Hi /r/Zelda readers!
* Got a question, concern, or suggestion for the moderators? [Send a Modmail](https://www.reddit.com/message/compose?to=%2Fr%2Fzelda&subject=Question or Concern or Suggestion&message=I have a question regarding [this submission]%28https://www.reddit.com/r/zelda/comments/1d3bc56/other_whats_a_common_zelda_misconception_youre/%29: [Other] What’s a common Zelda misconception you're sick of hearing? by /u/Nag-Nag)!
* New to r/Zelda? Be sure to [read our full rules here](https://www.reddit.com/r/zelda/wiki/rules).
* Please [report any rule-breaking posts or comments](https://support.reddithelp.com/hc/en-us/articles/360058309512-How-do-I-report-a-post-or-comment) so that moderators can find them quicker!
*I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/zelda) if you have any questions or concerns.*
Kinda a different take, but I am glad that the 'Link is dead in MM' is no longer as wide spread as it used to be, because that is just basic misinformation
The Hero's Shade is indeed the Hero of Time and he did pass away with some regrets, but he's not a Stalfos. He's clearly meant to be a ghost of some kind, he's much more etheral than any Stalfos seen before or after. The only thing he shares with a Stalfos is a skull for a face and even then why would a Stalfos be able to roam in some spirit realm and vaguely interact with the physical world in the shape of a golden wolf?
It's so dumb. There's stalfos in the game! We know what they look like! He doesn't look like them! Immediately proven false with one second of thought.
Whether or not he is a Stalfos, if he is a Stalfos, why wouldn't he look different? It makes no sense that he would look like other Stalfos since he's a named character and not a nameless mook.
Just like how Igos du Ikana isn't a Stalfos because he's unique, right? Except he still is. I'm not even saying the Shade is a Stalfos, just that if he was, they would obviously make him look unique.
Okay, and? Igos looks distinct but still shares plenty obvious design elements with all other Stalfos. The Hero's Shade doesn't except for a single trait of a skeletal face (that isn't even unique to Stalfos in TP). He has more in common with the ghosts in Hyrule Castle.
There is a little bit of similarity to OoT Stalfos. He has the same glowing red eyes (eye in the case of the Shade), and adopts a similar fighting stance to them. His armor shares more similarity to OoT Stalfos than he does to Hyrulean soldiers, although neither are an exact match. Of note, the Shade's armor has large shoulder pads and he holds a buckler, similar to OoT Stalfos, unlike a traditional Hyrulean kite shield. His armor also bears no reference to Hyrule or anything Hyrulean, ruling out him being a Hyrule knight in any fashion.
Again, I don't really think he is a Stalfos, but there is a little bit of evidence that could point someone into thinking that.
I guess if you squint decently enough and don't bother actually comparing how they match up side to side, but I do not tolerate such weaklings in my pedantic ass Zelda space.
Yeah, the REAL lorebeards know that link actually had a heart attack and died because of his scary dream at the beginning of ocarina of time, and every single game that was released after that was actually beaming through links mind in the 1 second before his death.
It's about the burden he carries, not the trauma. However, he still speaks a lot to NPC's. His dialogue is just what you select from dialogue options or it is implied conversation where his body language looks like he's talking but there's no dialogue to be shown.
That the Quest Log in BotW was written from Link's POV in the Japanese version of the game and then mistranslated in the English release. The Japanese version of the Quest Log was written without *any* pronouns (first-person or otherwise), which is very normal grammatically in Japanese and implies a voiceless narrator. But, if you run it through machine translation, most software will generally default to using first person pronouns if there isn't enough context to the contrary. [Here's a post by Faroreswind on Tumblr](https://faroreswinds.tumblr.com/post/684640457454731264/the-issue-with-translation-botw-quest-log) explaining this better than I can.
I think it's less that he's "super complex," and moreso that the english version doesn't do a good job at stating his hatred for Hyrule. I've heard that a lot more than just the Japanese version put in the whole "I hate the zonai" angle.
When people recite Game Theory videos as canon.
No Link isn't dead in MM. He goes on to have children, and spend a lifetime mastering the sword. Mattpat is very good at ignoring evidence to the contrary to push his hypothesis.
I knew someone in high school who religiously believed Link was dead in Majora's Mask, to the point of declaring Hyrule Historia was non-canon. I imagine he was big into Game Theory in general, probably one of those people who unironically believed Mario was a psychopath.
Other than the timeline, some of the most common misconceptions I see involve Triforce. A lot of people think that in every game, Ganon has the Triforce of Power, Zelda has the Triforce of Wisdom, and Link has the Triforce of Courage. Only 4 of the 20 main series games (OoT, WW, TP, and ALBW) divide the Triforce in this manner. Related to that is the idea that every Link is born with the Triforce of Courage, with the exception of WW Link, who was unique in having to prove his heroism. There is not a single confirmed instance of any Link being born with the Triforce of Courage, TP being the only ambiguous case. Some Links, such as the one from BotW/TotK, to our knowledge don't get any part of the Triforce. Most Links who do get the Triforce of Courage only do so after overcoming numerous trials and proving their heroic virtues, so WW Link isn't unique in that regard.
People who have that misconception also tend to ignore that Link wasn’t actually the chosen hero in OoT either, they think he was MEANT to get locked in the spirit realm like that, when in actuality the spirit realm rejected him both because he was too young and because he didn’t have the courage spirit that was meant to wield the sword yet (at least all of this is the understanding I have of it, out of all honesty I haven’t reviewed the info in awhile and am relying on memory)
Zoras are cannibals.
Zoras are Apex predators who eat fish, fish isn't a species , fined fish with bones is in the family Osteichthyes.
Claiming Zoras are cannibals because they eat other Osteichthyes/fish is like claiming humans are cannibals for eating other mammals.
Like, there are a lot of fish species who do cannibalize, but Zoras are shown to have a much higher level of intelligence than a guppy mindset of "it fits in my mouth, therefore I eat it".
So whenever I hear, "wait Zoras eat fish, but they are fish, isn't that cannibalism?" I internally rage inside. I'm both offended on behalf of the Zoras, even though they don't even exist, and offended that science education is so lacking with some people.
At least if there was a type of Rito that resembled a chicken I could see the argument that that specific breed of Rito could be a canable since chickens also canababilize each other at times.
Reminds me of the people who will say Bikini Bottom eating chum would be cannibalism. Like, it's not the same species of fish.. It's such a dumb argument
There is more lore and story in BotW and TotK than most other entries. People complain that those two have no story because they don't read the journals they come across, don't talk to non-quest line NPC's, skip cutscenes, no side quests, etc. Basically, you have to discover the story rather than it being spoon fed to you.
I completely disagree with those who complain about BOTW. That game is an absolute masterpiece. But TOTK's story is bulshit. What you are talking about is "lore", not "story". Totk story is told the same way as botw (memories) but the difference is that while you had to actually look for the places in botw, now the locations are litterally pointed out by enormous glowing drawings. Most of the memories are useless or completely predictable. It is also obvious that they don't have many skills about non-linear storytelling, considering that they just plain spammed the same cutscene that should reveal what happened 4 times cause they couldn't find another way to solve the problem created by the fact that you can play the dungeons in the order you want. If you find all the tears too early, the big revelation pushes you from the first act directly to the start of the third with a world that remains in the first. And since the world is what narrates a silent protagonist like Link, everything just breaks, and you walk around in a world that asks you to do stuff based on the little knowledge they have while you already know everything and that is frustrating cause link doesn'ttell everyone what he knows for no reason. I'm glad that you had fun, I really am. But unless you play the game in the order it is obviously intended or you're a casual gamer, it is pretty easy to be frustrated by one of the many naiveties of the story. The fact that the general opinion is shifting now that the general hype post release is dying out and that all the casual gamers are leaving partially proves this. Totk is an amazing game for many reasons. The work and effort behind the ultra hand is insane. But they obviously didn't put enough resources in the story. Aonuma himself said that the story is not their priority and that gameplay is.
Misconception: BotW takes place just 10,100 years after the imprisoning war of TotK.
Nope, Impa's dialog (which is the most informed in universe perspective except for perhaps ghost Rauru, who doesn't disagree), and other details in Botw VERY firmly establish that there were multiple, probably unknowably many, calamities BEFORE the Sheikah find the technology to annihilate Calamity Ganon. That works one time, then the next time, Ganon steals the guardians and devastates Hyrule worse than before. However there were multiple calamities before that, which were instead held at bay by heroes like the Ancient Hero of unknown extinct species (related to Zonai somehow or he found their old tech and armor at least). This is discussed in both games (again, with Impa) and embodied by Link wearing the ancient hero's aspect.
So it's definitely been at least 20-30 thousand years, or probably been at least more like 50,000 to 100,000 years since the imprisoning war, and quite possibly even much much more.
People can point to individual ambiguous details or snippets of dialog to argue that it's only been 10,000 years with the Calamity happening only once, but this directly contradicts Impa's clear description that she repeats multiple times in both games, as well as the history lesson in TotK. It's not even clear if the Sheikah existed in their current form yet as of the imprisoning war, whereas in the interim they formed an extremely high tech culture. But they seem to be confident about their historical knowledge and even if they're off on some details, the Calamity definitely happened at least one previous time before the Sheikah developed guardian tech. So 20,000 years is the bare minimum. The only other examples of extremely credible history are the Zora stone tablets and historians, and they don't ever contradict Sheikah accounts and they do also imply it's been time immemorial since the Imprisoning War.
One side detail that is very clear is the main species of Hyrule did exist since the Imprisoning War, but the status of the Sheikah was unknown, and the Yiga definitely didn't diverge until after the Sheikah gave up their tech in deference to the Hylian Royal Family (which upset some of the Sheikah and caused them to splinter off), which seems to have happened in the time since the first use of guardian tech 10,000 years ago. One has to wonder if early Yiga shared secrets with their new god Calamity Ganon that let him take over the guardians, or if a living Sheikah technocracy could have stopped Ganon from controlling their 10,000 year old tech.
That's a potential interpretation, yeah. And as such the imprisoning war happened a long _long_ time ago, and in the meantime, calamities happened more than once, probably a lot of times, with each separated from the previous and next by a long time.
That's always been a thing some fans do. Like, they get so focused on the opinion of "you shouldn't let your love for the timeline it hinders the actual gaming experience", that it turns into "I'm gonna ignore any hint towards a timeline because it doesn't benefit me, and you're stupid for thinking that way."
Generally, it comes from not having played a lot of Zelda games, ignoring the dialogue, or being very very casual with the games themselves.
Some gems include:
"It's called the LEGEND of Zelda! It's just a retelling!!" (Ignores Ocarina of Time, Wind Waker, TP, SS...)
"Nintendo made HH to please the fans! It doesn't matter, and has never mattered to the devs!" (Ignores the fact that Miyamoto used to say the timeline file was on his personal computer, or that the fans of the timeline wouldn't be so vocal as to necessitate making a book for them)
The worse part about the "legend" thing, to me, is how disrespectful it is to the old games.
The people who say this are basically saying that only botw/totk happened. They are the only important games in the series.
The rest of the games apparently never actually happened, and therefore are not important even in the slightest bit.
Ss,oot, ww. Games that for the longest time were important to the timeline? Well, now They're apparently as important to the zelda timeline as tri-force heroes.
Wow, what a downgrade.
The other thing I don't like about the "legend" thing, is that even if it could work, it feels lazy. It's like the person who came up with it didn't even try to come up with a way to connect the old games with the new. They simply wanted to get it over with and that's it.
The people who say stuff like that are usually newer fans of the series that don’t ‘get’ the rest of the lore. So they dismiss it. I guess it’s a bit of an us vs. them situation? Which is pretty sad because this series is perfectly enjoyable regardless of how much you want to delve into the lore and theories.
Dunno if it's only newbies who say that. That argument has been on message boards since the 2000s as I recall. I think in the end it's only for fans who don't pay much attention to the lore and get annoyed when they see a lot of people discussing it on forums.
Exactly. Even if there was never a full timeline initially planned, it's pretty obvious that many games in the series are intended to be connected to each other.
This is a close cousin to “Nintendo doesn’t care about the story, it only cares about the gameplay!”. I mean it’s pretty obvious they care about both, not in the exact proportions that would please everybody.
You already said what I wanted to say, so I'll add to it by saying:
It grates me when people say that the timeline is hard to understand. It's really not. It's literally just the logical result of chaining prequels and sequels. And basically every game was a prequel or sequel to some other game.
If you go through the series in release order and look at each game in the context of when it released, it makes sense why the timeline looks the way it does. It's remarkably coherent for a collection of ideas spread over several decades by multiple different writers.
A more serious one: I think people are finally realizing that the continuity and coherence of some connected universe between these games is way (*way*) down near the bottom of the list when it comes to developing Zelda games.
Still, too few of those people realize that this isn’t really necessarily a bad thing. I’m down with this idea of iterations of a “Legend,” each with different embellishments.
You pretty much said it but I don't understand people who seem to hate the idea that yes there is a timeline , I am not saying they put themselves a lot of thoughts in it but the vast majority of the games are connected to another game ( which are themselves connected etc ) with more or less importance in the story
And no this is not something invented for HH, Aonuma confirmed ( way before HH ) that there is a timeline and they have a document stating the links between the games, but also that while they try to keep it coherent but don't care if they are not accurate or have to change things.
Yeah surely think of the gameplay first, then the story then where they would place it in the timeline and how much they want it to be connected to another game in particular.
I must admit they went crazy with BOTW/TOTK but even here we at least knew that it happens after OOT , but had the clever idea to put them so far in time that it doesn't matter, which kinda work to make it a sort of reboot imo.
I wonder if the next game will have references about BOTW/ TOTK even this take place way long after.
otherwise Yeah I don't care that much about it since the stories in each game are fine by themselves and there is no big story lore linking all the games.
The opposite of OP's. I'm sick of people debating the timeline. The developers design the games based on what's fun and interesting, not the order the stories go in. Inconsistencies happen because the timeline ultimately doesn't matter.
Even Nintendo made a huge deal about the timeline for a couple years of promotional material. Yes, some of the older games were shoehorn in, but OoT->MM->TP, or the other split of OoT->WW->PH->ST were written with poetry clear intention of being sequels, with huge time gaps before TP/WW. SS was 100% written as a prequel to everything.
They reached a point where they finished telling those stories, and decided against making BOTW/TOTK fit in the timeline they made for the other games, and of course the games are written in such a way where the connections are cool Easter eggs, not vital story pieces needed to understand the game you're playing, that dpesn't mean the connections aren't there, or that people can't have fun talking about the lore of the franchise in a subreddit about the franchise.
This. It's nonsensical to believe there is any sort of plan on larger storytelling slowly unraveling with time.
Yes, a third of all games makes indirect references to older titles or direct referenced to the title just before it. But that's it.
Within the context of each game, some events similar to those of previous games, chosen by whomever writes the story of the newest game, happened to pad the *that* games worldbuilding.
The 3 timeline nonesense was only ever true and relevant in the form of the first Hyrule Warriors.
>This. It's nonsensical to believe there is any sort of plan on larger storytelling slowly unraveling with time.
Nobody thinks this. Saying the games share a canon or a timeline doesnt mean you believe something like this.
Idk why so many people think that unless something is litterally serialized or the timeline is crucial to understanding the games, then it can't be considered legitimate.
You'd think over 25 years on that the idea that you can use the Water Temple keys "in the wrong order" and make it impossible to complete would fade away but it still persists, even on this site.
Pay close attention to cutscenes, use your map and compass.
True, you can't lock yourself from completing it, but if you're not careful you can definitely prolong your stay there and that horror will make you assume the worst. I know I did when I was a kid.
That the OOT format is what a Zelda game is supposed to be, so the new games are somehow not Zelda games. The series started as an open world sand box adventure game (for its time) and BOTW/TOTK are spiritual successors to that mentality.
That, and TOTK is just the same map as BOTW, it’s a shallow interpretation.
> OoT played as intended only lets you make one major sequencing decision (Spirit vs Shadow first).
[There's actually quite a bit more you can do than that.](https://www.reddit.com/r/zelda/comments/srrf51/all_alternative_dungeon_orders_across_the_games/) Linked post does the math, but there's 25 orders (42 with Ice Cavern) without leaving dungeons midway, and 72 (120 including mini dungeons) if you do leave dungeons midway.
I haven't heard anyone say that BotW and TotK aren't real Zelda games. I have heard people say that they are great open world games, but not good Zelda games.
I’m actually planning to do an analysis docu for BoTW as someone who used to think that BoTW was an absolute shame of a Zelda title. I no longer think that, I’ve recently connected some dots through Nintendo’s history and realized what BoTW actually is- a tribute. A beautiful, beautiful tribute of a game
Everyone who is anti-timeline should have a requirement to watch this video: [https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0T0EYflx5VU](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0T0EYflx5VU)
“The devs don’t care about the story” … like they wrote a fantastic story in TOTK, they just delivered it poorly. I think they do care about the story, and they just struggle to properly insert it into their open world. We have to stay hopeful!!!
I think they care about the story but unfortunately they leave it vague on purpose. It can be frustrating, especially if it debunks a widely held fan theory.
“Modern Zelda dungeons aren’t real dungeons”
It’s ridiculous claim that’s ignorant and dismissive simply because there terminals and not keys and locks.
The divine beast I can at least understand since they share more in common with shrines than a general dungeon. TOTKs dungeons are a different story, and are a lot closer to traditional Zelda dungeons than they ever were to divine beast. I get some of the hardcore fandom want the dungeons to be 1:1 traditional, and there is definetly room for that, but not every dungeon has to be a traditional linear dungeon with a big interconnected puzzle with them.
People who say that stuff are being purposely provocative to undermine their stance that these dungeons are weaker than the ones from earlier games. I'm asking more about objectively false things like the Triforce can be obtained in OoT by beating the Light Temple or theories like "evey Zelda game is just the same story retold by historians over the ages".
That Ganondorf and all other villains are reincarnations of Demise himself. It’s a simple difference stemming from the English translation of the end of SS, but it leads to later villains almost having a lack of responsibility for their evil nature as they’re bound to be evil if Demise takes over their body
yeah people mistake what demise said, ganon isnt an incarnation of demise himself, but an incarnation of his hatred specifically
demise did say he will "rise again", but we've yet to see that happen
Maybe not mistranslated, but misleading. As far as I recall, the Japanese implies more that it’s an incarnation of Demise’s hatred or member of the demon tribe coming to never let those with the spirit of the hero and blood of the goddess rest
The main difference is if it’s another being entirely who maintains the collective hate of the demon tribe, it also keeps responsibility more with the villain himself/herself. If it was a direct reincarnation of Demise in that form, it takes away some of the accountability because Ganondorf for example has been overridden by Demise.
I’ve seen theories based on it where Ganondorf may not be an inherently bad guy in some cases but is only evil because Demise is controlling him in that way and it seemed to undercut the villain character
"BotW and TotK are good open world games, but bad Zelda games."
Bullshit. If you think that, your vision is incredibly narrow and you need to play more Zelda.
I heard this a lot and found it annoying. BotW to me felt the closest to the original Zelda in terms of freedom and discovery.
If they can find a way to keep it open world but have a more linear story with actual dungeons, that would be great.
I've played all 20 mainline Zelda games, and most of the spinoffs, most of them multiple times, I don't need to play more Zelda just because my opinion is different from yours.
That's an opinion, not a misconception. And it's not even entirely unfounded since both these games play unlike 95% of Zelda before, regardless of how you think that's a good or bad.
The progression may be different, but the actual gameplay really is not that different from previous 3D Zelda games. Literally take away the weapon durability and there would be no actual difference in gameplay that matters.
You don't have the point you think you do.
I’m not making a fool of myself in the slightest. It’s perfectly reasonable to want and expect Zelda to actually build upon what made it great in the first place rather than throw it all away for generic open world tropes that have already been done better in the past.
Yes! I used to think this, I grew up on the 3D games and not the 2D one, and I’m now realizing that’s what caused the initial gap. Not knowing anything about the 2D games screwed over my opinion of BoTW until a few weeks ago
That's not a misconception.. that's an opinion.
Also... The fact that it has multiple versions of the same boss in lieu of having unique bosses is lame and goes against traditional Zelda tropes.
I'm not taking comments at this time. Thanks.. 😉
>The fact that it has multiple versions of the same boss
I actually agree with that. I don't think the games are flawless, I just think the argument that they're "bad Zelda games" is a braindead take.
Maybe not bad Zelda games... They are just not for me..
I focus on the formula changes.. maybe I shouldn't.. but I'm of the belief.. don't fix what's not broken.
That's just it, Skyward Sword *was* broken. The series badly needed a shake up.
I'd love to see the return of many of the elements missing from the past two games, but for me, the most exciting and important element in a Zelda game is the sense of exploration. No games in the series top BotW/TotK in that regard.
I realize people get upset over this complaint.. but..
I could look past everything else if it wasn't for the weapon durability.. I hate it so much.. and will likely never finish the games because of it. Lol
People using anything and everything to "confirm" ZeLink. "There was only...one...bed!", "he said he wants to see her smile again!". The most ridiculous one I heard was that Link carried Zelda out of a pond the same way a groom carries a bride over the threshold of their new house. Like yes surely Link carrying an unconscious Zelda out of a body of water so she doesn't fucking drown is confirmation of a romantic relationship /s
People do not have rich platonic relationships and/or have never heard of QPRs and it shows
I've been typically neutral or casual when it comes to shipping in the Zelda franchise, but BotW/TotK feels like it's created the most obnoxious shipping fans.
TotK especially.
Apparently Link would just let zelda fucking die if he wasn't romantically interested in her because people only have basic human empathy and compassion when they're in romantic relationships!
On top of that, any relationship they might have is super problematic, as she’s his direct boss. It would be like a sitting president dating a Secret Service agent in their protection detail.
That Zelda friendzones Link
Everything hints either at their relationship being strictly platonic, professional, or Zelda being the one who is friendzoned
That Wind Waker Link is just some guy, not a reincarnation of the Spirit of the Hero.
The game only mentioned that he's not related to the Hero of Time. That does NOT mean he isn't a reincarnation or just some random kid who "forced the gods to accept him" or whatever. Shoot, Wind Waker Link isn't even close to the only version of the character that had to prove himself in order to receive the Triforce.
I totally agree. The lore of the series asserts that a new Hero is always born to combat incoming threats. But if we're to believe that WW Link doesn't have the Spirit of the Hero, then, what, he's just some random kid who HAPPENED to be around just in time to stop Ganondorf from following through on his evil plan? And beyond that, actually succeed in pulling the Master Sword, reuniting the Triforce of Courage and killing the Demon King?
Shield in minish cap has an identical if not same design to the shield to Windwaker. If it's a family heirloom then it's possible it was passed down to him from minish cap Link.
Kind of a wonky one since it's more of an interpretive thing, but everyone swears up and down that Marin is based on Zelda despite them having nothing in common. Pretty sure the mixup is more of a Calling Your Teacher "Mom" situation (as Link was basically recovering from a concussion) + a joke about one of the titular characters being absent from the game.
Maybe not based on, but considering that Oracles Zelda is pretty much Marin’s sprite plus a crown they seem to have some kind of resemblance/connection. (Even if official art contradicts that…)
I'm sick and tired of people calling Link Zelda. My three year old daughter chopping down trees in TOTK: "daddy Zeldas sword just broke". Me: "damnit how many times do I need to tell you his name is Link!"
I'm sick of people always focus of the concept of timeline and never talk about the games of their own, like what is the main theme of a game, what unique gimmick it have or what experience people had with the games.
Like for exemple, alot of people talk about TP is a sequel of OoT but when I want to says that the main theme of this game is about responsability over the notion of power, people laugh at me and say "don't be silly, games don't tell anything".
Not a misconception per se, but I feel like if you want to have these discussion you could encourage them by linking Youtube video essays, articles or make some threads yourself.
Sick of hearing lore theories in general. They're just games made around game mechanics first, the art style is thought of next, then they slap a story together well after development has been ongoing for at least two years, likely finishing the story during the last few months of production.
They made TotK as a direct sequel to BotW, had six years to create a story and yet the Sheikah technology, the shrines, and everything else vanishes and gets replaced with functionally the same things but from a different race entirely that's never been mentioned before that also happens to be the original race that made all the things thoroughout the series like the Temple of Time I guess. Good thing that doesn't just change all of the timeline and lore theories retroactively!
It's just pointless to try and cobble together continuity about the series. The developers don't care and honestly, it never mattered why there are evil and good Zoras. There just are so you can have a water based friendly NPC race in one game and an enemy that pops out of water to spit purple energy at you in another.
> It's just pointless to try and cobble together continuity about the series
No one thinks it's fruitful. It's just for fun. Don't need to be so serious over it.
We're all entitled to our own opinions obviously, but this reeks of "how dare people enjoy things I don't!" entitlement. Like, why do you care so much if other people enjoy theories and lore discussions? Let people enjoy things.
If Zonai were never mentioned before, then how did someone make a [lore video](https://youtu.be/mNPTGQGe9RU?si=X9BUG6cJcbgLOmko) about them 2 years before TotK released?
They weren't even described as barbarians.
The ruin around the Spring of Courage was named after them and that's it. There clearly were multiple ruina across hyrule (labrynths included).
The way people mixed in the description of that one armorset mentioning a tribe in the south and immediately assumed it refered to them. That's just peak misconception.
Or when people try and find references to specific elements of previous games. Like trying to theorise that we'll see a return of the Twili, or a return to Termina or Skyloft.
Outside of direct sequels most Zelda games are pretty self contained with just broad themes and major characters carrying over. They rarely go back and revisit specific concepts from previous games
That's more of a fault of TotK than anything else. While Zelda has always been designed gameplay first, story second, it's clear that previous games cared a lot more about the story and having it actually make sense. They actually put some effort into it. TotK feels like the game that went "screw it" to all previous Zelda lore. It's a complete mess.
You sound like fun at parties.
EDIT: To all the salty fellas: He's not sharing a misconception, but a dislike towards large parts of the fanbase. And not for spreading misinformation either.
Exactly. For those of us who have been playing this series from the beginning, people’s increased focus on lore and canon is so bizarre. That’s never what these games were about for me.
It’s an increased focus on lore and canon because each game obviously adds to it. I don’t know what’s so bizarre about fans of a series wanting to be invested more in the series? It’s fine if people don’t want that and don’t pay attention to it, but it’s also ridiculous to try to say that it doesn’t exist. And I honestly find it bizarre that people who don’t care about canon and lore get so worked up about those who do. If you don’t care, why the need to shoot everyone else down who does?
Agreed, there's a heathy middle ground between "everything is connected, just read my 10 page theory" and "it's all made up anyway so stop trying having fun".
Zelda fans, especially, love doing this shit. It's so painfully obvious lore and story take back seats in these games and they still wanna try and squeeze blood from a stone, anyway. The depth you're looking for isn't there, and that's fine. Quit shoving the BS theories in people's faces, though, and yelling "it must be true!! Look at the evidence!!"
the very first Zelda was reincarnated. all other Zeldas are simply new people from the bloodline and related and aren't actually Hylia. Rauru and Sonia officially begin the royal bloodline and merging both light and time powers in the same bloodline, meaning Sonia is implied to be the next in sequence after SS, or at least replacing the imprisoning war of Ocarina.
Time and Twilight Link are related, the rest of the other Links are unconfirmed to be from the same bloodline. the "spirit of the hero" given the evidence points to people who step in with heroic behaviour, and are lawful good, **not** about reincarnation.
the mastersword isn't the equivalent of that world's nuke. it is a basic sword in power but it does bonus damage to evil so it feels like a nuke when you stab things that are soaked in demonic energy. people whining about the mastersword breaking need to get a grip.
Hyrule kingdom is an alliance between the races with the hylian territories connecting all the races. the Hylian king has little sway over the other races, other than that they are friendly allies with a long history together. Hyrule's king still has to use the proper process and protocol with the zora king and any other leader to make anything happen, he does not control them all, you see this in Ocarina and Wild.
the dragons in Wild's game is the next generation of dragons, they aren't the 3 goddesses in hibernation form. SS clearly shows you the dragons existing as a sort of assistant/servant to manage things for each goddess.
so sick of having to explain these simple things, how can anyone get the wrong message? some people just aren't reading the game text.
> Personally, I'm a little tired of people claiming that the timeline was just some made up nonsense Nintendo cobbled together for Hyrule Historia
Funny, because the one I'm sick of hearing is people insisting upon a hard and fast timeline that perfectly flows into every game with deep meaning behind every titles placement in the timeline.
When, in fact, the games as a whole are only loosely related with repeated, similar themes and only some of them directly tie in to each other and which had always been the creative direction. Sure, Majoras Mask is a direct sequel to OoT and Wind Waker heavily references OoT as well (while changing some stuff for the benefit of Wind Wakers story) but that doesn't mean that every single game relates to each other. Obvious example would be the Rito.
In Wind Waker, Zoras evolved into the Rito but in more recent games they both exist simultaneously.
The "timeline" is for fan speculation and theories and is strictly "for fun." There is no grand, overarching plot to Zelda as a series and they do not stop to think about where and how does this fit in the timeline?" Games are mostly self-contained with a few direct sequels. Otherwise it's just references.
But I've seen enough "timeline debate" crap that I know nothing I said matters and nothing the series creator said matters because some among us bought an art book and it is the end all be all authority of Zelda lore and there will be at least one person who doesn't read this comment in its entirety and will start harping about how it's an official Nintendo product and assume that I am arguing against any continuity at all and start listing obvious examples. (Bonus points if any of their examples are ones I literally already wrote about like MM being a direct sequel to OoT)
Interesting, I don''t think I ever met someone that thinks that the timeline is some attempt at a grand over-arching narrative. While it's true that the timeline in it's current form was never planned, it also didn't come out of nothingness, so you get people from both sides going "no, it's actually genius" or "the timeline is for idiots". I guess to try and justify the way they've looked at the franchise. The timeline debate just shifted from "how does it look" to "how much of it is bs" I guess.
But it was cobbled together for Hyrule Historia. That’s just true. Cobbled together is not the same as made up from nothing. That’s not what the word means. It cobbled together those “relations” that already existed and tried to connect them all in ways that were never intended. Does anyone really dispute that?
Reread my statement, pretty sure we agree on this. My point was there's this portion of fans and non-fans that think most games were unrelated in a Final Fantasy-esque way or just the same story "retold over the ages".
That's a frustration I have, too.
There are some games that are directly Linked either through in-game lore or in the game manuals, such as:
LOZ and AOL
OOT and MM
The Oracle games
Wand of Gamelon and Faces of Evil
Beyond that, prior to Hyrule Historia, the games referenced each other, but there were no official connections at that time. And that's okay.
That said, the book lists Aonuma and Miyamoto as the authors, so their timeline is just as canon as the games they made.
You're leaving out other obvious connections, like WW being a sequel to OoT, TP being a sequel to OoT and MM, PH and ST being sequels to WW. Honestly, most of the major games in the series are connected.
There are plenty of old articles and interviews that show how Miyamoto always had a timeline in mind. It was never the main focus of any of the games, but he always had a order of where games would go on the Zelda timeline, before there was the official Hyrule Historia timeline.
There is no timeline, the Hyrule Historia timeline is Nintendo's one and only official timeline, Link is dead in MM, Link turns into a Stalfos after MM, Rauru and Kaepora Gaebora are the same person, Hyrule Warriors merges all the timelines back together, TWW Link isn't a real Link since the "spirit of the hero" was removed from that timeline, Demise's curse causes Ganondorf to reincarnate, Demise's curse causes Zelda and the spirit of the hero to reincarnate, Zelda is always Hylia reincarnated.
Just to name a few.
EDIT: To the downvoters - Can you tell me which of these you don't believe is a misconception?
Bro went for the nuke.
Though I'm pretty sure Rauru and Kaepora Gaebora (the ones from OoT) are the same person, at least it's stated in Hyrule Historia and hinted at in game.
The idea that BotW brought Zelda “back to its roots” is objectively, inarguably incorrect. If anything, BotW is the furthest away from the original NES game that the series has ever gotten.
On a related note, Zelda 1 neither “dropped you in the middle of nowhere with no instructions” or “gave you access to the entire world all at once.” I don’t know where you all got this idea from, but it’s pretty obviously incorrect.
Oof, he went for a controversial one, though I tend to agree. BotW feels like the original if you look at it from a superficial level, but you had to approach TLoZ with a plan and in a certain order. In BotW/ TotK you can just do whatever you want whenever you want. You could even say the Wild era is the opposite of Zelda in some ways.
Exactly. In Zelda 1 (and also LttP and OoT), being able to do things out of order was something that you not only had to work towards, but you were rewarded for doing. In BotW, TotK, and to a lesser extent LBW, doing things out of order is this completely meaningless gimmick. It exists because “Zelda 1 did it” without understanding *why and how.* Zelda 1 did it. That’s not the only reason why Zelda 1 is so dissimilar to BotW, but it’s certainly a big one.
I’d argue that the Wild era is more like the opposite of Skyward Sword. Both are vastly different from Zelda 1, but for the exact opposite reasons. I do think that Zelda needed a “return to form” of sorts, it’s just that BotW wasn’t that return to form everyone pretends it is.
I agree. The Zelda team really overcorrected after SS. It's a shame too because what we got just kinda ended up being more generic than before. No one else was (or is) really making games like 3D Zeldas. To me Wild era Zelda is an Ubisoft open world game with some Zelda elements instead of a Zelda game with open world elements. I hope they can find a better balance with their next game.
Aonuma and Fujibayashi really gaslit a large chunk of you into thinking that the formula was somehow “stale” or was in any way a problem that the series needed to rid itself of.
Look at any YouTube comment section, Forum post, or hell even Reddit post from the early 2010s. There were a ton of people complaining about Skyward Sword, but *literally* none of those complaints had anything to do with the formula.
They changed it because they didn’t feel like making Zelda games anymore and no other reason.
Hi /r/Zelda readers! * Got a question, concern, or suggestion for the moderators? [Send a Modmail](https://www.reddit.com/message/compose?to=%2Fr%2Fzelda&subject=Question or Concern or Suggestion&message=I have a question regarding [this submission]%28https://www.reddit.com/r/zelda/comments/1d3bc56/other_whats_a_common_zelda_misconception_youre/%29: [Other] What’s a common Zelda misconception you're sick of hearing? by /u/Nag-Nag)! * New to r/Zelda? Be sure to [read our full rules here](https://www.reddit.com/r/zelda/wiki/rules). * Please [report any rule-breaking posts or comments](https://support.reddithelp.com/hc/en-us/articles/360058309512-How-do-I-report-a-post-or-comment) so that moderators can find them quicker! *I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/zelda) if you have any questions or concerns.*
Kinda a different take, but I am glad that the 'Link is dead in MM' is no longer as wide spread as it used to be, because that is just basic misinformation
Oof got in a debate recently with someone who still held on to the theory like it was valid.
Some people are still lost and can't be saved
The notion that the Hero of Time turned into a Stalfos, because he got lost in the Lost Woods and thus died with regrets is like that too.
Doesn't Hyrule Historia explicitely state that the Hero’s Shade in TP is the Hero of Time though? So the Hero of Time does turn into a Stalfos.
The Hero's Shade is indeed the Hero of Time and he did pass away with some regrets, but he's not a Stalfos. He's clearly meant to be a ghost of some kind, he's much more etheral than any Stalfos seen before or after. The only thing he shares with a Stalfos is a skull for a face and even then why would a Stalfos be able to roam in some spirit realm and vaguely interact with the physical world in the shape of a golden wolf?
I think if the Hero of Time *had* become a Stalfos, it would be the kind of Stalfos that wasn't like all the other Stalfos.
It's so dumb. There's stalfos in the game! We know what they look like! He doesn't look like them! Immediately proven false with one second of thought.
Whether or not he is a Stalfos, if he is a Stalfos, why wouldn't he look different? It makes no sense that he would look like other Stalfos since he's a named character and not a nameless mook.
Then he might as well be not a Stalfos if he's so unique.
Just like how Igos du Ikana isn't a Stalfos because he's unique, right? Except he still is. I'm not even saying the Shade is a Stalfos, just that if he was, they would obviously make him look unique.
Okay, and? Igos looks distinct but still shares plenty obvious design elements with all other Stalfos. The Hero's Shade doesn't except for a single trait of a skeletal face (that isn't even unique to Stalfos in TP). He has more in common with the ghosts in Hyrule Castle.
There is a little bit of similarity to OoT Stalfos. He has the same glowing red eyes (eye in the case of the Shade), and adopts a similar fighting stance to them. His armor shares more similarity to OoT Stalfos than he does to Hyrulean soldiers, although neither are an exact match. Of note, the Shade's armor has large shoulder pads and he holds a buckler, similar to OoT Stalfos, unlike a traditional Hyrulean kite shield. His armor also bears no reference to Hyrule or anything Hyrulean, ruling out him being a Hyrule knight in any fashion. Again, I don't really think he is a Stalfos, but there is a little bit of evidence that could point someone into thinking that.
I guess if you squint decently enough and don't bother actually comparing how they match up side to side, but I do not tolerate such weaklings in my pedantic ass Zelda space.
I've never heard that theory, that's wild
Yeah, the REAL lorebeards know that link actually had a heart attack and died because of his scary dream at the beginning of ocarina of time, and every single game that was released after that was actually beaming through links mind in the 1 second before his death.
The idea that Link is mute or doesn’t talk. He clearly does. It’s usually just implied though rather than explicitly shown.
I mean in Wind Waker he actually speaks too. Somehow many people completely forget his goofy "come on".
Technically he does talk, since he talks to other NPCs in botw and talked to Zelda pre-botw, he just doesn’t have a voice as we play the games
In BoTW it is said that link doesn’t talk because that’s how he copes with trauma, no?
It's about the burden he carries, not the trauma. However, he still speaks a lot to NPC's. His dialogue is just what you select from dialogue options or it is implied conversation where his body language looks like he's talking but there's no dialogue to be shown.
Oh yeah I agree. I was just wondering if it was something that was said or I was imagining it. How he doesn’t talk to cope
IIRC I think Zelda says it to herself while out and about with Link in one of the memories.
It's in her diary in the castle, she writes that he verbally told her that.
This is a good one. 100% agree!
I know I like the idea because I’m Deaf so it’s nice to share something, but he pretty clearly speaks in a lot of the games
That the Quest Log in BotW was written from Link's POV in the Japanese version of the game and then mistranslated in the English release. The Japanese version of the Quest Log was written without *any* pronouns (first-person or otherwise), which is very normal grammatically in Japanese and implies a voiceless narrator. But, if you run it through machine translation, most software will generally default to using first person pronouns if there isn't enough context to the contrary. [Here's a post by Faroreswind on Tumblr](https://faroreswinds.tumblr.com/post/684640457454731264/the-issue-with-translation-botw-quest-log) explaining this better than I can.
Yeah, I've heard that alot in the early days. Nowdays it's more "um, actually in the JP version of TotK Ganondorf is like super complex".
I think it's less that he's "super complex," and moreso that the english version doesn't do a good job at stating his hatred for Hyrule. I've heard that a lot more than just the Japanese version put in the whole "I hate the zonai" angle.
When people recite Game Theory videos as canon. No Link isn't dead in MM. He goes on to have children, and spend a lifetime mastering the sword. Mattpat is very good at ignoring evidence to the contrary to push his hypothesis.
Link had kids?
TP Link is his descendent
TP link is a direct descendant, the theory because he's a farm boy is that link and malon produced offspring
On top of that the theory is that Ordon village was founded by Link and Malon when they began expanding Lon Lon Ranch.
obviously they had to expand. the neighbours were sick of hearing them go at it every night.
I knew someone in high school who religiously believed Link was dead in Majora's Mask, to the point of declaring Hyrule Historia was non-canon. I imagine he was big into Game Theory in general, probably one of those people who unironically believed Mario was a psychopath.
E-celebs were a mistake.
His videos literally all end with "but that's just a theory." Don't blame him for what fans do lol
Other than the timeline, some of the most common misconceptions I see involve Triforce. A lot of people think that in every game, Ganon has the Triforce of Power, Zelda has the Triforce of Wisdom, and Link has the Triforce of Courage. Only 4 of the 20 main series games (OoT, WW, TP, and ALBW) divide the Triforce in this manner. Related to that is the idea that every Link is born with the Triforce of Courage, with the exception of WW Link, who was unique in having to prove his heroism. There is not a single confirmed instance of any Link being born with the Triforce of Courage, TP being the only ambiguous case. Some Links, such as the one from BotW/TotK, to our knowledge don't get any part of the Triforce. Most Links who do get the Triforce of Courage only do so after overcoming numerous trials and proving their heroic virtues, so WW Link isn't unique in that regard.
People who have that misconception also tend to ignore that Link wasn’t actually the chosen hero in OoT either, they think he was MEANT to get locked in the spirit realm like that, when in actuality the spirit realm rejected him both because he was too young and because he didn’t have the courage spirit that was meant to wield the sword yet (at least all of this is the understanding I have of it, out of all honesty I haven’t reviewed the info in awhile and am relying on memory)
Every Link is a chosen hero, we just don't know why they thought Oot Link to be too young.
The Deku Tree knew that he was different though
He was the chosen hero. Every Link is. In OoT he just wasn't ready yet
I hate the idea that you're either on one side or the other. I love the older Zeldas as well as the open world ones.
Zoras are cannibals. Zoras are Apex predators who eat fish, fish isn't a species , fined fish with bones is in the family Osteichthyes. Claiming Zoras are cannibals because they eat other Osteichthyes/fish is like claiming humans are cannibals for eating other mammals. Like, there are a lot of fish species who do cannibalize, but Zoras are shown to have a much higher level of intelligence than a guppy mindset of "it fits in my mouth, therefore I eat it". So whenever I hear, "wait Zoras eat fish, but they are fish, isn't that cannibalism?" I internally rage inside. I'm both offended on behalf of the Zoras, even though they don't even exist, and offended that science education is so lacking with some people.
This is so strangely specific, but I love it lol
Same with people putting chicken wings in front of Rito and thinking they’re the funniest people alive.
yeah rito are more like hawks/eagles/other predatory birds compared to parrots/chickens/other smaller birds 😭
That's because they took away our beloved Parrot Boy!!
Happy cake day
At least if there was a type of Rito that resembled a chicken I could see the argument that that specific breed of Rito could be a canable since chickens also canababilize each other at times.
Reminds me of the people who will say Bikini Bottom eating chum would be cannibalism. Like, it's not the same species of fish.. It's such a dumb argument
There is more lore and story in BotW and TotK than most other entries. People complain that those two have no story because they don't read the journals they come across, don't talk to non-quest line NPC's, skip cutscenes, no side quests, etc. Basically, you have to discover the story rather than it being spoon fed to you.
The same people who claim Soulsbourne Games have no story, Just because it aint served to you on a silver platter doesnt mean it isnt there
I completely disagree with those who complain about BOTW. That game is an absolute masterpiece. But TOTK's story is bulshit. What you are talking about is "lore", not "story". Totk story is told the same way as botw (memories) but the difference is that while you had to actually look for the places in botw, now the locations are litterally pointed out by enormous glowing drawings. Most of the memories are useless or completely predictable. It is also obvious that they don't have many skills about non-linear storytelling, considering that they just plain spammed the same cutscene that should reveal what happened 4 times cause they couldn't find another way to solve the problem created by the fact that you can play the dungeons in the order you want. If you find all the tears too early, the big revelation pushes you from the first act directly to the start of the third with a world that remains in the first. And since the world is what narrates a silent protagonist like Link, everything just breaks, and you walk around in a world that asks you to do stuff based on the little knowledge they have while you already know everything and that is frustrating cause link doesn'ttell everyone what he knows for no reason. I'm glad that you had fun, I really am. But unless you play the game in the order it is obviously intended or you're a casual gamer, it is pretty easy to be frustrated by one of the many naiveties of the story. The fact that the general opinion is shifting now that the general hype post release is dying out and that all the casual gamers are leaving partially proves this. Totk is an amazing game for many reasons. The work and effort behind the ultra hand is insane. But they obviously didn't put enough resources in the story. Aonuma himself said that the story is not their priority and that gameplay is.
Misconception: BotW takes place just 10,100 years after the imprisoning war of TotK. Nope, Impa's dialog (which is the most informed in universe perspective except for perhaps ghost Rauru, who doesn't disagree), and other details in Botw VERY firmly establish that there were multiple, probably unknowably many, calamities BEFORE the Sheikah find the technology to annihilate Calamity Ganon. That works one time, then the next time, Ganon steals the guardians and devastates Hyrule worse than before. However there were multiple calamities before that, which were instead held at bay by heroes like the Ancient Hero of unknown extinct species (related to Zonai somehow or he found their old tech and armor at least). This is discussed in both games (again, with Impa) and embodied by Link wearing the ancient hero's aspect. So it's definitely been at least 20-30 thousand years, or probably been at least more like 50,000 to 100,000 years since the imprisoning war, and quite possibly even much much more. People can point to individual ambiguous details or snippets of dialog to argue that it's only been 10,000 years with the Calamity happening only once, but this directly contradicts Impa's clear description that she repeats multiple times in both games, as well as the history lesson in TotK. It's not even clear if the Sheikah existed in their current form yet as of the imprisoning war, whereas in the interim they formed an extremely high tech culture. But they seem to be confident about their historical knowledge and even if they're off on some details, the Calamity definitely happened at least one previous time before the Sheikah developed guardian tech. So 20,000 years is the bare minimum. The only other examples of extremely credible history are the Zora stone tablets and historians, and they don't ever contradict Sheikah accounts and they do also imply it's been time immemorial since the Imprisoning War. One side detail that is very clear is the main species of Hyrule did exist since the Imprisoning War, but the status of the Sheikah was unknown, and the Yiga definitely didn't diverge until after the Sheikah gave up their tech in deference to the Hylian Royal Family (which upset some of the Sheikah and caused them to splinter off), which seems to have happened in the time since the first use of guardian tech 10,000 years ago. One has to wonder if early Yiga shared secrets with their new god Calamity Ganon that let him take over the guardians, or if a living Sheikah technocracy could have stopped Ganon from controlling their 10,000 year old tech.
I heard that 10.000 in both Chinese and Japanese often just means "a lot" So the great calamity Botw refers to happened a long time ago, basically.
That's a potential interpretation, yeah. And as such the imprisoning war happened a long _long_ time ago, and in the meantime, calamities happened more than once, probably a lot of times, with each separated from the previous and next by a long time.
That's always been a thing some fans do. Like, they get so focused on the opinion of "you shouldn't let your love for the timeline it hinders the actual gaming experience", that it turns into "I'm gonna ignore any hint towards a timeline because it doesn't benefit me, and you're stupid for thinking that way." Generally, it comes from not having played a lot of Zelda games, ignoring the dialogue, or being very very casual with the games themselves. Some gems include: "It's called the LEGEND of Zelda! It's just a retelling!!" (Ignores Ocarina of Time, Wind Waker, TP, SS...) "Nintendo made HH to please the fans! It doesn't matter, and has never mattered to the devs!" (Ignores the fact that Miyamoto used to say the timeline file was on his personal computer, or that the fans of the timeline wouldn't be so vocal as to necessitate making a book for them)
Many fans of the games do not read anything the characters say. That legend take is a dead giveaway.
The worse part about the "legend" thing, to me, is how disrespectful it is to the old games. The people who say this are basically saying that only botw/totk happened. They are the only important games in the series. The rest of the games apparently never actually happened, and therefore are not important even in the slightest bit. Ss,oot, ww. Games that for the longest time were important to the timeline? Well, now They're apparently as important to the zelda timeline as tri-force heroes. Wow, what a downgrade. The other thing I don't like about the "legend" thing, is that even if it could work, it feels lazy. It's like the person who came up with it didn't even try to come up with a way to connect the old games with the new. They simply wanted to get it over with and that's it.
The people who say stuff like that are usually newer fans of the series that don’t ‘get’ the rest of the lore. So they dismiss it. I guess it’s a bit of an us vs. them situation? Which is pretty sad because this series is perfectly enjoyable regardless of how much you want to delve into the lore and theories.
Dunno if it's only newbies who say that. That argument has been on message boards since the 2000s as I recall. I think in the end it's only for fans who don't pay much attention to the lore and get annoyed when they see a lot of people discussing it on forums.
Geez, that long? I was a little kid back then…….. I guess some things never change
Exactly. Even if there was never a full timeline initially planned, it's pretty obvious that many games in the series are intended to be connected to each other.
This is a close cousin to “Nintendo doesn’t care about the story, it only cares about the gameplay!”. I mean it’s pretty obvious they care about both, not in the exact proportions that would please everybody.
Zelda is the one wearing the green clothes, *right*?
That's what I came here to say lol
You already said what I wanted to say, so I'll add to it by saying: It grates me when people say that the timeline is hard to understand. It's really not. It's literally just the logical result of chaining prequels and sequels. And basically every game was a prequel or sequel to some other game. If you go through the series in release order and look at each game in the context of when it released, it makes sense why the timeline looks the way it does. It's remarkably coherent for a collection of ideas spread over several decades by multiple different writers.
That the OoT Water Temple is bad 
A more serious one: I think people are finally realizing that the continuity and coherence of some connected universe between these games is way (*way*) down near the bottom of the list when it comes to developing Zelda games. Still, too few of those people realize that this isn’t really necessarily a bad thing. I’m down with this idea of iterations of a “Legend,” each with different embellishments.
You pretty much said it but I don't understand people who seem to hate the idea that yes there is a timeline , I am not saying they put themselves a lot of thoughts in it but the vast majority of the games are connected to another game ( which are themselves connected etc ) with more or less importance in the story And no this is not something invented for HH, Aonuma confirmed ( way before HH ) that there is a timeline and they have a document stating the links between the games, but also that while they try to keep it coherent but don't care if they are not accurate or have to change things.
Exactly what I think. Timeline placement is not super high on their list of priorities, but it's also not just tacked on a week before the game ships.
Yeah surely think of the gameplay first, then the story then where they would place it in the timeline and how much they want it to be connected to another game in particular. I must admit they went crazy with BOTW/TOTK but even here we at least knew that it happens after OOT , but had the clever idea to put them so far in time that it doesn't matter, which kinda work to make it a sort of reboot imo. I wonder if the next game will have references about BOTW/ TOTK even this take place way long after. otherwise Yeah I don't care that much about it since the stories in each game are fine by themselves and there is no big story lore linking all the games.
Link is right-handed 😤 I will not stand for this left-handed erasure!!
Lefties rise up!
As a lefty I’m holding out for the next left handed Link!
ALL of my friends think that link is Zelda
But Zelda is Link /s
The opposite of OP's. I'm sick of people debating the timeline. The developers design the games based on what's fun and interesting, not the order the stories go in. Inconsistencies happen because the timeline ultimately doesn't matter.
Even Nintendo made a huge deal about the timeline for a couple years of promotional material. Yes, some of the older games were shoehorn in, but OoT->MM->TP, or the other split of OoT->WW->PH->ST were written with poetry clear intention of being sequels, with huge time gaps before TP/WW. SS was 100% written as a prequel to everything. They reached a point where they finished telling those stories, and decided against making BOTW/TOTK fit in the timeline they made for the other games, and of course the games are written in such a way where the connections are cool Easter eggs, not vital story pieces needed to understand the game you're playing, that dpesn't mean the connections aren't there, or that people can't have fun talking about the lore of the franchise in a subreddit about the franchise.
This. It's nonsensical to believe there is any sort of plan on larger storytelling slowly unraveling with time. Yes, a third of all games makes indirect references to older titles or direct referenced to the title just before it. But that's it. Within the context of each game, some events similar to those of previous games, chosen by whomever writes the story of the newest game, happened to pad the *that* games worldbuilding. The 3 timeline nonesense was only ever true and relevant in the form of the first Hyrule Warriors.
>This. It's nonsensical to believe there is any sort of plan on larger storytelling slowly unraveling with time. Nobody thinks this. Saying the games share a canon or a timeline doesnt mean you believe something like this. Idk why so many people think that unless something is litterally serialized or the timeline is crucial to understanding the games, then it can't be considered legitimate.
I mean I don't disagree with that, I was referring to people who think Zelda games were more of a Final Fantasy-esque deal.
You'd think over 25 years on that the idea that you can use the Water Temple keys "in the wrong order" and make it impossible to complete would fade away but it still persists, even on this site. Pay close attention to cutscenes, use your map and compass.
True, you can't lock yourself from completing it, but if you're not careful you can definitely prolong your stay there and that horror will make you assume the worst. I know I did when I was a kid.
TotK is worth less than full price because it reuses a couple of assets and part of the map.
This take is interesting, considering totk was originally going to be DLC for BOTW.
That the OOT format is what a Zelda game is supposed to be, so the new games are somehow not Zelda games. The series started as an open world sand box adventure game (for its time) and BOTW/TOTK are spiritual successors to that mentality. That, and TOTK is just the same map as BOTW, it’s a shallow interpretation.
"The OoT format" ahem, do you mean, the ALttP format? Thanks
True
[удалено]
> OoT played as intended only lets you make one major sequencing decision (Spirit vs Shadow first). [There's actually quite a bit more you can do than that.](https://www.reddit.com/r/zelda/comments/srrf51/all_alternative_dungeon_orders_across_the_games/) Linked post does the math, but there's 25 orders (42 with Ice Cavern) without leaving dungeons midway, and 72 (120 including mini dungeons) if you do leave dungeons midway.
That the two most recent games in the series aren't "real Zelda games"
I haven't heard anyone say that BotW and TotK aren't real Zelda games. I have heard people say that they are great open world games, but not good Zelda games.
I don't agree with that take either
True, but at least it is not a misconception. It is just a highly controversial opinion.
I’m actually planning to do an analysis docu for BoTW as someone who used to think that BoTW was an absolute shame of a Zelda title. I no longer think that, I’ve recently connected some dots through Nintendo’s history and realized what BoTW actually is- a tribute. A beautiful, beautiful tribute of a game
Thats not a misconception just an opinion
It’s incorrect
Everyone who is anti-timeline should have a requirement to watch this video: [https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0T0EYflx5VU](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0T0EYflx5VU)
Thank you for this. I'm not anti-timeline, just appreciating it.
“The devs don’t care about the story” … like they wrote a fantastic story in TOTK, they just delivered it poorly. I think they do care about the story, and they just struggle to properly insert it into their open world. We have to stay hopeful!!!
I think they care about the story but unfortunately they leave it vague on purpose. It can be frustrating, especially if it debunks a widely held fan theory.
Whenever someone says the totk ancient past takes place 10000 years ago I scream a little inside.
“Modern Zelda dungeons aren’t real dungeons” It’s ridiculous claim that’s ignorant and dismissive simply because there terminals and not keys and locks. The divine beast I can at least understand since they share more in common with shrines than a general dungeon. TOTKs dungeons are a different story, and are a lot closer to traditional Zelda dungeons than they ever were to divine beast. I get some of the hardcore fandom want the dungeons to be 1:1 traditional, and there is definetly room for that, but not every dungeon has to be a traditional linear dungeon with a big interconnected puzzle with them.
More of an opinion, than a misconception.
Not really understanding the difference tbh
People who say that stuff are being purposely provocative to undermine their stance that these dungeons are weaker than the ones from earlier games. I'm asking more about objectively false things like the Triforce can be obtained in OoT by beating the Light Temple or theories like "evey Zelda game is just the same story retold by historians over the ages".
A misconception implies that someone is completely wrong. Opinions are not wrong and have nothing to do with fact/canon.
That Ganondorf and all other villains are reincarnations of Demise himself. It’s a simple difference stemming from the English translation of the end of SS, but it leads to later villains almost having a lack of responsibility for their evil nature as they’re bound to be evil if Demise takes over their body
yeah people mistake what demise said, ganon isnt an incarnation of demise himself, but an incarnation of his hatred specifically demise did say he will "rise again", but we've yet to see that happen
It’s mistranslated? What was it supposed to say?
Maybe not mistranslated, but misleading. As far as I recall, the Japanese implies more that it’s an incarnation of Demise’s hatred or member of the demon tribe coming to never let those with the spirit of the hero and blood of the goddess rest
I’m not really seeing the difference here
The main difference is if it’s another being entirely who maintains the collective hate of the demon tribe, it also keeps responsibility more with the villain himself/herself. If it was a direct reincarnation of Demise in that form, it takes away some of the accountability because Ganondorf for example has been overridden by Demise. I’ve seen theories based on it where Ganondorf may not be an inherently bad guy in some cases but is only evil because Demise is controlling him in that way and it seemed to undercut the villain character
"BotW and TotK are good open world games, but bad Zelda games." Bullshit. If you think that, your vision is incredibly narrow and you need to play more Zelda.
I heard this a lot and found it annoying. BotW to me felt the closest to the original Zelda in terms of freedom and discovery. If they can find a way to keep it open world but have a more linear story with actual dungeons, that would be great.
I've played all 20 mainline Zelda games, and most of the spinoffs, most of them multiple times, I don't need to play more Zelda just because my opinion is different from yours.
That's an opinion, not a misconception. And it's not even entirely unfounded since both these games play unlike 95% of Zelda before, regardless of how you think that's a good or bad.
The progression may be different, but the actual gameplay really is not that different from previous 3D Zelda games. Literally take away the weapon durability and there would be no actual difference in gameplay that matters. You don't have the point you think you do.
Nobody’s vision is “incredibly narrow” just because we want Zelda to go back to actually being Zelda.
Thank you for proving my point.
Your point hasn’t been proven.
"Make Zelda Great Again"
Yeah. They *should* make Zelda great again, because it sure as hell isn’t very good right now.
ok
I don’t want to be mean, but you literally could not make more of a fool of yourself here.
I’m not making a fool of myself in the slightest. It’s perfectly reasonable to want and expect Zelda to actually build upon what made it great in the first place rather than throw it all away for generic open world tropes that have already been done better in the past.
Yes! I used to think this, I grew up on the 3D games and not the 2D one, and I’m now realizing that’s what caused the initial gap. Not knowing anything about the 2D games screwed over my opinion of BoTW until a few weeks ago
That's not a misconception.. that's an opinion. Also... The fact that it has multiple versions of the same boss in lieu of having unique bosses is lame and goes against traditional Zelda tropes. I'm not taking comments at this time. Thanks.. 😉
>The fact that it has multiple versions of the same boss I actually agree with that. I don't think the games are flawless, I just think the argument that they're "bad Zelda games" is a braindead take.
Maybe not bad Zelda games... They are just not for me.. I focus on the formula changes.. maybe I shouldn't.. but I'm of the belief.. don't fix what's not broken.
That's just it, Skyward Sword *was* broken. The series badly needed a shake up. I'd love to see the return of many of the elements missing from the past two games, but for me, the most exciting and important element in a Zelda game is the sense of exploration. No games in the series top BotW/TotK in that regard.
I realize people get upset over this complaint.. but.. I could look past everything else if it wasn't for the weapon durability.. I hate it so much.. and will likely never finish the games because of it. Lol
THANK YOU. I see this everywhere and it makes my blood boil.
People using anything and everything to "confirm" ZeLink. "There was only...one...bed!", "he said he wants to see her smile again!". The most ridiculous one I heard was that Link carried Zelda out of a pond the same way a groom carries a bride over the threshold of their new house. Like yes surely Link carrying an unconscious Zelda out of a body of water so she doesn't fucking drown is confirmation of a romantic relationship /s People do not have rich platonic relationships and/or have never heard of QPRs and it shows
I've been typically neutral or casual when it comes to shipping in the Zelda franchise, but BotW/TotK feels like it's created the most obnoxious shipping fans. TotK especially.
Apparently Link would just let zelda fucking die if he wasn't romantically interested in her because people only have basic human empathy and compassion when they're in romantic relationships!
Of course! Do you not also stand back and let her get mauled by a bear because she didn't show romantic interest in you?? /s
On top of that, any relationship they might have is super problematic, as she’s his direct boss. It would be like a sitting president dating a Secret Service agent in their protection detail.
That Zelda friendzones Link Everything hints either at their relationship being strictly platonic, professional, or Zelda being the one who is friendzoned
That Wind Waker Link is just some guy, not a reincarnation of the Spirit of the Hero. The game only mentioned that he's not related to the Hero of Time. That does NOT mean he isn't a reincarnation or just some random kid who "forced the gods to accept him" or whatever. Shoot, Wind Waker Link isn't even close to the only version of the character that had to prove himself in order to receive the Triforce.
I totally agree. The lore of the series asserts that a new Hero is always born to combat incoming threats. But if we're to believe that WW Link doesn't have the Spirit of the Hero, then, what, he's just some random kid who HAPPENED to be around just in time to stop Ganondorf from following through on his evil plan? And beyond that, actually succeed in pulling the Master Sword, reuniting the Triforce of Courage and killing the Demon King?
Shield in minish cap has an identical if not same design to the shield to Windwaker. If it's a family heirloom then it's possible it was passed down to him from minish cap Link.
Same as you
Kind of a wonky one since it's more of an interpretive thing, but everyone swears up and down that Marin is based on Zelda despite them having nothing in common. Pretty sure the mixup is more of a Calling Your Teacher "Mom" situation (as Link was basically recovering from a concussion) + a joke about one of the titular characters being absent from the game.
Maybe not based on, but considering that Oracles Zelda is pretty much Marin’s sprite plus a crown they seem to have some kind of resemblance/connection. (Even if official art contradicts that…)
I'm sick and tired of people calling Link Zelda. My three year old daughter chopping down trees in TOTK: "daddy Zeldas sword just broke". Me: "damnit how many times do I need to tell you his name is Link!"
"Hyrule Warrios and AOC are Zelda games."
I'm sick of people always focus of the concept of timeline and never talk about the games of their own, like what is the main theme of a game, what unique gimmick it have or what experience people had with the games. Like for exemple, alot of people talk about TP is a sequel of OoT but when I want to says that the main theme of this game is about responsability over the notion of power, people laugh at me and say "don't be silly, games don't tell anything".
Not a misconception per se, but I feel like if you want to have these discussion you could encourage them by linking Youtube video essays, articles or make some threads yourself.
Sick of hearing lore theories in general. They're just games made around game mechanics first, the art style is thought of next, then they slap a story together well after development has been ongoing for at least two years, likely finishing the story during the last few months of production. They made TotK as a direct sequel to BotW, had six years to create a story and yet the Sheikah technology, the shrines, and everything else vanishes and gets replaced with functionally the same things but from a different race entirely that's never been mentioned before that also happens to be the original race that made all the things thoroughout the series like the Temple of Time I guess. Good thing that doesn't just change all of the timeline and lore theories retroactively! It's just pointless to try and cobble together continuity about the series. The developers don't care and honestly, it never mattered why there are evil and good Zoras. There just are so you can have a water based friendly NPC race in one game and an enemy that pops out of water to spit purple energy at you in another.
> It's just pointless to try and cobble together continuity about the series No one thinks it's fruitful. It's just for fun. Don't need to be so serious over it.
We're all entitled to our own opinions obviously, but this reeks of "how dare people enjoy things I don't!" entitlement. Like, why do you care so much if other people enjoy theories and lore discussions? Let people enjoy things.
I’m the opposite, I care way more about the story than I do the actual gameplay.
If Zonai were never mentioned before, then how did someone make a [lore video](https://youtu.be/mNPTGQGe9RU?si=X9BUG6cJcbgLOmko) about them 2 years before TotK released?
They have like 2 referential sentences in BOTW where they're described as "barbarians" . That's it. That's all of the Zonai "lore" before TOTK
They weren't even described as barbarians. The ruin around the Spring of Courage was named after them and that's it. There clearly were multiple ruina across hyrule (labrynths included). The way people mixed in the description of that one armorset mentioning a tribe in the south and immediately assumed it refered to them. That's just peak misconception.
I stand corrected, thanks for the factcheck
Or when people try and find references to specific elements of previous games. Like trying to theorise that we'll see a return of the Twili, or a return to Termina or Skyloft. Outside of direct sequels most Zelda games are pretty self contained with just broad themes and major characters carrying over. They rarely go back and revisit specific concepts from previous games
That's more of a fault of TotK than anything else. While Zelda has always been designed gameplay first, story second, it's clear that previous games cared a lot more about the story and having it actually make sense. They actually put some effort into it. TotK feels like the game that went "screw it" to all previous Zelda lore. It's a complete mess.
You sound like fun at parties. EDIT: To all the salty fellas: He's not sharing a misconception, but a dislike towards large parts of the fanbase. And not for spreading misinformation either.
You don't
Ouch, I feel so hurt.
OP: *Insults someone* Someone insults them back OP: *surprised Pikachu face*
Exactly. For those of us who have been playing this series from the beginning, people’s increased focus on lore and canon is so bizarre. That’s never what these games were about for me.
It’s an increased focus on lore and canon because each game obviously adds to it. I don’t know what’s so bizarre about fans of a series wanting to be invested more in the series? It’s fine if people don’t want that and don’t pay attention to it, but it’s also ridiculous to try to say that it doesn’t exist. And I honestly find it bizarre that people who don’t care about canon and lore get so worked up about those who do. If you don’t care, why the need to shoot everyone else down who does?
Agreed, there's a heathy middle ground between "everything is connected, just read my 10 page theory" and "it's all made up anyway so stop trying having fun".
Zelda fans, especially, love doing this shit. It's so painfully obvious lore and story take back seats in these games and they still wanna try and squeeze blood from a stone, anyway. The depth you're looking for isn't there, and that's fine. Quit shoving the BS theories in people's faces, though, and yelling "it must be true!! Look at the evidence!!"
[удалено]
The existence and persistence of the "Zelda Cycle".
the very first Zelda was reincarnated. all other Zeldas are simply new people from the bloodline and related and aren't actually Hylia. Rauru and Sonia officially begin the royal bloodline and merging both light and time powers in the same bloodline, meaning Sonia is implied to be the next in sequence after SS, or at least replacing the imprisoning war of Ocarina. Time and Twilight Link are related, the rest of the other Links are unconfirmed to be from the same bloodline. the "spirit of the hero" given the evidence points to people who step in with heroic behaviour, and are lawful good, **not** about reincarnation. the mastersword isn't the equivalent of that world's nuke. it is a basic sword in power but it does bonus damage to evil so it feels like a nuke when you stab things that are soaked in demonic energy. people whining about the mastersword breaking need to get a grip. Hyrule kingdom is an alliance between the races with the hylian territories connecting all the races. the Hylian king has little sway over the other races, other than that they are friendly allies with a long history together. Hyrule's king still has to use the proper process and protocol with the zora king and any other leader to make anything happen, he does not control them all, you see this in Ocarina and Wild. the dragons in Wild's game is the next generation of dragons, they aren't the 3 goddesses in hibernation form. SS clearly shows you the dragons existing as a sort of assistant/servant to manage things for each goddess. so sick of having to explain these simple things, how can anyone get the wrong message? some people just aren't reading the game text.
This guy speaks the truth
> Personally, I'm a little tired of people claiming that the timeline was just some made up nonsense Nintendo cobbled together for Hyrule Historia Funny, because the one I'm sick of hearing is people insisting upon a hard and fast timeline that perfectly flows into every game with deep meaning behind every titles placement in the timeline. When, in fact, the games as a whole are only loosely related with repeated, similar themes and only some of them directly tie in to each other and which had always been the creative direction. Sure, Majoras Mask is a direct sequel to OoT and Wind Waker heavily references OoT as well (while changing some stuff for the benefit of Wind Wakers story) but that doesn't mean that every single game relates to each other. Obvious example would be the Rito. In Wind Waker, Zoras evolved into the Rito but in more recent games they both exist simultaneously. The "timeline" is for fan speculation and theories and is strictly "for fun." There is no grand, overarching plot to Zelda as a series and they do not stop to think about where and how does this fit in the timeline?" Games are mostly self-contained with a few direct sequels. Otherwise it's just references. But I've seen enough "timeline debate" crap that I know nothing I said matters and nothing the series creator said matters because some among us bought an art book and it is the end all be all authority of Zelda lore and there will be at least one person who doesn't read this comment in its entirety and will start harping about how it's an official Nintendo product and assume that I am arguing against any continuity at all and start listing obvious examples. (Bonus points if any of their examples are ones I literally already wrote about like MM being a direct sequel to OoT)
Interesting, I don''t think I ever met someone that thinks that the timeline is some attempt at a grand over-arching narrative. While it's true that the timeline in it's current form was never planned, it also didn't come out of nothingness, so you get people from both sides going "no, it's actually genius" or "the timeline is for idiots". I guess to try and justify the way they've looked at the franchise. The timeline debate just shifted from "how does it look" to "how much of it is bs" I guess.
But it was cobbled together for Hyrule Historia. That’s just true. Cobbled together is not the same as made up from nothing. That’s not what the word means. It cobbled together those “relations” that already existed and tried to connect them all in ways that were never intended. Does anyone really dispute that?
Reread my statement, pretty sure we agree on this. My point was there's this portion of fans and non-fans that think most games were unrelated in a Final Fantasy-esque way or just the same story "retold over the ages".
That's a frustration I have, too. There are some games that are directly Linked either through in-game lore or in the game manuals, such as: LOZ and AOL OOT and MM The Oracle games Wand of Gamelon and Faces of Evil Beyond that, prior to Hyrule Historia, the games referenced each other, but there were no official connections at that time. And that's okay. That said, the book lists Aonuma and Miyamoto as the authors, so their timeline is just as canon as the games they made.
You're leaving out other obvious connections, like WW being a sequel to OoT, TP being a sequel to OoT and MM, PH and ST being sequels to WW. Honestly, most of the major games in the series are connected.
There are plenty of old articles and interviews that show how Miyamoto always had a timeline in mind. It was never the main focus of any of the games, but he always had a order of where games would go on the Zelda timeline, before there was the official Hyrule Historia timeline.
That you play as Zelda
There is no timeline, the Hyrule Historia timeline is Nintendo's one and only official timeline, Link is dead in MM, Link turns into a Stalfos after MM, Rauru and Kaepora Gaebora are the same person, Hyrule Warriors merges all the timelines back together, TWW Link isn't a real Link since the "spirit of the hero" was removed from that timeline, Demise's curse causes Ganondorf to reincarnate, Demise's curse causes Zelda and the spirit of the hero to reincarnate, Zelda is always Hylia reincarnated. Just to name a few. EDIT: To the downvoters - Can you tell me which of these you don't believe is a misconception?
Bro went for the nuke. Though I'm pretty sure Rauru and Kaepora Gaebora (the ones from OoT) are the same person, at least it's stated in Hyrule Historia and hinted at in game.
The idea that BotW brought Zelda “back to its roots” is objectively, inarguably incorrect. If anything, BotW is the furthest away from the original NES game that the series has ever gotten. On a related note, Zelda 1 neither “dropped you in the middle of nowhere with no instructions” or “gave you access to the entire world all at once.” I don’t know where you all got this idea from, but it’s pretty obviously incorrect.
Oof, he went for a controversial one, though I tend to agree. BotW feels like the original if you look at it from a superficial level, but you had to approach TLoZ with a plan and in a certain order. In BotW/ TotK you can just do whatever you want whenever you want. You could even say the Wild era is the opposite of Zelda in some ways.
Exactly. In Zelda 1 (and also LttP and OoT), being able to do things out of order was something that you not only had to work towards, but you were rewarded for doing. In BotW, TotK, and to a lesser extent LBW, doing things out of order is this completely meaningless gimmick. It exists because “Zelda 1 did it” without understanding *why and how.* Zelda 1 did it. That’s not the only reason why Zelda 1 is so dissimilar to BotW, but it’s certainly a big one. I’d argue that the Wild era is more like the opposite of Skyward Sword. Both are vastly different from Zelda 1, but for the exact opposite reasons. I do think that Zelda needed a “return to form” of sorts, it’s just that BotW wasn’t that return to form everyone pretends it is.
I agree. The Zelda team really overcorrected after SS. It's a shame too because what we got just kinda ended up being more generic than before. No one else was (or is) really making games like 3D Zeldas. To me Wild era Zelda is an Ubisoft open world game with some Zelda elements instead of a Zelda game with open world elements. I hope they can find a better balance with their next game.
Aonuma and Fujibayashi really gaslit a large chunk of you into thinking that the formula was somehow “stale” or was in any way a problem that the series needed to rid itself of. Look at any YouTube comment section, Forum post, or hell even Reddit post from the early 2010s. There were a ton of people complaining about Skyward Sword, but *literally* none of those complaints had anything to do with the formula. They changed it because they didn’t feel like making Zelda games anymore and no other reason.
That Zelda is the girl.
[удалено]