i know its a big topic and all but this clearafies it
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=F2g65jL3HDg
Thanks I'll check the video later.
One of the Zelda games I really want to own and play is "Twilight Princess" for GameCube, but when I get it.. I'll feel like selling to make more profit out of it.
Better not to do it, the PAL version isn't cheap.
I have to say that is the most convincing explanation I've seen. That said, I think there may not be an actual timeline at all.
edit: OK, I am taking this a bit too seriously. Disregard anything below that's no to your liking.
I could list out every reason I dislike the guy and his video, but here are a few of my grievances:
He incorrectly assumes the Picori Blade is the Master Sword.
He gives little to no evidence of why only his timeline is correct, narrating it as fact without actually explaining his placements.
He completely ignores the Master Sword connection made in TP and WW's entire backstory (connection to OOT directly).
He narrates with a terribly obnoxious, superior tone, and claims he has the "correct timeline".
Personally I think it goes:
MC.
OOT.
MM. WW.
TP. PH.
FS. ST.
FSA.
LTTP.
LA.
LOZ.
AOL.
Oracles
But at least I'll admit that I'm uncertain.
I don't think the Legend of Zelda has a linear storyline in all but a few games. I think they're all just broken up into mini-stories and the rest of the games are completely unrelated. Therefore (that I can think of)
The original and Zelda 2
Link to the Past and Link's Awakening
Ocarina of Time and Majora's Mask [split timeline theory] and Wind Waker and Phantom Hourglass. Maybe Twilight Princess.
Minish Cap and Four Swords Adventures and Four Swords
Oracle of Ages and Oracle of Seasons
Again, these are all separates. The Legend of Zelda like any legend can be retold in endless ways to convey the same sort of message; a hero named Link, a princess named Zelda, and an evil named Ganon. I think its silly to try to fit the original Zelda games in somewhere on account of the fact that they lack the Master Sword. It wasn't invented yet!
Let me put it another way using a different nintendo series. Pokémon, both the games and the anime.
In the first games there were 151 Pokémon. In Gen 2, 100 more were created. Then there were 386. Then well over 400. Do the new games take place in the same timeline? No! They replace the previous one because the new Pokémon didn't exist yet.
Or think of it in terms of the anime. In 1998, Ash was 10. In 2010, how old is Ash? 22? No! He's still 10. Why? Because the series just updates itself without being linear.
Disregard if I'm making no sense. Not going to bother to proofread this right now ::)
Actually on the Pokemon thing, in the anime every Pokemon we see was already discovered. In some of the new episodes, James has a flashback to his childhood, and he has Pokemon from the first, second, and fourth generation, and talks about Pokemon from the third generation.
Quote from: satoshi_matrix on May 05, 2010, 12:02:05 am
Again, these are all separates. The Legend of Zelda like any legend can be retold in endless ways to convey the same sort of message; a hero named Link, a princess named Zelda, and an evil named Ganon. I think its silly to try to fit the original Zelda games in somewhere on account of the fact that they lack the Master Sword. It wasn't invented yet!
What are you talking about? The original Zelda had the Master Sword in it:
(http://i498.photobucket.com/albums/rr343/JediQuestMaster/5-1.png)
Are you just talking about the first two? Link to the Past had it as well. The only Zelda game I don't remember a 'Master Sword' in was Zelda II... & that game was different in many other ways.
But yeah, I get what you're saying. It's kind of like saying where does Star Fox 64 & Star Fox take place? They're the same thing!
Which kind of gets to me sometimes - that's why I quit the Zelda series... I feel like I'm playing the same game over again.
(I might decide to play the CD-I games... (not Zelda's Adventure, the first two... (by the way, did the CD-I games have the Master Sword in it?)))
Check your sources. That screenshot is from a hack. The three swords in the original Zelda were Wooden Sword, White Sword, and Magical Sword.
This is the case in the FDS verson, NES version. Maybe it was changed in the gray NES re-release?
nope, i have the gray NES release of the game and it is still the same
The hell?
Is mine hacked? I'll check it under NEStopia; that will tell me if it's hacked, right?
I swear, though - I always thought it was the Master Sword... probably 'cause "MASTER USING IT & YOU CAN HAVE THIS...
AFTER YOU ACQUIRE MORE HEART PIECES, TRY AGAIN LATER!"
At some point next year for zelda's 25th anniversary (going by FDS release date of the original), I plan to record a live debate/problem solve convention to come up with a plausible timeline with our local experts. The guys that will partake in this interview include myself, and 4 other guys that follow zelda very well. My bro and I know zelda on a console level, and the other guys know everything and beyond to the extreme.
It should be interesting and I hope you watch it when it comes up next summer, hopefully on July 29th which would be the 24th anniversary going by the american release date noted on zelda wiki.
Quote from: Rob64 on May 11, 2010, 06:46:19 pm
At some point next year for zelda's 25th anniversary (going by FDS release date of the original), I plan to record a live debate/problem solve convention to come up with a plausible timeline with our local experts. The guys that will partake in this interview include myself, and 4 other guys that follow zelda very well. My bro and I know zelda on a console level, and the other guys know everything and beyond to the extreme.
It should be interesting and I hope you watch it when it comes up next summer, hopefully on July 29th which would be the 24th anniversary going by the american release date noted on zelda wiki.
i follow all the zeldas and look foward to the video :D
Thanks linkzpikachu. I like your signature, nice Twilight Princess reference.