The Energon Pub

Shadowman wrote:

Hotrod wrote:I think Nintendo should release an official history of the Legend of Zelda book. I know I would buy it.

While that is a good idea at first, you have to realize that the whole thing would have to be rewritten every time a new game came out.

Yeah, you never know where in the timeline a new game will end up and what it will affect. Just look at OoT. Before that, we all thought that Hyrule was a generic medieval kingdom (dragons, imps, elves, monsters, princesses, treasure, magic, the usual), but now we know that it was created by three goddesses.

It would be best to make a book after the series is officially over, in maybe another 20 years or so.

Shadowman wrote:

Hotrod wrote:I think Nintendo should release an official history of the Legend of Zelda book. I know I would buy it.

While that is a good idea at first, you have to realize that the whole thing would have to be rewritten every time a new game came out.

Good point.

Autobobby1 wrote:

Shadowman wrote:

Hotrod wrote:I think Nintendo should release an official history of the Legend of Zelda book. I know I would buy it.

While that is a good idea at first, you have to realize that the whole thing would have to be rewritten every time a new game came out.

Yeah, you never know where in the timeline a new game will end up and what it will affect. Just look at OoT. Before that, we all thought that Hyrule was a generic medieval kingdom (dragons, imps, elves, monsters, princesses, treasure, magic, the usual), but now we know that it was created by three goddesses.

It would be best to make a book after the series is officially over, in maybe another 20 years or so.

If I were to guess, I'd say that Nintendo possibly dosen't want these games to be connected by a distinct timeline. From a creative POV, this makes sense, because then if you want to try something new or look at the series from a different angle, as Miyamoto(sp?) tends to do, fans would be going nuts about how certain parts of the backstory don't mesh up well when put in with the continuities of the other games.

Nemesis Cyberplex wrote:

Autobobby1 wrote:

Shadowman wrote:

Hotrod wrote:I think Nintendo should release an official history of the Legend of Zelda book. I know I would buy it.

While that is a good idea at first, you have to realize that the whole thing would have to be rewritten every time a new game came out.

Yeah, you never know where in the timeline a new game will end up and what it will affect. Just look at OoT. Before that, we all thought that Hyrule was a generic medieval kingdom (dragons, imps, elves, monsters, princesses, treasure, magic, the usual), but now we know that it was created by three goddesses.

It would be best to make a book after the series is officially over, in maybe another 20 years or so.

If I were to guess, I'd say that Nintendo possibly dosen't want these games to be connected by a distinct timeline. From a creative POV, this makes sense, because then if you want to try something new or look at the series from a different angle, as Miyamoto(sp?) tends to do, fans would be going nuts about how certain parts of the backstory don't mesh up well when put in with the continuities of the other games.

You're backing up your opposition. That's exactly our point. New games would screw with an official history because they are out of order.

Autobobby1 wrote:

Nemesis Cyberplex wrote:

Autobobby1 wrote:

Shadowman wrote:

Hotrod wrote:I think Nintendo should release an official history of the Legend of Zelda book. I know I would buy it.

While that is a good idea at first, you have to realize that the whole thing would have to be rewritten every time a new game came out.

Yeah, you never know where in the timeline a new game will end up and what it will affect. Just look at OoT. Before that, we all thought that Hyrule was a generic medieval kingdom (dragons, imps, elves, monsters, princesses, treasure, magic, the usual), but now we know that it was created by three goddesses.

It would be best to make a book after the series is officially over, in maybe another 20 years or so.

If I were to guess, I'd say that Nintendo possibly dosen't want these games to be connected by a distinct timeline. From a creative POV, this makes sense, because then if you want to try something new or look at the series from a different angle, as Miyamoto(sp?) tends to do, fans would be going nuts about how certain parts of the backstory don't mesh up well when put in with the continuities of the other games.

You're backing up your opposition. That's exactly our point. New games would screw with an official history because they are out of order.

Didn't know I was opposing anything....but okay, if you say so....

Autobobby1 wrote:You're backing up your opposition. That's exactly our point. New games would screw with an official history because they are out of order.

That's called "Agreeing."

He wasn't opposing us in the first place.

Don't think that everyone is against you.

So where does Zelda's Adventure, Wand of Gamelon and Faces of Evil belong in the timeline? I have never played these since they were made for the Philips CD-I. Or are they just a different Zelda world all together?

DISCHARGE wrote:So where does Zelda's Adventure, Wand of Gamelon and Faces of Evil belong in the timeline? I have never played these since they were made for the Philips CD-I. Or are they just a different Zelda world all together?

They're non-canon. And to be fair, we should just forget they exist.

They were not made by Nintendo, so they're just abominations of the name "Zelda."