Let's Talk Timelines

[Via Armbar]

Anyone that is a fan of the Zelda franchise, or really gaming in general, knows of the series odd timeline. There are twists and turns and jumps seemingly after every new release that comes out. The actual timeline for the game has been debated on for years and even today there is no real clear cut answer to the chronological order that the stories take place in. Not that it affects the qualities of the game obviously...but it would be nice to see when each story takes place or if there is even an order. Some theories call for a split timeline starting at the end of Ocarina of Time and the series has been taken in two different directions since. Perhaps each story is it's own legend and not meant to follow any continuing story from one game to another.

Now look at another popular franchise: Super Mario Bros. Does anyone consider these games to have a timeline? It's pretty much the same story for every installment: Bowser captures Peach, Mario sets out to rescue her. There have been some deviations from the formula but for the most part it's stayed on the same tracks. The Mario games, unlike Zelda, have never really been story driven so nobody has ever really questioned it. Not to mention there are far more games that Mario has appeared in then Link and that would be a whole lot of games to fit into a timeline.

Do timelines matter in a game? Does the importance of continuity differ from genre to genre?

 

[Барбоса]

For Zelda, the timeline does not really mean that much for me as I am usually so absorbed in the game I am playing that I do not really care where is fits in the canon of all the others.

You mention the timetravel paradox of OOT as a perfect example of potential trouble - just because Adult Link defeated Ganon in the future does not mean that Kid Link was able to the do the same in the past... to my knowledge, how everyone lived happily ever after in the Kid Link timeline of OOT has never been explained?

Should the timeline be fully revealed, I feel that some of the mystic of Zelda might be lost and becuase it will be difficult to fully explain it may present anomalies, anachronisms and retconning.

 

[Furyof5]

I think the timeline is important honestly. Miyamoto kind cleared it up recently anyway. Ocarina of time is the original/beginning story and at the end of it the timeline diverges. When Zelda sends Link back in time he goes and meets Zelda telling her what happened, this splits the timeline to where Adult Link continues the storyline leading down WW and Where Kid Link goes to Termina in Majora's mask and the subsequent games.

Of course there is some confusion and many theories regarding it but I find it, at least to me, to be important, as it establishes the games and provides for some sort of continuity and precedent for the new storylines. Miyamoto says he has the "real" timeline all written down and will one day share it with all of us, so it must be important, at least to him.

In terms of just playing the games? I dont think it matters. But for some fans like myself it does, even if its simply out of nothing more than trying to know everything about something we love.

With Mario its a different story. I never really thought of it as having a timeline until recently when I started to look in to everything. I dont even know if I care or if this one is anywhere near as solid as Zelda. I know that some games are direct sequels to one another such as Super Mario Galaxy, however even that doesnt really have a connected storyline as they dont even seem to remember the other game.

Most of them games state the Bowser has kidnapped Peach "again". But what does this really mean? We know that its happened but are they even referring to the other games? Sure certain characters carry over, but is this simply due to them liking the character?

The second example of Super Mario seems a lot more murky than The Legend of Zelda when compared and contrasted, as they never really seemed, at least to me, to ever try to establish a coherent or established timeline, while in Zelda Miyamota seems vihament that there is one.

 

[Lee]

Just like to point out that it was in 1998 Miyamoto said that OOT was first in the series, a lot of games have been released since then.

For me I subscribe to the "it's just a legend" theory and there are different games in different major legends:

The Legend of Zelda --> The Adventure of Link
A Link to the Past --> Link's Awakening
Ocarina of Time --> Majora's Mask
The Wind Waker --> Phantom Hourglass --> Spirit Tracks
Oracle of Ages <--> Oracle of Seasons
The Minish Cap --> Four Swords --> Four Swords Adventures

I think it's best to break it up like that, the same way fire emblem does as well as we don't have to go back and play every game to fit in the story (like I'm currently doing with Metroid), Mario has no time line at all and I'm glad that's the case as you just pick up and play the game.

 

[Furyof5]

Just like to point out that it was in 1998 Miyamoto said that OOT was first in the series, a lot of games have been released since then.

For me I subscribe to the "it's just a legend" theory and there are different games in different major legends:

The Legend of Zelda --> The Adventure of Link
A Link to the Past --> Link's Awakening
Ocarina of Time --> Majora's Mask
The Wind Waker --> Phantom Hourglass --> Spirit Tracks
Oracle of Ages <--> Oracle of Seasons
The Minish Cap --> Four Swords --> Four Swords Adventures

I think it's best to break it up like that, the same way fire emblem does as well as we don't have to go back and play every game to fit in the story (like I'm currently doing with Metroid), Mario has no time line at all and I'm glad that's the case as you just pick up and play the game.

I understand this particular theory, but I always think its more of a cop out/ write off than what may be actually going on. The creator of the series stated that, even recently, there is a specific order that everything takes place in, so I would like to take his word.

However I also can perfectly understand that he may have originally created it with that intention but after making more and more games it go out of order or became hard for him to control a specific timeline. Mainly this began with the transition to the 3D era of gaming graphics. But then even with this idea/theory he could be making games right now in an attempt to bridge the gaps or clear things up. We have no idea what the story of Skyward Sword is yet so it could be something along those lines.

Frankly all I really want is a third and concluding story to the Link from OOT and MM. In the end he simply rides off never to be heard from or seen again. Sure in TP the guy the new "Link" learns everything from is said to be the Original Link, but what happened to him? This is all that really matters to me in the end. A conclusion to that particular Link's story.

 

[Via Armbar]

For me I subscribe to the "it's just a legend" theory and there are different games in different major legends:

As do I. It just feels right, going with this theory above the others. At it's core, the Zelda franchise is an ongoing good versus evil story. You could say the same of most video games, but this one really personifies the two forces in a way that other games do not. Each story is about the struggle of good to overcome an amassing evil and save the world from it. That idea in itself is so universal, so identifiable that it transcends time. Perhaps there was no real Link, or Princess Zelda and they were only personifications created to tell a story, the story that these games tell. Perhaps what we are playing isn't a real time adventure, but rather playing out the Legend and not a particular real event.

I have always viewed each adventure as an individual story with familiar faces and characters. If anything, this has benefited the franchise more than if the story had been more clear cut and linear. WE get more versatile stories and different circumstances for each game, something that a game with a linear storyline couldn't really do. Hence the name being Legend of Zelda: each story fits into one giant legend and one large mythos but aren't all connected. I look at it as sort of a collection of short stories all within the same book; connected in character and theme of good versus evil.

 

[red ass skull muhfukkah]

I'd go with the notion that each game (or series of games) is a separate legend. You could take it similar to the story of Noah's Ark and legends of Dragons being shared by different civilizations. Many cultures share similar stories but change certain aspects to reflect their individual civilization. This is how I look at the Legend of Zelda; different variations of the same basic story told from different viewpoints. I think it adds a mystique to the games and stories that you couldn't get with a linear storyline.

For any other series I would prefer a linear time line as it can help with an overall story or even sales of a game. One example of a time line helping is the KOTOR series. It has a long time line of events that build up to the games, a long time line it follows, and long time line after the games. This gives you a better understanding of the overall universe and the major events that have occurred and caused certain things to play out the way they did. But if you didn't know about what Revan did pre-Kotor 1 and during KOTOR, your understanding of the overall story of KOTOR 2 would be damaged and therefore your experience could be more confusing and less engrossing. Fuck it I'm rambling.

But I'm a history buff so I like to know that a story in a game has a particular path and history that lead to it.

 

[Dagger Dias]

Timelines in a series ALWAYS matter. No questions asked. Continuity errors take away from the story in the games. Why build up a character or event in a story, only to ruin that effort by changing the story in the next entry? It should instead be expanded upon so that these characters/places/events can take on a life of their own. Where would Mario or Link be today without timelines? Well.... Mario would probably still have survived, but NONE of the Zelda games would make sense without timelines. Don't even get me started on RPG's when it comes to this issue. The genre of a game does not change things. Even in simple fighting series like Street Fighter they make it a point to keep the story free of continuity errors. Timelines in a video game series will always matter, no matter what, because changing the timeline of a game in the next entry would be like changing the story of a book series or film franchise. It wouldn't make sense anymore and a lot of fans would be upset. The same thing applies here with video games.

 

[ABMorales787]

For Zelda, the timeline does not really mean that much for me as I am usually so absorbed in the game I am playing that I do not really care where is fits in the canon of all the others.

You mention the timetravel paradox of OOT as a perfect example of potential trouble - just because Adult Link defeated Ganon in the future does not mean that Kid Link was able to the do the same in the past... to my knowledge, how everyone lived happily ever after in the Kid Link timeline of OOT has never been explained?

Umm... Yes it was. Ganondorf was arrested and executed by the king. It was in the ending. This timeline leads to Majora's Mask while the one where Adult Link sealed Ganon leads to Wind Waker.

As for timelines, they really aren't important. It doesn't take away your enjoyment of a game. Metroid Fusion is a good example. Great game but the story told of events you wouldn't know about unless the later released Other M or Super Metroid. Metroid Fusion was the first Metroid game I fully played and even though I never quite understood the story at the time, it never stopped me from enjoying it. I used to think Adam Malchovich was from Super Metroid. Boy was I wrong.

 

[Dagger Dias]

As for timelines, they really aren't important. It doesn't take away your enjoyment of a game. Metroid Fusion is a good example. Great game but the story told of events you wouldn't know about unless the later released Other M or Super Metroid. Metroid Fusion was the first Metroid game I fully played and even though I never quite understood the story at the time, it never stopped me from enjoying it.

I disagreed with this part of your post. Timelines do take away from the enjoyment of a game when the timeline for that particular series is full of plot holes or continuity errors. It causes things to not make sense. Look at what they did to Star Ocean. They made it to where the first two games didn't even matter anymore storyline-wise, as they technically "never happened". That's a case where timelines eliminated my enjoyment of a series completely. Not understanding the story doesn't hinder the enjoyment of a game. Chrono Cross is a perfect example, that story made NO sense. When a timeline for a whole series gets screwed up though, THAT takes away from the enjoyment of said series because things don't make sense anymore. Timelines are extremely important and they grow in importance the longer a series of games is around.

 

[Arkham Noir]

I think it's best to break it up like that, the same way fire emblem does as well as we don't have to go back and play every game to fit in the story (like I'm currently doing with Metroid), Mario has no time line at all and I'm glad that's the case as you just pick up and play the game.

Metroid is a pain in the ass for this. I played Metroid Prime 2 first (oddly enough) which made matters even worse that it was a sequel. I was actually lucky though because the Metroid Prime trilogy is actually right after the original Metroid in the story. But there is so many damn little details in the games that impact the story that you have to either play the games in the specific order to understand or spend the time on the internet figuring out what the hell is going on. I can't even play Other M yet because I still have to beat Super Metroid.

I think that having a timeline adds more significance to the story by making it feel alittle more real. Which also makes you want to play the new games and go back and play the old ones. So it's also an awesome marketing strategy. The Mario series doesn't really need to worry about a timeline for various reasons, but it works in that series because the story is always the same anyways. What does it matter if Bowser kidnapped Peach in space before trapping everyone in paintings lol.