41 replies to this topic

[Person]

The manual for Zelda II explains that its backstory was the reason every princess was named Zelda. I know there were conflicts with the ToC and such, but we were still able to rationalize it away and accept the essence of the story as the reason for all the Princess Zeldas. With SS, it seems they've just thrown it out the window, because this Zelda is the first Princess Zelda, not the one from the AoL backstory. That being said, do the storylines for the NES games even really matter if something so major is being discounted?

EDIT: This is not a complaint about SS. I am fine with the game. This is just a question as to whether or not it retcons the old backstory. I say this because I don't want this to just be a thread complaining about how SS made Zelda RUINED FOREVER.

Edited by Person, 25 November 2011 - 12:09 AM.

[Masamune]

Well, personally, I tend to think the 2D games are all off in their own continuity anyway, since they never get touched upon or given any notable storyline links anymore. This just solidifies it even more.

[SOAP]

I believe the games to be a series of legends anyways so the AoL back story could be a corruption of SS. If I had to put the games in an "orthodox" timeline, including the NES games, I'd say the Sleeping Zelda story no longer matters, and that it never really did ever since OoT, or even sooner. I always just interepreted the naming tradition to carry on Zelda's memory since the sleeping Zelda is cursed with eternal sleep and therefore cannot die naturally and reincarnate. Therefore, every Zelda born afterwards are all Zelda-in-name-only, including, ironically, the first Zelda players meet.

Also, it's not really stated that SS Zelda is the first Zelda. We're not even told there was never a Hyrule before SS. Of course we're lead to believe taht beacuse OoT has always been first and SS takes place before OoT. But you go to the surface world and there's man-made ruins everywhere. We're never told what civilizatioon they belong to but we have Skyloft which used to be part of the land below and the ruins have the Hylian crest plastered everywhere. It's pretty obvious what kingdom once existed there...

[Fëanen]

I think the state of the Triforce in AoL kind of makes it hard for Sleeping Zelda to come before any game with a united Triforce, so this issue's as old as ALttP (unless you're one of the few who goes with the "Miyamoto order"). I've always figured that the legend doesn't explain why there's a Zelda in each game, just why there were two Zeldas at once. Sleeping Zelda is probably the series' first storyline complication, and I think Nintendo stopped caring about it a very long time ago.

[MikePetersSucks]

I'm pretty sure the Sleeping Zelda origin story only applies to the original two games, since it's the only time the Triforce placements make any sense whatsoever.


Also TWW already kind of pwned the idea that everyone was named after that specific Zelda, or else we have to deal with the fact that she would've DROWNED or atleast have been crushed under the severe water pressures. And that's pretty fucking grim for a Zelda game.

[martinDTanderson]

Well to be honest, we never did see her become a Princess, so it is possible that her daughter could become the first Princess Zelda...

[MikePetersSucks]

Except that requires the two of them acquiring the Triforce, and then...uh, shenanigans.

And we still have the "A Zelda drowns to death/is smashed into atoms by the water pressure" problem.

[joeymartin64]

Yeah, I've given up on the Zelda II backstory being the reason for all the before-then Zeldas we've seen. But hey, there's no guarantee that every princess we don't see before that point is also named Zelda. Stretching coincidence a tad? Yep.

Also, holy crap mDTa.

[Hooded Warrior]

I'm kind of surprise that Nintendo hasn't retcon Zelda 2's backstory.

Personally I'd like to see Nintendo change AOL story. It would be a lot easier to make the sleeping Zelda the same Zelda that was in the first Zelda game, and have the sleeping curse be part of a backup plan that Ganon came up with in the event that someone killed him.

[MikePetersSucks]

Yea, I agree. Another problem is that um...the Sleeping Zelda's been asleep for centuries. Everyone she's ever known and loved is totally dead and stuff, and her kingdom's gone to hell in a handbasket. I wouldn't want to wake up.

[joeymartin64]

That always did sort of weird me out. I get the "save the princess" thing from the first game (and a bunch of the other ones, obvs) , but awakening someone who would be dead if not for a sleeping curse just feels odd. What exactly does this accomplish? I get completing the Triforce, but that's treated more as a means to an end. Not to mention that AoL has that on-screen kiss between Link and the great(Xwhatever)-grandmother of the person he saved last game. Bit creepy.

If they ever do revisit the original duology in any way, I'm going to agree that using the same Zelda would be a welcome change. Backup plan or a dying breath curse, like the setup to Simon's Quest or whatever.

[Hooded Warrior]

One thing that has always bugged me about Zelda 2's story is that so very little of it is mention in the game itself. If you play AOL without reading the story in the manual then you probably would just assume that the sleeping Zelda is the same Zelda from the first game.

It also bugs me that the wizard that put the sleeping curse on Zelda is giving so little focus. His only role in the story is to curse Zelda and die.

Edited by Hooded Warrior, 30 November 2011 - 07:28 PM.

[Showsni]

As has been mentioned, the story ran into problems with the release of ALttP - AoL claims to have the first ever Zelda, ALttP claims to be a prequel. Error!

And we still have the "A Zelda drowns to death/is smashed into atoms by the water pressure" problem.

Huh? Not really... Zelda would already be awake before then. There's no space for any games involving the Triforce of Courage to come in between AoL and its backstory.

One thing that has always bugged me about Zelda 2's story is that so very little of it is mention in the game itself. If you play AOL without reading the story in the manual then you probably would just assume that the sleeping Zelda is the same Zelda from the first game.

Only in the English version - in the Japanese, the scrolling text at the start says she's a differenct Zelda.

[Beno]

I feel like the ending of SS made it possible for LoZ/AoL, including the Sleeping Zelda back story, to go in between SS and OoT.

[Sir Turtlelot]

I feel like the ending of SS made it possible for LoZ/AoL, including the Sleeping Zelda back story, to go in between SS and OoT.

Being that you're the second person I've seen to say this, I'm interested to hear what the reasoning behind this is. Sounds like it could be an interesting theory...

[MikePetersSucks]

If they ever do revisit the original duology in any way, I'm going to agree that using the same Zelda would be a welcome change. Backup plan or a dying breath curse, like the setup to Simon's Quest or whatever.

Despite the creepiness, if they don't retcon it I'd like them to capitalize on the opportunity by exploring the ramifications of having two Zeldas at once.

Huh? Not really... Zelda would already be awake before then. There's no space for any games involving the Triforce of Courage to come in between AoL and its backstory.

I was responding to the idea of the Zelda backstory being used to explain all Zeldas again (as in probably post-SS, but pre-OOT, or something). If you don't have the Sleeping Zelda story placed so that it only occurs in the child timeline, the implication involves that in one timeline an innocent maiden is drowned by like a jillion meters of water.

[Beno]

Being that you're the second person I've seen to say this, I'm interested to hear what the reasoning behind this is. Sounds like it could be an interesting theory...

Doing this preserves the Sleeping Zelda as the "first generation Princess," as the Zelda seen in SS could have a daughter named Zelda and a son who become the siblings spoke of in the AoL backstory. And SS Zelda's husband (presumably Link) could be the King who rules the Hyrule kingdom with the Triforce.

This placement is convenient as the Sleeping Zelda bit is the only real hard story element from the original games that have any sort of placement quality and I've always hated the fact that all previous Zeldas were just coincidentally named that until the naming convention was put in place. It just felt wrong to ignore that entire story point. (Maybe it's just because I grew up when AoL was only one of 3 games, haha)

I don't see how there is much to contradict this placement now since it is definitely confirmed the Triforce was not always in the Sacred Realm before OoT in SS.

If you put the FSS before LoZ/AoL you have a nice Ganon backstory as well. Then you don't have to have any Ganon resurrection/revival plot theories, as all instances of Ganon's birth and death would be accounted for. And you don't have to worry about the Triforce being split up, since the Triforce is unaccounted for in FSS.

Then after the Triforce is reunited in AoL it can be locked in the Sacred Realm in time for OoT to happen with the birth of a new Ganon.

[MikePetersSucks]

But what about the whole thing about the Hylian blood and magic being pretty worn down and such? (Ears are rounded, magic isn't as powerful)? What about LTTP being a prequel? And would this placement require shoving the oracles games inbetween LOZ/AOL and OOT, for those who stuck those games after LOZ/AOL in their timelines?

While I kind of like the idea, it's REALLY complicated once you give it some more thought.

[Beno]

LoZ/AoL doesn't mention anything about Hylian blood being worn down or anything. It's only assumed that it is further worn down if you place it after LttP because LttP said it was wearing down. From the official art, the King, Link, and Impa all have pointy ears. And though it's hard to tell, the villagers all seem to have pointed ears from their sprites in AoL.

LttP doesn't have to be the prequel to LoZ/AoL. There hasn't ever really been consensus on this since OoT came out and there hasn't been a developer quote to confirm it in years and the vagueness of the back of the box.

And Oracles can very easily stay where they are at the end of the timeline. But they could go before OoT if you really wanted to put it there, the conditions are still the same.

The big reason I like the placement is that Ganon's births and deaths are all accounted for as well as there no contradictions as to the Triforce's location.

[MikePetersSucks]

LoZ/AoL doesn't mention anything about Hylian blood being worn down or anything.

It's certainly IMPLIED; their ears aren't AS pointy, magic isn't quite as abundant, and the entire world of Hyrule, as we can infer from official art, is in essentially a dark age.

And Oracles can very easily stay where they are at the end of the timeline. But they could go before OoT if you really wanted to put it there, the conditions are still the same.

I always personally thought that the Triforce sitting in three separare triangles in some sort of palace/temple thing was a deliberate nod, but eh.

The big reason I like the placement is that Ganon's births and deaths are all accounted for as well as there no contradictions as to the Triforce's location.

We don't have Triforce contradictions either way, but as for Ganon, the whole Demise thing is a meta-origin that cuts out the need for an origin story for Ganon anymore. He exists because Link and Zelda exist.

[Crazy Penguin]

The NES games happening between Skyward Sword and Ocarina of Time could work... but then the Six Sages would be named after a bunch of old towns.

[Showsni]

Ha, I already stick OoX before OoT, so that kind of doesn't affect my theory. In fact, SS stated itself as doing a lot of things my theory tries to make OoX do - give a specified reason the triforce needs hiding away, set the Master Sword up as a seal...

It's certainly IMPLIED; their ears aren't AS pointy, magic isn't quite as abundant, and the entire world of Hyrule, as we can infer from official art, is in essentially a dark age.

I know it's non canon, but (just after the opening credits):



Non canon it may be, but what it does show is that at the time Hyrule was certainly seen as being rich in magic (and certianly not in a dark age). Looking at any subsidiary media and you see a Hyrule with a lot more magic in it than shown by, for instance, OoT. This holds true in the games too - look at the sages in AoL. You certainly don't see normal people like them using magic as often in games such as OoT and later.

The rub, then, is how ALttP relates to all this. If ALttP is a prequel to LoZ/AoL still, how does it fit with SS? Could ALttP come between SS and AoL's backstory? Could ALttP come before SS?

[MikePetersSucks]

Could ALttP come before SS?

I'm pretty sure the Master Sword issue pre-empts the possibility.

[Masamune]

Me? I adhere to the good ol' Split Continuity. Because 2D and 3D games aren't meant to mingle! It makes things easy. So my timeline looks something like this:

......... (child)/MM -> TP
SS -> OoT
......... (adult) -> TWW/PH -> ST

TMC -> FS/FSA -> ALttP/LA -> LoZ/AoL -> OoX

Of course, the sleeping Zelda bit is tricky. But whaddya gonna do? Even in a 2D-only timeline, the games just lend themselves towards a later timeline placement. I just don't think the origin story for Zelda's name isn't viable. Just like the so-called origin stories for Link's hat (TMC) or clothes (SS/OoT) in each incarnation.

[Showsni]

Could ALttP come before SS?

I'm pretty sure the Master Sword issue pre-empts the possibility.

Well, it's not like the Master Sword doesn't exist before SS. It's just depowered, like in Wind Waker. (Or depending on how you play them, OoX.)

[MikePetersSucks]

Well, it's this entirely different thing called the Goddess Sword. Not really a depowered Master Sword.

[joeymartin64]

It does refer to the Master Sword as its "true form" when it gets to that point, so it's not like it having existed in the past is an impossibility.

[MikePetersSucks]

Yea, but that's a semantic thing. Given all the predestination going on in this game it's not like the Master Sword being its "true form" means it ever held that form in the past. Frankly the whole process seems more like the evolution of the Picori Sword into the Four Sword.

[joeymartin64]

Oh, I agree, and I'm not necessarily saying it did. I'm just saying they left it open enough so that it may have.

[Showsni]

They seem to like leaving things open to different interpretations. Or, they like not ever giving us a straight answer. I guess that's just to be expected of the Zelda franchise by this point.