Anyway, from my RAEG over the way people jumped to conclusions about PH, and even TP, before they were released, I advise against looking too far into things. In other words, if you see some kind of visual parallel or potential reference to a Zelda game, don't start saying it supports your timeline. It's been done a few times, sadly. Nevertheless, I think we should talk about it in some sense, at least what we think/expect/hope for, and what we may have noticed in the trailer. I don't normally do this with newly announced Zelda games, but we've just been starved with anything new for so long, and I'm sure we're all curious about the direction they plan on taking the story in, since we haven't seen a trace of that since TP (PH just being a side-story that didn't develop anything).
As someone who constantly tries to logically focus on development and the way the games are made, probably more so than the majority, I find the use of PH's engine and graphics interesting. OoX excepted, this usually means a direct sequel, and OoX has its own reasons (particularly relating to it being the first non-Nintendo made Zelda). Still, we see Link bowing to Zelda in a formal, unfamiliar meeting. So I have to say it isn't Link from TWW/PH, and it's not Tetra. Still, almost the natural decision, even from Nintendo's perspective, might just be to still have it continue after PH, but due to the usual "two games per Link" rule, extent the time between them to a couple hundred years... Which would seriously fuck with TWW's intention. I don't think it would mean that's what they had in mind this whole time - Nintendo make the games first, they don't make a game FOR a timeline-related reason, period. It would be a spur of the moment thing resulting from wanting ST to make sense, as it just looks similar. They're taking it one game at a time. Of course, we don't even know that the setting has to be Hyrule, but there is a castle and Zelda is a princess, so I would guess so.
It's also been proposed as a game between OoT and TWW, which would be a bit sad, because the DS can't do justice to the cel-shaded Hyrule I've wanted to see since TWW gave us a glimpse of it. And wow, how many sequels to OoT can Nintendo make?!
Personally, I'm pissed off by ST being a PH rehash for other reasons (like the gameplay and graphics being very different to what I'd like from a Zelda game), even if it ends up being on the Child Timeline. But don't you think there's something inherently confusing about that? Sure, TMC/FS/FSA borrowed from TWW's style, but they weren't identical, just based on it. Here we have the same character models and everything, leading people to already assume a connection to PH. Same system + same engine and graphics basically always has meant that before, but here we have a break in the usual "pair" of games per system (a la OoT/MM), due to PH being the pair of a game on another system. So who knows where they're going? Hopefully there will be interviews about this soon, as current Nintendo seems to be okay with talking about the timeline placement of the newest game, usually. Too bad nobody ever asks them about the older ones.
Edited by Impossible, 08 April 2009 - 09:22 AM.
