148 replies to this topic

[Raien]

I've just had Skyward Sword's ending spoiled for me by a journalist posting on 4chan. I believe the ending is true because it ties in with the events of Twilight Princess. Namely, it explains how Link, Zelda and Ganondorf got their Triforce pieces. It also explains the implication that the conflict was engineered by a higher power.

Skyward Sword's ending also rapes the entire Zelda franchise, Star Wars Prequel style. It renders the events in the classic games completely fucking meaningless.

I will say no more. Here's the ending:

Spoiler

At the end of the game the Triforce grants one wish to Zelda, and her wish is that she and Link be together for eternity, and no matter their fates and of their reincarnations, they will always be drawn together.
This causes all the shit of all the next Zelda games, and Ganondorf is created/used by the Triforce as the means to get Zelda and Link together, every time they are reborn.

[FDL]

I've just had Skyward Sword's ending spoiled for me by a journalist posting on 4chan. I believe the ending is true because it ties in with the events of Twilight Princess. Namely, it explains how Link, Zelda and Ganondorf got their Triforce pieces. It also explains the implication that the conflict was engineered by a higher power.

Skyward Sword's ending also rapes the entire Zelda franchise, Star Wars Prequel style. It renders the events in the classic games completely fucking meaningless.

I will say no more. Here's the ending:

Spoiler

At the end of the game the Triforce grants one wish to Zelda, and her wish is that she and Link be together for eternity, and no matter their fates and of their reincarnations, they will always be drawn together.
This causes all the shit of all the next Zelda games, and Ganondorf is created/used by the Triforce as the means to get Zelda and Link together, every time they are reborn.

Spoiler

Assuming this is even true, seems to me you're extrapolating a whole lot just from that small tidbit. Link and Zelda being tied together by a higher power isn't really the same as Ganondorf existing to do that to bring them together. They could easily be drawn together through much simpler means, so to me all this ending would imply is that their bond transcends time but that it doesn't really effect why the other villains showed up or even why they received Triforce pieces.

[Raien]

Spoiler

Assuming this is even true, seems to me you're extrapolating a whole lot just from that small tidbit. Link and Zelda being tied together by a higher power isn't really the same as Ganondorf existing to do that to bring them together. They could easily be drawn together through much simpler means, so to me all this ending would imply is that their bond transcends time but that it doesn't really effect why the other villains showed up or even why they received Triforce pieces.

Spoiler

I just copy/pasted someone else's post, I know it doesn't necessarily mean Ganondorf was created by the Triforce. What does incense me is the idea that the Triforce is guiding the characters to an inevitable victory over Ganon. The Triforce cannot let Ganon win because that would defeat Zelda's wish. The people of Hyrule can never be in real danger because that would in turn endanger Link and Zelda coming together. The importance of what happens in the games is almost entirely diminished by this ending.

PS: And while I'm here, we already had a reason for Link and Zelda coming together. They belonged to special bloodlines. Link had the power of the Knights of Hyrule and Zelda had the power of her royal lineage.

Edited by Raien, 29 October 2011 - 05:44 PM.

[FDL]

Spoiler

Assuming this is even true, seems to me you're extrapolating a whole lot just from that small tidbit. Link and Zelda being tied together by a higher power isn't really the same as Ganondorf existing to do that to bring them together. They could easily be drawn together through much simpler means, so to me all this ending would imply is that their bond transcends time but that it doesn't really effect why the other villains showed up or even why they received Triforce pieces.

Spoiler

I just copy/pasted someone else's post, I know it doesn't necessarily mean Ganondorf was created by the Triforce. What does incense me is the idea that the Triforce is guiding the characters to an inevitable victory over Ganon. The Triforce cannot let Ganon win because that would defeat Zelda's wish. The people of Hyrule can never be in real danger because that would in turn endanger Link and Zelda coming together. The importance of what happens in the games is almost entirely diminished by this ending.

PS: And while I'm here, we already had a reason for Link and Zelda coming together. They belonged to special bloodlines. Link had the power of the Knights of Hyrule and Zelda had the power of her royal lineage.

Spoiler

Once again that seems like arriving at conclusions that aren't really supported by the vague, quite possibly fake, spoilers(and I think there's a very good chance they are fake). Link in many Zelda games has subsequently left Zelda after the adventure is over, Ganondorf has made appearances in time frames where Link's spirit wasn't around(debatable) and no hero or princess was even present for events. All this does is explain that they have a special bond for a reason beyond Nintendo wanting them to be the "same" characters even when they story-wise are participating in events hundreds of years apart from one another. It doesn't explain anything beyond why Zelda and Link always seem to meet. That's it. And I'm really not gonna get into a big debate on this but Link isn't necessarily always descended from the Knights of Hyrule, either.

[Raien]

Spoiler

Once again that seems like arriving at conclusions that aren't really supported by the vague, quite possibly fake, spoilers(and I think there's a very good chance they are fake). Link in many Zelda games has subsequently left Zelda after the adventure is over, Ganondorf has made appearances in time frames where Link's spirit wasn't around(debatable) and no hero or princess was even present for events. All this does is explain that they have a special bond for a reason beyond Nintendo wanting them to be the "same" characters even when they story-wise are participating in events hundreds of years apart from one another. It doesn't explain anything beyond why Zelda and Link always seem to meet. That's it. And I'm really not gonna get into a big debate on this but Link isn't necessarily always descended from the Knights of Hyrule, either.

Spoiler

Assuming the spoilers aren't fake, the fact that the events in Twilight Princess were implied to have been engineered by a higher power on two separate occasions effectively tells us that the Triforce is going out of its way to set conditions that bring Link and Zelda together against him. This alone is ridiculous. The "prank of the gods" idea was ridiculous even when the game was released. But the fact that this new ending implies the Triforce has been doing similar things in the other games as well goes beyond the pale. It makes a complete mess of everything that took place in the original games.

[FDL]

Spoiler

Once again that seems like arriving at conclusions that aren't really supported by the vague, quite possibly fake, spoilers(and I think there's a very good chance they are fake). Link in many Zelda games has subsequently left Zelda after the adventure is over, Ganondorf has made appearances in time frames where Link's spirit wasn't around(debatable) and no hero or princess was even present for events. All this does is explain that they have a special bond for a reason beyond Nintendo wanting them to be the "same" characters even when they story-wise are participating in events hundreds of years apart from one another. It doesn't explain anything beyond why Zelda and Link always seem to meet. That's it. And I'm really not gonna get into a big debate on this but Link isn't necessarily always descended from the Knights of Hyrule, either.

Spoiler

Assuming the spoilers aren't fake, the fact that the events in Twilight Princess were implied to have been engineered by a higher power on two separate occasions effectively tells us that the Triforce is going out of its way to set conditions that bring Link and Zelda together against him. This alone is ridiculous. The "prank of the gods" idea was ridiculous even when the game was released. But the fact that this new ending implies the Triforce has been doing similar things in the other games as well goes beyond the pale. It makes a complete mess of everything that took place in the original games.

Ahahaha must it always lead back into the divine prank with us?

[TheAvengerLever]

Skyward Sword's ending also rapes the entire Zelda franchise, Star Wars Prequel style. It renders the events in the classic games completely fucking meaningless.

No big surprise there. Every Zelda game retcons something.

[FDL]

I do think these spoilers are fake, though. I noticed at least two points mentioned that seem directly contradictory of things we know from official sources.

[Nerushi]

It is 4chan, dangit. Anyone with some decent amount of free time could think up something like this.
Either way, for arguments sake, let assume it is true.

Spoiler

Then we have:
-Hyrule is a playground for Zelda’s wish for Link and Zelda to be reborn again and again ad nauseam.
-All the prophecies pertaining to heroes and the Triforce become pretty much moot.
-Ganon do evil acts because Link and Zelda are born, rather than them being born because Ganon doing evil acts.
This doesn’t explain instances such as TMC and FSA were Zelda and Link already are childhood friends, yet they encounter the likes of Vaati and (Triforce-less) Ganon. Also, doesn’t explain ST where Link would have meet Zelda regardless because of the ceremony, so are those instances just coincidences since they don’t really involve the Triforce?

Also, I remember that it being revealed that Zelda was supposed to become a princess and this SS ending doesn't tell us anything about that or how Hyrule was even founded to begin with. There seem to be a lot of missing details...

[Egann]

Yeah. I will believe the contents of the spoiler tag WHEN I SEE IT.

Spoiler

This would be the most un-nintendoly ending ever made. Nintendo endings are almost invariably happy, conclude the episode, and explain little to nothing about the over-arcing story. What we're looking at here is speculation.

[Raien]

I've seen a lot of fake rumours in my time, such as a recent 4chan rumour that Skyward Sword would show the origins of the Trident from Four Swords Adventures. What I've realised is that the sign of most fake rumours is that they are out-of-left-field (i.e. in no way hinted at by previous footage or interviews) and incredibly convenient for timeline theorists. This ending, however, sounds exactly like something the Zelda team would do and it relates to the things we've already been told about the game, such as the "high school romance" subplot and the interviews that say Skyward Sword will specifically set the stage for Ocarina of Time.

Furthermore, some of you guys have said that this ending doesn't match with some events in the previous games, but that's exactly why I find this ending to be the most plausible. One of the reasons I stopped timeline theorising is that I realised the core Zelda mythology has been gradually destroyed with every new game since Ocarina of Time. Every time Aonuma and friends pulled something out of their ass for the new games, timeline theorists had to jump through hurdles to make them work consistently with the old games. The Zelda mythology should not have two timelines, it should not have two different Dark Worlds without explanation, it should not have train tracks as demon seals and it is just bad writing to change the rules of the world to suit the gimmick of the game. There is no longer any real consistency to anything that happens in the Zelda franchise besides the obligatory good defeating evil. This ending only cements the destruction of the Zelda mythology.

In other words, I believe this ending is real because it's as consistently bad as the last few Zelda storylines. If it's fake, I applaud the writers for imitating the Zelda writers so well.

[JRPomazon]

It's best not to fall for rumors, no matter how convincing. I'm going into this game with almost a clean slate, not seeing any sort of video or screenshots for the gameplay. I'm expecting decent to great things.

[MikePetersSucks]

It's fucking 4chan, and the game isn't even out in Japan yet. This is fucking fake.

One of the reasons I stopped timeline theorising is that I realised the core Zelda mythology

...Never existed beyond "Link saves Zelda" in the first place?

You're bitching about shit for going against a concept that only ever existed in your mind. The last few Zelda storylines aren't bad, you just refuse to face reality.

Same goes for pretty much any timeline theorist who actually believes there was ever a timeline beyond what the fanbase invented.

Edited by MikePetersSucks, 30 October 2011 - 02:50 PM.

[FDL]

Raien, I said it sounds fake because it's contradictory of several things we've been told about this very game by actually official sources with backing beyond saying they have the game anonymously. Though honestly, the complaining about train tracks is ridiculous and I've never understood why you guys think Zelda has ever had consistent tech or anything of the sort. Medieval knights didn't have grappling hooks and robot mouse bombs.

[Raien]

It's fucking 4chan, and the game isn't even out in Japan yet. This is fucking fake.

The game has been released to the press and the leak is supposed to come from someone in the press.

One of the reasons I stopped timeline theorising is that I realised the core Zelda mythology

...Never existed beyond "Link saves Zelda" in the first place?

What are you talking about?

Zelda 1 established the kingdom of Hyrule, the Triforce pieces and the principal characters.
Zelda 2 broadened the mythology by introducing the Triforce of Courage, explained how the Triforce was used and why it was separated.
Zelda 3 broadened the mythology even further by revealing the origins of Hyrule, the Triforce and adding some new elements like the Knights of Hyrule and the Master Sword.

OoT is where things started going wrong. It did give us some cool new elements like the Gorons and the Sheikah and it did try to broaden the mythology further by going into the Imprisoning War, but the splitting of the Triforce broke the story's connection to ALttP and confused the mechanics of the Triforce. I remember a lot of debates we had trying to explain how the Triforce reflected good/evil in one game and power/wisdom/courage in the other, not to mention why the Triforce should split in OoT but not in ALttP.

There's really no point in detailing the games after OoT because we all already know happens in those games. The developers just pull things out of their ass. Sometimes the games will pay homage to earlier games but there's no consistency and no explanation for most of the random changes. Why did the Kokiri change into Koroks? Why is there a second Dark World in FSA? Why are we now having to deal with the concept of Twilight when it just convolutes the previously clear concepts of light and darkness? I for one struggle to imagine the Twilight Realm existing in ALttP because it really has no place in the classic mythology. Then again, I can't imagine most things in the Aonuma games being a part of the classic mythology.

Raien, I said it sounds fake because it's contradictory of several things we've been told about this very game by actually official sources with backing beyond saying they have the game anonymously.

Such as?

Though honestly, the complaining about train tracks is ridiculous and I've never understood why you guys think Zelda has ever had consistent tech or anything of the sort. Medieval knights didn't have grappling hooks and robot mouse bombs.

People don't hate the Spirit Tracks because it's technology. They hate it because it has nothing to do with Classic Zelda. Making Link a train driver is like making Harry Potter a jet pilot. The Zelda mythology was falling apart long before Spirit Tracks but the train driving was the most blatant and obvious departure from it in years. Furthermore, Nintendo actually used the Spirit Tracks as a replacement for the traditional overworld exploration, which was always one of the fundamental and most popular aspects of the Zelda series. Do you think ALttP and OoT would be as popular if the game forced you to traverse Hyrule field on train tracks? It's ridiculous.

Edited by Raien, 30 October 2011 - 05:14 PM.

[FDL]

Well, this is what I posted on GameFAQs:

Spoiler

-The Goddess is claimed to be a mere mortal who only seemed like a God because she had the Triforce, yet the official site and the Gamepro Germany review refer to specific instances in the "present" where she's still around and doing Godly things. Namely, opening the holes in the clouds and giving loftwings to each resident of Skyloft as a sign of her protection.
-This one's minor, but he says that you can't catch the bees from hives even though the guy from ONM said he had more bees than any collectable item and that you get tons just by knocking hives down.
-Gamepro Germany says that you use the harp to open the Silent Realm in Faron Woods, and that you only go to the Skyview Temple a second time after going to Lake Floria and meeting Faron/the Water Dragon for the first time. Meanwhile, these spoilers claim that it's going to the previous dungeons which unlocks the Silent Realm as though it's a formula every area follows, even though we know that's not the case with at least one of the three and Gamepro seems to imply the harp is the key to the Silent Realm every time.
-This one could go either way, really, but he says it's the remnants of the Goddesses which creates the Master Sword, while we know it's actually "Divine Flames" and that the Triforce itself is the remnant of the three Goddesses. Admittedly, it's possible that the Divine Flames are supposed to be remnants of the Goddesses as well though.

There's definitely some discrepancies even if there's nothing which outright disproves these. On the topic of ST, how is it not about tech if the complaint is Link shouldn't be a conductor? I liked that Link actually had a different occupation in that one. And I think one plus to the tracks was it kinda captured the scale of how big Hyrule was without taking ages to get anywhere, but I can understand that aspect of the complaint.

[Raien]

There's definitely some discrepancies even if there's nothing which outright disproves these.

I don't really see the discrepancies myself, I'm afraid. In any case, I don't have anything more to say about this so I guess we should wait until the game comes out. If I'm wrong, I'm wrong.

On the topic of ST, how is it not about tech if the complaint is Link shouldn't be a conductor? I liked that Link actually had a different occupation in that one. And I think one plus to the tracks was it kinda captured the scale of how big Hyrule was without taking ages to get anywhere, but I can understand that aspect of the complaint.

The thing that people expect most from a series or franchise is consistency. Consistent quality and consistent subject matter.

A good sequel introduces new content that broadens the existing subject matter. For example, ALttP introduced a larger, more diverse world map and a wider variety of items to use. It took things from the original game and made them better.
A bad sequel often introduces new content that departs from the existing subject matter entirely. For example, Link as a train conductor and a travel system that restricts exploration. People also have problems with Zelda II because its gameplay is a departure from tradition.

People buy Zelda games to play as a swordsman and go exploring. It's fine if you liked Link as a train conductor but I think it would have been better if Nintendo made that game a new IP.

Edited by Raien, 30 October 2011 - 06:09 PM.

[FDL]

1. I laid out how those were discrepancies in my last post, they're not so damning as to remove any belief that these 4chan spoilers are real, but there are clear differences between what he's said and what we know of the game. If the reasons for how you return to the first dungeons are known to be different from what this guy, I don't see how that's not already a sign that he may not know what he's talking about.

2. And then when Nintendo does do a game with little change in what we know of Zelda from the original games, people complain it's not innovative enough. Link has been a swordsman in every game but Crossbow Training, random other elements added and explained to add some variety to the game in no way strips out what Zelda is at it's core. I think it's really tiresome and a no-win situation seeing half the fans acting like every game but the first three is an insult to what Zelda is and the other half acting like any facet of the games that's familiar, like dungeons with a volcanic backdrop, are horribly unoriginal and immediately damn the game to being considered as such as whole. I think a good Star Wars comparison would actually be that Zelda has almost as much of a nitpicky, unpleasable fanbase as SW.

[MikePetersSucks]

Zelda 1 established the kingdom of Hyrule, the Triforce pieces and the principal characters.

So then the 'core mythology' was broken with Link's Awakening. Good to know.

Unless you're going to engage in special pleading. Either way, this entire line of thought is bullshit.

[Raien]

Zelda 1 established the kingdom of Hyrule, the Triforce pieces and the principal characters.

So then the 'core mythology' was broken with Link's Awakening. Good to know.

What on earth are you talking about? I know you're trying to be sarcastic but seriously, what point are you supposed to be making here? How did anything I say lead to a conclusion that Link's Awakening "broke" the Zelda mythology?

[MikePetersSucks]

I'm taking your arguments to their logical conclusion. Hyrule, the Triforce, Zelda, and Ganon are all absent from the game. First game to exclude them, in fact.

Unless, somehow, it doesn't count. And if it doesn't, why does it get a pass and the newer games don't?

[Raien]

I'm taking your arguments to their logical conclusion. Hyrule, the Triforce, Zelda, and Ganon are all absent from the game. First game to exclude them, in fact.

Unless, somehow, it doesn't count. And if it doesn't, why does it get a pass and the newer games don't?

I don't have a problem with staples of the mythology being absent from certain games. My problem is the general lack of consistency with which Nintendo approaches the mythology in each Zelda game. As I said in a previous post, what makes mythology exciting is when people can see it grow and develop from one story to the next. In Zelda II, we discovered the history of the Triforce we fought for in Zelda I, but we also discovered the existence of a third Triforce piece that when united could bring new peace to Hyrule. As a sequel, this was an exciting development from the first game. Then the first prequel, ALttP, established the history of Hyrule and set the scene for everything that happened in the first two games.

But from OoT onwards, Zelda games stopped answering questions and started creating confusion. The rules of the Triforce started changing from game to game, new earth-shattering plot devices kept coming out of the woodwork only to completely disappear when the game ended, new deities and ancient civilisations come and go unceremoniously, hundreds of years pass yet Hyrulean civilisation does not change or develop in any natural way. Sequels don't feel like sequels and prequels don't feel like prequels.

When I was younger, I wanted to work out the timeline because I was passionate about Zelda. But now that the passion is gone, I can only look at Nintendo's handling of the mythology as really bad direction. Maybe if they stuck to making sequels they would have been more consistent with it but the ultimate problem is that Nintendo has become reliant on gimmicks and the Zelda universe has become nothing more than a playground for their gimmicks.

Edited by Raien, 01 November 2011 - 02:29 PM.

[MikePetersSucks]

I don't have a problem with staples of the mythology being absent from certain games. My problem is the general lack of consistency with which Nintendo approaches the mythology in each Zelda game.

Which has never existed.

Like, ever.

I mean, principle characters have been changing since the third Zelda game, the Triforce's status has been changing since the second game, the state of Hyrule has been changing since the second game...

You say this elaborated on the setting satisfactorily, but that's entirely subjective, as is your basis for decrying new mechanics like the Triforce's splitting mechanic introduced in Ocarina in Time...even though it explains the division of the Triforce more sufficiently than Zelda 2's backstory.

Don't disagree? Too bad, that's entirely subjective, just like my preference for the newer elements.

But from OoT onwards, Zelda games stopped answering questions and started creating confusion.

Again, subjective. It answered things that were never really questions, too. Did the Triforce really NEED a third triangle? Did Zelda really need to start climbing backwards in time? Why the hell is there a parallel universe Triforce throne room, now? Where the HELL did the Sacred Realm go after the events of the third game?

Timeline's never really worked, bro.

The rules of the Triforce started changing from game to game

Like, once.

new earth-shattering plot devices kept coming out of the woodwork only to completely disappear when the game ended

Yea, so...where did the Master Sword go after LTTP? What happened to the Wind Fish? Where the hell did this other Princess Zelda come from? We already had one, guys. Why establish a legend of Zelda when we only had one Zelda otherwise? When the hell did Ganon have a cult? Dark Link? The hell is thaT?

Man these original games just stopped answering questions and made confusion.

new deities and ancient civilisations come and go unceremoniously

Holy crap, a shitton of minor nature deities in a polytheistic fantasy universe influenced heavily by Japan's cultural mythology?

Holy crap, ancient precursor races falling and going every turn of the millennium? Fantasy has never done that before EVER. BTW the Hylians say hi. As do the aliens that dropped the Triforces back when they were floppy disks. And whoever built all those old ass temples that use magic no one in modern Hyrule understands that Link has to summon out of the goddamn ground with a SPELL spell.

Sequels don't feel like sequels and prequels don't feel like prequels.

Welcome to achronological storytelling.

When I was younger, I wanted to work out the timeline because I was passionate about Zelda. But now that the passion is gone, I can only look at Nintendo's handling of the mythology as really bad direction.

Why? Every game is internally consistent with itself, and that's all Nintendo's attempted to do ever. They only make a half-assed attempt now because Aonuma is sympathetic to timeline theorists, but he's being asked to connect puzzle pieces that were never DESIGNED to fit together.

Not only that, but doing so in the manner you ask would close off creative possibilities. Oh, no, sorry, I know you guys were excited about our proposal for a game set during the Twili War, but because it would come between TMC and OOT it doesn't work. Thank the Timeline we were asked to confirm.

Maybe if they stuck to making sequels they would have been more consistent with it but the ultimate problem is that Nintendo has become reliant on gimmicks and the Zelda universe has become nothing more than a playground for their gimmicks.

"Become?" Zelda has always been that. It's a playground for videogaming. And videogaming is basically made of gimmicks. Especially Nintendo games.

I'm sorry, but Zelda was never some Lord of the Rings epic fantasy novel. If anything it's continuity and mythos have only grown more consistent, vibrant, and coherent because they actually sort of give a damn. Back in the day you still had people insisting that every game is the same story in different metaphorical lights, or that every game had the same Link having every game's adventure like he's a Saturday Morning cartoon hero.

BTW there was totally a Zelda cartoon. Is that part of the Zelda Mythos too? Back in the day of the original Nintendo games were fans supposed to draw on the cartoon to see all of the rich narrative that Hyrule had to offer?

[Raien]

I can see from your post that there's no point in arguing. I don't know where you got the idea that I was trying to be "objective" when all I was trying to do was explain why I hate what the Zelda mythology has become. If you believe that the Zelda mythology has been bad since the first game, I can't really argue with your standards. But I'm not going to agree with you. My impression of the first three games is that of a consistent expansion of the Zelda mythology and the rest of the series is a destruction of that mythology. If you don't see it, then there's nothing more for me to say.

Edited by Raien, 02 November 2011 - 06:41 AM.

[MikePetersSucks]

I wasn't saying that it's bad; only that I don't feel your criteria are consistent from game to game, and that you're constructing a reasoning based mostly on nostalgia. This entire thread was pretty much made so you could bitch about how Zelda has fallen to such a degree that you find it comparable to a 4chan fanfiction; I would hope you would've had a reasoning for that sort of disappointment besides "the mythology is confusing."

[Raien]

I wasn't saying that it's bad; only that I don't feel your criteria are consistent from game to game, and that you're constructing a reasoning based mostly on nostalgia. This entire thread was pretty much made so you could bitch about how Zelda has fallen to such a degree that you find it comparable to a 4chan fanfiction; I would hope you would've had a reasoning for that sort of disappointment besides "the mythology is confusing."

Why would I need any other kind of reasoning? A confusing mythology is a bad mythology, especially when it's confusing because the creators refuse to adhere to a consistent set of themes and rules. You can pretend it's always been like that from the beginning but I have to disagree because the first three games both make perfect sense to me and more importantly they feel like chapters in a single cohesive narrative. The games might stand alone to you but they do not to me.

Edited by Raien, 02 November 2011 - 02:38 PM.

[MikePetersSucks]

Why would I need any other kind of reasoning? A confusing mythology is a bad mythology,

Arguable (afterall, we wouldn't of gotten years of fun out of timeline theorizing if it was straight-forward, and 'confusing' mythos have an appeal to lots of people), but even conceding that for the sake of argument, so what? Is Zelda really ABOUT mythology? It started off being an adventure game with an excuse plot: Pick up macguffins, defeat bad guy, save the world. I hardly call that a mythology at all, and the same story is just retreaded multiple times with different window-dressing.

Ocarina of Time is probably the only point in the series where a mythology actually started to form in any sort of 'epic' sense, since it's only then that the narrative transcended a single game's boundaries.

especially when it's confusing because the creators refuse to adhere to a consistent set of themes and rules.

The games are self-consistent, and the mythos is consistent atleast as far as maintaining established rules and themes. It builds on instead of contradicting itself. It's not like there's a Zelda game that claims that the Triforce's ability to grant wishes is imperfect, or something.

You can pretend it's always been like that from the beginning but I have to disagree because the first three games both make perfect sense to me and more importantly they feel like chapters in a single cohesive narrative

I can say this about any game. It's purely a matter of perspective, as I've demonstrated above. By all means, dislike how the game series has gone over the years, that's fine; but don't paint things like it's an objective fact and claim that a 4chan spoiler is proof that the entire series has been raped. That's just childish.

[Selena]

Zelda's not the only one with this "problem." Any franchise that tries to have a series-wide plot/history suffers from consistency issues when the original titles were made back in the 80's.

Another example: Metal Gear.

When most people think of that series, they think of Metal Gear Solid and its immediate sequels. The average gamer is not aware that Metal Gear started off on the MSX/NES. Had they simply rebooted the series with MGS1, there'd probably be no problem as far as the overarching plot is concerned. Instead, they kept the Solid games in the same universe as the classic titles. This created a massive divide as far as theme, plot, characterization, motifs, and "mythos" were concerned. The classic titles are vital to the overarching plot, but they're now so primitive in comparison to the modern games that it feels like they're just two different series awkwardly bundled together with a bunch of ass-pulls and retcons.

When Konami made Metal Gear on the MSX/NES, they had no idea it would become the series it did. They weren't worried about maintaining some big story or mythology. But now, with all the Solid games, it just feels obsolete and awkward. So unless they properly remake the first two games, which I've always supported, there's always going to be that element of disconnect there.

Like Metal Gear, Nintendo had no idea Zelda would turn into a franchise. It was just a game about a dude with a sword running around stabbing monsters and finding pieces of a neon triangle. And like Metal Gear - or any modern series with a NES-era origin, there's an awkward divide there. The first games will always have that type of disconnect, because they weren't written with "big series" in mind.

Games made in the NES-era were simple, even primitive, and keeping those games attached to a modern series is kind of like marrying a caveman to a rocket scientist living on Mars.

Zelda arguably fares better than series like Metal Gear, because Zelda -- even in the modern games -- isn't plot-heavy. Or even mythos-heavy. The only thing hooking the games together are a bunch of minor hints which you can easily ignore, playing each game like a standalone title with its own set of rules. There's never been much of a halfassed attempt, much less a proper attempt, to keep things consistent.




That said, I wouldn't consider the theoretical ending to Skyward Sword to be worth any sort of freakout.

[SOAP]

As far as the spoiler ending is concerned, I think it's fake but I totally see Hidemaro Fujibayashi pulling something like that. He's the same guy responsible for the heaving Zelda/Link shipping in games like TMC as well as emo slightly-homoerotic albino pretty boys as villains. He might throw a curveball like that at the end to justify how (in his mind at least) Link and Zelda are always meant to be a couple. It's like the Twilight of the Zelda series and Link is Edward Cullen and Zelda is Bella. Or maybe it's more like Glee *shrug* I don't really give a shit either way. I will have fun playing this game, that's for damn sure, I don't care if the game ends with the whole of Hyrule blowing up.

[Raien]

Yeah, I've got nothing more to say that I haven't already said so I'm bowing out of this topic now. If the spoiler is fake or not, we will know in a fortnight.