Pre-Release The Legend of Zelda: Tears of the Kingdom Pre-Release Discussion Thread

[Serif]

There is the idea that all timelines inevitably lead to BotW. So the events of BotW happen simultaneously in parallel universes.

I don't know how this works in the Adult Timeline. One idea I had is that the Korok ceremony of planting seeds throughout the flooded Hyrule:

Every year after the Koroks perform this ceremony, they fly off to the distant islands on the sea and plant my seeds in the hopes that new forests will grow.

That might explain how Old Hyrule could reform as a continent, I guess. Guess they also need to remove the Master Sword from Ganon's skull, deep in the ocean. Oh, and the whole message about leaving behind the old kingdom is kind of ruined, lol. There's a lot of ass-pulling involved in general to connect the end of Spirit Tracks to BotW, that I'm not super confident saying one will inevitably lead to another.

And then there's the idea of a Dragon Break from Elder Scrolls:

A Dragon Break, sometimes referred to as an un-time,[1] is a temporal phenomenon that involves a splitting of the natural timeline which results in branching parallel realities where the same events occur differently, or not at all. This results in a return to the non-linear timeline of the Dawn Era. At the end of a Dragon Break, the timeline reconnects making all possibilities and outcomes truth, though contradictory to each other.

Honestly in the world of Zelda with the Goddess of Time and other such powerful deities, they could give an explanation similar to this and I'd be happy. It's not really consistent with how time works in Zelda previously - after all, if this were possible then why did the Goddesses flood Hyrule if they could merge worlds and bring the Hero back? lmao - but if they gave it a cool sounding name I'd be like whatever.

 

[Raccoon]

So yeah, I was bored once again so I did a Mockup of a potential Nintendo Switch OLE Special Edition.

scenes from the bad timeline

 

[Awesomegames23]

So yeah, I was bored once again so I did a Mockup of a potential Nintendo Switch OLE Special Edition.

Looks good, and it's a clean design. Slap the word "Pro" on the front of the dock and it'll be perfect.

 

[HockeyBird]

scenes from the bad timeline

If it makes you feel better, Nintendo wouldn't do a special edition of a Switch Pro right away. If I recall, when the OLED was released, they were still doing special editions of the regular Switch. So a Zelda OLED alongside a Switch Pro would be something they would do.

 

[Lintendo]

Looks good, and it's a clean design. Slap the word "Pro" on the front of the dock and it'll be perfect.

Thanks for the nice words, I'm glad you like it .
Yeah even tho, I really hope we will see a "PRO" by the Release, but unfortunately I doubt it will happen.

 

[Raccoon]

If it makes you feel better, Nintendo wouldn't do a special edition of a Switch Pro right away. If I recall, when the OLED was released, they were still doing special editions of the regular Switch. So a Zelda OLED alongside a Switch Pro would be something they would do.

scene from both timelines

 

[Rareware]

Also - I'm recalling the Zora tablet that describes Ruto:


History of the Zora, Part Five
The Sage Princess Ruto
As told by King Dorephan

Long, long ago... In a past more distant than even the Great Calamity or the creation of the Divine Beast Vah Ruta...

There was a Zora princess named Ruto.

We know that she was an attendant to the Zora patron deity and that she was a fair and lively girl, beloved to all.

Around that same time, an evil man with designs on ruling the world appeared, bringing disaster upon Zora's Domain.

It is said that Ruto then awoke as a sage, facing this foe alongside the princess of Hyrule and the hero of legend.

Her achievements are remembered not only by the Zora, they are also forever etched in the history of Hyrule.

This tablet would also rule out the Child Timeline. On that timeline, she probably have would never have awoken as a Sage and even if she did, this states that she “fought alongside the princess and hero of legend”. We know for a fact that didn’t happen. There was no fight and Ganondorf killed the Water Sage before being banished to the Twilight Realm when his execution failed. Link wasn’t even around when any of this was going on. He had already left Hyrule to search for Navi.

So that tablet there only works for Fallen Timeline.

 

[Awesomegames23]

Thanks for the nice words, I'm glad you like it .
Yeah even tho, I really hope we will see a "PRO" by the Release, but unfortunately I doubt it will happen.

I believe

 

[chocolate_supra]

This tablet would also rule out the Child Timeline. On that timeline, she probably have would never have awoken as a Sage and even if she did, this states that she “fought alongside the princess and hero of legend”. We know for a fact that didn’t happen. There was no fight and Ganondorf killed the Water Sage before being banished to the Twilight Realm when his execution failed. Link wasn’t even around when any of this was going on. He had already left Hyrule to search for Navi.

So that tablet there only works for Fallen Timeline.

Since I was a kid I could always count on Rareware to have my back

 

[Tye]

Okay sorry yall

I went back and forth on this but I'm gonna do something uncharacteristically obnoxious

Spoiler

I'm gonna post a MatPat video that I agree with

I (very reluctantly, lol) got around to watching this, and as expected, it’s all just very weak arguments in favor of a Downfall Timeline placement.

The map of BotW’s Hyrule has a more similar layout to the maps of Hyrule in the Downfall Timeline than the other timelines? Well, not only is that debatable in some areas, but if you’re gonna make that argument then you can’t ignore SS, FS, TMC, and OoT which take place across all timelines, and also the fact that the Child Timeline has FSA which is extremely similar to ALttP. Using geography for timeline theory (outside of very specific locations, and it tends to fall apart when putting them in relation to multiple other landmarks) never really pans out too well because the locations move around so much from game to game simply for game design reasons.

Lynels only appear in the Downfall Timeline? If you’re gonna use the appearance of certain enemies in your argument, you can’t just cherry pick a single one. Where are all the Bokoblins in the Downfall Timeline, huh? And if you’re gonna consider enemies, then what about races? Like I said before, only the Child Timeline matches up with BotW in having both Gorons and Gerudo still around. And you can add Zora to that list, too, since standard Zora seem to have died out in the Downfall Timeline and only River Zora exist anymore, while BotW has no River Zora but does have standard Zora.

BotW’s Tunic of the Wild looks similar to the tunics of (most) Downfall Timeline games? Really, using Link’s outfit for timeline theory? The design of what’s supposed to be the same outfit has changed multiple times before (like the statue of the Hero of Time in TWW being Toon Link style, or ALBW Link similarly switching art styles and becoming Toon Link instead in TFH—which, by the way, is also on the Downfall Timeline), and there are plenty of times when different Links have the same or very similar outfits on totally separate timelines or in games on the same timeline that are nowhere near each other chronologically (like all the Toon Links in all timelines, or TP Link looking extremely similar to SS Link), so this really doesn’t mean anything at all.

And finally, his point about Ganondorf not appearing in the Downfall Timeline is bunk now with TotK showing us that there was indeed a (most likely new) Ganondorf in BotW’s history. The point about the Downfall Timeline having the most appearances of Ganon attacking Hyrule still stands, but I don’t think the Child Timeline having less instances of that means much, and I think the evidence for the Child Timeline, like the TP reference that’s put front and center in Zelda’s speech and the likeness of a character exclusive to MM being physically carved into a mountain, is a lot stronger and and more tangible overall.

 

[Tye]

This tablet would also rule out the Child Timeline. On that timeline, she probably have would never have awoken as a Sage and even if she did, this states that she “fought alongside the princess and hero of legend”. We know for a fact that didn’t happen. There was no fight and Ganondorf killed the Water Sage before being banished to the Twilight Realm when his execution failed. Link wasn’t even around when any of this was going on. He had already left Hyrule to search for Navi.

So that tablet there only works for Fallen Timeline.

Not really:

And yeah, the Zora tablet about Ruto may appear to complicate a Child Timeline placement slightly, but as you said it’s nothing that can’t be explained; after all, we know from the intro of Majora’s Mask that Link’s adventure in the Adult Timeline future of OoT was passed on as legend among the Royal Family of Hyrule (and this is what directly lead to the events of TP with Ganondorf being imprisoned for crimes he didn’t even commit yet), so it’s likely that Ruto’s involvement similarly became legend among Zora royalty as well. I’d say it’s similar to the situation with the stone carving of Darmani from MM, which, if meant to be canon (and since it’s actually physically represented in the game’s world, I assume that to be the case), could only exist in the Child Timeline after Link’s story of his adventure in Termina was passed on in Hyrule and similarly became legend among the Gorons.

 

[SMALLVILLE BOY]

^
Termina people exist in the downfall timeline.

Majoras Mask exist in the DT.

 

[Tye]

^
Termina people exist in the downfall timeline.

Majoras Mask exist in the DT.

I mean, it’s not the same exact character, and while he’s based on Mr. Barten, Termina’s Mr. Barten in turn is just a counterpart of Hyrule’s Talon. So if anything he’s just a descendant of Talon. Meanwhile the giant stone carving in BotW of Darmani is clearly meant to depict Darmani, since the mountain depicts other legendary Goron heroes like Darunia as well. I guess you could argue that there could have been an unseen Goron hero from Hyrule that happened to look just like Darmani…but I dunno, that seems like a stretch to me.

And I’d chalk up the Majora’s Mask appearance in ALBW to just be a simple playful reference (and a hint to fans that MM3D is on the way), like how the Happy Mask Salesman has a Mario mask, for example. Yeah, they’re physical objects represented in the game world like the giant stone carving of Darmani…but the former are simply small items while the latter is the likeness of a specific character etched into a mountainside; it’s more than a simple item, it’s literally a landmark of Hyrule’s geography—that makes it a lot harder to write off as a simple reference to me.

 

[SMALLVILLE BOY]

I mean, it’s not the same exact character, and while he’s based on Mr. Barten, Termina’s Mr. Barten in turn is just a counterpart of Hyrule’s Talon. So if anything he’s just a descendant of Talon. Meanwhile the giant stone carving in BotW of Darmani is clearly meant to depict Darmani, since the mountain depicts other legendary Goron heroes like Darunia as well. I guess you could argue that there could have been an unseen Goron hero from Hyrule that happened to look just like Darmani…but I dunno, that seems like a stretch to me.

And I’d chalk up the Majora’s Mask appearance in ALBW to just be a simple playful reference (and a hint to fans that MM3D is on the way), like how the Happy Mask Salesman has a Mario mask, for example. Yeah, they’re physical objects represented in the game world like the giant stone carving of Darmani…but the former are simply small items while the latter is the likeness of a specific character etched into a mountainside; it’s more than a simple item, it’s literally a landmark of Hyrule’s geography—that makes it a lot harder to write off as a simple reference to me.

I think your theory about Ruto the Sage in the Child Timeline seems more like a stretch than Termina people in the DT.

 

[Tye]

I think your theory about Ruto the Sage in the Child Timeline seems more like a stretch than Termina people in the DT.

How so? Like I said, Mr. Barten and Talon basically look the same since they’re dimensional counterparts and if a descendant of either of them exists in ALBW as the Milk Bar Owner, then surely it’s more believable that he’d be a descendant of Talon from Hyrule rather than Mr. Barten from Termina. Also, the Ruto stuff should be no more farfetched than OoT Link’s own adventures from OoT’s Adult Timeline future being chronicled by the Royal Family of Hyrule in the Child Timeline as stated in the intro of MM. We already know that the Hero of Time’s adventure was passed down as legend, and Ruto would be included in that, so it only makes sense that her story would also be passed down among the Zora.

 

[Rareware]

Not really: And yeah, the Zora tablet about Ruto may appear to complicate a Child Timeline placement slightly, but as you said it’s nothing that can’t be explained; after all, we know from the intro of Majora’s Mask that Link’s adventure in the Adult Timeline future of OoT was passed on as legend among the Royal Family of Hyrule (and this is what directly lead to the events of TP with Ganondorf being imprisoned for crimes he didn’t even commit yet), so it’s likely that Ruto’s involvement similarly became legend among Zora royalty as well. I’d say it’s similar to the situation with the stone carving of Darmani from MM, which, if meant to be canon (and since it’s actually physically represented in the game’s world, I assume that to be the case), could only exist in the Child Timeline after Link’s story of his adventure in Termina was passed on in Hyrule and similarly became legend among the Gorons

You’re missing some really important things here that completely contradicts the tablet. For one, as you say, Ganondorf is captured before he can ever do anything. The tablet says otherwise:

Around that same time, an evil man with designs on ruling the world appeared, bringing disaster upon Zora's Domain.

Ganondorf was captured, sentenced to death, and an attempted execution occurs, and he kills the Sage of Water and is then banished to the Twilight Realm. The above doesn’t happen on the Child Timeline because he’s never given the opportunity.

It is said that Ruto then awoke as a sage, facing this foe alongside the princess of Hyrule and the hero of legend.

Same thing here. The tablet is once again referring to Ruto fighting alongside Link and Zelda against Ganondorf. This is the final fight at the end of Ocarina of Time. The tablet there is very specific about the time, the people, and event it’s referring to.

 

[Tye]

You’re missing some really important things here that completely contradicts the tablet. For one, as you say, Ganondorf is captured before he can ever do anything. The tablet says otherwise:

Around that same time, an evil man with designs on ruling the world appeared, bringing disaster upon Zora's Domain.

Ganondorf was captured, sentenced to death, and an attempted execution occurs, and he kills the Sage of Water and is then banished to the Twilight Realm. The above doesn’t happen on the Child Timeline because he’s never given the opportunity.

It is said that Ruto then awoke as a sage, facing this foe alongside the princess of Hyrule and the hero of legend.

Same thing here. The tablet is once again referring to Ruto fighting alongside Link and Zelda against Ganondorf. This is the final fight at the end of Ocarina of Time. The tablet there is very specific about the time, the people, and event it’s referring to.

But nothing I said contradicts that? Yes, it tells the events of OoT on the Adult Timeline, which did become legend even in the Child Timeline since the Hero of Time’s deeds were told to and chronicled by the Royal Family of Hyrule, as the intro of MM says.

 

[SMALLVILLE BOY]

How so? Like I said, Mr. Barten and Talon basically look the same since they’re dimensional counterparts and if a descendant of either of them exists in ALBW as the Milk Bar Owner, then surely it’s more believable that he’d be a descendant of Talon from Hyrule rather than Mr. Barten from Termina.

By your own logic, Darmani is the counterpart of Darunia right?, then the stone carving in Death Mountain is just a descendant of Darunia, problem solved.

 

[Tye]

By your own logic, Darmani is the counterpart of Darunia right?, then the stone carving in Death Mountain is just a descendant of Darunia, problem solved.

Well, for one, I know it’s commonly said to be the case but I wouldn’t say that Darmani III is necessarily supposed to be Darunia’s Terminian counterpart. After all, his design is a lot different from Darunia than most Terminian counterparts are, and the Deku Butler’s Son and Mikau, the other characters whose spirits are contained in the masks that transform Link, don’t have Hyrulean counterparts, so why would Darmani?

But regardless, whether he’s Darunia’s counterpart or not, Goron look similar enough that I suppose it’s not impossible for a descendant of Darunia’s to look like Darmani III. But why would the developers create these giant stone carvings of specific, notable Goron from other Zelda games and make one that looks exactly like Darmani III and expect the player to assume that it’s, in fact, not Darmani but some unseen lookalike? Also, it’s not just Darmani! Aside from Darunia, the other two Goron that are depicted in the stone carvings are Gor Coron, one of the Goron Elders from TP, and the Goron Elder’s Son from MM—both of which also exist exclusively on the Child Timeline, with one being from MM like Darmani III, too! Why would the developers choose these specific Goron when they could have picked plenty of others. If the game was intended to take place on the Adult Timeline, they could have picked any of the Gorons from PH or ST, and if the game was meant to take place in the Downfall Timeline…well, uh, there’s the obvious problem of the Goron seemingly not being around anymore on that timeline (you’ve got the implied Hylian/Goron descendant Rosso, I guess, and the Gorons from Holodrum and Labrynna before that, but that’s it), but ignoring that they could have picked any of the Gorons from SS that existed in all timelines.

But no, three of the four Goron they chose to depict are specifically characters from the Child Timeline. That, combined with Zelda’s ceremonial speech specifically highlighting the Child Timeline with the SS→OoT→TP sequence, paints a compelling picture of the developers’ intent regarding the game’s timeline placement, in my opinion. They could have made either of these things more vague if they weren’t trying to hint at a specific timeline placement, or if they wanted to hint at an Adult or Downfall Timeline placement they could have done so there instead of making clear calls to the Child Timeline, but that isn’t the case. So I’m inclined to believe what the devs were seemingly trying to tell us there.

 

[SMALLVILLE BOY]

^Zelda spech goes:

SS-OOT-TP-WW-ALTTP.
Its about the 3 timeline branches.

 

[Tye]

^Zelda spech goes:

SS-OOT-TP-WW-ALTTP.
Its about the 3 timeline branches.

My take on Zelda’s ceremonial speech referencing all three timelines is that the parts referring to ALttP and TWW that are talked over—and thus not subtitled and not intended for the player to clearly hear—are simply meant to be fun references, while the earlier parts referring to SS, OoT, and TP that are featured front and center, subtitled, and clearly meant for the player to hear and focus on are the actual relevant lines to the canon. And this would imply that the game takes place on the Child Timeline 10,000+ years after FSA.

The amiibo and DLC items certainly aren’t meant to be canonical, otherwise the Xenoblade Chronicles 2 outfit would be as well. And everything else that references the Adult and Downfall Timelines are also firmly in simple reference/Easter egg territory, like minor location names. The Rock Salt? Nothing implies that it absolutely came from the Great Sea, just some ancient sea, which could just as easily be the Lanayru Sea from the past of SS.

But the most compelling references to past games seem to all align with the Child Timeline. You have Zelda’s speech references SS, OoT, and TP; Darmani from MM being physically featured in a Goron rock carving; the fact that both Gorons and Gerudo exist (while in the Adult Timeline, the Gerudo aren’t around anymore, and in the Downfall Timeline the Gorons seem to have mixed with Hylians by ALBW and eventually disappear as well—and the same could arguably be said about the Sheikah, too); the fact that there’s yet another Ganondorf (as seen in TotK) while the only timeline to feature multiple Ganondorfs reincarnated rather than the same Ganon simply being revived is the Child Timeline; and the fact that the Triforce has faded into obscurity and seems to be an innate possession of Zelda rather than a physical object, which aligns best with the Child Timeline where the Triforce was never disturbed since being sealed away after SS and only briefly came into Link, Zelda, and Ganondorf’s possession in TP due to divine intervention and alternate timeline weirdness (as for how Zelda came to possess the whole thing, we can’t say for sure, but neither of the other timelines offer an explanation for this either). There are probably other things that I’m forgetting at the moment, too.

So yeah, I’m a firm believer of BotW (and TotK by extension) taking place on the Child Timeline, at least based on the information we have currently. Surely there will be a time when Nintendo’s ready to reveal the exact timeline placement, though, and I eagerly look forward to that day.

Yes, that’s always been the most substantial evidence for a Child Timeline placement for me. As others have noted in this thread, in Zelda’s speech there are also references to ALttP and TWW (and therefore the other two timelines which those games take place on), but that part is being talked over and isn’t subtitled, unlike the part that explicitly references the Child Timeline which is presented clearly to the player. If BotW wasn’t intended to take place in the Child Timeline, then why would the developers put that line in and make it something so prominently featured?

Yes, but it’s still talked over and not subtitled, so not meant to be the focus. Also it’s separated from the SS→OoT→TP part of the speech. That first part lists three major games in the order they happen on the timeline, while the other part just references two games on completely different timelines, while being talked over and not subtitled. There’s a big difference in how they’re presented to the player, and I don’t see why the developers would have prominently featured the Child Timeline reference if BotW wasn’t intended to take place on that timeline.

 

[SMALLVILLE BOY]

^

 

[Tye]

^

Okay, and? I know what the full speech is, but that doesn’t change how it’s framed in game. The ALttP and TWW references are obscured and separated from the SS, OoT, and TP references. The game clearly wants the player to focus on the latter, while the former isn’t brought to attention, and I’m sure that must have been a deliberate choice by the developers. Otherwise why not just include the ALttP and TWW bits immediately after the SS, OoT, and TP part and make it clearly audible and subtitled?

 

[TheCongressman]

Okay, and? I know what the full speech is, but that doesn’t change how it’s framed in game. The ALttP and TWW references are obscured and separated from the SS, OoT, and TP references. The game clearly wants the player to focus on the latter, while the former isn’t brought to attention, and I’m sure that must have been a deliberate choice by the developers. Otherwise why not just include the ALttP and TWW bits immediately after the SS, OoT, and TP part and make it clearly audible and subtitled?

I really don't see that. Either all of the speech is important to the lore, or none of is.

 

[Rareware]

Okay, and? I know what the full speech is, but that doesn’t change how it’s framed in game. The ALttP and TWW references are obscured and separated from the SS, OoT, and TP references. The game clearly wants the player to focus on the latter, while the former isn’t brought to attention, and I’m sure that must have been a deliberate choice by the developers. Otherwise why not just include the ALttP and TWW bits immediately after the SS, OoT, and TP part and make it clearly audible and subtitled?

I really don't see that. Either all of the speech is important to the lore, or none of is.

Are you suggesting that Hyrule Historia, Zelda Encyclopedia, and Creating A Champion aren’t legit because they include information that wasn’t expressed in the games themselves? Zelda’s Timeline and Lore isn’t tied exclusively to the games. It’s a conglomeration of the games, official books, and even interviews with the devs.—namely Aunoma.

EDIT: Reading your post again, I see you may have just been trying to point out why they were focusing specifically on those three games. I get it, yes. There is a direct focus on those. But I don’t think though that the other things should he discounted since they are in the lore.

Just a sudden thought right now, but I wonder if since Hylia, Din, Nayru, and Farore are goddesses after all, that their knowledge of all things transcends the timelines. You know, they’re all knowing and perhaps share the knowledge of every timeline and every hero with the Royal Family. So no matter what timeline a game is on, the Royal Family is aware of the existence of multiple timelines and the legends that transpire on each of them.

That would be one way of converging the timelines without actually converging them.

 

[Tye]

I really don't see that. Either all of the speech is important to the lore, or none of is.

Are you suggesting that Hyrule Historia, Zelda Encyclopedia, and Creating A Champion aren’t legit because they include information that wasn’t expressed in the games themselves? Zelda’s Timeline and Lore isn’t tied exclusively to the games. It’s a conglomeration of the games, official books, and even interviews with the devs.—namely Aunoma.

I’m not saying that the full speech isn’t legit or canon, I’m just saying that I don’t believe that the obscured parts of the speech are meant to be important like the clearly audible and subtitled parts. Like, it was surely an intentional choice on the developers’ part to focus on that very obvious Child Timeline reference while obscuring the rest, right? To me that shows developer intent. And it’s not just that, it’s that combined with other things like the Goron stone carvings featuring specific characters from the CT, the races present in BotW only matching that of the CT, etc. If the intent was for BotW to take place in the Downfall Timeline (or Adult Timeline for that matter), then why wouldn’t any of these things be clearly calling to that rather than the Child Timeline? It just doesn’t add up to me; the in-game evidence suggests a CT placement more than anything else.

 

[Hauke_von_Arding]

Lynels only appear in the Downfall Timeline? If you’re gonna use the appearance of certain enemies in your argument, you can’t just cherry pick a single one. Where are all the Bokoblins in the Downfall Timeline, huh? And if you’re gonna consider enemies, then what about races? Like I said before, only the Child Timeline matches up with BotW in having both Gorons and Gerudo still around. And you can add Zora to that list, too, since standard Zora seem to have died out in the Downfall Timeline and only River Zora exist anymore, while BotW has no River Zora but does have standard Zora.

I mean, Gorons and Zora only work if you ignore the Non-Hyrule games. We only know that Zora and Gorons died out in Hyrule already in A Link to the Past. But they were still around in other countries. The Sea Zora still lived in Labrynna, and Jabu Jabu was still their guardian, so they most likely left Hyrule after the Downfall. They could easily have returned or the River Zora could have developed back into civilized Zora, there were some nice ones especially in A Link between Worlds.

Same with the Gorons. They still existed in Labrynna and Holodrum. And just because we never see them, doesn't necesarry mean they died out, they could just be in hidding after Hyrule sunk into chaos. So there is still the possibility they migrated back into Hyrule at some point in time.

The biggest problem are the Shiekah too. But actually they are a problem in all timelines.

 

[Gingerbread Man]

My pet theory is that BotW takes place in an "Alternate Adult Timeline". Everything we saw in OoT happened, until the end -- in this alternate reality, Zelda didn't send Link back in time, and therefore the Hero of Time was around to stop Ganon when he broke free.

Ganondorf was then finished almost for good, leading to the age of prosperity in BotW's backstory.

In my view, this is what it was "supposed" to happen in the Zelda universe, hadn't Zelda meddled with time at the end of OoT, creating the Adult and Child timelines. It was the original, predestined future.

The Koroks and the Ritos are the only issues with this placement, I think (and Zelda's speech, of course, but I think it deliberately references every timeline), but they can be handwaved with "eh, different bird people", "parallel evolution in parallel worlds". Everything else fits -- the Zora stones, the various races of Hyrule, the Zora king saying that something like "Hyrule was never flooded", etc.

 

[Hauke_von_Arding]

My pet theory is that BotW takes place in an "Alternate Adult Timeline". Everything we saw in OoT happened, until the end -- in this alternate reality, Zelda didn't send Link back in time, and therefore the Hero of Time was around to stop Ganon when he broke free.

Ganondorf was then finished almost for good, leading to the age of prosperity in BotW's backstory.

In my view, this is what it was "supposed" to happen in the Zelda universe, hadn't Zelda meddled with time at the end of OoT, creating the Adult and Child timelines. It was the original, predestined future.

The Koroks and the Ritos are the only issues with this placement, I think (and Zelda's speech, of course, but I think it deliberately references every timeline), but they can be handwaved with "eh, different bird people", "parallel evolution in parallel worlds". Everything else fits -- the Zora stones, the various races of Hyrule, the Zora king saying that something like "Hyrule was never flooded", etc.

Interesting theroy! Also a problem would be the interview and the "Ganon was defeated and resurrected a lot in this timeline" part. Which could also eplained by "Yeah it did happen some times in the unexplained story between OoT and BotW". But yeah, good theory!

 

[manfromthedam]

Artwork of the mysterious eye (the one in the giant door).

I really love that eye symbol. Stupid theory time: it looks a lot like there's mountains/lands above and lands below the centre of the symbol. Imagine if the underworld isn't a cave system only, but an actual alternative realm underground. That'd DOUBLY solve the "no new lands to explore" thing.

Ah, who am I kidding, there's only one inverted land underground: WE"RE GOING TO NEW ZEALAND YALL

 

[ZeldaPY]

I really love that eye symbol. Stupid theory time: it looks a lot like there's mountains/lands above and lands below the centre of the symbol. Imagine if the underworld isn't a cave system only, but an actual alternative realm underground. That'd DOUBLY solve the "no new lands to explore" thing.

Ah, who am I kidding, there's only one inverted land underground: WE"RE GOING TO NEW ZEALAND YALL

I like we’re your head is at! Or how about the 7 triforce symbols on the back of of his shield in the same shot representing 7 different realms we visit, or the 7 swirls in painting surrounding the Deity in painting. Every YT theorist can only come up with them representing 7 dungeons we have to complete, why can’t they be 7 different continents? Let’s think bigger!

 

[Tye]

I mean, Gorons and Zora only work if you ignore the Non-Hyrule games. We only know that Zora and Gorons died out in Hyrule already in A Link to the Past. But they were still around in other countries. The Sea Zora still lived in Labrynna, and Jabu Jabu was still their guardian, so they most likely left Hyrule after the Downfall. They could easily have returned or the River Zora could have developed back into civilized Zora, there were some nice ones especially in A Link between Worlds.

Same with the Gorons. They still existed in Labrynna and Holodrum. And just because we never see them, doesn't necesarry mean they died out, they could just be in hidding after Hyrule sunk into chaos. So there is still the possibility they migrated back into Hyrule at some point in time.

The biggest problem are the Shiekah too. But actually they are a problem in all timelines.

Sure, the Gorons and Sea Zora were still around in the Capcom-developed Oracle games—the only games to have their timeline placement retconned since the full official timeline was revealed (probably because they never had a concrete placement in the first place unlike pretty much every other game), and the same games that feature a “Master Sword” that apparently isn’t really the Master Sword, etc. I’m not sure looking to those games for answers is really the best approach, but regardless, if Gorons and Sea Zora were supposed to come back to Hyrule in that timeline, Nintendo had the perfect opportunity to show that in ALBW—but instead, they doubled down on the idea that the Gorons and Sea Zoras have effectively died out, with two of the sages from that game being a Goron-looking Hylian bearing the Goron crest (implying that he’s of Goron descent, and that Gorons have mixed with the Hylians by this era and no longer exist as their own race) and similarly a River Zora in place of a Sea Zora.

Yes, you could always say that the Gorons and Sea Zora somehow came back in the 10,000+ years prior to BotW, whether they were always around still but hiding away in Holodrum and Labrynna or some other explanation…but you could also just go with the path of least resistance and assume BotW takes place on the Child Timeline which presumably still has both. There’s the Gerudo, too, which are completely absent in both other timelines outside of Ganondorf and Twinrova (I’d assume they were likely killed off in the Great Flood/Imprisoning War, especially given Ganondorf’s actions in those timelines), while they’re still around and even give birth to a second Ganondorf in the Child Timeline.

And yeah, the Sheikah are never really shown to be as prevalent in any other game as they are in BotW, but you can chalk that up to them living in the shadows. Even so, there’s arguably still the most evidence for them to still be around in the Child Timeline. Impaz from TP is clearly meant to be a Sheikah, for example, and Sheikah symbols still appear across Hyrule. It is said that the tribe “dwindled in the prolonged wars” in TP, but that seems to be referring to the wars before OoT which would have happened in any timeline, and clearly they’re still around even if in small numbers (as also seemed to be the case in OoT, with Impa being the only one we ever see). Meanwhile there doesn’t seem to be any trace of the Sheikah left in the Adult Timeline, and it’s uncertain in the Downfall Timeline. In the latter we only really have Impa…but it’s hard to say if the incarnations of Impa in that timeline are truly supposed to be Sheikah. It could be that they died out and mixed with Hylians like what’s implied with the Gorons, and ALBW might be hinting at that since Impa in that game has pink hair instead of the traditional Sheikah white hair. But then her appearance in TLoZ/TAoL does have white hair, so I’m not sure. Still, why make her look less Sheikah-like in ALBW if she was still supposed to be Sheikah in that timeline?

 

[Tye]

My pet theory is that BotW takes place in an "Alternate Adult Timeline". Everything we saw in OoT happened, until the end -- in this alternate reality, Zelda didn't send Link back in time, and therefore the Hero of Time was around to stop Ganon when he broke free.

Ganondorf was then finished almost for good, leading to the age of prosperity in BotW's backstory.

In my view, this is what it was "supposed" to happen in the Zelda universe, hadn't Zelda meddled with time at the end of OoT, creating the Adult and Child timelines. It was the original, predestined future.

The Koroks and the Ritos are the only issues with this placement, I think (and Zelda's speech, of course, but I think it deliberately references every timeline), but they can be handwaved with "eh, different bird people", "parallel evolution in parallel worlds". Everything else fits -- the Zora stones, the various races of Hyrule, the Zora king saying that something like "Hyrule was never flooded", etc.

That’s an interesting theory I’ve not considered! Though I’m not sure it’s something Nintendo would actually make official, since it relies on an event not able to be seen in game at all. At least with the Downfall Timeline, your Game Over screen can technically lead into that, and the rest is told in ALttP’s backstory. But I do like the idea of yet another split at OoT where BotW could take place. It’d also make a lot of sense given the ridiculously long period of 10,000+ years between BotW and any prior game yet BotW’s strongest and most explicit references being to SS and OoT. If feel like that’s particularly a problem with the Downfall Timeline, because it’s already got the most games of any timeline and yet somehow the events of SS and OoT are more well remembered in BotW over any of the numerous adventures that took place after OoT. It’s already hard to believe that the events of SS and OoT are preserved as well as they are in BotW given the extra 10,000+ years to account for, but it’s even weirder when you throw in hundreds if not thousands of extra years on top of that with notable legends of their own that are just completely ignored by BotW. That’s another point in favor of the Child Timeline for me, since it only has TP and FSA to account for after OoT/MM, while the Downfall Timeline has ALttP/LA, OoS/OoA, ALBW/TFH, and TLoZ/TAoL.

Interesting theroy! Also a problem would be the interview and the "Ganon was defeated and resurrected a lot in this timeline" part. Which could also eplained by "Yeah it did happen some times in the unexplained story between OoT and BotW". But yeah, good theory!

I honestly don’t think that Aonuma was hinting at a specific timeline placement in that interview, but rather just the fact that it takes place at the very end of some timeline, which is exactly what Nintendo ended up officially revealing eventually, and nothing more than that. Here’s the interview for reference:

I wouldn't say that it obviously fits into any one part of the timeline, but if you play the game, you'll be able to work out where it fits. As you probably saw in the trailer, the most recent trailer, there's a woman's voice, and she says: "The history of the royal family of Hyrule is also the history of the Calamity Ganon." And as you know, the Zelda series, up until now, is a history of repeated attacks by Ganon. So, there's food for thought there. I don't want to say anything more as I'd like players to work it out for themselves, to play the game and see what they think.

He says “if you play the game, you’ll be able to work out where it fits” as if it’d be obvious to the player (when I’d say the only obvious reference to a specific timeline that’s featured in the main story is Zelda’s ceremonial speech referencing the Child Timeline), but also says “I wouldn’t say that it obviously fits into any one part of the timeline,” seemingly contradicting himself in the same sentence. So really, the only way I see to make sense of this is if he wasn’t talking about a specific timeline placement in the first place, but rather the fact that BotW takes place at the end of some timeline, after every other prior game. I think that’s what he was getting at with his quote about “a history of repeated attacks by Ganon”—which technically could apply to any of the three timelines, as they’ve all been attacked by Ganon multiple times. I think all he was trying to imply was that BotW takes place after anything else up until that point, which we didn’t have official confirmation of at the time, and nothing more.

 

[Irene]

I know I go on about aerial combat and movement, but I'm 100% certain that all of this is going to be in the game in some form.

Fujibayashi is big on movement and traversal - in the GDC talk, he talked a lot about making an "active game" with there being little downtime. And Breath of the Wild had a huge emphasis, bigger that one might initially realize, on traversal. Stamina was essential. We were allowed to paraglide, ride horses and a bike, surf on our shield, enter slow-mo, surf with sand seals, and swim up waterfalls. And climb anywhere. Anywhere!

Tears of the Kingdom is going to contain so, so much cool traversal options. Climbing and pargliding will be the tip of it, but skydiving, phasing, 360 bow aiming, hopefully hookshot, and some crazy sideways movement also, like being able to phase sideways into select walls like a cannon, or hook into rails, Bioshock-style, and who-knows-what else. So stoked for this.

 

[Deleted member 2181]

Hookshotting between floating islands has to be a thing. Imagine it with the physics engine, you know, momentum and all that. Come on Nintendo!!!!

 

[Irene]

Hookshotting between floating islands has to be a thing. Imagine it with the physics engine, you know, momentum and all that. Come on Nintendo!!!!

I've noticed in the latest trailer that some of the islands are super small, many, and very tight together.

They could very well, maybe, be islands that partly serves as hookshot points.

 

[ZeldaPY]

I've noticed in the latest trailer that some of the islands are super small, many, and very tight together.

They could very well, maybe, be islands that partly serves as hookshot points.

I mean there has to be some sort of hook shot like item right? I keep going back to this image, if we already have half a master sword, what looks like a draghead on his shield and a messed up arm, then we should be getting the hook shot too.

I really want the Beatle too, but a fast version of it. Maybe one you can deploy while in mid-air that has automatic feature to it, maybe has its own attack powers or an automatic homing attack power, similar to the homing arrows options you mentioned awhile back.

 

[manfromthedam]

I've noticed in the latest trailer that some of the islands are super small, many, and very tight together.

They could very well, maybe, be islands that partly serves as hookshot points.

There has to be a way of horizontal traversal between islands in Skyrule, and (dual) hookshots sound like a great way to facilitate that - besides Tori gates for larger jumps of course =D .

 

[Pawprii]

I mean there has to be some sort of hook shot like item right? I keep going back to this image, if we already have half a master sword, what looks like a draghead on his shield and a messed up arm, then we should be getting the hook shot too.

I really want the Beatle too, but a fast version of it. Maybe one you can deploy while in mid-air that has automatic feature to it, maybe has its own attack powers or an automatic homing attack power, similar to the homing arrows options you mentioned awhile back.

The beatle could also be a hookshot point to extend your reach. Like the MHRISE bug but more limited or grounded

 

[Deleted member 540]

So I'm hearing it's absurd that we don't know the "hook" or the "plot" for this game seven months out.

I wasn't around for the runup to BOTW, but did we even get a good idea of the plot to that game even with the 2017 trailer? I thought people ended up really surprised the Champions were dead already.

My understanding is the marketing was

1. 2014. Brief teaser with Link running away from a guardian. Some vague gameplay with Aonuma and Miyamoto.
2. 2016 (9 months out). Trailer at E3 that showcased the landscape and revealed the title.
3. 2017 (2 months out). Big trailer at the Switch presentation.

 

[Deleted member 2181]

So I'm hearing it's absurd that we don't know the "hook" or the "plot" for this game seven months out.

I wasn't around for the runup to BOTW, but did we even get a good idea of the plot to that game even with the 2017 trailer? I thought people ended up really surprised the Champions were dead already.

My understanding is the marketing was

1. 2014. Brief teaser with Link running away from a guardian. Some vague gameplay with Aonuma and Miyamoto.
2. 2016 (9 months out). Trailer at E3 that showcased the landscape and revealed the title.
3. 2017 (2 months out). Big trailer at the Switch presentation.

But we knew what the gameplay focus would be from the reveal of the game back in 2014, and even saw what that would mean in practice that same year.

We don't have that for Tears, we're just assuming things things and trying to interpret footage that, tbh, tells us very little about how the game will play.

 

[hk-rara]

Well compared to other zelda games, we do have a lot of background information going into Totk solely bc it is a legitimate sequel to botw. In a sense, we probably know a lot more about aspects of this game compared to previous releases bc we have played botw. It makes sense that bc of all this extra information we already have that the trailers would try to show even less than it would when everything about a zelda game is completely new to us

 

[Deleted member 2181]

Well compared to other zelda games, we do have a lot of background information going into Totk solely bc it is a legitimate sequel to botw. In a sense, we probably know a lot more about aspects of this game compared to previous releases bc we have played botw.

I do understand this sentiment, but I can't relate to it. I can't take it for granted that it will have much to do with Breath of the Wild, because, you know, Majora's Mask was more different from Ocarina of Time than any of the following 3D Zeldas up until Breath of the Wild, I thought.
But you could be absolutely right, and the "hook" of the game is that you explore at will, and the game is about seeing far off objects and the adventure of getting to them, just like the first game.
Maybe that's what they're trying to tell me and I'm too dumb to grock it!

 

[Serif]

I have no idea how this game will be paced, and that excites me. BotW pre release there was some idea of moving outward from the Great Plateau and completing shrines. TotK - will we start from underneath Hyrule or will that be just a flashback scene, and we'll actually start from the sky? What sections of Hyrule are cut off from the beginning ? Will an underground area be the second half of the game or accessible as soon as you can phase ? So many questions.

Its why the common refrain of 'BotW + sky islands' rings hollow to me. BotW isn't just its world, the game was designed in a particular way to traverse from shrine to tower to dungeon to landmark and so on. Shiekah shrines and towers are gone, the world of TotK cannot be traversed the exact same way. Hyrule is now a gigantic canvas they can do anything with.

 

[NabiscoFelt]

I have no idea how this game will be paced, and that excites me. BotW pre release there was some idea of moving outward from the Great Plateau and completing shrines. TotK - will we start from underneath Hyrule or will that be just a flashback scene, and we'll actually start from the sky? What sections of Hyrule are cut off from the beginning ? Will an underground area be the second half of the game or accessible as soon as you can phase ? So many questions.

Its why the common refrain of 'BotW + sky islands' rings hollow to me. BotW isn't just its world, the game was designed in a particular way to traverse from shrine to tower to dungeon to landmark and so on. Shiekah shrines and towers are gone, the world of TotK cannot be traversed the exact same way. Hyrule is now a gigantic canvas they can do anything with.

I've said this a couple times before but like, how in hell did BoTW + sky islands become a negative refrain? Like, not putting the blame on anyone for using it that way, since I've done that myself in the past, but after this past trailer and taking the time to think about it...it's freakin' sky islands. In an open world with BoTW's traversal

That's already amazing, I'm not sure why it suddenly became this knock against the game

 

[Deleted member 2181]

This is an interesting take on the symbolism that I've not come across before

 

[ZeldaPY]

The beatle could also be a hookshot point to extend your reach. Like the MHRISE bug but more limited or grounded

If the Beatle was more like a guided hook shot and could extend your reach you could use it to travel across the sky from underneath the islands and get higher up in the sky. This would be somewhat of a legitimate theory I have been looking for as to why the sky islands are mostly pointed at the bottom with some that look like they have antenna, or some sort of wire object protruding from them. They are also made in a way that if your on the bottom, you wouldn’t be able to just climb to the top of that island you were on rather if you made your way higher up, you could then just paraglide down to the previous island.

 

[Pennington]

I think a thread devoted to the Zelda timeline discussion would be a good idea.

 

[Deleted member 540]

And another thing, has the pronunciation of skulltula ever been confirmed to get skull-TULL-uh? I always took it to be SKULL-chul-AH, as in a play on tarantula because spider.

 

[Awesomegames23]

And another thing, has the pronunciation of skulltula ever been confirmed to get skull-TULL-uh? I always took it to be SKULL-chul-AH, as in a play on tarantula because spider.

For me it's, skull-two-la.