325 replies to this topic

[MikePetersSucks]

Average Gamer is totally right, imo. Just have to say it.

[eruntalon]

My timeline:

..TBF/TWW/PH---OoS/OoA---FPTRR---TMC---FS/FSA---ALttP/[FoE/WoG/ZA]/AST/LA---LoZ/G&W/AoL
../
OoT
..\
..MM---TP/LCT

Edited by eruntalon, 02 April 2009 - 01:20 PM.

[MikePetersSucks]

Quick question, Eruntalon. What does TBF standfor? Also, FPTRR and the CD-i games aren't canonical, so you don't have to really worry about placing them in a timeline. Technically the same with G&W and LCT, but they don't really contradict anything, so more power to ya.

[Erimgard]

TBF=Tingle's Balloon Fight (DS)

[eruntalon]

I'm a completist. It's my nature. I know that the CD-i games are not considered canon by Nintendo, but as long as they exist and another game doesn't come along and say they never happened (which would be difficult outside of a character saying, "Hey Link! Wouldn't it be stupid if you went on adventures in places called Koridai, Gamelon and Tolemac? Good thing that hasn't happened and never will happen. Ever."), I'll place them on the timeline, since they don't really hurt anything besides the sensibilities of anyone with good taste in games. Feel free to omit them if we ever end up discussing it. In fact, I might put brackets around them when I post it from hereon out to signify their non-canon status.

As for FPTRR, I'm waiting for Nintendo to confirm its non-canonicity before I consider it non-canon. To my knowledge, there's only been three statements on what is canon, and two of them are more inferences than actual statements. These are the three (if I missed any references like these, feel free to add to the list):

1.) The box of the CE, which says that the "entire legend" up to that point was playable on the Gamecube with the help of the GB Player. This covers every Zelda game except the Game Watch, the CD-i trilogy, and the BS games.
2.) The short retrospective that comes with the CE. It omits the same games as the box, but with the addition of the Game & Watch.
3.) The Zelda no Video documentary. It does not omit AST, but does omit the rest of the games mentioned above.

If you go for inclusiveness (meaning that it's canon if it's mentioned in any one of these), then the only games confirmed to be non-canon are the Game Watch, the CD-i trilogy, and BSLoZ. I, personally, omit BSLoZ because it is obviously supposed to be the same events as the original, but without Link. And if Link is omitted from the events of the original game, then AoL makes no sense at all. I consider it absorbed by the original. The Game Watch was a tricky decision, as no story was included with its manual. Ultimately, I came to the conclusion that it was a stripped down version of the Game & Watch. Both featured a group of Aquamentus arriving and stealing the shattered pieces of the Triforce (the manual for G&W indicates this is a separate incident from the original game). So it was also absorbed. That leaves the CD-i trilogy as the only confirmed non-canon games to have independent stories (such as they are).

Of course, when all three of these statements were made, TWW was the latest game released. While just about everyone considers FSA, TMC, TP, and PH to be canon, that leaves LCT and the Tingle games. As far as I know, the canonicity of these games has never been addressed, so I consider them canon on a provisional basis. This is my view on the issue, anyway.

EDIT: Oh, and I wanted to hold off until ST is actually released before speculating a placement. I think that's reasonable, don't you?

Edited by eruntalon, 03 April 2009 - 06:28 AM.

[SOAP]

I was under the impression that the Tingle games were in fact canon. FPTRR refers to events of other games so I personallly consider it part of the timeline, possible near around TWW's placement.

Interesting timeline eruntalon. Why do you you chose to place all the Hyrule based games after TWW which has Hyrule remaining beneath the ocean and washed away forever instead of after TP?

[eruntalon]

I was under the impression that the Tingle games were in fact canon. FPTRR refers to events of other games so I personallly consider it part of the timeline, possible near around TWW's placement.

Interesting timeline eruntalon. Why do you you chose to place all the Hyrule based games after TWW which has Hyrule remaining beneath the ocean and washed away forever instead of after TP?

[That Guy with the Glasses] That is a very good question. [/That Guy with the Glasses]

I am torn between which timeline to put the 2D games on. I am leaning toward the AT because it fits several details that would have to be considered cameos if they were to be put on the CT, without openly (openly, mind you) contradicting anything that I can think of. Yes, it does seem to contradict Daphnes' statement about whatever Tetra and Link find being "your land" and not Hyrule, but what exactly he means by that is open to interpretation and easily retconned by future games. That said, I am by no means decided on the subject. I wouldn't pitch a fit if they turned out to be on the CT.

Edited by eruntalon, 02 April 2009 - 01:48 PM.

[SOAP]

I was under the impression that the Tingle games were in fact canon. FPTRR refers to events of other games so I personallly consider it part of the timeline, possible near around TWW's placement.

Interesting timeline eruntalon. Why do you you chose to place all the Hyrule based games after TWW which has Hyrule remaining beneath the ocean and washed away forever instead of after TP?

Very good question. I am torn between which timeline to put the 2D games on. I am leaning toward the AT because it fits several details that would have to be considered cameos if they were to be put on the CT, without openly contradicting anything that I can think of. Yes, it does seem to contradict Daphnes' statement about whatever Tetra and Link find being "your land" and not Hyrule, but what exactly he means by that is open to interpretation and easily retconned by future games. That said, I am by no means decided on the subject. I would hold no grudges if they turned out to be on the CT.

I can understand feeling torn. Before TWW came out, I strongly felt ALttP came in the AT. Even after playing the game I still tried to force it after LoZ in the AT since it made more sense to have a flooded Hyrule take place last in the timeline. But of course that doesn't work because TWW makes it very clear it takes place after OoT. I still feel ALttP should come in the AT but TWW makes it hard to reconsile. LoZ is bit easier to place after TWW since it's more ambiguous and contains no mastersword.

TP makes it just as hard to put the 2D games in the CT as well. It almost seems to to set things up to bridge the gap between OoT and's child ending and ALttP with the Mastersword by retconning ToT's location to where the OoT Forest Temple should be but that gets thrown out the window by TP's ending where Ganon's dies and the Triforce's condition afterwards is left unexplained other than we see Ganon's triforce mark fade away. So I don't know what to think. I just conclude that the events of the IW don't take place in any game and probably never will.

Personally I simply group all the TWW style games in the adult timmeline (how's that for irony!) due to their connection with the the Light Force saga. Everything elose continues with the Triforce saga of OoT in the CT.

Edited by SOAP, 02 April 2009 - 02:07 PM.

[Sir Turtlelot]

I just conclude that the events of the IW don't take place in any game and probably never will.

ya, I agree with you SOAP, I don't really think that they'll make the IW into a game, it's better off an out-of-game event.

Personally I simply group all the TWW style games in the adult timmeline (how's that for irony!) due to their connection with the the Light Force saga.

I ended up with the WW style games on AT as well, it is pretty ironic.

[eruntalon]

Oh, I left something out in my little dissertation up there. I've watched videos of Shadow Battle and Navi Trackers (not having willing friends for multiplayer), and have concluded that there simply isn't time in TWW for NT to occur (Daphnes is still alive, so it can't take place afterward) and the four links turning on each other and going all stabbity would surely have been mentioned in the story if it had actually happened. So I also exclude those two mini-games from the timeline.

Edited by eruntalon, 02 April 2009 - 04:37 PM.

[Showsni]

My timeline:

..TBF/TWW/PH---OoS/OoA---FPTRR---TMC---FS/FSA---ALttP/[FoE/WoG/ZA]/AST/LA---LoZ/G&W/AoL
../
OoT
..\
..MM---TP/LCT

Noncanon as they are, I'm curious about why you've put the CDi games there. WoG and FoE pretty much beg to be placed in the same place as the comic books; that is, post AoL. Impa roaming around holding the triforce of wisdom on its own seems quite an obvious reference. ZA, of course, needs to go somewhere with a new Link and Zelda not seen in any other game.

[eruntalon]

Noncanon as they are, I'm curious about why you've put the CDi games there. WoG and FoE pretty much beg to be placed in the same place as the comic books; that is, post AoL. Impa roaming around holding the triforce of wisdom on its own seems quite an obvious reference. ZA, of course, needs to go somewhere with a new Link and Zelda not seen in any other game.

I'm not familiar with the comics, but the general theme of the CD-i games, with Link traveling to other lands and Ganon resurrecting spontaneously, seems to fall in line with what we know of the period between ALttP and LA. FoE most likely came first, as Link claims that "it sure is boring around here". Of course, "my boy, this is the peace all true warriors strive for." But he "just wonders what"-AAAAAAGGHH!!! Sorry about that. Anyway, considering that Link was captured and imprisoned by Ganon in WoG, I doubt he'd have been very bored after that, so I placed WoG second. ZA is quite possibly the most bizarre entry in the series. I placed it after WoG because, well, a wand is Zelda's main weapon, and we never really see her returning it in the ending of WoG, so... it seemed like less of a coincidence when I first thought of it. Also, at the end of ALttP, we see the Triforce fly away to an unknown destination. If that destination were, say, Hyrule Castle, then that would be just dandy. As you can see, I'm not being nearly as strict about details with these games due to their non-canonicity, but you have to admit that sets things up for AoL's backstory pretty nicely.

While we've seen Ganon revive without any good reason in the past, I'm finding a post-AoL resurrection (for the CD-i games) unlikely, especially since the resurrection attempt in AoL seemed to hinge on Link biting the big one. What gives you the impression that ZA contains a unique Zelda and Link?

EDIT: I hate to nitpick, but... that doesn't look like a Charmander in your sig.

Edited by eruntalon, 02 April 2009 - 07:13 PM.

[Raien]

Canon = Games that are officially recognised as being in the Zelda timeline
Non-canon = Everything else that has no place in the Zelda timeline.

Non-canon things = TBF, FPTRR, FoE, WoG, ZA, AST, G&W, LCT

[eruntalon]

Canon = Games that are officially recognised as being in the Zelda timeline
Non-canon = Everything else that has no place in the Zelda timeline.

Non-canon things = TBF, FPTRR, FoE, WoG, ZA, AST, G&W, LCT

Okay, but what if I think everything has a place in the timeline? You can't just say that something is non-canon (well, okay, you CAN, but I'll just ignore you). You have to give a source.

[Hero of Slime]

Becuase I am an american I have not had a chance to play the FPTRR so i don't really know much about it. I do not place it in my timeline for this reason. However, I have heard that it contains the backstory of Tingle. This information seems like an important addition to the timeline, so why is it not counted in the canon?

[SOAP]

Oh, I left something out in my little dissertation up there. I've watched videos of Shadow Battle and Navi Trackers (not having willing friends for multiplayer), and have concluded that there simply isn't time in TWW for NT to occur (Daphnes is still alive, so it can't take place afterward) and the four links turning on each other and going all stabbity would surely have been mentioned in the story if it had actually happened. So I also exclude those two mini-games from the timeline.

I could be mistaken but I think the multiple Links in Navi's Trackers was explained away by the other Links being the pirates in disguise. Don't think too hard on that one...

Edited by SOAP, 03 April 2009 - 01:34 AM.

[Impossible]

3.) The Zelda no Video documentary. It does not omit AST, but does omit FS and the rest of the games mentioned above.

Because FS wasn't out in Japan at the time.

I was under the impression that the Tingle games were in fact canon. FPTRR refers to events of other games so I personallly consider it part of the timeline, possible near around TWW's placement.

FPTRR does not refer to the events of any Zelda game. In fact, it's not a Zelda game it all. It wasn't developed by Nintendo or under the supervision of the Zelda team, as the Capcom games were.

...Also, this whole discussion should have been made in a new topic, and should probably be moved to one. Let this topic as it is stand as a testament to Lex's idiocy, hypocrisy, dishonesty and cowardice.

[eruntalon]

Because FS wasn't out in Japan at the time.

Wow. Now that I check the dates, you're right. The documentary was released about a month before FS debuted in Japan. I've edited my post.

[Raien]

Okay, but what if I think everything has a place in the timeline? You can't just say that something is non-canon (well, okay, you CAN, but I'll just ignore you). You have to give a source.

Alright. In 2003, Nintendo released a Collector's Edition Gamecube disk that contained a video listing every canon Zelda game at that point. That video knocks off everything from my list of non-canon games except for FPTRR, TBF and LCT. Now, TBF and LCT are unrelated games with Zelda characters/models tacked on, so Nintendo is never going to acknowledge them with regards to the Zelda series. My source in this case is common sense. That leaves FRTRR, and as has been pointed out before, it's not a Zelda game nor does it refer to any Zelda game nor was it developed by any Zelda team. Once again, common sense.

[eruntalon]

Alright. In 2003, Nintendo released a Collector's Edition Gamecube disk that contained a video listing every canon Zelda game at that point. That video knocks off everything from my list of non-canon games except for FPTRR, TBF and LCT. Now, TBF and LCT are unrelated games with Zelda characters/models tacked on, so Nintendo is never going to acknowledge them with regards to the Zelda series. My source in this case is common sense. That leaves FRTRR, and as has been pointed out before, it's not a Zelda game nor does it refer to any Zelda game nor was it developed by any Zelda team. Once again, common sense.

"Common sense" should be used sparingly in these matters, because what is "common sense" to one person may not be "common sense" to another. To me, it's "common sense" that if Nintendo goes to the trouble to release a game with connections to one of their big franchises, then that game takes place in the same universe of said franchise unless there's overwhelming evidence against it. For example, I think it's "common sense" that SSBB is not on the timeline because it's been demonstrated that Hyrule is not five steps away from the Mushroom Kingdom and another five steps from Kanto, and is most likely not part of the Lylat System. However, there are no such glaring issues in FPTRR, TBF, and LCT. Considering the nebulous nature of the timeline, their events are not mutually exclusive to anything, and so there is no concrete reason to discard them. Also, I addressed the fact that the CD-i games were non-canon in my previous posts. I simply include them as a kind of "what if" exercise (I even place them in brackets to indicate their non-canonicity).

Edited by eruntalon, 03 April 2009 - 10:40 AM.

[Raien]

To me, it's "common sense" that if Nintendo goes to the trouble to release a game with connections to one of their big franchises, then that game takes place in the same universe of said franchise unless there's overwhelming evidence against it.

You don't think it's common sense that Nintendo releases a game with Zelda connections because people will buy said games just because the characters are in it? No one would have given two shits about FPTRR had the game not actually featured Tingle. That's also the reason why we have LCT and TBF; it's a very common money-making practice. Nintendo have admitted before that they use familiar characters to sell new ideas.

Edited by Raien, 03 April 2009 - 10:47 AM.

[eruntalon]

You don't think it's common sense that Nintendo releases a game with Zelda connections because people will buy said games just because the characters are in it? No one would have given two shits about FPTRR had the game not actually featured Tingle. That's also the reason why we have LCT and TBF; it's a very common money-making practice. Nintendo have admitted before that they use familiar characters to sell new ideas.

The purpose of the game's existence is irrelevant. The point is that it exists, it has connections to the franchise, and it doesn't have glaringly obvious contradictions to the rest of the series. Hell, if money-grabs were a reason to discount something from canon, then we might as well toss out the entire series, because every single installment since the original was made with the thought that the name would bring in money. That's the way franchises work.

Edited by eruntalon, 03 April 2009 - 11:03 AM.

[Raien]

The purpose of the game's existence is irrelevant. The point is that it exists, it has connections to the franchise, and it doesn't have glaringly obvious contradictions to the rest of the series. Hell, if money-grabs were a reason to discount something from canon, then we might as well toss out the entire series, because every single installment since the original was made with the thought that the name would bring in money. That's the way franchises work.

The purpose of the game's existence is completely relevant to the status of its canoninity. For a game to be canon, it has to be actively developed as an extension of the retroactive continuity. If a game is developed for other reasons, such as introducing the Wii Zapper to players, then it's not an official extension of the continuity, and therefore not canon. It's the same reason that applies to SSB and SC2; those games featured Link because people will pay money to play as Link. That's it.

[eruntalon]

It's the same reason that applies to SSB and SC2; those games featured Link because people will pay money to play as Link. That's it.

And the way I see it, they would have been canon if the storylines had made any sense whatsoever in the context of the Zelda series.

Really, the only thing we can do here is argue our own interpretations of the word "canon" as it relates to Zelda, and that's an argument that neither of us can win because there's no official statements to back up either of us. So I suggest we just agree to disagree and talk about... something else. I got nothing. Any ideas?

[Raien]

Really, the only thing we can do here is argue our own interpretations of the word "canon" as it relates to Zelda, and that's an argument that neither of us can win because there's no official statements to back up either of us.

My interpretation of the word "canon" is the official definition. Everything released before 2003 that was not included in the official list is not canon. Everything that was not created to expand the retroactive continuity is not canon. Only FPTRR is up for debate, and I will leave that debate to other people.

[eruntalon]

My interpretation of the word "canon" is the official definition. Everything released before 2003 that was not included in the official list is not canon. Everything that was not created to expand the retroactive continuity is not canon. Only FPTRR is up for debate, and I will leave that debate to other people.

There is no official definition of what makes a fictional work canon. The rules vary (wildly, I might add) from franchise to franchise. For example, in Star Wars, the overcomplicated canon scale they use eventually boils down to "canon is everything that fits", regardless of the innumerable sources it may come from. Star Trek, on the other hand, has a canon policy of "only the live-action series and movies are canon, no exceptions". There is no yardstick for measuring whether something is canon on a universal scale. All we can go on is what the people in charge tell us. Anything beyond that is our own personal interpretation. Fact. Now let's try that "agreeing to disagree" thing.

Edited by eruntalon, 03 April 2009 - 12:42 PM.

[Raien]

There is no official definition of what makes a fictional work canon.

I just linked you to one. Maybe you didn't realise that the underlines in my post represent a link.

[eruntalon]

I just linked you to one. Maybe you didn't realise that the underlines in my post represent a link.

I know. I read it. First off, Wikipedia is hardly an official source for anything. Second, that article reinforces MY point, not yours. It even describes how the rules of canon are different for different franchises. Hence, no "official definition" or single set of rules.

[MikePetersSucks]

I, personally, omit BSLoZ because it is obviously supposed to be the same events as the original, but without Link.

Well, actually, BSLoZ is a prequel to AST featuring the same protagonist, who apparently experiences an illusionary world of LoZ as some sort of weird training before getting her ass plopped into the for reals Hyrule.

[Raien]

I know. I read it. First off, Wikipedia is hardly an official source for anything. Second, that article reinforces MY point, not yours. It even describes how the rules of canon are different for different franchises. Hence, no "official definition" or single set of rules.

Alright, if you want to be nitpicky, the headlined wikipedia definition is the general standard definition that all the Zelda theorists use to define "canon", if not the majority of people on the internet. If you're going to insist on choosing your own personal definitions, then don't expect anyone to agree with your timeline. Because you're not going to get all the other theorists to change their definition of "canon" in order to incorporate your personal definition.

And with that, I'm done with the topic. Have fun everyone.

Edited by Raien, 03 April 2009 - 01:26 PM.