22 replies to this topic

[Tri-Enforcer]

Aonuma confirms 'master timeline' for Zelda series, says Skyward Sword comes before Ocarina

Coming from an Official Nintendo Magazine interview...

“Yes there is a master timeline but its confidential document! The only people to have access to that document are myself, Mr. Miyamoto and the director of the title. We cant share it with anyone else! I have already talked to Mr. Miyamoto about this so I am comfortable in releasing this information – this title [Skyward Sword] takes place before Ocarina of Time. if I said that a certain title was ‘the first Zelda game’, then that means that we cant ever make a title that takes place before that! So for us to add titles to the series, we have to have a way of putting the titles before or after each other.” - Eiji Aonuma

There we go...now we have definitive proof that the series really does have a timeline! This is something that Aonuma cannot dispute!


http://gonintendo.co...y.php?id=130953

I'm sure many of you already suspected that Skyward Sword takes place before OOT, but I just wanted to give official confirmation. I also like how Aonuma reconfirms that there is an actual Zelda timeline master document! (Of course he can't disclose the full chronological order, at this point).

[TheAvengerLever]

So, according to this...the FS Trilogy now has merit to be the first games in the Grand Zelda Timeline.


Unless I'm getting something else from this.

[Tri-Enforcer]

So, according to this...the FS Trilogy now has merit to be the first games in the Grand Zelda Timeline.


Unless I'm getting something else from this.

That could be. But remember, Aonuma said he doesn't want to label any game as being the '1st story', so that they can continue placing games anywhere they please. So there could be games down the line that take place before the FS Trilogy.

[Raien]

What Aonuma should have said is, "Yes, there is a master timeline... OR IS THERE?" *evil laughs*

[Nerushi]

Well, its not like we figured out anything new really. Miyamoto hinted at the document as early as 2003.

Shigeru Miyamoto: For every Zelda game we tell a new story, but we actually have an enormous document that explains how the game relates to the others, and bind them together.

Of course, he followed that up with this. ;_;

Shigeru Miyamoto: But to be honest, they are not that important to us.

But it is always nice to have confirmation. Now the real question is if they're ever gonna let us see that sweet little document.

Edited by Nerushi, 21 July 2010 - 03:52 PM.

[MikePetersSucks]

This is all old-ass news.

[Average Gamer]

Well, that puts an end to all the crazy "This tells the Master Sword's reforging on the AT," theories.

[Egann]

Oh, good GOD. ANOTHER prequel?!?! What the flying rat's ass feces?! THIS is why I don't pay much attention to the ZL section. It seems like the only simple game/ sequel pairs are The original and AOL and OoT and MM, and I doubt Nintendo even considers those "sequels" canonical, but just cheap cash-ins.

Just...RRGH!

[MikePetersSucks]

Er...yea, they're canonical. And it's really not that bad, chill out.

[Average Gamer]

People on ZU are now claiming that Skyward Sword currently coming first completely invalidates a quote Aonuma once said about Four Swords being the "oldest tale." They seem to be claiming that FS can go anywhere now. Wouldn't it be more sensible to say that FS didn't move at all and something was simply placed before it, like what happened with TMC?

Also, take a chill pill Egann.

Edited by Average Gamer, 22 July 2010 - 12:52 AM.

[Impossible]

Oh, good GOD. ANOTHER prequel?!?! What the flying rat's ass feces?! THIS is why I don't pay much attention to the ZL section. It seems like the only simple game/ sequel pairs are The original and AOL and OoT and MM, and I doubt Nintendo even considers those "sequels" canonical, but just cheap cash-ins.

Just...RRGH!

...Also there's ALttP/LA, OoS/OoA, TWW/PH, probably FS/FSA...

[Nerushi]

I think their main claim now is that TMC can't go before OoT because otherwise Aonuma would have mentioned it when talking about the first game issue. Never mind that those games never had a first game issue to begin with like OoT did.

Edited by Nerushi, 22 July 2010 - 07:32 AM.

[ganonlord6000]

I think he was implying that while SS is indeed before OOT, it isn't the first story. So the FSS can still go before it.

Well, that puts an end to all the crazy "This tells the Master Sword's reforging on the AT," theories.

I thought that most of those theories were about the forging of a new Master Sword on the AT so ALTTP can occur there. I think this will confirm what is already obvious: there is only one MS.

[Tri-Enforcer]

People on ZU are now claiming that Skyward Sword currently coming first completely invalidates a quote Aonuma once said about Four Swords being the "oldest tale." They seem to be claiming that FS can go anywhere now. Wouldn't it be more sensible to say that FS didn't move at all and something was simply placed before it, like what happened with TMC?

Also, take a chill pill Egann.

As Aonuma indicated, we only know that SS takes place before OOT. So we really don't know what 'known' game is first. SS could be after TMC or it could even be before TMC. I think SS definitely comes before TMC.

So far we know that Skyward Sword (SS) takes place in Skyloft--a land in the sky. We also know that that the land below Skyloft is supposedly filled with lots of evil and monsters (sounds similar to Final Fantasy 13). This 'land below' has to obviously be Hyrule. I don't have much to draw this on, but it seems Hyrule is undiscovered land at this point and the Kingdom of Hyrule is not yet established. Also, according to TP, Hylians originated from a race of people who lived in the sky. That's why I think SS is the first game as it not only tells the origin of the Master Sword but it could also be (just my hypothesis) the story of how the kingdom of Hyrule was started.

[Average Gamer]

I think their main claim now is that TMC can't go before OoT because otherwise Aonuma would have mentioned it when talking about the first game issue. Never mind that those games never had a first game issue to begin with like OoT did.

I think Aonuma simply mentioned OoT because it's a game that everyone inside and outside of the fan base knows. There's also the Master Sword connection to consider.

Really, considering what he said about never having a permanent first, I don't see why the FS trilogy would have to move. Something would simply come before it.

Speaking of which, has anyone had any luck finding the Japanese "FS is currently first," interview?

[Pinecove]

^Last I checked, they had taken it off the main nintendo site.

[Impossible]

So far we know that Skyward Sword (SS) takes place in Skyloft--a land in the sky. We also know that that the land below Skyloft is supposedly filled with lots of evil and monsters (sounds similar to Final Fantasy 13). This 'land below' has to obviously be Hyrule. I don't have much to draw this on, but it seems Hyrule is undiscovered land at this point and the Kingdom of Hyrule is not yet established. Also, according to TP, Hylians originated from a race of people who lived in the sky. That's why I think SS is the first game as it not only tells the origin of the Master Sword but it could also be (just my hypothesis) the story of how the kingdom of Hyrule was started.

I thought this as well initially, but the interview mentions that the land below was captured by evil forces or something. So, maybe not.

In general, saying that this confirmation invalidates anything else about TMC is moronic. Aonuma basically just said why he's not calling any game first. He explicitly avoided saying that SS is first.

Edited by Impossible, 23 July 2010 - 04:38 AM.

[ganonlord6000]

In general, saying that this confirmation invalidates anything else about TMC is moronic. Aonuma basically just said why he's not calling any game first. He explicitly avoided saying that SS is first.

I agree with that entirely, impossible. There is probably a reason why Aonuma mentioned that SS was before OOT, which was all but given away a few days after e3 (or possibly at e3 because of the trailer), but said that it wasn't the first Zelda story. The FS games are the only canidates for that area.

[Person]

Well, considering that the Zelda series seems to be infected with Prequelitis, he wanted to leave open the possibility of games that happen even earlier than the ones currently released. I find it ironic that Aonuma specifically said that no particular Zelda game is the definite first one, while hardcore "OOT is first" theorists attempted to use a "Nothing can ever possibly come before OOT because OOT was stated as the first game back in 1998" line of reasoning to discredit TMC being first.

[Nerushi]

The same people are now eagerly insisting that SS is definitly first, just because Aonuma mentioned 'first'. But they don't realize that Aonuma was essentially destroying the 'first game' fallacy that OoT have had since its release. Instead they keep babbling about how he should have mentioned TMC even when its clear that he is sparing on the details.

Hm, there also the case about the 'Director of the title'. Some have a hard time accepting that this applies only to Skyward Sword and its director, Hidemaro Fujibayashi ( TMC director ). Saying that it makes no sense that PH and ST director didn't have access to the timeline document. Or does it?

Also, seem like there some more details about SS.

http://www.nintendoe...hing.com/45638/

- Zelda will be in the game
- Not saying if Ganon is in yet
- Beetle might be used for racing
- Not planning on including any voice acting
- Miyamoto hasn’t upended the tea table yet

I found the last one somewhat funny. Also, seem like they won't deny Ganon just yet.

Edited by Nerushi, 24 July 2010 - 06:27 AM.

[MikePetersSucks]

When do they ever deny Ganon?

[Person]

Personally, I think that introducing Ganon into the mix in a game set before his most well-known origin story would be complicating things too much. Even if FSA Ganon is a different entity, opening the possibility of there being other Ganons, the most well-known one had his origins in OoT. If this game is meant to be a prequel, it would confuse people who never played the FS games as to why Ganon is in it when he wasn't supposed to show up until OoT.

[ganonlord6000]

Personally, I think that introducing Ganon into the mix in a game set before his most well-known origin story would be complicating things too much. Even if FSA Ganon is a different entity, opening the possibility of there being other Ganons, the most well-known one had his origins in OoT. If this game is meant to be a prequel, it would confuse people who never played the FS games as to why Ganon is in it when he wasn't supposed to show up until OoT.

Not if they show Ganon escaping from the FS. I played TWW before I even caught a glimpse of OOT and it wasn't that cofusing as to why Ganon was in the game. The only thing that I couldn't get was why Ganon was in it after the original (that was when I was still new to the series). I was always under the impression that while there are many Ganondorfs, All of them have the spirit of the same Ganon. It would only make sense if Ganon was involved with the origins of the Master Sword (the weapon used to defeat/kill him) just like Vaati was involved in the creation of the Four Sword (the weapon used to defeat/seal him).

[MikePetersSucks]

Personally, I think that introducing Ganon into the mix in a game set before his most well-known origin story would be complicating things too much. Even if FSA Ganon is a different entity, opening the possibility of there being other Ganons, the most well-known one had his origins in OoT. If this game is meant to be a prequel, it would confuse people who never played the FS games as to why Ganon is in it when he wasn't supposed to show up until OoT.

Tough shit? It was the fans who decided there could only be one Ganon, not the games.

[ganonlord6000]

Personally, I think that introducing Ganon into the mix in a game set before his most well-known origin story would be complicating things too much. Even if FSA Ganon is a different entity, opening the possibility of there being other Ganons, the most well-known one had his origins in OoT. If this game is meant to be a prequel, it would confuse people who never played the FS games as to why Ganon is in it when he wasn't supposed to show up until OoT.

Tough shit? It was the fans who decided there could only be one Ganon, not the games.

Isn't that their attempt to simplify everything about Ganon? Multiple Ganons should be easier to deal with than just one. But you're right, MPS, the games never seemed to imply (especially after FSA) that there is only one Ganon.

[SOAP]

Personally, I think that introducing Ganon into the mix in a game set before his most well-known origin story would be complicating things too much. Even if FSA Ganon is a different entity, opening the possibility of there being other Ganons, the most well-known one had his origins in OoT. If this game is meant to be a prequel, it would confuse people who never played the FS games as to why Ganon is in it when he wasn't supposed to show up until OoT.

Tough shit? It was the fans who decided there could only be one Ganon, not the games.

Actually he has a point. Miyamoto prefers not let Zelda games become to overcomplicated so as not alienate casual gamers. If you need a bunch of creator comments and prior knowledge from multiple games in order to make sense of the game's own individual story then something's not right. Fans assume that there's only one Ganondorf because there's no reason to believe otherwise unless for those who put FSA before OoT.

By that same token though, Nintendo's track record with creating new villian isn't all that great, with Malladus being the worst offender so far, At least with Ganon, he can be a crappy villain and it's still excusable because he has a huge mythos to fall back on. I'm kinda hoping there's no main villain though but rather just a leaderless mob of monsters run amok.

Edited by SOAP, 26 July 2010 - 10:17 PM.

[MikePetersSucks]

So what? It's not like FSA for example made comments like "BY THE WAY THIS IS A DIFFERENT GANON FROM THE ONE IN THE FUTURE/PAST" There can be multiple Ganons and that sort of stuff without "complicating things for casual gamers."

[SOAP]

So what? It's not like FSA for example made comments like "BY THE WAY THIS IS A DIFFERENT GANON FROM THE ONE IN THE FUTURE/PAST" There can be multiple Ganons and that sort of stuff without "complicating things for casual gamers."

FSA for example did become overcomplicated before Miyamoto upended that tea table. Besides it's still debateable as whether or not FSA features a new Ganondorf or not. It never sates that this is case. That is another fan assumption, albeit a necessary one for those who place FSA before OoT. I think this time around, as far as storlines go, Nintendo will make SS as standalone as possible and just focus on telling a good story about the Master Swords origins. Ganondorf doesn't neccesasrily need to be involved. I guess he could, as an ancestor to the one in OoT but I don't see why they'd go that route.

[ganonlord6000]

So what? It's not like FSA for example made comments like "BY THE WAY THIS IS A DIFFERENT GANON FROM THE ONE IN THE FUTURE/PAST" There can be multiple Ganons and that sort of stuff without "complicating things for casual gamers."

FSA for example did become overcomplicated before Miyamoto upended that tea table. Besides it's still debateable as whether or not FSA features a new Ganondorf or not. It never sates that this is case. That is another fan assumption, albeit a necessary one for those who place FSA before OoT. I think this time around, as far as storlines go, Nintendo will make SS as standalone as possible and just focus on telling a good story about the Master Swords origins. Ganondorf doesn't neccesasrily need to be involved. I guess he could, as an ancestor to the one in OoT but I don't see why they'd go that route.

It is needed if FSA is after OOT as well. As to why Nintendo would take that route you mentioned, why not? They could make things simple for the casual gamers while revealing storyline details to hardcore gamers at the same time. And it only makes sense that SS would be one the the first stories. It is perfect for the first Zelda completely for the Wii to cover an early era to avoid confusing casual gamers with a story that can be confusing even to us and would require knowledge of the older games to understand. I actually prefered the games in which story wasn't that important or noticeable (i.e. ALTTP, OOT).

[Person]

Regardless of the storyline difficulties and speculation that this game may or may not tie in to the Four Swords series, I kind of think a new villain would be a good change of pace. Preferably one who isn't just a straight up carbon copy of Ganon like Malladus was.