Nintendo did not begin the Zelda series with a timeline - it wasn't there from the start. Rather, it was made up later.
Well, it was kind of obvious. I don't think anyone thought Nintendo and their games would have become so big back during the NES era. EDIT: Just to clarify, I mean I don't think the amount of depth and backstory we see in Zelda games was intended back in the day.
It was actually mentioned years ago over and over. That's why they never revealed said timeline until recently. It was the fans who demanded a timeline. I mean 3 timelines? Creatively done Nintendo, but yeah...yeah...I bet the people behind all of it were pulling their hair out trying to make it work.
I'm guessing most franchises started out like this, I wonder what Kojima has to say on the matter? I'm curious to know whether he made the original Metal Gear for MSX knowing that it would spawn many sequels and prequels if it succeeded...
Well, do not think many buy zelda by the timeline. so I see no reason for the controversy.
So Oracle of Seasons wasnt planned from the beginning?
In the beginning the concern was to make great games, not look forward to timelines. As rocky as the indusrty was back then you couldn't worry too much about future titles
When I saw the timeline it was pretty obvious, if I remember correctly every game that came before OoT supposedly happened in the third timeline, where link died, so they only made that timeline so they had a place to put the pre-OoT games and not just wave them from existence. Its obvious OoT was the first game where they started wanting to make a (somewhat) coherent overarching story.
...and it has been dabbling around in the timeline for too long now. It's a respectful nod to hardcore fans, but Zelda needs to move on. Skyward Sword was Nintendo closing the book. They don't need to restrict themselves with it anymore. We want a new Zelda that feels like a Zelda game, but Nintendo should do whatever they want with it so we can get the best game ever made since OoT!
Just remake every game to coincide better, and keep the games ambiguous. Problem solved. There needs to be an overall timeline but not be focused on.
I thought they made it up as they went along.
Zelda has a timeline? O...O
Well, yeah. You conceive of scenarios and mechanics first and then slot it in wherever makes sense.
Beyond that, there's no reason to implement a timeline or even consider doing so when you're working on the first game of a series. The fact that Zelda II: The Adventure of Link is a direct sequel to "The Legend of Zelda" indicates that there was a timeline in place from the very first moment it was -possible- to have a timeline. Of course, that doesn't necessarily mean there was a grand, unifying timeline linking all of the disparate games together. I think it's clear that the big, complicated "multiverse" timeline is very much some retroactive continuity... that was firmly in place at least as early as Wind Waker, possibly as early as Ocarina of Time itself. ...Zelda has clearly always had continuity between games, from the very start. This is why the "Zelda timeline debate" thing exists in the first place. The only thing that wasn't clear was whether or not the series was composed of one big timeline or separate, distinct timelines--something Nintendo effectively "clarified" in Hyrule Historia by declaring "it's both."
N4G is a community of gamers posting and discussing the latest game news. It’s part of NewsBoiler, a network of social news sites covering today’s pop culture.