was never any cohesiveness. Hell, Windwaker has not one, but TWO sequels on the DS, expanding the Adult Timeline even further.
What upsets me isn't the fact that BotW and TotK don't fit into some grand narrative that I've convinced myself has been going on since the very first Zelda game. What upsets me is the fact that they acted as though they would tie into the 3D timeline (the existence of which is beyond debate), with several direct, textual references... And they don't. They actively contradicted them.
And honestly, I'm fine with a reboot of the series. I'm fine with a brand new mythology, lore, and origin for all these classic characters. If you're going to do that, however, don't act like this is somehow tied in by making empty gestures towards the past games in the series.
I thought the general consensus was that the Zelda lore was always a big mess? Why are people suddenly acting like it all made sense?
Ever since Tears of the Kingdom dropped, Zelda theories have become boring as a whole
THis is how I know many Zelda fans still care about the story/lore. Many big channels that made videos theorising about Zelda all throughout the BotW pre-release period to after its release and then leading up to Tears just STOPPED when Tears came out, maybe one or two half-hearted ones, but in general Zelda theorisation is at an all-time low, even lower than when Hyrule Historia came out and canonised a timeline.
People obviously care about the series' story/lore more than is given credit for when an entire genre of videos died.
@@TaliesinMyrddin the current lead writer of the zelda series has openly admitted he hates zelda games and story and purposely messes up the lore.
@@HunnysPlaylists Looking it up that is the same person behind Majora's Mask. Given how much that game diverged from the series and is one of the only games to ever not feature Ganondorf. I suspect he is not that happy about being the lead writer.
@@phantom-ri2tg Thats the best game in the series.
@@HunnysPlaylists Many agree. Point is it is clearly far different in storytelling than other Zelda titles. And it was apparently made as a challenge as the person in charge did not like the direction the Zelda series was going.
The idea that the Sheikah tech disappeared because Ganon was defeated is straight up incorrect, as it is still present during the true ending. Nintendo did not play their own game it seems.
The sheikah tech dissappear without even one person mentioned it existed really bothers me to my core 😔
they did Nintendo just never cared about inter game consistency... it's the LEGEND of Zelda
Not really it just woulnd all disappear at once that quickly really. No they did play it.
@pokemonduck It's also a DIRECT sequel. Large details like the Sheikah tech shouldn't be shrugged off in canon.
My head canon was that after the calamity, the people of hyrule tore them apart to use them for kingdom reconstruction. Hence the new launch towers.
It's one thing for Rauru and Sonia to build a new Hyrule, but then why do NPCs in BotW mention events that happened in OoT? Why do we have Lon Lon Ranch and the Temple of Time? If OoT was set long before Rauru and Sonia built this version of Hyrule, characters wouldn't know about the events of OoT, since they took place before their kingdom was even built. Heck, why do they know far more about Ruto and OoT Ganondorf than they do about the Zonai and the Imprisoning War? BotW could've gotten away with being a reboot, but they shot themselves in the foot by referencing OoT so much. Edit: As much as I love BotW, 10,000 years is wayyy too big of a timeskip. 10,000 is a comically large number.
Aren't they easter eggs instead? Then I guess these references are just for fun, not putting it like it happened before in Botw's story
Either Easter eggs orrr they treat the other games as kind of a legends. That would make sense as well. Like the games before did not happen in that game but just exist as a legend
@@melinarose3645
Thy second option is unacceptable 😂 (auto correct made me sound like the Great Deku Tree, so I didn't fix it)
If any of the games are just legends, it's the two new ones. They feature names, likenesses, places, weapons, and clothing from EVERY timeline, including from several parallel worlds and even a world that ceased to exist when the Deity that has dreamed it into existence woke up. These disparate timelines can't coexist, as specific events led to vastly different outcomes; so two new games that feature so much from every other game demand that the new games are just anthology titles.
@@hanburgundy4317 no what im trying to say is that botw und totk plays in a new timeline. In that timeline the og timeline are just legends. About a hero that goes through time, a hero that explores the shadows etc. It would make sense. The zelda timeline never made sense at the first place. The games were never supposed to be in the timeline. That would just cage the developer. And as we know the team thinks about gameplay first and then story. The zelda team does want to distant themselves form the timeline.. And I can understand that
Because there are legends left behind from those times. Majority of historical records have been destroyed or lost, which is why OoT and other games are known as the "Era of Myth." Because it's unknown what is fact and what is myth. You can still pretty easily infer the actual placement of the games if you don't get caught up by the Easter Eggs, like Zelda's speech in BotW that made people think there was some convergence.
Now I am imagining what sheikah toilet paper looks like
Three Clam Shells
The zelda switch games
It disappears after each wipe, its purpose fulfilled
Hold up. Hang on, I think you missed something.
The Gerudo in Zelda's memories have emerald eyes and pointed ears. A trait they ONLY picked up when they abandoned Ganondorf and "opened their ears to the wisdom of the Goddess".
Ganondorf still has the yellow eyes and small ears that the Gerudo had BEFORE they abandoned him, as seen in OoT.
This would imply that not only does the "founding of Hyrule" we see take place long after the events of Twilight Princess/Wind Waker, but that this is STILL the same Ganondorf we're following. If he was a modern Gerudo, he should have been born with green eyes and long, pointy ears. Unless, I dunno, getting Reincarnated means he kept the same traits as his previous incarnation did?
Regardless, the appearance of the Gerudo PROVE that the "founding of Hyrule" took place after all the previous games, and did NOT take place before Ocarina of Time. And, I mean, Hyrule was already founded. By Link and Zelda in Skyward Sword. They founded the first Hyrule.
We also know Link and Zelda founded a new Hyrule in Spirit Tracks, so its not too far fetched to think Rauru just founded a New New Hyrule. But NOTHING in the game implies this, and with several actual locations from the old games reappearing, it can't just be a reference while at the same time HAVING to be a reference. You're telling me a Lon Lon Ranch happened to be built roughly in the same spot on Hyrule Field separated by 10,000+ years, but is clearly only a couple hundred or so years in ruin? It can't be the same Lon Lon Ranch! Yet, here it is in Hyrule Field. Similar location. So is it an easter egg, a reference or is it actually meant to be the OoT location I DON'T KNOW ANYMORE AND QUITE FRANKLY I THINK I STOPPED CARING.
Tears of the Kingdom has proved that Nintendo really doesn't care about story or narrative. They focus on gameplay and the Rule of Cool above all else. And until now, they've been getting lucky. But by trying to craft a more complex story, they've shown that they quite simply don't have any writers. Anyone can make a "Hero beats Villain, saves Damsel" story, its basic A B C. But you'll need a writer if you want to craft a STORY story. And Nintendo just doesn't have any.
It isn´t the same Ganondorf if it was the same he would remember Zelda, Link and the Master sword.
SS Zelda didn´t found Hyrule it was her descendants who did.
There is things in-game that implies that Rauru´s Hyrule isn´t the first the biggest is Hyrule castle which was built over where Ganondorf was sealed to maintain the seal, Hyrule castle is completely destroyed in two of the timeline splits and moved in the third.
Nintendo do care about the story and narrative but you need to look for it.
@@Ahouro Exactly! Like you pretty much said what I wanted to say really
You say that yet they told an effective and powerful story about coming together
@@novustalks7525A deus ex machina ending with no learned lesson or sacrifice is not an effective or powerful story. Characters being out of character or passing around the idiot ball doesn't help.
@@amandaslough125 No one is out of character.
The ending is literally foreshadowed from the very beginning of the game. It is the complete opposite of deus ex
Would have been so cool if Ganondorf was comparing Link to past Links he fought .
Devs completely through that out of the window
He is not the same guy. The only time he is the same guy is in Twilight Princess and Ocarina of Time, and that Ganondorf only ever fights 1 Link in either timeline.
I thought he was the same guy in wind waker. Am I wrong about that or do you consider that a different ganondorf because it's a separate branch of the timeline
@@Ajam-lz1ou I don't think he is the same guy, because that timeline should be after the adult ending of Ocarina of Time, so if it was the same Ganondorf he would be aware of Link since he got killed, or sealed, by that guy. Yet he doesn't seem to react to Link, only to the Master sword.
It could very well be that sealing Ganondorf, with the master sword specifically, in a way kills him and when he is unsealed he is reincarnated without the memories of his past lives.
@@imatiuit is the same ganondorf as OoT. He just escaped from the sacred realm after a while. TP ganondorf got caught before anything ever happened so they are different but the same.
Seeing as he has round ears and yellow eyes as one comment put, he's probably the same Gannondorf from oot,
Totk doesn’t have a writer credit.
they really didn’t care with the story/world building in this game and it make me sad.
Also, All the fun hating people who’ve been saying to give up on the lore Nintendo doesn’t care about it, have kinda been proven right at least with this game.
As mixed as a reception as this game gets, the story seems to be universally hated, and I hope the next big game actually tries next time
no you got it wrong, you shouldn't give up on the lore because Nintendo doesn't care, you should look at the lore of each game individually and let your imagination go wild for future entries without being restricted by arbitrary timeline rules
@@pokemonduck i still do, my opinion on totk hasn’t made me give up on the older games lore. But it does make me worried going forward with future games.
There's literally writing credits it's on design
@pokemonduck I think it's a zelda problem rather than nintendo. It's hard to get invested when you know they're just going to ignore it in the sequel, and all the references are just empty nostalgia bait. Metroid and Xenoblade have amazing lore that isn't 90% fanfiction or headcanon.
1:28 isnt botw the older brother of totk?
... How did I actually never catch that???
This is a detail I see a lot of people struggle with.
Like, that's not how age works.
Let’s not forget the first reveal trailer. It looked so much more immersive and expanded as a world than what we got just from the fact the underground passages leading from the castle to the tunnels was much more detailed. We had rats in the trailer for goodness sake. Small creatures! It wasn’t much but who know what else could’ve been! Zelda and Link riding the Dondon down and having to abandon the poor creature due to bad roads! The sealing symbols that held Ganondorf looked more like Gerudo script rather than zonai symbols! Like I was expecting something WAY different from what we got. Honestly I’m happy with what we have but I feel… there was so much more meant to be. We don’t even get names of the ancient sages ; w ; I wanna say they’re basically the divine beasts + the sages from OoT/WW. Idk it’s a stretch. In any case, this video is awesome, you’re awesome and I’m glad I subscribed to see it!! :)
Having literally just watched a video from GuyMRY about how TOTK makes perfect lore sense and fixes the Zelda timeline, I’m fascinated to immediately pivot to this haha
Curious to see your take
After having watched, yeahhhhhhhhh TOTK has a rough story I definitely agree. The prior video I watched did a lot of… bending over backward to make TOTK work, and after the bending it makes sense for sure, but it would have been so much nicer to have a well polished and clear story directly in TOTK, rather than handing it over to fans to… “correct” their mistakes
To be fair, the story for TOTK isn't exactly the strongest we've gotten. If anything BOTW had references to all the games that could take place anywhere in a timeline perspective and paid tribute to the past, while TOTK's story seems to act as an alternate reality of sorts, not being in any timeline or acknowledging much of the older games aside from a few things here and there, turning both games into their own separate continuity.
I know people don't like it or think it's stupid, but by this point, it really seems like the timeline and lore in the newer games are really stepping away from a timeline amd being their own thing, Nintendo even admiting they didn't care for the timeline.
I mean eh...this video gets stuff wrong itself to be fair.
I'm a big proponent of BOTW and TOTK not being in continuity with the rest of the series (and that's okay) but if you have to make it run in a clear continuity, the founding of Hyrule isn't actually a problem, nor is Ganondorf being a different guy.
For one, founding and re-founding of Hyrule has precident: you have New Hyrule in Spirit Tracks, for example. You also have Ocarina of Time, which indicates that it took place shortly after Hyrule's unification despite the kingdom existing in a unified state in Minish Cap. So, Rauru's Hyrule is just another re-founding of the Kingdom.
As for Ganondorf, he's another reincarnation like in Four Swords Adventures. He rose, took control of the Gerudo, and retraced his former self's steps from Ocarina of Time in taking over Rauru's Hyrule.
I do agree with the stance that BOTW and TOTK are in a separate continuity, and I find it odd that people are choosing to get mad about continuity now when it’s never fully made sense for Zelda before, let alone literally every other Nintendo franchise. Nintendo never really cared about maintaining continuity within a franchise, they’ve just been more up-front about it in recent times with games like TOTK and Pikmin 4.
@@egg_l0rd13 Fujibayashi confirmed in an interview that BotW and TotW are in continuity with the rest of the series, so... tough luck.
@@XanderVJ Alright, points for having official confirmation that the games are within a grand continuity. Doesn’t have much of an impact on the rest of what I said though. Zelda’s continuity has always relied mostly on fan interpretation, that’s part of why it’s so engaging. So I can’t bring myself to care that much when TOTK continues to do more of the same- establish strands of loosely connected information for fans to theorize over until it makes sense.
@egg_l0rd13 there is nothing to theorize over is the problem.
@@XanderVJ
Personal theory, another split timeline. Not entirely out of continuity but not in any other timeline we see. TOTK's flashbacks being that timeline's OOT era, and BOTW and TOTK are that timeline's Zelda and Link's Adventure.
That... or we're so far behind in the timeline that Hyrule fell, was re-established and everything prior was forgotten and told as legends.
I think what baffles me the most with these theories about the TotK founding being the OG founding is that people think the geography of Hyrule would change so drastically between the games, and then magically just go back after enough time. It's like thinking in another billion years, Pangea is gonna be back and exactly how it used to be, lol.
This has been a problem since Zelda II, that Hyrule wasn't even a decade later in time btw
And that the races would evolve away from the forms of the ancient Sages only to go right BACK to those forms. Like...the forms of the ancient Sages in the Founding Era are identical to the forms of the races in the modern day. There's a goddang map of the geoglyphs that was built shortly after the Founding Era that is STILL ACCURATE in the modern day, you are NOT convincing me that the Hyrule landmass went from that, to the forms it took in the other games, and then right back to where it was. Nah. Not buyin' it
Honestly, I've always thought that geography should be left out of theorizing altogether. The reason why Hyrule changes geography in the vast majority of games is because it's needed for the game's overall level design. As a matter of fact, TotK has proven why reusing the same map in different games is just not a good idea unless you are EXTREMELY careful about it.
@@XanderVJ
Yep, it's always been a game design reason. The whole point is pretty much to not alienate the player base while at the same time not making them feel like it's exactly the same. Usually they'll achieve this by just taking the same character but put them in new place to explore
To me sticking to nearly the same topography as Breath of the Wild is what hurts Tears of the Kingdom the most. Makes it feel more like a software update than a new game entirely
@@meteorain2940 There's nothing wrong with Zelda II's map. Look it up, it has the entirety of the Zelda1 map in the southwest corner, below Death Mountain where it always was. Or rather, the mountain range with Death Mountain was always at the northernmost part of the map.
Potential spoiler: the second memory I saw was zelda becoming a dragon...i was very displeased at how early I found that out.
That's... literally impossible.
That memory only appears after you've found all the other tears 1st.
At most you would've found one that showed her _deciding_ to do it, but not actually doing it yet.
@@King_Luigi
I saw the "Light Dragon" - the only one without a name - and then saw the memory with Mineru mentioning Draconification and was like, "oh, Zelda turns into a Dragon. Lame."
@@hanburgundy4317 Well that's just you making assumptions,
though you were ultimately correct for where things were going,
it's entirely different from actually _seeing_ her become the dragon.
@@hanburgundy4317 Don't forget the "epic ganon transformation" already forshadowed on the Game's Cover...
@@King_Luigi sorry, no, its really just putting 1 and 1 together. Even the hair color of the Dragon was enough evidence to realize this is Zelda. When someone now speaks about becoming a dragon, its like putting 1 and 1 together while there is a box with possible numbers and one of them being a 2.
I hated Tears of the Kingdom because it destroyed my immersion in the Zelda Lore
I felt the same way about Breath of the Wild.
@@hanburgundy4317 good to know I’m not alone, I hate modern Zelda, I miss the days of OoT, MM, WW, TP and SS… good times…
I don't like these new type of Zelda, at first i found BOTW only "meh", but then when TOTK released, i realise they put the exact same gameplay, and now i HATE both of them.
I hate EVERYTHING about these new zeda :
I don't like the music, and yes i have listen to the OST, and most feel generic, or just "music in background" (AND that's NOT an excuse, Oblivion/Skyrim have music like that and they are good).
I hate the weapon system.
i hate that they removed the metroidvania aspect by giving you everything directly.
I hate they way they handle the story like it's optional.
The dungeons in BOTW were a joke, and are laughable in TOTK.
i liked the shrine, but all lack personality since they all look the same, therefore even if they had good idea, they feel like a chore.
i hate how much time you pass in the menue to do cooking, changing weapon etc.
i'm not a bad gamer, i play mostly rogue like normally, but god for some reason, the way they map the controller for BOTW was bothersome to remember.
Zelda was never about combat, but about puzzle, even the boss were puzzle in a way, now with this formulas it's all about combat.. but it's not even that good : i prefer playing Elden ring, or thing similar if i want a thing focus on the combat.
I like having a clear goal, even in open world, and they don't really do that in those game.
so.... I'm now pretty hype for the Echoes of Wisdom nonetheless
@@Goudlock the combat in BotW and TotK is a joke too, all the weapons work the same way. Remember OoT, MM, WW and TP? Every weapon was different and had it’s own function, now they are all the same crappy sword, spear and bigass sword
@@JCardo2502 true and most of it, i forget this most important reason why i hate those game : ALL THE REWARD ARE USELESS ! a new weapon? i don't care, i already have 1451 weapons already. Money ? I'm already loaded.. the game give you no real reward for exploring exepct for the shrine but like i said shrine are souless
Actually there was only one kind of "Reboot" in the Zelda-Series and it was Ocarina of Time. Ocarina of Time was and is meant to be a prequel of A link to the Past. It tells the story of how Ganondorf searched the Triforce and finally entered the Sacred Realm and obtained it, which was the backstory of AlttP.
BUT Ocarina of Time changed the outcome because Ganon was defeated in the end and never obtained the whole Triforce while in AlttP Ganon has the power of the full Triforce.
Still it was only a soft Reboot because the now called "Downfall"-Timeline which followed AlttP was still expanded upon. The fact that the Downfall-Timeline is a alternate reallity where Link dies in Ocarina of Time is actually true to the original AlttP lore because it never mentioned a hero that defeated Ganon.
Yet people ridicule the Downfall-Timeline and say it is proof that Nintendo never cared for the timeline and lore, when in TRUTH it is apparent from the marketing and interviews from before OoT that it was meant as a prequel to AlttP.
All Zelda games have connected stories and are prequels or sequels of each other.
There are only 3 outliners that don't really connect to the stories of the "Main Games". The Cap Com games have rather independent stories, yet still the Oracle Games make an effort to connect themselves to the beginning of Links Awakening and the ending of AlttP where Ganon dies (also Twinrova from Ocarina of Time appears again(!). They are still allive because Link didn't succeed in the Downfall-Timeline) and Minish Cap was meant to be a prequel to the Four Swords Multiplayer games. It doesn't connect to the "Main Games", but its story and placement in the timeline also does not contradict them, so it is fine.
Despite it being the initial idea for the series, explaining ALTTP, the whole Downfall Timeline where Link dies is just stupid.
The problem with this logic is that the LTTP lore never says a hero died fighting Gabon either. It.literally says NOBODY was found who could wield the sword, and all but stated the sword was created at that time.
"But the.downfall timeline makes more.sense!"
No it doesn't. If you take LTTP verbatim not a.single game made after LTTP can actually be set before LTTP.
OOT rewrote LTTP's backstory by having Link defeat Ganon with the Master Sword and disappearing from the timeline. Ganon is still sealed into the Sacred Realm, there's no need for it to be exactly "Ganon was sealed bybthe sages and had all three triforve pieces" if they're already retconning so much of the other lore anyway.
The maidens are descended from the Sages, but people believe the Sages of OOT died making this impossible. The Sages are also all of different races while the maidens are hylian.
Yes OOT did reboot the story and rewrote LTTP's lore. But the outcome still lead to the events of OOT-- Ganondorf became Ganon and was sealed in the sacred realm, which later becomes an evil realm he corrupted.
It wasn't until WW where this was broken because they wanted a sailing game.
ToTK doesn't even make sense as a Sequel to BoTW
The Tears of Dragon Zelda alone and the Landmarks should have been visible in BOTW.
ToTK has to be some sort of parallel dimension or dream or alterante dimension.
From a Meta Perspective, it really just was an attempt to add other mechanics to the same World which did not fit into the first installation.
I think the Story should be considered something similar.
For my part, I imagiend that the events in the Past of ToTK might be at the Time of OOT and add a fourth time branching due to Zelda's arrival. The King Rauru would be the actual King of Hyrule in OOT. The founding of the Kingdom is actually the King's unification after the War in OOT, and due to BOTW-Zelda's arrival, thigns take a new turn, Sonjia doesn't get a child named Zelda, Ganondorf wants the Secret Stone and not the Triforce, Ganondorf is sealed.
In BOTW we have the "merging"-Timeline and all things come together, kinda. While others are left out, like the Dragon Tears Symbols across the grounds.
However, it still feels a bit far fetched and a lots of stuff in TOTK is just immersion breaking. To me, it is either a fourth Timeline from OOT or a parallel dimension entirely.
The fact that the lore would’ve hit really hard if Nintendo had actually cared about it and stayed consistent with its own world building
The problem yall have with Ganondorf is taking the idea of reincarnation like its confirmed in the series. Demise is not literally reincarnating into Ganondorf, Ganondorf is just a byproduct of the eternal Demon Tribe hatred. Ergo theres no issue with TotK Ganondorf coming before OOT Ganondorf.
With that in mind you can place the Zonai as having happened in the Era kf Chaos and the Imprisoning War as happening at the end of the Era of Prosperity.
The Zonai can't happen in the spot after SS. They would know Hylia reincarnated into mortal form named Zelda. But Sonia and Rauru have no knowledge of ever previously hearing that name.
@@amandaslough125 not really. We don't know how much time exists between SS and the kingdom being founded, all that Rauru and Sonia know is that they founded Hyrule, they probably have no idea if people before or during their time are named "Zelda" and if they did know the name of the first Zelda, the Goddess reborn, they would have no reason to assume that TotK Zelda is that same Zelda, because the historical records regarding SS Zelda wouldn't include elements like the Kingdom of Hyrule existing, because it didn't at that point, nor would it include references to a person named "King Rhoam Bospharamos Hyrule" because no such person exists during Skyward Sword, and all of this information is how Zelda immediately introduces herself to Rauru and Sonia, as when she first sees Rauru and Sonia she says she is the princess of Hyrule and the daughter of the king.
You made a mistake here. This era of prosperity is a different one to the one after Skyward Sword and this Kingdom of Hyrule is a Second one not the one we seen before. Everything in these games ARE meant to be a departure from the past games, the future of the series set in the distant future of the series. The Easter Eggs where just that, Easter Eggs to spur discourse among fans. This however does not make Tears a good game or even good sequel. I do NOT like Tears' story or lore anymore than the next guy but it should be said that it is slightly improved by being so distant, if only because we can ignore them if we ever go back to classic Zelda again.
"I was twelve when Breath Of The Wild came out, and by the time Tears rolled around I was nineteen and working a job at Sherwin-Wiliams."
Jesus _Christ,_ I'm old. I remember a time when I really wanted to play A Link To The Past and Ocarina of Time was this brand new thing I'd heard about but didn't really understand.
You know, at first I don't think too much when people bring up that it took 6 years for totk to come out until I realize how old all of us were when botw came out. I'm actually really glad Echoes of Wisdom is releasing soon because I don't know if I could handle waiting another 6 YEARS for a Zelda game, especially if the story is anything like totk.
As someone who was once a fan of the Kingdom Hearts series, 6 years of wait time between releases doesn't faze me. What really annoys me about this is that we had to wait 6 years for what is essentially DLC content the size of TES: Oblivion's The Shivering Isles for the price of a full game...
Personal head-cannon. BOTW and TOTK are their own separate timeline/ continuity.
It takes place somewhere after Skyward Sword, then goes onto its own road. The Zonai arrive and begin the events of the Flashbacks of TOTK, and Ganondorf is sealed, acting as that timeline's version of OOT.
then, over time, we got Phantom/ Calamity Ganon appearing every so often until the time period of the Original Games, Zelda 1 and Link's Adventure.
First, you are wrong about Ocarina Ganondorf being the only Ganondorf that we had until TOTK. Four Swords Adventure featured a new Ganondorf. That is actually officially confirmed. I personally would also argue that Ganon from Zelda 1 (NES) was a different Ganondorf.
Secondly, you do know that Hidemaru Fujibayashi suggested that the Hyrule that was founded by Rauru and Sonia was likely a re-founding of Hyrule after the old Hyrule had been destroyed, right? In other words, the events of TOTK's memories still take place long after the events of any pre-BOTW game. Even if we ignore that little tidbit of information and say that TOTK's imprisoning war did take place some time between Skyward Sword and the Minish Cap, it still doesn't raise that many problems really. Zelda already stated in the beginning of TOTK that even the royal family had been forbidden for generations from going down to the depths below the castle. They knew that something was down there, but they did not know what, and they were forbidden from going down there. That is why nobody throughout the pre-BOTW games would have known of Ganondorf being down there. As for why they didn't seal him in the sacred realm, that would have been a horrible idea at the time! Yes, seal him in the place where the complete triforce is, all the while knowing from Zelda's warning that Rauru's seal would eventually weaken and Ganon would be able to move again (meaning that once Ganon could move again, the triforce was all his). Sealing Ganon in the sacred realm worked fine in Ocarina of Time because the triforce wasn't there anymore. Link, Zelda and Ganon already held the pieces of it. Similarly, in ALTTP's imprisoning war, Ganon already held the complete triforce when he was sealed into the dark world, so there was no risk to sealing him in the sacred realm. In the era of the Kingdom's founding however (if we ignore Fujibayashi's statement), the triforce would have been safe in the sacred realm. Sealing Ganondorf there would have just been giving Ganon a free ticket to divinity. This comment is getting too long. I'm going to stop here for now.
Even if you wanna assume that statement is true, why are locations like Lon Lon Ranch and the Temple of Time (locations that are destroyed across all timelines) still standing. Even ignoring the timeline split/merger, those locations would have been long gone even before the Calamity
@@connorharnage6697Lon Lon Ranch was still around pre-Calamity. We see that in AoC. The Temple of Time is likely the original one from OoT, considering it has the ruins of Castle Town around it.
Also, there was never a Timeline Convergence. That's just a fan theory with no actual backing.
@@AmirPrinceling And that makes no sense. Lon Lon ranch should be long gone even before Age of Calamity and the Temple of Time can't be the same one as it's either destroyed or absorbed into Faron Woods
Also yes, the timeline merger was confirmed by Nintendo themselves
@@connorharnage6697No it wasn't. They said it's "at the end of the timeline, whichever one you choose." They never said anything about a merger.
The reason for all of this isn't because Nintendo doesn't care about Zelda Lore, it's because they don't care about Zelda Continuity. The timeline has a lot of logical flaws, even before Tears of the Kingdom was introduced. It's clear that an official and concrete timeline that connects all the games is NOT something that has always existed in the minds of the creators. They regularly reference events and characters from other games, sometimes even incorporating them into major plot points like Ganondorf's execution in TP being a consequence of foiling his plans in the beginning of OoT. But actual continuity will ALWAYS be sacrificed by the Zelda devs in service of the current Zelda project, which is why BotW references all the branches of the timeline in a paradoxical merging of different realities. It's why the Zora and the Rito and the Koroks all exist together at the same time as locations like LonLon and the Forgotten Temple and the Twilight Mirror. Continuity is pieced together after the games are made, if it can be, and if it can't than an excuse for another timeline link Link's death in battle with Ganon is created. Nintendo loves Zelda Lore, they just don't care how it all fits together between games.
Love people saying it's nostalgia. I hated BotW, my disappointment with TotK has nothing to do with nostalgia. It's simply a direction I don't care for. The storytelling is worse than past games, that might be nostalgia, but it's nostalgia for when the storytelling was good, not just "new bad". I loved Skyward Sword when it came out.
I really hope we can come back to more classic Zelda games in the future.
Yeah the "Full Open World" thing it’s cool… but man… when you have no limits, archiving something feels… boring.
Yeah I did something cool… there’s no limits so… what’s the fun on that?
We won't.
In the time frame it took to make 2 open world zeldas they released Ocarina up to Skyward.
3D zeldas just aren't a thing anymore, best we get are remakes and ports.
If botw was 10000000000 bajillion years in the future couldnt the "formation of hyrule" referenced in totk be more of a "reformation" or a "formation again" making it also set in the future of the other games. It may not have to be two events on either side of the whole time line but instead two events plopped right at the end of it.
You hit the nail on the head.
While that is possible and almost certainly the intent... Why Hyrule? Like we know why. Hyrule is the setting for most Zelda games but in universe, what reason does Rauru 2 have to call it Hyrule? Because from what are see in the flashbacks, there are no traces of the old Hyrule. It also doesn't account for locations like the Temple of Time and Lon Lon Ranch which, if we assume the old Hyrule is long gone, those locations should've been destroyed long before the Calamity
@connerharnage6697
If I had to guess, Rauru was naming the Kingdom after the name already given to the land by its people.
When Ganondorf references the queen to Rauru, and the first contact between their races, he distinguishes between Zonai and ‘Hyruleans’, which he labels the queen. This implies that the Hylians were already names such, after their own heritage.
Also, to be fair to those who’ve studied BotW, we understand the references aren't always conclusive. There are many conflicting references to past Zelda games in BotW/TotK. It was intentional, to inspire thought, and harken back to the series as a whole, while they reevaluated its formula, based on its origin.
I’d argue resounding theory is bullshit
plus it has to be the original founding, because we see when rauru’s temple of time existed on the surface, the oot one was not yet built, plus there’s no reason it isn’t so it being a refunding would be an unnecessary contrivance
Plus in the cutscene where ganondorf pledges false allegiance, you can see in the background a stained glass mural that is heavily reminiscent of the minish cap, alongside Rauru’s castle as a whole, being so, the Rito also don’t work, as they are most definitely a different species of rito from the one in wind water, likely lived in hebra the whole timeline, since we never see them
11:11 I wasn't prepared for a 9/11 meme XDDD
re: Gloom and Malice
My working theory based on what we were presented with in the games is that Malice was a weakened form of Gloom. Calamity Ganon is stated to have emerged from "deep below Hyrule Castle" by King Rhoam, and...where's Ganondorf? Deep below Hyrule Castle. Calamity Ganon was "hatred and malice incarnate", and Ganondorf is, according to Zelda lore, an incarnation of Demise's hatred for Hyrule. So the Gloom seeping out from Ganondorf became weakened due to Rauru's seal purifying Ganondorf's evil, but Ganondorf was still strong enough that even the weakened form of Gloom was still EXTREMELY harmful, and over time, the Gloom/Malice coalesced into a form that would single-mindedly carry out Ganondorf's wish to destroy Hyrule. Also: the monsters in Birth of the Demon King (the memory that shows Ganondorf becoming the Demon King and summoning his army of monsters) shows the monsters with the fancy horns we see them with in TotK, while in BotW, they had the more basic horns. At the time of their creation, Ganondorf would have been at full power and his Gloom at full potency, but after he was sealed, the monsters would have been powered by the weakened Malice, then when Rauru's seal was fully broken during the Upheaval, the monsters would have been powered with pure Gloom again, hence the horns in TotK's present-day that match the ones in the memories. The murals in the Forgotten Foundation depict the monsters with the basic horns, but these murals were carved AFTER the Imprisoning War, when Rauru's seal was active and the Gloom would have been weakened, so the monsters that still existed would have been in their powered-down state
re: Timeline
Fully 100% *unconvinced* that TotK's Founding Era takes place anywhere near Skyward Sword. The landmass is too similar between the Founding Era and the modern day, it did not shift into where it was in the other games and then go back. The Ancient Sages look identical to their modern counterparts, they did not evolve away from those forms and then go back. The geoglyph map that was created in the Forgotten Temple shortly after the Founding Era is STILL ACCURATE in the present day. Hyrule Castle was destroyed BY GANONDORF during OoT, and since the castle is what's holding TotK Ganondorf back, it would have...released him? There would be two Ganondorfs? But then Ganondorf is still sealed in the opening of TotK, so the only POSSIBLE explanation is that this is a founding of a brand new Hyrule AFTER the end of the previous timeline(s), and that this Hyrule Castle was built after the Imprisoning War and then LEFT UNTOUCHED until it was partially destroyed in the Calamity 100 years before BotW, which is what weakened Rauru's seal and allowed Ganondorf to escape (this is explicitly stated in Ganondorf's Character Profile in TotK). And...how would the other Ganondorfs exist while TotK Ganondorf was still sealed? If TotK's Founding Era/the Imprisoning War took place before OoT, that means there would've been two Ganondorfs existing simultaneously in Hyrule, one sealed beneath Hyrule Castle and one trying to steal the Triforce (and it would not have been like there being "two" Master Swords and "two" of the same Secret Stone existing simultaneously in TotK, which were the same objects existing alongside an earlier version of themselves; this would have literally been two Ganondorfs, two completely separate people, existing at the same time)
re: Sheikah technology
Was fumbled. No other excuse for it. No it did not "just vanish one day", that's a lazy explanation that the devs pulled out of their ass because they *have* no explanation, and this explanation is even disproven *by the game itself!* There's old Sheikah tech EVERYWHERE in this game. Ancient Blades scattered in chests as well as being excavated from the Depths by a Zonai Construct, Sheikah Tower and Divine Beast warp pads in the Skyview Towers, Sheikah Tower and Guardian parts in the Skyview Towers (the bottom of the launching platform is the hull of a Guardian Stalker, not to mention the Guardian arms that attach the wire coil to Link's belt), the Guardian on top of the Hateno Tech Lab, hell there are still miscellaneous Guardian parts in the Hateno and Akkala Tech Labs (the Hateno Lab even has heads from the mini Guardians, the ones that could only be found inside shrines). The Divine Beasts are mentioned in character dialogue; the spire above Rito Village is referred to as Vah Medoh's Perch, Yunobo says that the Vah Rudania Divine Helm is "equipment named after a Divine Beast", Vah Naboris' rampage is described as a "major crisis" by Rima in Gerudo Town, and The Turning Tide (the new statue in the middle of Zora's Domain) depicts Link and Sidon's battle against Vah Ruta! You're tellin' me that four *GIGANTIC* mechs that were considered quasi-deities by Hyrule's races just vanished one day and everybody *just accepted it?* Even the Sheikah researchers who had spent their entire lives researching this stuff??
/text wall
man it has been a year and I still have BIG FEELINGS about how hard they fumbled the lore in this game
The only explanation is to have a timeline split immediately after skyward sword. Then all the OoT events can still take place but in its own, different way where Rauru is instead a Goat man etc. then it works.
What most people don't realize, is that for the first 15 years of the franchise: February 21, 1986 - February 27, 2001 there was only one, singular, unbroken timeline. Every game fit perfectly, with no ambiguity at all, even the "Excuuuse Me Princess" cartoons, the Valiant comics, and the CD-i games, everything up until the two Oracle games was a single timeline. Everything changed when the Wind Waker attacked: December 13, 2002... I mean, that's the first time the lore could be considered "complicated," anyhow. Previously, it could be assumed that after Ocarina, the Imprisoning War happened as described in ALttP and what we now call the Adult Timeline had erased itself, Sonic '06 style. WW changed it so we had two games continuing off the two endings of Ocarina. Still fairly easy to follow.
Then Twilight Princess overwrote ALttP, and created what we now call the Child Timeline... and I forget exactly how long it was before Aonuma decided to even _tell_ anybody about the three timelines. But wasn't it around Skyward Sword? So, technically it was only from November 18, 2011 to March 3, 2017 when he abandoned the timeline concept completely; so only 6 years out of the last 38 have actually had the three timelines. Tears of the Kingdom, of course, had the opportunity to show a merging timeline, or uh, I mean you _just_ went over what it _could_ have done, and _why_ it failed.
That sums it up perfectly, Nintendo really doesn't care too much about the timeline, they just want to make good games and tackle it on wherever they think it fits or has a place to explain something, even if it contradicts itself at times.
Personally speaking, they could've just had Majora's Mask be the time split for ALTTP and TP since you can say Link vanished in MM when he went back in time, the Triforce returned to Hyrule and the Imprisoning War occurred when people, including Ganondorf who should had the Triforce of Power from the divine prank in TP, an alternate timeline of sorts, practically curbstomped everyone, killed the Gorons, the Kokiri, turned the Gerudo into monsters and had the full Triforce until he was sealed by the sages and so on and so forth until ALTTP.
Meanwhile in the timeline Link restarts the 3 days and defeats Majora's Mask, the Triforce is still kept a secret, he returns to Hyrule to help defeat Ganondorf as a Hylian Knight/ Hero's Shade and there is no Imprisoning Wars, no Sealing of Ganon in the Sacred Realm, but instead the events of TP play out. Leading Link to become the Hero's Shade, Skull Kid guarding the Master Sword and the Triforce of Courage remaining in his bloodline in Ordon Village for safety if Ganondorf ever returned.
@@wolfzend5964 Hunh... I've never heard anyone suggest splitting the timeline at Majora's Mask. Except, of course, making well nigh infinite splits, causing millions of doomed futures for Termina... no one ever talks about Hyrule in those. Your theory certainly makes a lot more sense than that "KK, this _one_ time Link died, and _only_ this one time, we got an official split! Dude, trust me, bruh, I'm the producer!" theory... or... I guess, _technically_ canon explanation.
The comics, cartoons, and CD-i games were never canon. I do agree about the timeline though. Wind Waker is what really fucked the timeline.
And when you think about it the logic behind why Wind Waker HAS to be flooded because of Ganon doesn't make any logical sense whatsoever. The only reason it happened is because they wanted to make a Zelda game with a sailing mechanic.
In other words, they didn't care about the lore.enough back then over finding new gameplay mechanics. So why the fuck is TOTK the one people complain about when they've been doing.this since AT LEAST Wind Waker?
I hated all the BOTW theory videos because I knew this EXACT thing would happen. The reason the theory videos stopped is because they built mountains of theories on nothing except fun things they Zelda team decided to use as filler in BOTW's map.
@@jrconway3 My point was that the cartoons, comics, and the CD-i games didn't _break_ canon. They take place during and around Zelda 1 & 2, and although the CD-i games reviving and dispatching Ganon again 3 times is silly, they don't contradict anything.
Just about everything, on the other hand contradicts _something_ about one or more of the proposed three timelines Aonuma had going for about 6 years. Then he gave up.
@@Wendy_O._Koopait could work differently depending on whether he’s being sent back individually as opposed to the whole world being reset to a specific time. It would require having only the user of the song of time(and maybe certain others like tatl)recall anything though.
As a fellow (former) Sherwin Williams employee, I also think that Tears was a disappointment.
Well I was excited that you didn't say the Spring of Power was the Skyview Spring but then you went and said the Forgotten Temple was the Sealed Temple. :(
The Forgotten Temple is its own thing, the Sealed Temple has the OOT Temple of Time built over it, this is foreshadowed in SS with the Sage Medallions being found in the Sealed Temple and further confirmed in Hyrule Historia, and then later BOTW by having the BOTW Temple of Time be placed in close proximity to Faron, Lake Floria, and The Spring of Courage (Skyview Spring.)
I think the explanation for where the Sheikah tech went is in breath of the wild. They found all of it right before the calamity because that’s when it would be needed. Most of it- the guardians, the towers, the divine beasts, were underground. Probably even the Sheikah slate, which we find can only be used by Link. And since some of the shrines are underground until you finish their quest, it’s not too crazy to think that the rest of the shrines could hide underground too. And the towers didn’t even appear until link woke up 100 years later, so it’s possible that this tech was programmed to only exist when it’s needed. And since the calamity is sealed, it’s no longer needed.
"TOTK ruined the lore"
Homie we got a full zelda timeline with multiples splits and paths......it's been fucked.
What was fucked about that? Besides the occasional retcon, the timeline was fine
@@connorharnage6697I remember people being really divisive about the downfall time. Even though people have crafted good theories to make it work, like the wish theory or Zelda using OOT time travel to get a second chance, Nintendo never gave an official explanation for how the Hero of Time could have simultaneously died and lived to make all three timelines happen.
@@firestarex3544 I mean the explanation is very simple. Nintendo fucked up the terminology. The Downfall timeline isn't a timeline at all. It's an alternate reality
@connorharnage6697 Not really. It's been implied that the wish made by Link in ALttP is what made it possible for the Hero of Time to defeat Ganon and create the Adult and Child timelines. That's why all the way back then, OoT was stated to be a prequel to ALttP, even though the ending is distinctly different than the backstory of ALttP (Ganon gets sealed with the full triforce, while Ganondorf only gets sealed with the Triforce of Power in OoT). People need to pay more attention.
@@AmirPrinceling Where is this implied ever? I has never seen this implied. Also Ganondorf is sealed with the Triforce of Power because he didn't get Link. In the Downfall Reality (doesn't have the same ring to it as Downfall Timeline tbh), Ganon kills Link and presumably Zelda causing the remaining Sages to seal him in the Sacred Realm
I wanted to buy a super thanks so I could help clear things up. I am of the belief that the ancient past depicted into the kingdom still takes place at the end of the timeline. The fact that the Gerudo and the Rito we're both existing at the same time to be the sages to fight Ganondorf proves that this was the end of the timeline (gerudo showing up first in ocarina of time, and rito in windwaker). It was confirmed that breath of the wild had a timeline reformation with all three timelines converging into one, and in the child timeline there is new Hyrule (I don't think this is new hyrule, just stating that hyrule's new foundation isn't new to the series) I think Rauru instead founded a new hyrule after the convergence and that is the ancient past in tears. It isn't a perfect answer but it is the one that makes the most sense and I think it explains a lot without the need of speculation. The timeline merge, rito and gerudo isn't speculation at all, it is confirmed and the fact they are in the past (when the 2 species didn't exist before at least ocarina) proves this can't be in the age of prosperity. Overall I think the Zelda Lord is a jumbled mess but I don't think that tears of the Kingdom inherent breaks everything. You just have to work a little closer and then it makes sense. If you'd like I could elaborate more but I hoped I helped.
My question is if Totk Ganondorf was seal under Hyrule how was Oot Ganondorf even born?
Thank you so much, everyone keeps disregarding the flaws in TOTK’s story and saying that story never mattered in Zelda, YES IT DID
People took skyward sword story for granted
For real!
I feel what really shot themselves in the foot here is that a few years before tears came out, they released Skyward Sword again. If you weren't going to use any of that story in it and actively ignore most of it, then why did they release it again? If you didn't want the game fresh in our minds, then why put it there? So much of its story was either retconned or just ignored in this game. I feel like that's what pissed me off the most. I have been following the lore of Zelda since the very beginning, so when they just skip over large parts like this, it just kinda stings. It didn't need to be a perfect game. It just had to respect all the games that came before it. Just because you bought a new tire, that doesn't mean that you have to go throw the old one into the heart of a volcano... No matter how tempting it is. My point is that they wanted to do a new story but couldn't resist throwing the old one away in the process.
the irony is that the guy who wrote totk also wrote skyward sword, and he admits in interviews he hates the zelda lore and messes it up on purpose.
@@HunnysPlaylists Sounds like a pretty stupid excuse. Good for him? Oh well. It's been a fun run. I guess we just have to add Zelda to the growing list of video game series that just no longer give a fuck. What an absolute shame.
@@darklink4160 I think you miss my point: the story is helmed by someone trying to torpedo the series on purpose.
@@HunnysPlaylists Never heard of that before. Do you have a link to those interviews?
@@zecorasvenskendavidsson4940 Look in Art and Artifacts and Creating a Champion books.
TOTK's Hyrule is very likely not actually the first one, I don't know why some fans insist on trying to fit it after SS. The re-founding theory has been around since release and Fujibayashi even said it was possible.
I agree overall but some of your explanations are confusing. Of course Ganondorf is a vehicle of evil, he _is_ the incarnation of evil. In Four Swords Adventure he had a different canon incarnation. But I guess like me you're annoyed they didn't give him more interesting scenes here. I really don't care about malice vs gloom but essentially, malice was a form of his power while he was sealed and Calamity was an enraged form as he was stuck, while gloom is "the raw stuff" when he's free.
In BOTW it's hard to say what places were the original ones, I ready to bet the writers themselves never fully decided. But the Forgotten temple for example is not the original.
From my own lore-digging: Malice and Gloom are more of an apples and oranges case. They're not the same thing, although they are related.
Malice (Grudge) is a substance associated with demons and monsters. It is a corruptive substance made of negativity that infects and consumes life.
Gloom (Miasma) is a gaseous substance associated with Ganon. It is toxic and drains the life force both from the world and its inhabitants.
One corrupts, the other decays.
Just had the idea that everywhere where there was a shine in botw they couldve put a cave
The real sequel to Botw was Genshin Impact all along.
Zonai are seen in the Silent realm guardian statues they’re the exact same visage
And the game makes sense if it takes place after Windwaker. Humanity is rebuilding the zonai descend. The zonai help rebuild humanity and the other races. The Gerudo who potentially survived in the gerudo highlands meaning they had a peaceful place to live and plenty of space. Are suddenly thrust back into a desert. Then ganondorf is reborn in hatred with legends telling him how the gods took his people’s livelyhoods away. He wants power and land just like the last ganondorf. The only difference is unlike the last ganondorf he had to fight a war with his own people meaning instead of wanting to give them anything he just wants to gain power himself. His people who joined him would’ve survived but past that he probably didn’t care.
Also gloom doesn’t seem to be malice but instead seems to be a poison. Gloom destroys your health mentally and physically until you completely succumb and die.
It’s not Malice we see malice when bosses are killed. Ganondorf wants to poison the kingdom so nobody can fight back.
I really hated totk. I loved botw because it has a beautiful, yet simple, story. And it didn't contradict the lore, it made it even better, and expanded it.
I believe the devs have stated that Hyrule has been destroyed and rebuilt countless times across history and the newly founded Hyrule we see in the past of TotK is just the newest version, now with Zonai and it's own new Ganondorf.
This Hyrule doesn't predate Minish Cap. Every game in the series before BotW is the "distant past" super far removed from the Wild games. No other games are set between the this Hyrules founding and when we see it in BotW for the first time.
BotW's interpretation of Calamity Ganon very clearly (and explicitly in Creating a Champion) tied him to OoT Ganondorf. I really liked the idea of him devolving into pure hatred. Them apparently choosing to retcon this into another Ganondorf might still make sense _if they actually explained who he was._ Malice was the very essence of Ganon, and I was intrigued to see it in the trailer only for that to be "gloom". Now Gloom is called "miasma" in almost every other language, the idea of it being it makes people ill by sapping their life force, but when they don’t explain what it is at all (and the localization's strange choice only serves to obfuscate it further), no wonder everyone thinks it's the same as Malice. It's disappointing because Malice had a lot of interesting lore and gloom could have too, whether related or not, but nope.
On a broader note, lots of people say "the Zelda timeline was just made up haphazardly for fans", and while I don’t think it should be taken as the be-all-end-all, that’s clearly not true. Since the beginning the games were all intended to be connected, and after Ocarina of Time the games themselves played into this further. BotW was more loose with its connections, but it still made sense and fit in with the other games. Then TotK comes and takes a crap on everything, and worst of all the game whose lore it ruins the most is its predecessor. The devs said they didn’t want games to be restricted by the timeline, which is absolutely fair, but instead of addressing it they purposely don't answer so it's "left up to your imagination". Like, based on a lot of evidence I'm 90% sure the developers' intention is that the founding of Hyrule here is not the original, and Fujibayashi confirmed they had such an intention but refused to confirm it, only saying "it's possible". Yeah, we do want to theorize, but we can hardly do that when they give us so little to work with in the first place.
The Wild-era games are either so extremely far in the future that even the Zonai-era of Hyrules (re)founding was waaaays into the future from the last games in the existing timeline....
or Nintendo set these two games up in their own continuity and took existing games (hence the multitude of references) only as a blueprint.
I wouldn't say TotK ruined the Zelda Lore, but it ruined everyone's perception of the lore because of how ambiguous it was, along with the answers given by the directors.
In reality, TotK doesn't retcon anything. Rauru "refounded" the Kingdom, after it had been in ruins for a long period of time. It's been stated several times that the Kingdom goes through periods of destruction and reconstruction. There was also a distinct lack of historical records of the time before Rauru. Everyone knows Rauru is the "First King" of Hyrule, but the previous events and kings were forgotten, likely because past records had been destroyed.
This is why I think it's all but confirmed BotW/TotK take place in the Adult Timeline, considering how the Zora monuments confirm Sidon is a descendant of OoT Ruto, who was said to have become a Sage and fought alongside the hero and princess to seal Ganon, which is exactly what happened in OoT, specifically the Adult Timeline. Ruto never becomes a Sage in the Child Timeline. You could argue for the Defeated Timeline, but the Hero of Time died during the battle so it wouldn't be as fitting if it was said they worked together when Link died before the battle was one.
Then there's of course the Koroks and Rito, a divine beast being named after Medli, Naboris clearly being stated to be named about the sage Nabooru from OoT, etc.
Also, something major most don't know is the fact that the Ganondorf who became the Calamity was the last male Gerudo born, as stated in Creating a Champion. No other Male Gerudo were born after him, which would make it impossible for the events of TotK's past to take place before SS or any other game realistically.
I have huge issues with BotW and TotK, but I wish people didn't exaggerate its story issues to go as far to say it "destroyed the lore."
Distinction without a difference.
The first few weeks I played TotK I was convinced that Aonuma and Fujibayashi had decided during the development of TotK to just straight pull the trigger and essentially de-canonized all games before BotW. After all, BotW had brought so many new fans to the franchise, they could afford to start a new and the vast majority of their current player base wouldn't care.
Of course, then Fujibayashi told us that wasn't the case. But having to learn that such a cataclismic event took place in a freaking interview felt insulting. The last time Hyrule was destroyed, it was the backbone of the story of an entire game (TWW), and it was given a ton of gravitas and thematic meaning. But this? Said on an interview with no real hints in the game whatsoever? It felt like Fujibayashi had thrown the old Hyrule away as if it was yesterday's trash.
Couple that with the laughable continuity between BotW and TotK themselves, and you can't trust what comes out of the developers mouth when it comes to taking continuity seriously.
@XanderVJ I've always been of the belief that the likes of Aonuma and Fujibayashi never gave a lick about the continuity, but others on the team did. Aonuma has said ad nauseum that he's there for the gameplay, not the story. Him and Fujibayashi pay little attention to the stories of the games they develop, they just decide how much story they'll allow the Team to add in. I firmly believe others on the team care about the lore and continuity, they're just stifled because of the new "nonlinear approach."
I'm not defending BotW and TotK's stories, just saying that the lore hasn't been utterly shattered and retconned like many have led themselves to believe. It doesn't change how upset I am to see such little regard for the stories of the past and how much Aonuma wants to just forget about it by setting BotW/TotK so far in the future, after most of previous history has been lost for one reason or another. His belief that nonlinear games like TotK being what Zelda should have always been about is a damned shame.
I will say that Hyrule has been destroyed and reconstructed numerous times, specifically in the Downfall Timeline, but also of course in the Adult Timeline with Old and New Hyrule. TotK does leave some hints that the original Hyrule had been destroyed, but they're quite vague so it's understandable most wouldn't catch it and assume Rauru had been around before Skyward Sword. Fuji and Aonuma just were too busy trying to cater to all the BotW fanatics.
@@AmirPrinceling "I'm not defending BOTW or TOTK's stories."
I am. Breath of the Wild's story was pretty damn good. Period. It's just not of the scale we're used to from Zelda. The only real flaws in TOTK's stories were
>Repeating the sage cutscene at the end of the first four dungeons, which isn't even as egregious as it sounds on paper since it's a three-minute cutscene and from the player's perspective it's going to be 10+ hours in between each one. I didn't even realize they were repeated almost verbatim until it was pointed out to me.
>The game's open-ended structure makes it really easy to do things out of order. This is a pretty big one I admit.
And as for the lore? Who cares about the lore? Not Nintendo, that's for sure. "Zelda lore" has always been fans trying to turn cool references to past games into a super intricate story on the level of Kingdom Hearts or Metal Gear Solid. The "timeline" in Hyrule Historia was basically made up for fanservice and is held together by duct tape and spit.
@HunterStiles651 This is just gaslighting. Zelda lore has always been important and rich, just not the main focus of Aonuma, but others on his team have put serious effort into it. The timeline also wasn't hashed together, if you would just look at past interviews (like the pre-release interview for OoT and how it was stated as a prequel for ALttP, and countless other examples).
And let me just add a footnote, I don't despise BotW's story. I actually love the Champions. However, the story itself was done no justice as its hard to tell a good story in just 10 minutes of cutscenes. It easily could've been one of the best stories in the series...had the game took place in the past instead. Which is why I personally vastly prefer AoC's story, as the characters get much needed screentime and fleshing out, as well as interactions with each other. TotK had a lot of potential too, but had a rushed and half-baked story that was also very dumbed down. Cliche villain Ganondorf, Puppet Ganon disguised as Zelda being obvious from the start, each story being self-contained, and so on. The Sages weren't bad, though Tulin had next to no development (or at least, he was only a minute long).
@AmirPrinceling OOT being a Prequel to LttP was always dumb.
Really, there shouldn't _be_ a Prequel to LttP because it would either suck or be inaccurate. There is zero room for a traditional Zelda game unless you just made up a new antagonist and had Ganon be a side presence that never gets directly referred to by name.
Big agree.
My first Zelda game was Oracle of Ages and I fell in love with the story of the series with every subsequent game up until BotW, which felt directionless, aimless and like story was an afterthought. I figured sure, it's a new formula, they're trying it out; it'll be better next time.
And then Tears came out and felt like a reboot of the franchise. Barely even connected to the game it's a direct sequel to despite sharing the same world, even.
I'm so disappointed.
Isn’t BOTW a sort of reboot to the franchise? it has old locations as reference and little nods to the original series. This is a complete different timeline
It's only a "sort of" reboot, the mystery of BotW was how could relics and tribes from different timelines coexist. Which are still mysteries that can be solved. But TotK openly calls out that, the relics that was mentioned and seen were just not the ones we seen before. Hence a reboot.
14:01
Four swords adventures technically includes a different incarnation of gannondorf, but we don’t see him until he’s transformed into Gannon
BOTW is a sequel to all of the other games. TOTK is a sequel to nothing, and a retelling of BOTW. The lore that is does have is too vague to care much about.
Why does Ganondorf hate Rauru so much? Where did all the Sheikah tech go? Where do the Secret Stones come from, and how did Rauru get them? Were Farosh, Dinraal and Naydra once Zonai, and why don't we interact with them if they are? Why does no one remember Link?
"Who cares? Just build wacky stuff with your ghost hand!"
People praise TOTK's Ganondorf to high heaven, but that's just because of the voice acting. He's not the survivor of a harsh desert from Wind Waker, not the reincarnation of Demise from Skyward Sword, and not the formless essence of pure hatred born from countless failures from BOTW. He's just a bandit who eats a magic rock, sleeps for a thousand years, and becomes a dragon.
My cope is that hyrule had to be refounded again after the oceans levels went down after the windwaker timeline
The problem with Tears of the Kingdom story is that it has the same memory formula as Breath of the Wild. It’s a linear story that’s told in a non linear fashion and the vast majority of players will go through the game collecting the tears out of order. This worked better for Breath of the Wild because Link just woke up after 100 years and lost all his memories and you basically go around the post apocalyptic land trying to rediscover yourself and what happened to the champions. I witnessed Sonia die in one cutscene and then she was back alive in another because the memories were out of order. The sages aren’t really all that fleshed out because every cutscene after each dungeon has the sages say the same exact thing line for line word for word as all the other cutscenes in the game. It’s tedious and annoying from a story perspective. They also made it completely obvious from the start that Zelda was a puppet. Lastly, you can pull the master sword and discover that Zelda is the light dragon before doing any of the dungeons which means you will have to sit there and watch the sages see puppet zelda and you’ll know it’s an imposter but can’t do anything about it. The ancestors of the sages also witness zelda turning into a dragon and yet none of them inform Link about it at all. I just think the story is all over the place and doesn’t make that much sense. Breath of the Wild had a simple story but at least it made sense and had interesting characters. I didn’t really care about the new characters like Sonia and Mineru. I also think the Sheikah Tech from Breath of the Wild is more interesting especially from a lore perspective than the Zonai are in Tears of the Kingdom.
I will admit that Zelda turning herself into a dragon was the ultimate sacrifice in the series besides maybe The King flooding himself and Hyrule in Wind Waker in hopes for a better future. It would have been better and more impactful if Zelda stayed a dragon but instead she wakes up and doesn’t remember anything. Almost like taking a nap for thousands of years and never had to suffer because of it. The cutscene where Rauru tells Ganondorf about the hero with the sword that seals the darkness was one of the greatest cutscenes ever. And the final fight in the sky with the two dragons has some of the most beautiful music in the entire series. I can hate on the game but also recognize when it does get it right. Overall, I thought the story could have been told so much better and at the end of the day it leads us with more questions than actual answers.
no offense but botw ruined the lore first. Like you point out Lon Lon ranch still being around in botw but how does that possibly make sense with how far down the timeline botw is compared to everything. Theres a minimum of 10,000 years between them but somehow lon lon ranch still stands? Its just kind of dumb already totk was another steak in the heart
i want old zelda so bad and even the new 2d one where you play as her just looks like a big menu scrolling build-it-yourself game. dissapointing
Lon Lon ranch has been rebuild many times in the series, the earliest Lon Lon ranch was MC, then Oot, FSA and finally the remains in Botw/Totk.
i feel like a lot of people are overthinking the lore of the games. the games are legends. they can controdict eachother because they are the LEGEND of zelda. we have the same type of stuff IRL too. i think the lore in totk makes perfect sense its simply a new hyrule after the destruction of the one we knew and love in the old games. i love the lore and it makes me sad to see fellow zelda enthusiests having a hard time
The LORE🍑 0:26
👅💦
I love how Breath sets up all these mysteries about Zonai, the world, the possible location of Ganondorf, the secrets of the map, and stories that have yet to conclude, only for it to be slid into your throats through direct exposition, or just forgetting it entirely. Thanks nintendo
My brother in Christ...Zelda lore was NEVER coherent. Twilight Princess says the Master Sword was constructed by ancient sages, only for Skyward Sword (the very next game) to have it be Goddess Hylia and Link be the ones who make it with no sages at all. This was never a series that cared about it's lore.
TotK just made it obvious. But it's not anything new.
To be fair in Skyward Sword you just kinda power the sword up and give it a new name, but the Goddess Sword existed already.
I dunno.
Either way, Skyward Sword _is_ infuriating because of Demise
I personally believe the reason for why totk doesn't feel good in the story is because it was supposed to be a DLC but grew too big for it to be a dlc and became a game somewhere between game and dlc.
All i gotta say, age of calamity does a better story and lore than totk. Why- dunno- even though the zelda team worked on all 3 titles... just didnt think of growing the story.
AoC has a really well-done story. BotW and TotK have poor stories because Aonuma didn't want to let the team allocate too many resources to the story, he wanted mostly gameplay.
At the very least, TotK further cemented the Wild Games as taking place in the Adult Timeline, just a shame the story was so lazy and underdeveloped.
I prefer TotK to BotW. I didn't really like BotW, the story was practically non-existent and it didn't really give me any reason to keep pushing forward. TotK at least has some sort of story and fun gameplay mechanics. It doesn't have to be the best story ever, it just has to do more than BotW.
I like totk too , the only problem comes for something only the tryhards care
I find it funny how unimaginative and uninspired Zelda fans are now that rather than speculate and theorize how the pieces fit, they just assume the lore is broken as if Nintendo doesn't have an idea of what's going on behind the scenes like they did while everyone was speculating about the timeline without the proper context of a downfall split.
Just because we don't understand how elements make sense right now, doesn't mean we're not gonna get further context later through future games or from the devs themselves whenever they want us to buy the next book of answers. There's still tons of mystery in BotW/TotK's world and lots of details that people haven't or refuse to pick up on because it's just easier to say Nintendo doesn't care anymore.
I think a lot of people take The Lore™ as it exists today for granted. The canon lore has been a mess from the word go. And after OoT, the direct connection between games might have gotten stronger, but the overall lore of the world would only get messier and messier with each new title. It just doesn't feel like it because fan theories have been filling the gaps so well over the years. At some point though, people convinced themselves it was all Nintendo from the start and that all the fan theories weren't actual, ya know, theories made by fans, but simply intended canon that had been planned from the start
In reality, TotK is just another brick in the wall of a game that prioritizes its own story over the existing lore. But if you've convinced yourself that Zelda is a franchise with a carefully woven story that's been meticulously plotted out on a chart by Nintendo for almost 40 years, I guess I can see why it would feel so jarring. Still wrong, but I get where they're coming from
I mean that was with the well written story of OoT, ToK isn't exactly a well written classix thats worth expanding, exploring and explaining from best thing would be to do a Tok retcon with come back in 10 Years and try again or just reboot it all together.
@@melkormorgothbauglir.4848 I mean...no it is well written in TOTK really and it is worth expanding, exploring and explaining. I mean none of that is needed reall.
@@Jdudec367 Not really I mean Story it's still a fun game at times the stories trash and every interesting place is desperate needing of some expanding.
It's different from the usual element confusion. The game intentionally mentioned existing names like Rauru and Ruto, and firmly contradicted their stories. So if the developers had any idea in mind, it was to diverge from the story we knew for 30 years
"Wouldn't that make holes in the ground?"
Yeah.... If you actually compared the map many if not all of the holes where you go to the depth was Sheikah Shrine locations
I am surprised how many people miss the simple equation: BotW is set untold thousands of years in the future, of whichever timeline it sits on, and TotK gives us the obvious truth that this Hyrule wasn’t founded under a continuous kingdom, that has stretched forward since OoT. It was reformed by Zonai with remnant ‘Hylians’.
If Hylians already existed when the Zonai helped form Hyrule, than we can confirm this is a reformation. Simple.
The difficulty comes with the assumptions that people make regarding BotW-particularly those who are convinced of a Downfall Timeline placement, and have built up a massive headcanon surrounding the theory.
I remember people saying that Ganondorf could never reincarnate in BotW’s timeline ‘because he has revived as a mindless Ganon ever since OoT, hence Calamity’, and because that would leave an Adult Timeline placement more plausible. Then the trailer dropped.
People need to stop conflating canon with headcanon. A bunch of people on the Internet declaring a particular timeline placement, doesn’t make it any more conclusive.
It really isn't that simple. If this is a refounding, then we also have to assume Rauru somehow had the knowledge and desire to rebuild iconic structures from the kingdom that hasn't been a thing for thousands of years, because we see in the past that there are no structures from old Hyrule around. Nothing in-game remotely suggests it to be a refounding.
Keep in mind, Rauru didn’t have a hand building any of that stonework, which wasn’t present in TotK’s past, nor did Mineru (the only other Zonai present, contemporaneously), because they both died. Rauru was trapped with his spell and Ganondorf, and Mineru died of her illness shortly after.
Also keep in mind, Ganondorf distinguished Zonai separately from what he called ‘Hyruleans’ when he spoke about the queen, and the first contact between Hylians and Zonai, implying that ‘Hyruleans’ already existed. Why would they be named such, if not due to their heritage?
Most of all, Denise is explicitly stated in lore to be the originator of this evil. So Ganondorf showing up before hand, only to be replaced by Demise, and then replaced again by Ganondorf in OoT does not hold up.
What’s happening in this game is clearly meant to parallel Skyward Sword, but there is no true indication that it subverts it’s place on the timeline.
Finally, someone with sense. Everyone is mad that the game doesn't confirm their ridiculous convergence headcanon or whatever. BotW/TotK have several issues, both as stories and as games, but it's extremely obvious they take place in the Adult Timeline. Based on the Zora Monuments, the names of the Divine Beasts, the Koroks and Rito, the lack of historical records, the fact the Triforce was forgotten, and etc.
@@AmirPrinceling BotW/TotK make explicit references to all three timelines, and anyone who claims that it favors one over another is huffing copium. I don't think you understood a single thing @nickcurrant2254 said?
@@Wendy_O._Koopa People always say that, yet they can't provide which explicit references they're referring to. Unless you mean Zelda's speech in BotW that references past games? Something that can very easily be a reference to the Era of Myth and how some entries are in actuality legends while others are fact in BotW/TotK's continuity, but due to being so long ago it's unknown what is Myth and what is Fact, which is why Zelda's speech makes reference to all three timelines.
However, majority of this "explicit evidence" you and others mention are just easter eggs, like the name of a lake or whatever. You really don't understand anything, and are just parroting nonsense people who also don't understand BotW/TotK's lore spout. The Zora Monument confirm the games don't take place in the Child Timeline (confirms Ruto becomes a Sage, is an ancestor of Sidon, fought alongside Link and Zelda to defeat Ganondorf, and was the patron deity of Jabu Jabu which makes it clear this wasn't some other Ruto), so it's either the Defeated or Adult Timeline. The presence of the Koroks (an evolution that only occurred in response to the Great Sea) and Rito hint towards the idea that the games take place in the adult timeline, whereas there is not much of anything to suggest the game takes place in the Defeated Timeline.
I could of course go on, but the point is that placing BotW/TotK is not some monumental task, and is quite simple if you actually pay attention. Those who hyperfixate on some random easter egg or DLC item are the same ones who believe in the "Convergence Theory" which is easily the most asinine Zelda theories around.
They did say once in another interview "perhaps hyrule fell and was remade by rauru" it once more shows how they themselves have no clue
…they never had a clue. Zelda lore was always fan theories stemming from Easter eggs that the games gave to players so they can speculate.
You definitely have a point regarding the 'disappearance' of the sheikah tech. I'll bet nintendo finished the game and the day before launch they were like "how are we going to explain the tech's disappearence to the fans" and Aonuma said "fuck it, we'll talk about it in an interview"
Could they maybe be hinting that “Demise” was just a moniker and that Ganondorf was the original “Demon King”?? Idk why that just popped into my head when I saw the sealing scene. I mean these are all supposed to be “legends” which are told differently based on who is telling them and when.
"Why do you care so much?"
The real question is, _why WOULD'NT you care so much?_ Zelda is a long running franchise spanning decades, with millions of fans around the world. It sure as heck matters, just as much as any other art form (because yes, despite popular belief video games classify as art). The fact that the CREATORS of the franchise itself didn't put much thought into it is a little insulting.
I'm not sure why, but there's a huge collection of Zelda fans who's parents were killed by consistent continuity or something, and they will get personally offended whenever someone _dares_ to care about this stuff. No, I don't understand it either...
I hope the next 3d Zelda game isn’t in the botw and totk timeline, I would like to see a continuation of previous Zelda games
There is no next 3D zelda.
In the same time frame it took to make Ocarina up to Skyward we only got 2 open world games, only 3D games we got were remakes, no way we are getting more of them.
Maybe we get an Ocarina Remake for Switch since they already rereleased up to skyward anyway.
all i heard is that you were coping INMENSELY for breath of the wild easter eggs but you purspoly choose not to on tears of the kingdom even tho its an objective superior succesor with a far more cleaner story and far more emotional scenes , scenes on wich you *actually* are in and interact
11:15 perfect example
no it wouldn't , there's no mention of the shika tech bc nobody care about it on the prev games outside of the ppl fighting the calamity on research field , it got lose 5 years ago and ppl move on because they already have the tech without the need of a giant army that can turn against you ; weapons included
there's no reason to exlain whyh a main theme on a prev zelda is replace on the next game ; nobody care for why the triforce of power suddenly appear on ganondorf in twillightt princess , nor why ganon was green instead of blue
or more importantly , why the hero of the eind was nowhere to be reference on new hyrule
don't let me start with the kokiri
it just doesn't make sense to reference something like that if you won't use it and ofc you won't use it , bc the story isn't about that anymore
17:10 pure bullshit again
if the era of prospery was really the founding of this hyrule there wouldn't be monster around the kingdom , that's the whole point of the minish cap. also the lack of the triforce alongside the temple of time is telling
There was a recent interview with Aonuma for echoes of wisdom that gives me hope that they have at least gotten the memo on totks story reception and hopefully they can address it in the next big game. Echoes already has a story that is leagues better than tears so that is a hood sign.
Zelda devs now hate Zelda before. Totk is not a sequel but a replacement. Canonically, too.
I hate new Zelda so much.
They haven't even let us fish since Twilight Princess.
I remember one person mentioned there was a possibility that totk (the past sections) may be taking place after all the other zelda games.
And the reason hyrule was being founded again is because it had been so long that the kingdom was forgotten to time so from the perspective of the new founders they were the ones initially founding it
Doesnt solve the lack of a link incarnation for ganondorf but that explanation atleast makes it make a vague amount of sense (its been like a year since I saw the video that said this was a possibility so I cant really link it, im sorry)
Can’t we just enjoy the game for what it is?
This video definitely got me subscribed, I hope you make it to 3k, and keep growing beyond that
Literally didn't.. Why are people still making these claims when they clearly don't understand the story itself?..
Did you watch the video?
Remember everyone. Totk started out as dlc so a lot of the complaints about geography and the geogliphs can be chalked up to that. How do we know the glyphs werent always there and that the upheavial made them visable again? Or maybe zelda was using her dragon magic to keep them hidden until the time was right.
The Zelda lore has always been an incomprehensible constantly self-contradicting mess so nothing new
No it hasn't. Say what you will about the timeline, it made sense and the games were so independent there was literally no way to contradict each other
Just because you lack media literacy doesn't mean the timeline doesn't make sense. Many children were able to connect the dots between games before the Hyrule Historia published.
I was terrified of what totk was going to do because I saw the writing on the wall that the devs didn't care about lore in botw. Bringing back Fi, bringing back Hylia, not mentioning the triforce, they just didn't care. It's been heartbreaking to watch Nintendo throw away their #2 game series to create something that could have been its own new successful thing. You've spent your entire adolescence in the wild era and even Echoes of Wisdom looks like its going to follow the same sandbox style of totk. I'll never lose my love for the series, but Nintendo is rejecting fans who cared about the world they made. The lore is only worth exploring if it adds richness to the world and the characters in it.
i dislike overly negative and vulgar things. like, you started insulting before even making a point.
Ok? Lots of people find it entertaining
they clearly took the gamefreak mindset when it comes to lore but where gamefreak doesnèt give a single shit about lore and only uses past lore for easter eggs and throws everything else away the zelda devs at least give a single shit about the lore at least in breath anyways but clearly donèt give two shits at least when it came to tears
It didn't. It clarified a lot of things from botw and gave more context to the world and it's people
Said nonone ever
@@XanderVJ said anyone who actually played it
@@novustalks7525 I am 280 hours into the game and it does not.
It doesn't even have real continuity between botw and totk @@novustalks7525
Context on what? Context on the kingdom's founding? We already knew that and if anything this refounding of Hyrule a bazillion years later only makes things more confusing as locations that were destroyed across all timelines are still standing. It sure as hell doesn't explain Ganondorf or his relationship to Calamity Ganon since now there's apparently been a Ganondorf between BOTW and Four Swords Adventure. It introduces ANOTHER Imprisoning War which makes no sense. ToTK just makes the lore more confusing
Zelda lore made more sense before there was a continuous timeline. Back in the day, I always just thought it was the _Legend_ of Zelda. It's just an ancient myth with several different interpretations. Each game, aside from a few direct sequels, is just a retelling of that old story but with details different.
the timeline is a piece of advertising to promote skyward sword and make it feel more special, its entirely valid to say "yeah right" and ignore it. it never actually appears in any game. i ignore it, its just nonsense to me
While your complaints are valid I really just... dont care. Like does everything HAVE to connect? Can Totk not just be in it's own universe? And even if it really "ruined" Zelda lore, doesn't that automatically mean it isn't Canon, thus resolving the issue anyway?
Things have to connect because it adds to the experience of a game series like this to have lore that makes sense, especially when every game before has set a standard of the lore making sense
@bagelenjoyer3437 OK? That doesn't mean it HAS to connect even if it adds something. If it doesn't connect with everything before it then it doesn't bring down the previous entries in any way. I really don't see any reason to be upset if it doesn't affect any of the previous games that ARE connected. Just consider It non-canon and move on.
@@OChunks 'Canon' is a term used to denote the official material- as TOTK is an official game, it is Canon and thus has lore implications. As such, any problems it creates with the lore cannot be ignored- it is a part of the Zelda timeline, one way or another.
As for the idea of 'does it have to connect'. It doesn't. But if so, why did they add so many references? SO many little easter eggs? Why not just make it its own thing? So much of what made me enjoy BOTW's sparse story were these setups that teased better reveals coming forward. It doesn't bring down previous entries, but it permanently ruins attempts in the future to link the games more closely.
More to the point, it feels like a betrayal to the people who put the most time into the zelda games trying to dig through all the lore and put it together.
@rakshithanand8262 Well if you care THAT much about the lore, be my guest to complain about it. Even if I did care about Zelda lore it doesn't impact the gameplay so it doesnt really matter. Though I don't really see how that game being official means it's one hundred percent tied into the past games. If it bothers you that much then maybe you just have to learn how to turn off your brain and just stop caring.
@@OChunks first of all, lore does affect gameplay just like how story, atmosphere, music and charecters affect it. And second of all "oh you have a problem with this game in a franchise you care about? You should just stop caring and turn your brain off instead of voicing your issues and having an opinion"
I'm hoping they'll just come back to it and explain ganondorf existing since the beginning with him possibly going back in time. Maybe through the fallen hero timeline (which also needs explaining) he gained access to the ocarina of time. And through weird time travel shenanigans he was able become ganon in the fallen timeline and go back to the founding of hyrule.
Zelda fan ruined the lore. These games clearly aren't meant to connect over the entire franchise but muh lore howling forced nintendo to pretend they intended as such. They have literally changed the timeline twice. This lore hunting is stupid, some of you don't play games for the actual gameplay but for lore.
The games are meant to connect over the entire franchise, the timeline was there since Aol and they change the timeline once not twice.
They make the gameplay and then they decide to add lore. Might as well do it well.
How dare we care about writing in games? It's not like story is essential to make you care about what's happening or anything...
Ah yes blame the fans. A shill's favorite weapon. How are you gonna say that when Ocarina of Time was DESIGNED to connect to Link to the Past, both Wind Waker and Twilight Princesss were MADE to connect to Ocarina three of the known Links all have sequel games further connecting them? No, Zelda's always cared about its lore to some degree or another. Nintendo's just gotten lazy
@@Ahouro Only the direct sequels are meant to connect to each other. They sprinkle in references to the other games, those references aren't suppose to be anything more than that. Might as well start adding crossovers in your silly timeline too. Soul Calibur in the middle of OoT and MM.
Hyrule Warriors feels more canon than Tears of the Kingdom. I like to think of The switch version of Tears of the Kingdom and Breath of the Wild as a separate timeline from even Skyward Sword. I like to think of the Wii U version of Hyrule Warriors and Breath of the Wild as being at the end of the main timeline
I don't see it a ruining lore. The way I see it, during Skyward sword when Link traveled back in time, he created a timeline split. This is why BOTW & TOTK don't follow the same timeline.
What the fuck are you talking about
What makes the most sense is that TOTK/BOTW come ages after other games, this is not the first Hyrule. Fujibayashi gave credit to that idea without confirming.
I much prefer this to the timeline merger bs
My current theory (I have no way to back this up) is the "past" that Zelda is brought to, is at the end of the timeline. Hyrule I believe has been desolate and needed to be repopulated. If it's a culmination of all timelines, could make sense after the flood of Wind Waker, all that water would have taken so many years to be absorbed by the land. The Ganondorf of this game is a whole new reincarnation and is the first NEW reincarnation of Ganondorf we see after both versions were killed in Twilight Princess and Wind Waker. This way, there aren't two Ganondorfs existing at one time (which makes no sense) and it also explains why the Triforce is absent from both games and why Ganondorf has no knowledge of it, the past of Tears of the Kingdom is so far in the future, the legend of the Triforce is forgotten. It's just a symbol found on ancient relics of the past that cultures integrate into themselves.