Beta
×

Welcome to the Slashdot Beta site -- learn more here. Use the link in the footer or click here to return to the Classic version of Slashdot.

Thank you!

Before you choose to head back to the Classic look of the site, we'd appreciate it if you share your thoughts on the Beta; your feedback is what drives our ongoing development.

Beta is different and we value you taking the time to try it out. Please take a look at the changes we've made in Beta and  learn more about it. Thanks for reading, and for making the site better!

Is Link About to Die?

Zonk posted more than 8 years ago | from the sad-day-for-fancy-lads dept.

Nintendo 76

An anonymous reader writes "Sometimes we know more than we think we know. An about.com article asks if we might already know what happens in The Twilight Princess. If we do, it's not going to be a happy ending. Based primarily on the introduction to The Wind Waker, and the fact that we now know Twilight Princess takes place between Wind Waker and Ocarina of Time, it makes some pretty interesting claims about Link's future. Is Link about to die?" Miyamoto may have been hinting about this earlier this year.

cancel ×

76 comments

Sorry! There are no comments related to the filter you selected.

No. (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 8 years ago | (#14213566)

No.

Huh? (5, Informative)

doctor_nation (924358) | more than 8 years ago | (#14213579)

It's not like there's any real continuity of character here. I mean, there's no specific Link character who is in all of the games. I always interpreted Link to be a sort of genetic/time-less hero born again and again. It's basically implied that each one dies at some point after his game ends. So explicitly having him die in game wouldn't really matter that much, since we know there will be another one at some point. And honestly, I wouldn't be that upset if he died anyway. It's not like there's any personality there.

Re:Huh? (3, Interesting)

steveo777 (183629) | more than 8 years ago | (#14213624)

Agreed, aside from Ocarina and Majora's Mask, there is no continuity, though, in some cases, it is implied. On the other hand... It's always the same, relatively useless, napping Zelda. She doesn't seem to do anything except fire a few arrows here and there. But, even though it's her legend, she spends half the time either sleeping, or not being Zelda.

Don't even get me started on Marim (Link's Awakening).

Re:Huh? (1)

Belgand (14099) | more than 8 years ago | (#14213719)

Unless I'm completely mistaken The Legend of Zelda II: The Adventure of Link was supposed to be a direct sequel to the original with the exact same Link from the original. The first time they really went with the whole "multiple Link" concept was A Link to the Past.

Re:Huh? (1)

AscendantOat (822634) | more than 8 years ago | (#14214619)

The first time they really went with the whole "multiple Link" concept was A Link to the Past.
Actually, A Link to the Past starred Link's ancestor, not Link himself. Hence the pun.

Re:Huh? (1)

Belgand (14099) | more than 8 years ago | (#14216873)

I realize that. While being the ancestor of the original Link, it was also the first time that a different Link was ever used: i.e. The Legend of Zelda, The Legend of Zelda: The Adventure of Link (16 year-old original Link), and The Legend of Zelda: Link's Awakening (set some time between the first two games) all contain the same exact person. A Link to the Past is Link's ancestor. Ocarina of Time and Majora's Mask are a different Link in what I believe is the oldest time as Gannondorf is still a man and not yet Gannon as in the other games. The Wind Waker clearly takes place after Ocarina of Time, but the relationship to the other games is fuzzy as far as I can tell (it's my personal opinion that it occurs in the future of all the other games).

Thus according to this there have been 4 Links so far: The original, Link to the Past, Ocarina of Time, and Wind Waker.

My point though is that the people who say that each game has a different Link except for OoT/MM are wrong. This is a fairly new concept that only showed up during the 4th game (the Zelda of the first and second games are different, however, the manual lists that all the daughters of the royal family were named Zelda as a bit of a ret-con to make sense of how she'd been asleep for ages, but you saved her in the first game). Most likely since it was added recently and shortly followed by the OoT/MM set which had both a very explicit connection and introduced a new Link most people have forgetten the earlier stories a bit and feel that they are the only games with the same hero.

Continuity in Zelda games (1)

MMaestro (585010) | more than 8 years ago | (#14213671)

Actually, in Zelda 64: Majora's Mask it was HEAVILY implied that it was a direct sequel to Zelda 64:OoT complete with the same Link. Rewatch the ending and imagine Zelda sends Link on a mission to find 'someone' and cue Zelda 64:MM. It fits in perfectly since history was changed yet Link still visits Zelda. And then theres the fact that Epona, the Gorons, Zoras and Dekus race all reappear.

Re:Continuity in Zelda games (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 8 years ago | (#14213843)

When it says that Link went on a journey to find a friend, you can hear the sound effect of Navi flying around. I'm pretty sure he got it into his head to go looking for her after she left at the end of OOT. In the process, he wandered into an alternate reality. I don't think he ever made it back to his original world after that, which is why the Hero did not appear according to Wind Waker's story. Note that the original Link left Hyrule as a child, so he probably didn't leave a pregnant wife behind to continue his lineage. That breaks the backstory of A Link to the Past, making the whole exercise of working out the Zelda continuity pointless.

At least, that's how I had thought of it before now. If the original Link did return after Majora's Mask, then it's possible A Link to the Past happened before Wind Waker, in which case something else has to happen to break the lineage and prevent a version of the Hero from appearing in Wind Waker's backstory. That makes the theory that Link will die in Twilight Princess seem a little more plausible.

I didn't RTFA because I'm avoiding spoilers, so I may have just said the same thing it does for all I know. Regardless, this is just the Zelda dork in me speaking. I doubt Nintendo will go to so much trouble to make the games relate, honestly.

Re:Continuity in Zelda games (1)

doctor_nation (924358) | more than 8 years ago | (#14213905)

Yeah, there are exceptions (1&2, and OoT&MM), but most of the games are separate- that was my main point. Although I hadn't RTFA before I posted that, and now that I have I see that the point of the article was a bit more interesting that just having Link die.

Re:Continuity in Zelda games (1)

Ayaress (662020) | more than 8 years ago | (#14214662)

They aren't just separate, but in some cases they're specifically different characters in the same world. Link and Zelda from Link the the Past were distant ancestors of the Link and Zelda from the NES games. Before Windwaker came out, I'd seen at least one post on GameFAQs linking to a fan page that tried to establish continuity through the series, and even then, there were at least three and possibly as many as five Links and Zeldas. Since then, Minish Cap would suggest at least one new pair, since (if it's accepted as the first origin of Link's hat), it would be chronologically first, before LttP, and Link in LttP had never previously weilded a sword.

Anyway, I digress... It's much easier to take the games individually as independent stories or as shorter series and not try to chain them all together into one epic story. It's just as bad as fanboys trying to invent continuity between Final Fantasy 6 and Final Fantasy 7, just doesn't work without assuming things that seem to contradict the games.

Re:Continuity in Zelda games (2, Insightful)

justchris (802302) | more than 8 years ago | (#14216138)

Actually, I was fairly certain that at the time it was made, Ocarina of Time was chronologically first, because it was before Ganondorf became Ganon. The GB & GBA LoZ's are so very much aside from the real games that they could fit literally anywhere in the chronology and not make a bit of difference.

Which reiteration of Link? (1)

Pichu0102 (916292) | more than 8 years ago | (#14213612)

I mean, there are many different Links from each few games, but I don't think losing on Link will end the onslaught of Hyrulians popping out new Links.

You know... (4, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | more than 8 years ago | (#14213618)

Sometimes I wish Slashdot had an option to turn off (potential) spoilers. I still remember screaming "thanks, you fucker" at the screen when Michael posted the story [slashdot.org] on the front page. I had a similar reaction when the demise of Ken Jennings was announced [slashdot.org] a month and a half before the event took place.

I didn't want to know that Link dies before I played the game. I'd be happy to make the discovery on my own. So next time you want to post a spoiler in a story, at least use the [Read more...] function and give us some warning.

Re:You know... (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 8 years ago | (#14221338)

If you wanted to be able to turn off spoilers, it'd be something you'd need to log in to do. As for your comment about Ken Jennings losing "a month and a half before the event took place," you may want to rethink that. Just because the show didn't air for 1-1/2 months after the event, it doesn't alter that the event actually happened.

Not likely (3, Insightful)

Leknor (224175) | more than 8 years ago | (#14213626)

The Zelda games never had a strong connection between games. Each only alluded to each other with hints and details to excite the fanboys (of which I am). This article is taking a giant leap of faith to force the connection it tries to make.

Re:Not likely (1)

threv (839879) | more than 8 years ago | (#14214259)

if you recall, the wind waker was placed directly in ocarina's universe.

FAIL not DIE!!?!?!?!? (3, Informative)

cttforsale (803028) | more than 8 years ago | (#14213630)

TFA asks if "Link is about to FAIL". As in FAIL his mission.

Re:FAIL not DIE!!?!?!?!? (2, Funny)

DavidLeblond (267211) | more than 8 years ago | (#14213960)

He's failed his mission PLENTY of times with me controlling him already.

Re:FAIL not DIE!!?!?!?!? (1)

conigs (866121) | more than 8 years ago | (#14214446)

And did you read the article that was linked to in this article? (the one on thehylia.com? I believe that explicitly said "die."

Re:FAIL not DIE!!?!?!?!? (1)

Khuffie (818093) | more than 8 years ago | (#14221171)

Never, ever take anything on thehylia.com without a very large grain of salt. The webmaster has a habit of exaggerating, speculating out of pure air, and more often than not, outright lying.

Re:FAIL not DIE!!?!?!?!? (1)

conigs (866121) | more than 8 years ago | (#14221402)

I'm not saying I'm taking this as FACT. Just pointing out that the headline is not inaccurate, as cttforsale was suggesting.

How is this different? (5, Funny)

Sugar Moose (686011) | more than 8 years ago | (#14213632)

He died dozens of times in the previous games I played with him. Of course he'll die in the next game. I'm not perfect you know, sheesh.

whoa, retroflash (4, Funny)

voice_of_all_reason (926702) | more than 8 years ago | (#14213663)

"Blue Link needs food badly?"

"Blue Link, your life force is running out?"

//remember, don't shoot potions!

Re:whoa, retroflash (1)

orkysoft (93727) | more than 8 years ago | (#14213780)

Yeah, I was about to post something like that, before I read your comment :-)

Re:whoa, retroflash (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 8 years ago | (#14214004)

Red Zelda is IT!

Re:whoa, retroflash (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 8 years ago | (#14214046)

"have you noticed blue link is getting all the food lately?' // treasure 100 points!

Re:whoa, retroflash (1)

Surt (22457) | more than 8 years ago | (#14214111)

That's almost exactly what went through my head.

I wonder what portion of slashdotters has no clue what you're talking about though.

Re:whoa, retroflash (1)

Antarius (542615) | more than 8 years ago | (#14216059)

I take my Gauntlet off to thee...

Of course, I'm now grimacing as I remember that fateful "Dun-Dun" buzz...

Maybe I'll just stand still for 5 minutes and wait for all the walls to change into exits... Cheating? Nah. If it was cheating, you'd need a code to do it!

A Big Deal! Kinda... (1)

warmgun (669556) | more than 8 years ago | (#14213709)

Well, it is a big deal in the sense that we've never seen Link die before (well we've obviously died in a Zelda game before but never... you know what I mean!). If you assume continuity amongst the various games, it's fairly difficult to determine a cohesive timeline of events although the games do provide various hints (such as the intro to SNES's Link to the Past referring to the events of N64's Ocarina of Time). But amongst the different chronologies, some of which can be easily found by googling "zelda timeline", there's a concensus that there pretty much has to be more than one Link. If that is the case, if Link dies in Twilight Princess, that doesn't mean that Link won't come back in the next game. It just means it will be a different Link.

Also, I think the correct way to interpret Miyamato-san's comments are that the next game in the series, presumably on the Revolution, will be different in gameplay, not story. Can I hear a "Hell Yea!" for a massively multiplayer Zelda?

Re:A Big Deal! Kinda... (1)

falcon5768 (629591) | more than 8 years ago | (#14213899)

Well there is more than one link, the idea is comming from the backstory to Wind Waker (a VERY VERY VERY underrated game simply cause fanboys couldnt get over fucking graphics which IMHO where badass anyway) Basically the world of Wind Waker you find out IS Hyrule, but a Hyrule that Link failed. At somee point after OoT a Link or a ancestor of his fails to stop Gannon, and the land is flushed of everything evil by the gods themselves, thus the flooded Hyrule.

Originally Twilight Princess was to take place after Wind Waker, Now we know it takes place before. So the general idea is THIS is the one where Link despite everything you do fails and Hyrule has to be saved by the gods leaving The Wind Waker to be the end of the story.

Re:A Big Deal! Kinda... (1)

Hitto (913085) | more than 8 years ago | (#14214155)

Wind Waker wasn't underrated because it was made using Macromedia Flash... - obligatory flamebait, check =) - It really looked great, but that's all it had.
It was a boring boat sim. I often had time to smoke a full cigarette after doing the teleportation song, the wind song, and aiming at my direction.
The ridiculous mini-games that were unbeatable (hit the old guy 500 times, w00t, so *not* boring!)
Don't talk about the, what, four different dungeons you visit. Very, very disappointing.

It's a big let-down for Zelda fans who grew up with Link and are annoyed by that fucking Tingle...

Re:A Big Deal! Kinda... (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 8 years ago | (#14214955)

My sarcasm radar is faulty, so you'll have to excuse me if I can't tell if you were serious or not about fighting the old guy, however...

I'll STILL start up Wind Waker and try and fight him! I've reached somewhere over 3000 hits once.

Re:A Big Deal! Kinda... (1)

Kirsha (201264) | more than 8 years ago | (#14215874)

I dont know. My meory is kinda fuzzy, but I think Windwaker says merely that Link never appeared. That doesnt mean that he actually did and failed. My opinion is that whatever made a new hero to emerge everytime evil appeared just didnt happened that time...

It would really suck yo know before hand that no matter what you do, at the end, you are going to lose anyways. Why play then?

Re:A Big Deal! Kinda... (2, Insightful)

hibiki_r (649814) | more than 8 years ago | (#14214121)

Can I hear a "Hell Yea!" for a massively multiplayer Zelda?
Hell No. It'd be a wonderful way for Nintendo to run one of their core franchises into the ground. Zelda is all about being the hero, exploring and saving the world. Nintendo will probably change many of the classic Zelda machanics, but there really isn't any way of keeping that same sense of wonder and fight against evil when there are another twenty thousand people in your server trying to do the same thing. Massively multiplayer games are exactly the opposite of what Zelda is about: Leveling up, competing with other players, making the most profit/getting the most loot. A zelda MMORPG would alienate most of the current player base, while trying to attract people that currently don't give a rat's ass about Nintendo and its properties. Great way to shoot yourself in the foot.

There's also the fact that MMRPGs are not sustainable without getting monthly revenue through fees or ads, while Iwata keeps saying that they want users to play online for free, without having to suffer through ads. Their player base just won't go through with it. How are they going to keep a profitable MMO game if they only get money when the game is purchased? Until there's a good business model for this that wont damage their brands, Nintendo will just not make a MMO game. The closest thing the'll do is what they are doing with Animal Crossing. Other companies would have made it a MMORPG, but Nintendo's vision was far, far, different.

Re:A Big Deal! Kinda... (1)

warmgun (669556) | more than 8 years ago | (#14214709)

I deliberately said MMO, not MMORPG. It is hard for me to exactly define how they would implement online play. That's up to the imagineers at Nintendo. But I think there's a good reason for them to do it. As good as Wind Waker was, and it WAS good, it was essentially the same game as Majora's Mask and Ocarina of Time. They would be running the franchise into the ground by not innovating and making the same game over and over again. You can also argue Mario Sunshine was the same as Mario 64, which many have. I think fearing a change in the franchise is fairly foolish as Nintendo has dones it before fairly successfully. For example, many balked at the idea of 3D Zelda. Why balk at the idea of an online Zelda? It seems like a natural progression to me, especially as Nintendo is embracing online gameplay.

Re:A Big Deal! Kinda... (1)

Yorrike (322502) | more than 8 years ago | (#14214892)

"As good as Wind Waker was, and it WAS good, it was essentially the same game as Majora's Mask and Ocarina of Time." ... "You can also argue Mario Sunshine was the same as Mario 64, which many have"

True as this may be, I enjoyed all the aforementioned games. But this brings up the wider issue of the place of sequels in the gaming industry. By the same reasoning, GTA3, GTA:VC and GTA:SA are all the same game, and it could be argued that there's vastly less variation between them compared with the 3D itterations of the Zelda franchise.

I have confidence that where ever Nintendo takes the Zelda series will result in games I'll enjoy, but I doubt Twilight Princess will be the final Zelda game we see with these game mechanics, despite what Miyamoto says. Want a glaring example? The new Mario Bros. on the DS, a game in the same vein as the previous game of it's type, Super Mario World, released in 1991.

Re:A Big Deal! Kinda... (1)

GammaKitsune (826576) | more than 8 years ago | (#14214255)

Can I hear a "Hell Yea!" for a massively multiplayer Zelda?

No, you cannot. Go shoot yourself now.

Re:A Big Deal! Kinda... (1)

MilenCent (219397) | more than 8 years ago | (#14215303)

You mean you never ran out of hearts even once?

Granted, that wasn't much of a problem in Ocarina of Time or more recent games. But the original Zelda was hard in places!

Um... (4, Interesting)

RyoShin (610051) | more than 8 years ago | (#14213870)

I think you mean A Link is going to die. The games loosely exist along the same time line (though I have yet to see a LoZ with hover boards, foo), and each game is a different Link and different Zelda.

I think Zelda II on the NES even went through some thing about all the princesses being named Zelda because one was in a deep neverending sleep, or some such stuff.

In Wind Waker, we're told that the main character isn't even of the Link lineage. He has to search for pieces of his part of the Triforce, remember. The game even says that the hero had left the realm, (referring to Majora's Mask), forcing the Triforce Piece of Courage to split apart.

Ocarina of Time and Majora's Mask supposedly have the same Link (Majora's Mask taking place a few years after Link defeats Ganon in OoT and is returned to kid form.)

The Oracle games are supposed to match up with another Zelda game as well, though I can't recall which one right now. The same may be true for Link's Awakening.

So, even if Link does die in the game (which would certainly be a change; whether it's appreciated or not has yet to be seen), it won't be the end of the Zelda franchise.

If he does die, I think we'd see it as more of a "selfless sacrifice" type of thing. Link struggles with the main enemy to subdue him while the supporting hero(ine) blasts him into the Dark World or whatever, but in the process Link is pulled in as well. This would actually be a nice set up to the next game (which is most likely on the Revolution,) where you once again have a non-lineage Link and you wind up having to release the real Link to defeat the evil.

Re:Um... (2, Informative)

Toloran (858954) | more than 8 years ago | (#14214047)

Actually in most of the zelda games it is the same link.

(note: this is copied from http://db.gamefaqs.com/portable/gbadvance/file/zel da_minish_cap_g.txt [gamefaqs.com] and no i didn't ask)

Note: Reading this might spoil the endings for a few of the Zelda games. Read only if you know what happens in each, because I need to draw from important game events to make the timeline. Read at your own risk.

The Legend of Zelda is a series of twelve separate games at the present time. Since these games were not released in an order that made sense, many peopleargue with one another about just how it should be organized. That's what this timeline is here for - to express my views on the subject. I think that the series in bad need of better organizing. Many timelines are awful and don't make sense. The timeline must abide by certain rules. But before that, here's a list of every Zelda game that either was new when it was released or had
something new on it.

The Legend of Zelda
1987 for the NES
Zelda II: The Adventure of Link
1988 for the NES
The Legend of Zelda: A Link to the Past
1991 for the SNES
The Legend of Zelda: Link's Awakening
1993 for the GB
The Legend of Zelda: Ocarina of Time
1998 for the N64
The Legend of Zelda: Majora's Mask
2000 for the N64
The Legend of Zelda: Oracle of the Ages
2001 for the GBC
The Legend of Zelda: Oracle of the Seasons
2001 for the GBC
The Legend of Zelda: A Link to the Past/Four Swords
2002 for the GBA
The Legend of Zelda: Ocarina of Time/Master Quest
2003 for the GCN
The Legend of Zelda: The Wind Waker
2003 for the GCN
The Legend of Zelda: Four Swords Adventures
2004 for the GCN
The Legend of Zelda: The Minish Cap
2005 for the GBA

Note that these release years are all North American. First, notice that A Link to the Past and Ocarina of Time are listed twice. This is because those games had a new game on them when they were re-released. Ocarina of Time had Master Quest, which was a harder version. Master Quest has the same events in it as Ocarina of Time, so it will not be counted. A Link to the Past was re-released with a multi-player game called Four Swords. It is an actual game, and it shall be counted.

As I said, there are a few rules one must follow when making their timeline. Here are common errors people make. First, what Link or anyone else looks like has nothing to do with the chronological scheme of things. Wind Waker Link was a very popular look so Nintendo showed him that way in a few extra games. This doesn't make Link different. Secondly, items (unless they are extremely important, like the Master Sword) do not determine anything. That is, whether Ganon used his trident in one battle or not does not give us a good timeline. Third, there is only one timeline.

Many people think that there are two (the Alternate Timeline Theory) because Link time-traveled in Ocarina of Time. If you think about it, this is a really stupid theory. After all, at the end of Ocarina of Time, Zelda sends Link back to relive the seven years of his childhood that he lost (to quote Zelda exactly, "Link, give the Ocarina to me... As a sage, I can return you to your original time with it."). It is as if the latter part of Ocarina of Time never happened. Fourth, there will be no dates.

Many people try to use dates in their timeline and that is completely false. Fifth, comic books have no bearing on the timeline. Sixth and foremost, if it's not in the game or the manual, then it is speculation and it doesn't count. For instance, one could add tons of different events that weren't in the games or manuals and connect things together (like Ganon revivals, descendants, and other "events").

Now we can truly start. This is quite anticipated because everyone wants to know how Minish Cap is placed on the timeline. Remember that the timeline tries to string the games together in an order that makes sense for the existing games only. It will be modified should a new game be released.

Note: In my timeline, it is very important to remember that Link did not have the Triforce piece of Courage at the end of Ocarina of Time. He had it when he was an adult, but Zelda sent him back to the past "to regain his lost years." Even if you do disagree with this for whatever reason, it wouldn't matter (if he did, Link would lose the Triforce of Courage in Majora's Mask due to what the King of Red Lions says in Wind Waker). Also, the timeline focuses a lot on Ganon. Ganon is the only character that is completely unique (that there are no descendants of) and he has different conditions in each game.

Ocarina of Time is obviously the first game. This is a universally accepted fact and it should not be argued with. Then comes Majora's Mask. Again, this is universally accepted. The best reason for Majora's Mask coming next is that Link has the Ocarina of Time in it, although there are many more. Now here's where my timeline becomes unique. Now, recall that I said earlier that the adult part of Ocarina of Time didn't matter.

Well, it basically never happened as far as the timeline is concerned because Link was sent back to his past to relive his childhood. Ganon is, therefore, trapped in the Sacred Realm/Dark World whatever you want to call it at the end of Majora's Mask. There are only a few games that start out with Ganon in the Dark World. Four Swords could come next (although it really can't, as I will explain later) and Four Swords Adventures would follow.

This cannot be because the Four Sword, which is used in both those games, is broken and you must restore it in the re-release of A Link to the Past in an optional side quest. Yes, it seems like a cheap shot, but it is how things happened. The only other game in which Ganon starts out imprisoned is A Link to the Past. Therefore, it is the only game that actually can come next logically.

This presents a new problem. At the end of A Link to the Past, it would seem that Ganon is dead. Yes, one might think that Ganon really is dead, but in truth, he is not. Again, this is a very random observation, but in the credits of A Link to the Past (by completing different events you can see different credits) they show Link's uncle and the king of Hyrule. This is important because both of these people were dead earlier in the game.

Also, in one scene of the credits ("The Bully Makes a Friend"), they show two characters on Death Mountain that would normally be in the Dark World in the Light World. This means that, when Link's wish was granted by the Triforce, he wished those that died as a result of Ganon back to life and that all those in the Dark World be transported to the Light World. Well, this includes Ganon, which means that Ganon is alive again and he's in the Light World. There are only two games like this at the beginning and Wind Waker cannot come yet (if it did, Adventure of Link would later and this is impossible). Therefore, the
original The Legend of Zelda has to come next.

Ganon dies at the end of The Legend of Zelda. Even more importantly, he dies leaving a pile of ashes behind at the end of The Legend of Zelda. This is very important. There are only two games in which Ganon is dead throughout the entire game. These games are Link's Awakening and Adventure of Link. Now, all games in which Ganon is dead in must be consecutive, right? If you disagree with me, think about it for a second and you'll realize what I mean. So, this leaves us to put Link's Awakening and Adventure of Link in the right order.

At first glance, it seems like it doesn't matter, but it actually has a huge bearing on the timeline. Remember that in Wind Waker the King of Red Lions tells us that the legendary hero of ages long past left the land of Hyrule and lost the Triforce by doing so (the guidebook of Link's Awakening says that Link traveled to many different lands to seek enlightenment)? Well, Link gets the Triforce piece of Courage in Adventure of Link. If Adventure of Link came first, Link would lose the Triforce piece in the very next game.

Besides, the next two games in the timeline (the games in which Ganon is resurrected) has Link using his piece of the Triforce at the very beginning. Even though the instruction booklet of Adventure of Link says that Link never left Hyrule after The Legend of Zelda and before Adventure of Link. However, we know that Link MUST have the Triforce piece in the game after these two, and that Link's Awakening must come either before or after this one. So, Link's Awakening comes first (Link would not lose the Triforce piece in this scenario) and then comes Adventure of Link. Easy.

Now, we are out of games in which Ganon is dead, and that means that he must be resurrected in the next game. However, it takes two games to revive Ganon. These games are the Oracle of Ages and the Oracle of Seasons. In the secret ending in a Beowulf-like plot, Kotake and Koume (Ganon's surrogate mothers) revive their son after trying to kill Link.

After another defeat by Link, Ganon is sent back to the Dark World right after being revived. There are few games remaining, and they are rather easily sorted. First, Four Swords comes before Four Swords Adventures. The proof for this is rather obvious. The Four Swords Adventures manual refers to three separate occasions in which Vaati appeared (Four Swords, Four Swords Adventures, and a very long time ago).

Well, this means that Four Swords comes next and then comes Four Swords Adventures. Now we're left with two games, The Minish Cap and Wind Waker. The Four Sword was forged in The Minish Cap, but it was used in Four Swords (Adventures, too). This means that Wind Waker comes next. So far, I have only covered the previous eleven games. Now I'll give Minish Cap a home on the timeline.

There are three proofs of my theory. I'll list them in order of their obviousness. First, the Four Sword was created in Minish Cap. It is later used in Four Swords. Therefore, Minish Cap must come before Four Swords. However, the Four Sword also made a brief appearance in the re-release of The Legend of Zelda: A Link to the Past, which means that Minish Cap comes before ALttP. However, since Zelda had a piece of the Triforce in Minish Cap (that's what the light force is, obviously), then Minish Cap must come BEFORE Ocarina of Time. If Minish Cap came after Ocarina of Time or Majora's Mask, then Ganon would not have the complete Triforce in A Link to the Past, which he does. That is proof
one. Proof two and three are a bit smaller and not as effective, but they get the job done. First, Vaati appeared as a black eye-like creature in Four Swords and Four Swords Adventures. Well, a figurine in Minish Cap (# 135. To quote it exactly, "Once Vaati's body has been shattered, this dark form rises up, all that remains of the evil sorcerer.

Only the sacred Four Sword can defeat him.") says that Vaati's human body had been shattered. This means that Vaati appeared in FS and FSA the way he did because something happened to him before. The instruction manual of FSA makes reference to a boy who split into four to beat Vaati before even Four Swords. This just supports what I said earlier, although this proof alone cannot move this before Ocarina of Time.

The third "proof" is implied. At the end of Minish Cap, Ezlo returns to his Minish-sage form and he gives Link a green hat, a token to remember him by. This seems to imply that this is the first time Link ever wore such a hat, and it became a tradition afterward for heroes of Hyrule. That's a bit of a stretch, though. Why would the Kokiri have adopted it? Like I said, proof one up here is the best answer to the placement question.

Below I have a list made of where the games in the timeline go according to my theory. Notice that Oracle of Ages comes before Oracle of Seasons. I decided to alphabetize them.

The Minish Cap
Ocarina of Time
Majora's Mask
A Link to the Past
The Legend of Zelda
Link's Awakening
The Adventure of Link
Oracle of Ages
Oracle of Seasons
Four Swords
Four Swords Adventures
The Wind Waker

(/End me "Barrowing")

This is my personal theory as well but he wrote it out alot better.

Re:Um... (3, Funny)

arkanes (521690) | more than 8 years ago | (#14214215)

And kids, this is why you should stay in school and pay attention in English class. Not because otherwise you'll spend all your time on the internet writing pretentious timelines about video games (I wouldn't take that kind of cheap shot, even if there's some truth to it), but because if you're going to spend all your time on the internet writing pretentious timelines about videogames, you should know how to link a narrative together and how to phrase yourself without sounding like you're a 3rd grader reading a book report.

Re:Um... (1, Funny)

Anonymous Coward | more than 8 years ago | (#14214650)

You left out:
Wand of Gamelon
Faces of Evil
Zelda's Adventure

:)

Re:Um... (1)

justchris (802302) | more than 8 years ago | (#14216225)

And you deserve to be kicked for even bringing that up.

Re:Um... (1)

justchris (802302) | more than 8 years ago | (#14216250)

That's great and all, but I can tell you the reason that is wrong, and it's a simple one.

Ganon has never, not once, ever, held the power of the entire Tri-Force.

Had Ganon ever possessed the entire Tri-Force, Power, Courage & Knowledge, he would have been impossible to defeat. The Tri-Force is literally the ultimate power, with all of it, Link would have had no chance, Master Sword, Four Sword or no. It would not have been possible. Therefore, even in ALttP, Ganon did not possess all 3 parts of the Tri-Force. I don't remember the game that well, so I'm not sure where the Tri-Force of Knowledge & Courage were, but Ganon most certainly did not have both of them.

This does not mean Minish Cap cannot be first, but it does take away your strongest argument for it being first. Everything else works fine.

Re:Um... (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 8 years ago | (#14236040)

Actually, Ganon DID have the entire triforce in ALttP. The Triforce grants your heart's wish and a sliver of the power of the goddesses, but by no means makes you omnipotent. After beating Ganon, Link DID get the entire triforce, evidenced by the fact he was granted the wish of undoing all the damage done by Ganon.

Re:Um... (1)

Breakfast Pants (323698) | more than 8 years ago | (#14220504)

Since 2000, a new Zelda has been released at least every year. Nintendo has really given up on keeping the series a centerpeice where they can really show off their creative talent.

About the Wind Waker intro (1)

FunkyTune (923084) | more than 8 years ago | (#14213897)

I found the article very interesting, however there was one thing in it that I found strange...
Didn't The Wind Waker clearly state that after Ocarina of Time, the Hero of Time vanished and Ganon came back?
Is the intro to Wind Waker really about Ocarina of Time? I did not feel that it was "clearly stated", but rather hinted at most. Just because OOT takes place before WW, doesn't mean that there could be more games in between them, so that the hero's return in the intro is actually about Twilight Princess... Either way, I'm so looking forward to this game. It will hopefully be great.

Re:About the Wind Waker intro (1)

MilenCent (219397) | more than 8 years ago | (#14215328)

There are some pretty strong hints in Wind Waker that refer to Ocarina of Time. While they're all named link, since Ocarina of Time, Links have also been given a title. Ocarina and Majora's Mask had the Hero of Time, and Wind Waker has the Hero of Winds. Point is, the Hero of Time *was* explicitly mentioned in the into to Wind Waker.

Also remember the room with the Master Sword in it? The characters in the stained glass windows around the room sure looked awfully familiar....

Not about OoT... (1)

MMaestro (585010) | more than 8 years ago | (#14215895)

Is the intro to Wind Waker really about Ocarina of Time?

No, Wind Waker is really about Majora's Mask and (eventually) Twilight Princess. MM doesn't even take in Hyrule (and yes, this means no Zelda, no Triforce, no Ganon), so the intro to Wind Waker saying 'the hero left the land' (or something similiar) is true. And the Hero of Time not returning? Thats because he dies (according to this theory) and thus never returns home to 'save the day' again. Someone casts a 'flood the world' spell to stop Ganon from capturing the Master Sword, and fast forward several hundred/thousand years and you have Wind Waker. (Humanity survives and regrows, the Ruto race evolves into existance/appears in prominance due to superior mobility between islands, the Master Sword and the Triforce are lost due to the sheer depth of the water.)

Well... (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 8 years ago | (#14213963)

He should've brought a fairy.

Link fails? (1)

Strell (877448) | more than 8 years ago | (#14214080)

Does that mean at the end he finds a short, funny-hat wearing man donned in blue and white saying "I'm sorry, but our princess is in another castle!" ???

Yeah right. (1)

AzraelKans (697974) | more than 8 years ago | (#14214458)

Nintendo is killing off his second more famous mascot/franchise just before his new console arrives, yeah right.

btw: Did anyone noticed theres a rumor the new zelda game is going to be revolution exclusive after all?

Makes you wonder... (1)

wandazulu (265281) | more than 8 years ago | (#14214465)

...if Nintendo has some grand story already laid out and each game is another episode a la Star Wars. If so, it seems that WW was Nintendo's Return of the Jedi, complete with a 'cartoonish' quality that infuriated some (but not all...I actually liked it).

That said, RotJ really was the *end* (yes, the books carried it on a bit further, but I mean that the principal elements of the story had ended) and WW also seems to signal an end; once you take the land away, can you really put it back again? And frankly, I'm actually pretty okay with the idea of the series "ending" in a rather dramatic and final way; I'd hate to see the series milked for all its worth and have nothing but mediocre Zelda games cluttering up my opinion of the series.

So if in TW Link bites it, then Nintendo will have done something truly amazing; brought a game franchise to a repectable end. That, theoretically, frees them up to come up with a whole *new* series, and a new set of adventures. Sure they can keep the Mario warhorse around for each console; there's no "story" there.

Frankly, I kinda wished they'd actually done one really big story, a la Shenmue, but that's just quibbling at this point.

Re:Makes you wonder... (1)

MilenCent (219397) | more than 8 years ago | (#14215356)

No one who thinks Wind Waker was too cartoonish finished the game, you can bet on that. Not after we get those words of remorse out of *Ganon* of all people, not after what after what happens to Hyrule....

In a way, the cartoon style was a test: IF you're enlightened enough to get over yourself concerning the art style and enjoy it for what it is, THEN you get the most kick-ass ending ever seen in a Zelda game.

counterexample (1)

j1m+5n0w (749199) | more than 8 years ago | (#14217089)

No one who thinks Wind Waker was too cartoonish finished the game, you can bet on that.
I finished the game, and I thought it was too cartoonish.

Re:counterexample (1)

MilenCent (219397) | more than 8 years ago | (#14217319)

I'd think the answer here is obvious: you must logically be "no one."

(Heh heh.)

But seriously, you didn't think that was an amazing ending? The king just letting Hyrule get washed away? Ganon's laughter? The last boss fight with the water flooding around everywhere?

Re:counterexample (1)

wandazulu (265281) | more than 8 years ago | (#14219996)

I was pretty stunned by it; Hyrule isn't coming back (at least in WW). As soon as I got to the game where you go back to Hyrule, I was wondering what would happen in the game that would bring it all back, and then was stunned to realize it wouldn't. I can't remember a game that really gave a "plot twist" that was both profound and well done.

In other news... (1)

Colourspace (563895) | more than 8 years ago | (#14214907)

..Mario dies in Mario128 after eating one too many gold coins...

Is Link about to die? (4, Funny)

Chris Mattern (191822) | more than 8 years ago | (#14215051)

You know, this is a question that could be asked in a *lot* of Slashdot stories...

Chris Mattern

Maybe... (1)

Perseid (660451) | more than 8 years ago | (#14215331)

...he's already dead and that's why they can't finish the damned game.

I don't know about dieing, but... (1)

Dr. Eggman (932300) | more than 8 years ago | (#14215674)

What if he turned out to actually do something worse than roll over and die? What if instead he allows himself to be corrupted, gathers the Triforce of Power and ressurects Ganondorf, paving the way for Ganondorf's conquest free from any hero's influence?

If a hero appears every time darkness is about to rise up again, having that hero become that darkness would definitly put a kink in things, possibly enough to warrant a world flood?

I'll let you chew on those thoughts with a side of concept art to go with it... http://www.zhq2.com/coppermine/cpg132/displayimage .php?album=66&pos=11 [zhq2.com]

Doesn't make sense for gameplay (1)

Kelson (129150) | more than 8 years ago | (#14215711)

If the lead character is going to die and the world be destroyed, it should either be at the beginning of the game or the outcome of losing the game. Otherwise, it might make a good story -- but what's the point of a game that you are guaranteed to lose?

I haven't played many console games lately, but I have an example from the Might and Magic series on the PC. Might and Magic is a role-playing series, and Heroes of Might and Magic is a turn-based strategy series. The Heroes series created a new setting, with its own creatures, nations, etc., which also became the setting for Might and Magic 6 and 7. Heroes 4 moved to a new world populated by refugees from an apocalyptic event very much like the consequences of losing MM7. (Or winning it if you were playing evil characters.) That was annoying itself in a "Hey, I won that!" sort of way. But a game that you can't win, even in the context of the game itself? That doesn't sound like there's much reward for playing it.

Except it doesn't make sense for continuity (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 8 years ago | (#14215934)

Heroes 4 moved to a new world populated by refugees from an apocalyptic event very much like the consequences of losing MM7.

Except Heroes 4 completely went against its own backstory by featuring the game in some super populated, unnaturally abundant world with empty castles and towns ready to be immediately settled. If the world from Heroes 4 was populated by refugees, why the hell are there bands of rogue dragons and swordsmen? How were the castles and towns built so quickly? When did all these mines and lumber yards be built? Why the hell am I fighting with other refugees when our combined total population would be less than 10% of the previous world's population? Last time I checked, refugees from Hurricane Katrina didn't slaughter and kill each other's ethnic groups in order to recieve aid first.

Re:Doesn't make sense for gameplay (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 8 years ago | (#14216448)

If the lead character is going to die and the world be destroyed, it should either be at the beginning of the game or the outcome of losing the game. Otherwise, it might make a good story -- but what's the point of a game that you are guaranteed to lose?

This is why I've only played through Final Fantasy VII twice, and I made damn sure to finish it for 100% the second time. NOTHING is going to make me watch the end of disc 1 again.

Re:Doesn't make sense for gameplay (1)

Rallion (711805) | more than 8 years ago | (#14216605)

Here's a thought I had -- is it possible that you do a lot of stuff, fail to defeat evil, evil comes to power, then you have to take it down? I ask this because it's not really so different from what happens in OoT.

Re:Doesn't make sense for gameplay (1)

Belgand (14099) | more than 8 years ago | (#14216942)

Exactly what I was going to state. I heard that the recent King Kong game had a similar problem where even if you win... you lose.

These are generally very poor ways to write games and even worse if you're only doing it to advance the story. I recall reading an article by Warren Spector a while back where he stated that "forced failure" scenarios are one of the worst things that you can do in a game. You can make it nearly impossible to win, a 99% chance of failure, but you have to allow the player the possiblity to come up with a strategy, to find a way to win and let them keep that victory. Of course, he also mentions how he himself was guilty of this in Deus Ex (which, I experienced first-hand, yes it's a hard fight, but it's also possible to just barely make it out at which point you lose anyway just so the story can move on).

I'm sure it's possible for you to fail in the end, but this is a tough thing to work. Typically it needs to be set up as a Pyrrhic victory: you win, but you lost so much that it's hardly a victory (e.g. Metal Gear Solid). It's also possible, but again, very challenging to have the character win temporarily, but fail in the long term: Link defeats Gannon, but he's too late... the world has already fallen into ruin and even his best efforts cannot undo what has already been done or possibly having Link win his final battle, but it took too much out of him and in the cut-scene he eventually succumbs to his wounds.

Main character death can work in games, but it's a very, very tricky thing. The player must win and feel that they have indeed won, but the character can fail.

doubt it (1)

trickster721 (900632) | more than 8 years ago | (#14216946)

I don't think Link exists enough to die. Like Mario, he's really more an avatar of the player than a character, and his death is just a metahpor for the player failing. When Link dies, the screen goes black, because there's no game without us and Link is us. I always assumed that what they were hinting at in Wind Waker was that the Link from Ocarina of Time never returned to Hyrule after Majora's Mask.

Re:doubt it (1)

ZephyrXero (750822) | more than 8 years ago | (#14217405)

I think the idea here is that after Link dies, you continue the game playing as another character...possibly Zelda or that weird guy that rides werewolf Link?

After all... (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 8 years ago | (#14217287)

...it's not like the Japanese don't know anything about happy endings.

Re:After all... (1)

fwitness (195565) | more than 8 years ago | (#14217837)

Barrump-bump!

That one took me a second to get. Kudos.

Of course Link will Die! (1)

Dolemite_the_Wiz (618862) | more than 8 years ago | (#14217317)

It's just that Nintendo doesn't want you to know that they're Developing 'Super Link Cart' for the DS!

Dolemite

Turn Based Zelda? (1)

ZephyrXero (750822) | more than 8 years ago | (#14217392)

Ok, so this is slightly unrelated...but wouldn't it be awesome if you got to play this epic 100+ hour long Zelda with a party, and turn-based combat? I know alot of the fanboys will call it sacrelige, but with FF12 announced as a real-time combat game, who knows? Anyway...here's a little mock up [flickr.com] a made a few weeks ago ;)

It doesn't claim link dies in the history lesson (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 8 years ago | (#14218893)

Quoth the article:

The premise of the article is that players are told at the start of Wind Waker that Hyrule was flooded when a hero failed to appear to prevent evil's return. The Gods, in order to cleanse the land of evil, flooded it, leading to the world found in Wind Waker. ....

A hero FAILED TO APPEAR. It's not that someone failed in their quest, the hero failed to even attempt it, because there was no hero. He didn't make an appearance!

So either A) This story is a re-writing of history which invalidates the entire plot of the Wind Waker, or B) a different story.

Suppose (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 8 years ago | (#14218939)

What if Link just chooses to fail because he realizes that fighting off evil and winning would be worse than flooding the world entirely. I remember the previews of Twlight Princess where Link is practically fighting an army on his horse (assumingly Epona). Perhaps he realizes it's just not worth it.

Absolutely (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 8 years ago | (#14219901)

Perhaps there will be some slow dramatic death scene followed by a fairy popping out of a bottle ...

Uhm.... (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 8 years ago | (#14220961)

Just for the record- if you actually read the manuals...

The Link in NES Zelda 1 is the same as NES Zelda 2, just older by a few years.

The Link in SNES Zelda came centuries before the NES ones
Check for New Comments
Slashdot Login

Need an Account?

Forgot your password?

Submission Text Formatting Tips

We support a small subset of HTML, namely these tags:

  • b
  • i
  • p
  • br
  • a
  • ol
  • ul
  • li
  • dl
  • dt
  • dd
  • em
  • strong
  • tt
  • blockquote
  • div
  • quote
  • ecode

"ecode" can be used for code snippets, for example:

<ecode>    while(1) { do_something(); } </ecode>