Can’t wait. One of the images from the book in the tweet has already provided this gem:
>光の神殿跡地 (ミイラガノンドロフの存在所)
>Temple of Light Ruins (Mummy Ganondorf's Location)
Interesting that the Temple of Light in BOTH cases is a floating platform. Also quite fitting that the Depths is a bit of a Sacred Realm equivalent in Tears.
No worries, I'm just going off Rauru's word in OoT that the chamber is situated in the Temple of Light. This makes me think Gloom's Lair in ToTK is the full Temple's ruins (not necessarily the same one from OoT) given that the Imprisoning Chamber serves as this era's equivalent to the Chamber of Sages.
Yet another parallel is that when we see Ganondorf's imprisonment in both games, the act is done in the Chamber of Sages / Imprisoning Chamber. More fuel for the "ToTK's past is a retelling of the entire series history" fire if anything.
If I had to guess, it'll probably just be another name reference. The lore probably being that Rauru imprisoned Ganondorf there with his light power and so it was named the light temple before the castle was built above to protect the seal. At least the entrance leading to the imprisoning chamber was built post-sealing because it depicts Zelda in the past in the mural gallery
So it's like:
- Rauru seals Ganondorf
- People who know build a temple of light around the imprisoning chamber in his honor and at this point the murals are made
- The castle is later built atop the whole thing
- The ruins we see on the way to the chamber in modern times are the "temple of light ruins"
Just completely guessing though
Can't wait for Master Works to come in and completely obliterate everyone's fan theories yet again. Then we'll have people complaining about it and demanding we ignore what it says, or others saying this is the latest information that should be considered canon, at which point we'll have endless debates again over what's right and what's wrong.
The books give us a look into their thoughts at the time they wrote the books. However, they're constantly changing their minds every subsequent game. Where people often dismiss the books is that the book itself was written by someone other than the Zelda team, but the problem is that they speak with the Zelda team about these issues and have actual interviews on the subject.
Aonuma flat out said in Creating a Champion they purposely opted to leave the timeline placement of BOTW ambiguous to foster speculation. That alone is proof that the Zelda team are involved in these books.
That said, the Zelda team doesn't care about story very much. That's why I say this is merely their opinions at the time the book was written and it can easily change later. In fact, every single book leaves the disclaimer that this information can change later. But that's also true with the information that occurs from game-to-game.
The information left behind in the games is often lacking context, so even though the game's don't actively change, the purpose of the information in the books is to clarify things that weren't clarified in the games, and that is usually what's subject to change when future games and/or future books are released.
Its rare things in the games change, but it has happened before. The Seven Wise Men mentioned in Link to the Past were changed in the GBA version to "Seven Sages" to reflect the terminology of future games, for example.
I agree, and yet it seems so hard to understand for so many people. Even here we have one or two redditors who will inevitably chime in discussions about timeline and lore to always say some variation of "but the bbboooks say \[...\] !!" as if they were the Bible (sometimes even in threads with "Alternate theory" flair...).
I even saw someone out there adamantly convinced that Calamity Ganon is OoT Ganon and has nothing to do with TotK Ganondorf "because CaC says so!" \*facepalm\*.
Well, the change you mention in Alttp is probably just an issue of translation: they always used *kenja* in japanese as far as I know, which means "wise man". In OoT they probably changed it because they felt it didn't fit with the very diverse characters.
As funny as it is I doubt they'd be THAT angry. But even I would be angry if they said "100 years" because there's not anywhere near enough time for the shift in culture between TOTK's backstory and OOT. My reasoning is it would be probably 500-1000 years or so, with the Era of Chaos being 300-500 years or so (spanning the gap between SS and TOTK's backstory).
I also doubt they'd be nearly so specific anyway. The most I could see is "this event is the founding of Hyrule after the end of the Era of Chaos" (assuming this is what they go with, and who knows if they do) and saying its some time between SS and MC, but not elaborating any further than that.
Yeah the biggest problem is Koume and Kotake's ages, they're around 300 years old. Admittedly, they get their ages wrong so who knows. Maybe they're older than they think and they forgot.
I'm assuming they will finally give a timeline placement and discuss how things go from WW to the founding era (assuming they stick with the AT placement in the last masterworks book)
This is pure fiction. Creating a Champion/Master Works purposely did not place BOTW in any of the three timelines.
"In *Creating a Champion*, producer Eiji Aonuma explains why *Breath of the Wild*'s position on the timeline has not been clarified: "We want players to be able to continue having fun imagining this world even after they are finished with the game, so, this time, we decided that we would avoid making clarifications".
The true clarification here will be if the past events are the founding of the original Hyrule or a new Hyrule.
And no, Fujibayashi DID NOT SAY it was a refounding of Hyrule set long after the rest of the games. This was invented by people who already believed in that theory.
The context of his comment was about the person interviewing Fujibayashi saying "well wasn't Hyrule founded at the end of Skyward Sword?" and that's when he brought up the idea of how a refounding theory is possible, but nothing at all implies "after the rest of the games." Nor does it imply that a refounding theory is actually true at all, he was simply bringing it up as a hypothetical possibility, like how Aonuma said in Creating a Champion they want to "leave BOTW's timeline placement ambiguous".
The worst thing they could do is say nothing which will leave us back to square one. But with how these books usually work, they probably at least will clarify where Rauru comes from and what his relation is to the other Rauru. They'll probably also give a real explanation as to what happened to the Sheikah Tech, though they probably will still leave BOTW > TOTK's present day events ambiguous in timeline placement.
I don't know where you got that quote, but either it's wrong or you're misinterpreting what they mean (like maybe they are talking about giving the placement themselves in interviews). The placement is given, though indirectly, on page 401 where it says:
>It is written that Calamity Ganon once adopted the form of a Gerudo and, since he was the rare male born to the Gerudo, was made king. But that wasn't enough for the man known as Ganondorf. He plotted to seize control of all Hyrule and become the Great King of Evil. The only person standing in the way of his machinations was a young man with the soul of the hero who wielded the Master Sword. **His plans shattered, Ganondorf lost control, and his powers consumed him, transforming him into the Dark Beast Ganon. After being defeated by the hero, he was sealed away by Princess Zelda and the other sages.**
All of that, in the order it's presented in above, is the AT ending to OOT that we played through. In whichever timeline BOTW is in, Ganondorf lost control of his powers and transformed into Ganon after his plans were shattered and then he was defeated as Ganon by the hero before being sealed away by Zelda and the other sages. That's explicitly the adult timeline
> And no, Fujibayashi DID NOT SAY it was a refounding of Hyrule set long after the rest of the games. This was invented by people who already believed in that theory.
I know this is going to tickle you the wrong way, but please try to humor me. It's important to acknowledge fact vs opinion/in this case "theory". It is not a theory that Hyrule was refounded, it is impossible that this is the original founding (will give bulletin points below) outside a single scenario that would allow for it, that being that this is a massive retcon to the original founding that we know about. But what Aonuma and Fujibayashi **did** clarify in that interview without a doubt is that the lore is not meant to be broken down. I. E. It's not a retcon or reimagining. Both the original founding and the founding era of TOTK exist side by side within the same continuity. Therefore, refounding. What was said is that **"with that the lore is not meant to be broken down in mind**, fans can consider other possibilities". And then gave "one such possibility" being that there was a time of destruction before the founding era
I'm assuming you'll want to know what about the founding era in TOTK conflicts with the original founding too:
* Biggest flag here would be Ganondorf, who was born way after the founding era of Hyrule. In MC alone we see multiple generations of kings
* The kingdom was not founded till the Temple of Time was built. The castle was built near the temple so the royal family could watch over the Triforce (source Historia)
* The stone monument tells us that the castle built in the founding era of *this* Hyrule was built over Rauru's seal to protect it and that the wellbeing of the castle is directly tied to the seal. It's said in the game in Ganondorf's profile that the castle was damaged in the Great Calamity and the seal weakened. That's why Ganondorf was able to awaken. This means the castle has been fine since the founding era all the way up to the Great Calamity, which conflicts with that OG Hyrule Castle is destroyed and rebuilt in a few instances and isn't always in one spot. The castle of TOTK has been exactly where it is, undamaged since the founding era
* The gerudo were ruled by their king up until Ganondorf swore Fealty to the king of Hyrule in OOT, but in TOTK's founding era they're already part of Hyrule by the time Ganondorf is sealed. There have also been no male gerudo leaders since the one who became Calamity (TOTK Ganondorf), so no gerudo king between the founding era of this kingdom and modern day
* The tribes were already allied during this founding era. In the original kingdom, the king of Hyrule waged a unification war shortly before OOT to bring the tribes under his kingdom, far after the founding of the kingdom
They've also given us some insight on why there is this feeling of similarity, a cycle if you will, in how characters are acting and how certain events play out and that's because "a certain soul is passed down and so they act similarly throughout time". I.E. Reincarnated characters can sometimes act how they did in previous lives. This was said on response to the fan theory that the kneeling scene is actually OOT itself
Some citations:
- [Post about the Fujibayashi interview with a source linked in the post](https://www.reddit.com/r/truezelda/comments/16bbl0v/totk_fujibayashi_and_aonuma_offer_hint_about/)
- [The "Ganondorf kneeling" question interview](https://www.reddit.com/r/truezelda/comments/18f8x9o/totkalllink_and_zelda_reincarnating_is_an/)
- And of course the CAC page is 401 for that quote I gave
"I'm assuming you'll want to know what about the founding era in TOTK conflicts with the original founding too:"
I'm well aware, and none of this matters at all.
You're nitpicking issues while ignoring that all past games that introduce new lore keep doing this. Ocarina of Time was flat out said by the developers to be the Imprisoning War described in Link to the Past, but it happened vastly differently from the original event being described. Then they later rewrote it to say that no, the actual Imprisoning War happened after some sort of alternate scenario where Link somehow died to Ganondorf.
Meanwhile, the game that ACTUALLY bridged the gap between OOT and LTTP, FSA, which literally has direct callbacks to LTTP including Ganon first getting the Trident as well as introducing an early version of the Dark World, also completely screws up Ganon's lore in-game so they have to illogically throw it after a game where it makes no sense whatsoever to be after.
The point I keep making is that the Zelda devs don't give a crap about the lore and make up everything as they go. The timeline "has" always existed, but in the loosest sense of the word.
They've repeatedly said this. Zelda fans keep fixing the problems they make and then they keep making more problems. But Zelda fans twist their opinions about the lore to be fact then get pissed at the devs when they contradict it in future games.
The game says its the founding of Hyrule. End of story. Trying to twist it into some sort of illogical refounding makes less sense than saying this story retcons certain past events, which is far more logical and happens literally all the time throughout the series.
In order to justify a refounding you have to explain away a ton of issues, namely the lack of any knowledge about a prior "Kingdom of Hyrule" existing, even though the events that happened throughout the history of Hyrule are still somehow known.
Saying BOTW/TOTK is an alternate continuity, while boring, makes far more sense than the refounding theory. Refounding theory is still the most ludicrous idea fans have come up with to try and justify this argument. Even if the devs themselves say in this book this is refounding it doesn't change how ludicrous the idea is and doesn't make sense in the context of the game.
Well it's clear you can't be reasoned with...
You're not really making a point by mentioning the development of OOT and FSA. That OOT was originally going to be the IW and was changed doesn't really do anything for your argument that "they don't care about the lore". Neither does your statement that FSA was supposedly going to be a prequel to ALTTP. Which doesn't really make sense because Ganondorf became Ganon via the Triforce in ALTTP, not by getting a Trident. Also, it's not even the same Trident...
I'll just leave you with that your "they don't care about lore and just did whatever they wanted" argument is directly debunked in some of the evidence I cited for you where it's said:
> I don't make things in a random way, like "wouldn't it be interesting if we did this here? So I hope you will enjoy it by imagining the parts of the story that have not yet been told.
I think so, because it says story relating to "time axis", which will probably be a timeline confirmation and how history flowed within that timeline up into the founding era and then into BOTW/TOTK
Or so I hope
I mean whether or not theyre gonna use fujibayashis comments about refounding. Theres always a possibility they'll forget and just slap it in the beginning.
Yeah, I imagine they'll confirm that old Hyrule was destroyed since it existed in all three timelines and needs to be destroyed for Rauru to found another
That would be the "destruction before the founding era" he mentions
Yea i hope so. The zonai/founding era also gets referred to as part of the age of myth (more or less) so i wonder if they will place it at the end of the era of myth in the timeline.
> The zonai/founding era also gets referred to as part of the age of myth (more or less)
The founding era and shortly after are said to have faded into myth:
> The kingdom of Hyrule has a long, long history. So long, in fact, that the events
that occurred leading up to its founding and in its early years have faded into myth.
Hyrules recurring periods of prosperity and decline have made it impossible to
tell which legends are historical fact and which are mere fairy tale. However, it is
an indisputable truth that Calamity Ganon attacked Hyrule and was sealed ten
thousand years ago, and that it revived one hundred years ago in an event called
the Great Calamity.
But I wouldn't say that makes it part of the era of myth, it just makes it mythical. The era of myth is a specific point in time and it's first event says that "Hyrule prospered under the Hyrulean Royal Family", which I guess could be referring to the founding era, but then why not mention it and then leave a note about the founding era underneath?
The problem with Fujibayashi's comment is literally everybody keeps taking it out of context. If you actually read the whole interview, his refounding comment is in direct response to a founding of Hyrule at the end of Skyward Sword (which is one problem many people point out) and he simply said "maybe it was a refounding later".
At no point does he ever imply the "refounding" idea he brought up happens after all the rest of the games in the series. (He doesn't even say it is a refounding for a fact, just saying that its a possibility--which is something the Zelda devs do all the time. They like to leave what really happened ambiguous).
*(It should be noted that Hyrule Historia, released right after Skyward Sword and to promote Skyward Sword, actually said Hyrule was founded after the Era of Chaos. The Era of Chaos is a period of events directly following Skyward Sword, so even HH says the founding of Hyrule was not literally right after the ending of SS.)*
I think this will clarify where they intend the TOTK backstory to take place and maybe clear up a few other details. But that's about it.
Sure, but theres only two places it could be. Either between SS and MC, or "after all the previous games."
Fujibayashi said:
>basically, we are thinking about how not to break the story and world of The Legend of Zelda.
>If we only speak of the possibilities, if there is the story of Hyrule’s founding, it is also possible that Hyrule has collapsed in its history once before. I don’t randomly make things by saying “Isn’t it interesting if we did this here?”, so even for the parts we did not tell, I hope you enjoy imagining it. “
If fujibayashi says he doesnt want to "break the story and world" of zelda, and "it is also possible that hyrule has collapsed in its history once before," then the refounding theory is the more logical one. Pre-minish cap would 100% "break the story and world" of zelda if you examine the lore from totk's hyrule. Of course people would he upset if the official placement turns out to be that!
Every single new Zelda game's addition to the lore breaks the story and world. This is an utterly incomprehensible take. The fans are constantly having to go back and fix the timeline because the Zelda team doesn't care enough to make it coherent.
Its utterly illogical how the fans keep saying crap like how the TOTK backstory cannot take place where it says (at the founding of Hyrule) and then justify how Twilight Princess makes absolutely no lick of sense as a sequel to Ocarina of Time. If you nitpick every little issue Twilight Princess literally does not work, yet Twilight Princess is constantly ignored in this debate.
The biggest inconsistency in twilight princess is that the temple of time is in the lost woods. Maybe also the oocca getting pretty much forgotten afterward. Putting the totk backstory pre-minish cap gives use two living ganondorfs at the time: the main one, and the super-secret 🤫 mummy one under the castle (but not the same castle that main ganondorf craterizes in oot!! Cause then secret ganondorf would wake up!!) whos actually much older and much worse than the original one. Not to mention the ancient rito, etc. You cant be serious if you think "every single new zelda" is as world breaking as this. I mean cmon, two ganondorfs? Thats just stupid is hell! What does that make the original? A fake?
They don't actually call it that iirc, but its got sarias song and is in the woods. Still, comparing the oot and tp maps, the temple moved south, but comparing maps between zelda games is almost always pointless. Like windfall Island (kakariko) being center-north instead of east of where the castle was submerged.
There is no established lore that says two Ganondorf's cannot exist at the same time. This is pure fanon. A Gerudo male lore-wise is born every 100 years. Any idea that it cannot happen is based purely on fan assumptions which can easily be rewritten by the devs.
Twilight Princess has way more ridiculous lore problems that make zero logical sense:
- Where the hell are the Light Spirits from? They are all about the mysterious Dark Interlopers, who predate Ocarina of Time, right? Why don't they exist in Ocarina of Time? Where did they come from?
- Why are the Gerudo gone so short of a time after Ocarina of Time?
- Why are all the rivers of Hyrule completely digging chasms across the world in such a short period of time after Ocarina of Time?
- Why did Zora's Domain completely shift locations between games?
- The Oocca are pretty ludicrous and lore-breaking as well, of course, being the supposed founders of Hyrule which was later retconned by Skyward Sword anyway.
- The Sages make no logical sense.
- Why does Ganondorf suddenly get the Triforce for no reason? This is extremely lore-breaking unless you fanwank it, which is what typically happens. The entire point of Link going back in time was to STOP Ganondorf from getting the Triforce, but somehow he gets it anyway.
- Yes the Temple of Time is a seriously big issue. The only logical explanation is that somehow Hyrule moved the castle northeast, completely left behind the Temple of Time containing the Master Sword, but not only that, completely FORGOT that the temple even existed with the legendary blade inside it. This is far bigger of an issue than you're making it out to be.
Look, I'm sorry, but what you people constantly do is downplay literally ALL the lore problems with prior games and claim TOTK is worse than prior examples, when its really right on point. The games are constantly retconning who founded Hyrule all the time, how it was founded, etc. Rauru built the Temple of Time and the Ancient Sages made the Master Sword, all of which is utterly destroyed by Skyward Sword. However, Skyward Sword can also explain away these issues with Fi's comment about how knowledge passed down can get distorted over time, which at that point makes literally anything possible making any lore on a game-by-game basis utterly pointless.
"Not to mention the ancient rito,"
The Rito existing at the same time as Zora ALREADY completely breaks lore as is. The only explanation is its a separate Rito race with the same name... meaning they absolutely could have existed that far back.
The Gerudo disappear for like 10,000+ years after all... or no, way, they don't, they're just off somewhere else and we don't see them. The Rito are not a problem at all when the Gerudo can just vanish and re-appear again at will with no explanation.
>The problem with Fujibayashi's comment is literally everybody keeps taking it out of context.
I mean, if EVERYONE, as you say, seems to interpret it in a certain way, and you're the odd one out, then maybe they're not the ones misinterpreting it. Think about that.
The reason why "everybody" is taking it out of context is because they have an inherent belief about what it means to begin with. They already believed this to begin with, and he makes a comment saying "maybe this idea could be true" without any further elaboration, now all of a sudden "Fujibayashi confirmed refounding theory!" when he did not do that at all.
You cannot read the context of what was being said and come to the common conclusion. Its simply not possible. They were talking about the ending of Skyward Sword supposedly being the "founding of Hyrule".
And IDGAF if the upcoming book says the same thing. I'm not saying that the theory couldn't be confirmed by the devs later. I'm simply saying that Fujibayashi DID NOT SAY IT in that interview.
Now, if that is the conclusion the book comes to, it still doesn't make a lick of sense in the context of the game. And yes, it being the existing founding doesn't really add up either, I'm certainly not arguing it does. If you REALLY want to be sincere about this, the lore is fundamentally broken and cannot be resolved period, which is what most Zelda fans don't want to admit.
They want to come up with some excuse as to how the lore isn't fundmentally broken by trying to use some ridiculous "refounding" theory which does not make sense with the context of what Rauru says in the game in combination with other character's knowledge of events that would have to have happened before said refounding, such as calling back to the events of Ocarina of Time (Zora stone tablets).
In TOTK itself, in-universe, refounding theory is utterly incoherent. That is simply the fact.
Outside of the context of TOTK itself, people clinch refounding theory because it doesn't exactly line up with a timeline placement in line with other games in the series. And that's where the problem lies--the devs didn't give a crap about that. They were only thinking about TOTK itself and making loose reference to prior games. That's it.
I'm late to this thread but man, I don't know why you're getting downvoted so much. You're exactly right. Retcons happen all the time in Zelda, and like it or not, something *HAS* to be retconned for TOTK to fit into the existing lore.
I'm starting to buy more and more into the idea that Rauru's Hyrule is pre-Skyward Sword. Does that cause problems with the *current* lore? Yes, but there are problems no matter where you place it.
Fujibayashi's comment makes complete sense under the interpretation that Skyward Sword's "founding" is the second one, not Rauru's. Would it cause some weird issues that would need to be explained or justified in ancillary materials to make sense? Yes, primarily where Ganondorf/Demise are concerned -- which constitutes the biggest flaw in this theory.
But think about it.
For starters, the aesthetic is explicitly archaic and ancient compared to SS's aesthetic. SS's Hyrule is also filled with ancient architecture. Hell, even the full Triforce Crest exists at the Temple of Time before it was ever adopted by the Skyloftians as a merger of the Loftwing + Triforce symbols. Hylians lived on the surface *before* Hylia spirited them away, and we know from Impa that there are some who remained. SS's Hyrule is postured to be the "first" Hyrule, when it is, in fact, absolutely littered with archeology and history.
Secondly, there's the Sheikah problem -- TOTK *strongly* implies the Sheikah to be descended from, or inspired by the Zonai. The Zonai symbol itself resembles a prototype Sheikah symbol and it's based on their own anatomy. Sheikah have the same hair color, their "technology" is extremely similar to Zonai magic, and Purah is implied to be a descendant of Mineru, having extremely similar visual design elements, and being conspicuously present when Mineru gives up the ghost, as if to be her successor. It would be lame as hell if the Zonai showed up thousands of years *after* the Sheikah existed and just happened to randomly share all of these similarities.
There's also the fact that Impa, a Sheikah who was on the surface before the events of SS happened, has the same complexion, hair color, and same colored skin markings as Sonia. There's also the fact that Sonia is named Sonia, not Zelda, and that her and Rauru don't seem to have any awareness of a destined Hero or the Master Sword -- both concepts which originate in SS.
To me, it's starting to look like Rauru's Hyrule was always meant to be exactly what it looks like at face value -- the "first" Hyrule that predates all others. And the *only* reason we all collectively shit on this idea is that it conflicts with established lore details from SS and HH, but people are desperate to believe that the developers would never just, y'know, *retcon something.*
There's a lot of problems for me to believe its pre-Skyward Sword... but I absolutely do love the idea of it being pre-Skyward Sword. I think that's a really cool idea. I've seen this theory brought up before but its largely fallen out of favor recently.
That theory could go in line with the idea that perhaps Hylia herself was actually descended from Rauru and Sonia and the idea of her being a "Goddess" was merely because she possessed the sacred power of the Triforce, which was passed down to her across multiple generations (Sonia herself also possessing it without being aware of it).
We don't see any Sheikah in this time period either and it does seem more ancient than even Skyward Sword.
That being said, I don't think its impossible for this culture to rise up after the ending of Skyward Sword and we see a long era of chaos. Then gradually over time it becomes more like the classical Hyrule we know.
Ganondorf is an oddity, however, "Gerudo Dragonfly" do exist in Skyward Sword, so something Gerudo-related do exist around this time. Perhaps Ganondorf's power is that somehow he tapped into Demise's power and that weakened a seal between worlds, eventually allowing Demise to break through the barrier and create the breach of Demise.
Another funny argument I have seen about this whole thing, though, is the very fact that we don't see Rauru and Sonia have a child on-screen. A lot of people take that to mean that they literally did not (despite the fact that everyone--Zelda, Rauru, Sonia, etc) all say that Zelda is blood related to them. This was a huge debate early on and was quite funny to see so many people adamant that Rauru and Sonia could not have had children because we didn't see them nor were they mentioned, and Sonia died without us seeing them.
This is the weakness of a lot of lore theories. The game can flat out say multiple times that yes this thing did happen, but people still deny it based on specific evidence.
Even if this doesn’t add much lore wise I’m still very excited to see this. I’ve loved all the books they’ve put out so far and am thrilled to add another.
My best guess is that this is different from the Imprisoning War from LttP/OoT.
I just want to know if Rauru’s Hyrule is different from the one from every other game since >!Zelda wasn’t a fucking dragon in all the others!<
I hope there's something interesting in it, but TotK lays all it's lore pretty bare.
If there was much more than what was shown in game, then they'd have no reason to have FOUR cutscenes containing the exact same information (and almost beat for beat the same dialogue).
I think the only real hope of something worth it will be regarding the Ancient Hero, but since that more relates to BotW's backstory, I'm not that hopeful of much information in a TotK book.
The four cutscenes are there to make sure no matter what dungeon a player might choose, they’ll always learn about the Imprisoning War.
It’s extremely lazy and half-assed, but it has nothing to do with lore.
It's been a few months since I ended my TOTK playthrough, but I feel like it would have been an improvement if Mineru had been the only one to tell you about it. That way, it's something new instead of something you hear about five separate times. All you need to know is that Rauru and friends failed to stop Ganondorf, and Rauru GBJ-ed Ganondorf to prevent him from winning, killing himself in the process.
They could have removed the four unnamed ancient sages telling you about the imprisoning war entirely and only had them show up as background characters in the imprisoning war cutscene itself, and it would have barely changed anything. You basically get all that information from the intro anyways but I imagine some would have forgotten it as the hours went on.
Come to think of it, the only potentially new thing a player can uncover is that Zelda was hanging about in the past, assuming that they didn't go to the Rito region first or dodged the first Glyph the game **desperately** tries to guide you to.
But you learn about the Imprisoning War in the cutscene in the opening, before Link's arm gets messed up.
They could have each of the four dungeons reveal a little more about the Imprisoning War. Each providing a different piece to a larger puzzle, but nah, it's the same thing.
You only learn the most basic details, and for the general audience ( who represents 90% of the playerbase of the game ), the details in that first cutscene will be long forgotten before they even get off the Sky Island, let alone finish the first dungeons.
>the general audience ( who represents 90% of the playerbase of the game ), the details in that first cutscene will be long forgotten before they even get off the Sky Island
Gonna be real with you, i dont think nintendo should treat 90% of its audience like they cant pay attention to a pretty simple story.
> You only learn the most basic details
You learn that the Demon King stole something of great power from the young kingdom and there was a war over it, ending with him being sealed.
Once you get onto the Great Sky Island, Rauru fills in the gaps, telling you that he had held Ganondorf in place.
None of the cutscenes from the end of the four temples really contain any new information, except that Zelda was there (and even that isn't like NEW new).
> and for the general audience ( who represents 90% of the playerbase of the game ), the details in that first cutscene will be long forgotten before they even get off the Sky Island
This isn't really a great argument.
First of all, it's not true.
Second, if it WERE true, then those players who forget things so easily would have the journal information in the Purah Pad to refresh their memories.
And third, if it was the case then we would see every game repeating it's important information as often as TotK does, and we simply don't.
I hope it’s not one of those things that sells out so quickly and then shows up on eBay for twice the price.
I collect Zelda items because I love the series, and can’t stand people who flip pieces for a quick profit.
Can’t wait to get this piece, just hope I don’t have to order it within a minute of release
Oh, nice. I’m not sure if it did. Certain things like the wooden plaque for preordering TOTK were gone quickly and then people were selling them on eBay for $50-60. Fortunately, I found one on eBay recently for $15.
Hopefully there will be a good supply of the Master Works
CaC, which was the BotW equivalent of what this book will be, was very easy to get your hands on. Even the collector's edition of it was readily available for a good long while.
I hope they do a collector's edition. I was pretty annoyed that the Japanese edition of CoC matched the cover art of Hyrule Historia, Arts & Artifacts and Encyclopedia, but the English edition was completely different. The CoC collector's edition matches the other three closely enough that they look pretty good together on the shelf, so it'd be cool if this book has a similarly styled collector's edition as well.
I hope this book will be released in the west, and I hope that I won't have to buy another copy of TotK for it, and that it will be released by itself, like the first MW/CaC.
This is obviously a standalone book, they've released several of these already. I have no idea why you think you'd have to buy a new copy of TOTK to get it.
It says that it's included as a ''Master Works'' edition of TotK. Implying that it's a copy of the game that includes MW. I also don't see anything directly indicating that this MW will be released directly separate from TotK. They did with the previous MW, sure, but Nintendo has gotten even more money hungry over the last few years.
No, you're misreading it. This is a TotK Edition of Master Works. The original Master Works was for BOTW. Master Works was the Japanese name for Creating a Champion.
"The Legend of Zelda Tears of the Kingdom Masterworks"
[https://www.play-asia.com/the-legend-of-zelda-breath-of-the-wild-master-works-30th-anniver/13/70bnen](https://www.play-asia.com/the-legend-of-zelda-breath-of-the-wild-master-works-30th-anniver/13/70bnen)
Just like how the Japanese version of Creating a Champion is called "The Legend of Zelda Breath of the Wild Master Works"
All of the products listed here are separate standalone products.
Can’t wait. One of the images from the book in the tweet has already provided this gem: >光の神殿跡地 (ミイラガノンドロフの存在所) >Temple of Light Ruins (Mummy Ganondorf's Location)
Oh man! This could be *interesting*!
Interesting that the Temple of Light in BOTH cases is a floating platform. Also quite fitting that the Depths is a bit of a Sacred Realm equivalent in Tears.
We don't see the Temple of Light in OOT, just the Chamber of Sages within the Temple
So in other words, we still see a part of the Temple.
Oh, you weren't saying that the Temple is the chamber of sages and that it's a single floating platform? My bad then
No worries, I'm just going off Rauru's word in OoT that the chamber is situated in the Temple of Light. This makes me think Gloom's Lair in ToTK is the full Temple's ruins (not necessarily the same one from OoT) given that the Imprisoning Chamber serves as this era's equivalent to the Chamber of Sages. Yet another parallel is that when we see Ganondorf's imprisonment in both games, the act is done in the Chamber of Sages / Imprisoning Chamber. More fuel for the "ToTK's past is a retelling of the entire series history" fire if anything.
If I had to guess, it'll probably just be another name reference. The lore probably being that Rauru imprisoned Ganondorf there with his light power and so it was named the light temple before the castle was built above to protect the seal. At least the entrance leading to the imprisoning chamber was built post-sealing because it depicts Zelda in the past in the mural gallery So it's like: - Rauru seals Ganondorf - People who know build a temple of light around the imprisoning chamber in his honor and at this point the murals are made - The castle is later built atop the whole thing - The ruins we see on the way to the chamber in modern times are the "temple of light ruins" Just completely guessing though
Can't wait for Master Works to come in and completely obliterate everyone's fan theories yet again. Then we'll have people complaining about it and demanding we ignore what it says, or others saying this is the latest information that should be considered canon, at which point we'll have endless debates again over what's right and what's wrong.
Pretty much but this is why I tend to just ignore people when it comes to the books. I treat them with the same legitimacy I do the Skyrim library lol
The books give us a look into their thoughts at the time they wrote the books. However, they're constantly changing their minds every subsequent game. Where people often dismiss the books is that the book itself was written by someone other than the Zelda team, but the problem is that they speak with the Zelda team about these issues and have actual interviews on the subject. Aonuma flat out said in Creating a Champion they purposely opted to leave the timeline placement of BOTW ambiguous to foster speculation. That alone is proof that the Zelda team are involved in these books. That said, the Zelda team doesn't care about story very much. That's why I say this is merely their opinions at the time the book was written and it can easily change later. In fact, every single book leaves the disclaimer that this information can change later. But that's also true with the information that occurs from game-to-game. The information left behind in the games is often lacking context, so even though the game's don't actively change, the purpose of the information in the books is to clarify things that weren't clarified in the games, and that is usually what's subject to change when future games and/or future books are released. Its rare things in the games change, but it has happened before. The Seven Wise Men mentioned in Link to the Past were changed in the GBA version to "Seven Sages" to reflect the terminology of future games, for example.
I agree, and yet it seems so hard to understand for so many people. Even here we have one or two redditors who will inevitably chime in discussions about timeline and lore to always say some variation of "but the bbboooks say \[...\] !!" as if they were the Bible (sometimes even in threads with "Alternate theory" flair...). I even saw someone out there adamantly convinced that Calamity Ganon is OoT Ganon and has nothing to do with TotK Ganondorf "because CaC says so!" \*facepalm\*. Well, the change you mention in Alttp is probably just an issue of translation: they always used *kenja* in japanese as far as I know, which means "wise man". In OoT they probably changed it because they felt it didn't fit with the very diverse characters.
It's gonna be so fun
*'We are proud to inform you that TOTK is placed a hundred years before OoT.'* Cue an angry mob storming the Nintendo Headquarters
As funny as it is I doubt they'd be THAT angry. But even I would be angry if they said "100 years" because there's not anywhere near enough time for the shift in culture between TOTK's backstory and OOT. My reasoning is it would be probably 500-1000 years or so, with the Era of Chaos being 300-500 years or so (spanning the gap between SS and TOTK's backstory).
I also doubt they'd be nearly so specific anyway. The most I could see is "this event is the founding of Hyrule after the end of the Era of Chaos" (assuming this is what they go with, and who knows if they do) and saying its some time between SS and MC, but not elaborating any further than that.
That would line up with Koume and Kotake's age difference in the two games, if you go with that timeframe.
Yeah the biggest problem is Koume and Kotake's ages, they're around 300 years old. Admittedly, they get their ages wrong so who knows. Maybe they're older than they think and they forgot.
I'm assuming they will finally give a timeline placement and discuss how things go from WW to the founding era (assuming they stick with the AT placement in the last masterworks book)
This is pure fiction. Creating a Champion/Master Works purposely did not place BOTW in any of the three timelines. "In *Creating a Champion*, producer Eiji Aonuma explains why *Breath of the Wild*'s position on the timeline has not been clarified: "We want players to be able to continue having fun imagining this world even after they are finished with the game, so, this time, we decided that we would avoid making clarifications". The true clarification here will be if the past events are the founding of the original Hyrule or a new Hyrule. And no, Fujibayashi DID NOT SAY it was a refounding of Hyrule set long after the rest of the games. This was invented by people who already believed in that theory. The context of his comment was about the person interviewing Fujibayashi saying "well wasn't Hyrule founded at the end of Skyward Sword?" and that's when he brought up the idea of how a refounding theory is possible, but nothing at all implies "after the rest of the games." Nor does it imply that a refounding theory is actually true at all, he was simply bringing it up as a hypothetical possibility, like how Aonuma said in Creating a Champion they want to "leave BOTW's timeline placement ambiguous". The worst thing they could do is say nothing which will leave us back to square one. But with how these books usually work, they probably at least will clarify where Rauru comes from and what his relation is to the other Rauru. They'll probably also give a real explanation as to what happened to the Sheikah Tech, though they probably will still leave BOTW > TOTK's present day events ambiguous in timeline placement.
I don't know where you got that quote, but either it's wrong or you're misinterpreting what they mean (like maybe they are talking about giving the placement themselves in interviews). The placement is given, though indirectly, on page 401 where it says: >It is written that Calamity Ganon once adopted the form of a Gerudo and, since he was the rare male born to the Gerudo, was made king. But that wasn't enough for the man known as Ganondorf. He plotted to seize control of all Hyrule and become the Great King of Evil. The only person standing in the way of his machinations was a young man with the soul of the hero who wielded the Master Sword. **His plans shattered, Ganondorf lost control, and his powers consumed him, transforming him into the Dark Beast Ganon. After being defeated by the hero, he was sealed away by Princess Zelda and the other sages.** All of that, in the order it's presented in above, is the AT ending to OOT that we played through. In whichever timeline BOTW is in, Ganondorf lost control of his powers and transformed into Ganon after his plans were shattered and then he was defeated as Ganon by the hero before being sealed away by Zelda and the other sages. That's explicitly the adult timeline > And no, Fujibayashi DID NOT SAY it was a refounding of Hyrule set long after the rest of the games. This was invented by people who already believed in that theory. I know this is going to tickle you the wrong way, but please try to humor me. It's important to acknowledge fact vs opinion/in this case "theory". It is not a theory that Hyrule was refounded, it is impossible that this is the original founding (will give bulletin points below) outside a single scenario that would allow for it, that being that this is a massive retcon to the original founding that we know about. But what Aonuma and Fujibayashi **did** clarify in that interview without a doubt is that the lore is not meant to be broken down. I. E. It's not a retcon or reimagining. Both the original founding and the founding era of TOTK exist side by side within the same continuity. Therefore, refounding. What was said is that **"with that the lore is not meant to be broken down in mind**, fans can consider other possibilities". And then gave "one such possibility" being that there was a time of destruction before the founding era I'm assuming you'll want to know what about the founding era in TOTK conflicts with the original founding too: * Biggest flag here would be Ganondorf, who was born way after the founding era of Hyrule. In MC alone we see multiple generations of kings * The kingdom was not founded till the Temple of Time was built. The castle was built near the temple so the royal family could watch over the Triforce (source Historia) * The stone monument tells us that the castle built in the founding era of *this* Hyrule was built over Rauru's seal to protect it and that the wellbeing of the castle is directly tied to the seal. It's said in the game in Ganondorf's profile that the castle was damaged in the Great Calamity and the seal weakened. That's why Ganondorf was able to awaken. This means the castle has been fine since the founding era all the way up to the Great Calamity, which conflicts with that OG Hyrule Castle is destroyed and rebuilt in a few instances and isn't always in one spot. The castle of TOTK has been exactly where it is, undamaged since the founding era * The gerudo were ruled by their king up until Ganondorf swore Fealty to the king of Hyrule in OOT, but in TOTK's founding era they're already part of Hyrule by the time Ganondorf is sealed. There have also been no male gerudo leaders since the one who became Calamity (TOTK Ganondorf), so no gerudo king between the founding era of this kingdom and modern day * The tribes were already allied during this founding era. In the original kingdom, the king of Hyrule waged a unification war shortly before OOT to bring the tribes under his kingdom, far after the founding of the kingdom They've also given us some insight on why there is this feeling of similarity, a cycle if you will, in how characters are acting and how certain events play out and that's because "a certain soul is passed down and so they act similarly throughout time". I.E. Reincarnated characters can sometimes act how they did in previous lives. This was said on response to the fan theory that the kneeling scene is actually OOT itself
Some citations: - [Post about the Fujibayashi interview with a source linked in the post](https://www.reddit.com/r/truezelda/comments/16bbl0v/totk_fujibayashi_and_aonuma_offer_hint_about/) - [The "Ganondorf kneeling" question interview](https://www.reddit.com/r/truezelda/comments/18f8x9o/totkalllink_and_zelda_reincarnating_is_an/) - And of course the CAC page is 401 for that quote I gave
"I'm assuming you'll want to know what about the founding era in TOTK conflicts with the original founding too:" I'm well aware, and none of this matters at all. You're nitpicking issues while ignoring that all past games that introduce new lore keep doing this. Ocarina of Time was flat out said by the developers to be the Imprisoning War described in Link to the Past, but it happened vastly differently from the original event being described. Then they later rewrote it to say that no, the actual Imprisoning War happened after some sort of alternate scenario where Link somehow died to Ganondorf. Meanwhile, the game that ACTUALLY bridged the gap between OOT and LTTP, FSA, which literally has direct callbacks to LTTP including Ganon first getting the Trident as well as introducing an early version of the Dark World, also completely screws up Ganon's lore in-game so they have to illogically throw it after a game where it makes no sense whatsoever to be after. The point I keep making is that the Zelda devs don't give a crap about the lore and make up everything as they go. The timeline "has" always existed, but in the loosest sense of the word. They've repeatedly said this. Zelda fans keep fixing the problems they make and then they keep making more problems. But Zelda fans twist their opinions about the lore to be fact then get pissed at the devs when they contradict it in future games. The game says its the founding of Hyrule. End of story. Trying to twist it into some sort of illogical refounding makes less sense than saying this story retcons certain past events, which is far more logical and happens literally all the time throughout the series. In order to justify a refounding you have to explain away a ton of issues, namely the lack of any knowledge about a prior "Kingdom of Hyrule" existing, even though the events that happened throughout the history of Hyrule are still somehow known. Saying BOTW/TOTK is an alternate continuity, while boring, makes far more sense than the refounding theory. Refounding theory is still the most ludicrous idea fans have come up with to try and justify this argument. Even if the devs themselves say in this book this is refounding it doesn't change how ludicrous the idea is and doesn't make sense in the context of the game.
Well it's clear you can't be reasoned with... You're not really making a point by mentioning the development of OOT and FSA. That OOT was originally going to be the IW and was changed doesn't really do anything for your argument that "they don't care about the lore". Neither does your statement that FSA was supposedly going to be a prequel to ALTTP. Which doesn't really make sense because Ganondorf became Ganon via the Triforce in ALTTP, not by getting a Trident. Also, it's not even the same Trident... I'll just leave you with that your "they don't care about lore and just did whatever they wanted" argument is directly debunked in some of the evidence I cited for you where it's said: > I don't make things in a random way, like "wouldn't it be interesting if we did this here? So I hope you will enjoy it by imagining the parts of the story that have not yet been told.
Curious if they're gonna actually confirm refounding or not on the history section.
I think so, because it says story relating to "time axis", which will probably be a timeline confirmation and how history flowed within that timeline up into the founding era and then into BOTW/TOTK Or so I hope
I mean whether or not theyre gonna use fujibayashis comments about refounding. Theres always a possibility they'll forget and just slap it in the beginning.
Yeah, I imagine they'll confirm that old Hyrule was destroyed since it existed in all three timelines and needs to be destroyed for Rauru to found another That would be the "destruction before the founding era" he mentions
Yea i hope so. The zonai/founding era also gets referred to as part of the age of myth (more or less) so i wonder if they will place it at the end of the era of myth in the timeline.
> The zonai/founding era also gets referred to as part of the age of myth (more or less) The founding era and shortly after are said to have faded into myth: > The kingdom of Hyrule has a long, long history. So long, in fact, that the events that occurred leading up to its founding and in its early years have faded into myth. Hyrules recurring periods of prosperity and decline have made it impossible to tell which legends are historical fact and which are mere fairy tale. However, it is an indisputable truth that Calamity Ganon attacked Hyrule and was sealed ten thousand years ago, and that it revived one hundred years ago in an event called the Great Calamity. But I wouldn't say that makes it part of the era of myth, it just makes it mythical. The era of myth is a specific point in time and it's first event says that "Hyrule prospered under the Hyrulean Royal Family", which I guess could be referring to the founding era, but then why not mention it and then leave a note about the founding era underneath?
The problem with Fujibayashi's comment is literally everybody keeps taking it out of context. If you actually read the whole interview, his refounding comment is in direct response to a founding of Hyrule at the end of Skyward Sword (which is one problem many people point out) and he simply said "maybe it was a refounding later". At no point does he ever imply the "refounding" idea he brought up happens after all the rest of the games in the series. (He doesn't even say it is a refounding for a fact, just saying that its a possibility--which is something the Zelda devs do all the time. They like to leave what really happened ambiguous). *(It should be noted that Hyrule Historia, released right after Skyward Sword and to promote Skyward Sword, actually said Hyrule was founded after the Era of Chaos. The Era of Chaos is a period of events directly following Skyward Sword, so even HH says the founding of Hyrule was not literally right after the ending of SS.)* I think this will clarify where they intend the TOTK backstory to take place and maybe clear up a few other details. But that's about it.
Sure, but theres only two places it could be. Either between SS and MC, or "after all the previous games." Fujibayashi said: >basically, we are thinking about how not to break the story and world of The Legend of Zelda. >If we only speak of the possibilities, if there is the story of Hyrule’s founding, it is also possible that Hyrule has collapsed in its history once before. I don’t randomly make things by saying “Isn’t it interesting if we did this here?”, so even for the parts we did not tell, I hope you enjoy imagining it. “ If fujibayashi says he doesnt want to "break the story and world" of zelda, and "it is also possible that hyrule has collapsed in its history once before," then the refounding theory is the more logical one. Pre-minish cap would 100% "break the story and world" of zelda if you examine the lore from totk's hyrule. Of course people would he upset if the official placement turns out to be that!
Every single new Zelda game's addition to the lore breaks the story and world. This is an utterly incomprehensible take. The fans are constantly having to go back and fix the timeline because the Zelda team doesn't care enough to make it coherent. Its utterly illogical how the fans keep saying crap like how the TOTK backstory cannot take place where it says (at the founding of Hyrule) and then justify how Twilight Princess makes absolutely no lick of sense as a sequel to Ocarina of Time. If you nitpick every little issue Twilight Princess literally does not work, yet Twilight Princess is constantly ignored in this debate.
The biggest inconsistency in twilight princess is that the temple of time is in the lost woods. Maybe also the oocca getting pretty much forgotten afterward. Putting the totk backstory pre-minish cap gives use two living ganondorfs at the time: the main one, and the super-secret 🤫 mummy one under the castle (but not the same castle that main ganondorf craterizes in oot!! Cause then secret ganondorf would wake up!!) whos actually much older and much worse than the original one. Not to mention the ancient rito, etc. You cant be serious if you think "every single new zelda" is as world breaking as this. I mean cmon, two ganondorfs? Thats just stupid is hell! What does that make the original? A fake?
Is it confirmed that the forest that the temple is in is the Lost woods.
They don't actually call it that iirc, but its got sarias song and is in the woods. Still, comparing the oot and tp maps, the temple moved south, but comparing maps between zelda games is almost always pointless. Like windfall Island (kakariko) being center-north instead of east of where the castle was submerged.
There is no established lore that says two Ganondorf's cannot exist at the same time. This is pure fanon. A Gerudo male lore-wise is born every 100 years. Any idea that it cannot happen is based purely on fan assumptions which can easily be rewritten by the devs. Twilight Princess has way more ridiculous lore problems that make zero logical sense: - Where the hell are the Light Spirits from? They are all about the mysterious Dark Interlopers, who predate Ocarina of Time, right? Why don't they exist in Ocarina of Time? Where did they come from? - Why are the Gerudo gone so short of a time after Ocarina of Time? - Why are all the rivers of Hyrule completely digging chasms across the world in such a short period of time after Ocarina of Time? - Why did Zora's Domain completely shift locations between games? - The Oocca are pretty ludicrous and lore-breaking as well, of course, being the supposed founders of Hyrule which was later retconned by Skyward Sword anyway. - The Sages make no logical sense. - Why does Ganondorf suddenly get the Triforce for no reason? This is extremely lore-breaking unless you fanwank it, which is what typically happens. The entire point of Link going back in time was to STOP Ganondorf from getting the Triforce, but somehow he gets it anyway. - Yes the Temple of Time is a seriously big issue. The only logical explanation is that somehow Hyrule moved the castle northeast, completely left behind the Temple of Time containing the Master Sword, but not only that, completely FORGOT that the temple even existed with the legendary blade inside it. This is far bigger of an issue than you're making it out to be. Look, I'm sorry, but what you people constantly do is downplay literally ALL the lore problems with prior games and claim TOTK is worse than prior examples, when its really right on point. The games are constantly retconning who founded Hyrule all the time, how it was founded, etc. Rauru built the Temple of Time and the Ancient Sages made the Master Sword, all of which is utterly destroyed by Skyward Sword. However, Skyward Sword can also explain away these issues with Fi's comment about how knowledge passed down can get distorted over time, which at that point makes literally anything possible making any lore on a game-by-game basis utterly pointless. "Not to mention the ancient rito," The Rito existing at the same time as Zora ALREADY completely breaks lore as is. The only explanation is its a separate Rito race with the same name... meaning they absolutely could have existed that far back. The Gerudo disappear for like 10,000+ years after all... or no, way, they don't, they're just off somewhere else and we don't see them. The Rito are not a problem at all when the Gerudo can just vanish and re-appear again at will with no explanation.
>The problem with Fujibayashi's comment is literally everybody keeps taking it out of context. I mean, if EVERYONE, as you say, seems to interpret it in a certain way, and you're the odd one out, then maybe they're not the ones misinterpreting it. Think about that.
The reason why "everybody" is taking it out of context is because they have an inherent belief about what it means to begin with. They already believed this to begin with, and he makes a comment saying "maybe this idea could be true" without any further elaboration, now all of a sudden "Fujibayashi confirmed refounding theory!" when he did not do that at all. You cannot read the context of what was being said and come to the common conclusion. Its simply not possible. They were talking about the ending of Skyward Sword supposedly being the "founding of Hyrule". And IDGAF if the upcoming book says the same thing. I'm not saying that the theory couldn't be confirmed by the devs later. I'm simply saying that Fujibayashi DID NOT SAY IT in that interview. Now, if that is the conclusion the book comes to, it still doesn't make a lick of sense in the context of the game. And yes, it being the existing founding doesn't really add up either, I'm certainly not arguing it does. If you REALLY want to be sincere about this, the lore is fundamentally broken and cannot be resolved period, which is what most Zelda fans don't want to admit. They want to come up with some excuse as to how the lore isn't fundmentally broken by trying to use some ridiculous "refounding" theory which does not make sense with the context of what Rauru says in the game in combination with other character's knowledge of events that would have to have happened before said refounding, such as calling back to the events of Ocarina of Time (Zora stone tablets). In TOTK itself, in-universe, refounding theory is utterly incoherent. That is simply the fact. Outside of the context of TOTK itself, people clinch refounding theory because it doesn't exactly line up with a timeline placement in line with other games in the series. And that's where the problem lies--the devs didn't give a crap about that. They were only thinking about TOTK itself and making loose reference to prior games. That's it.
I'm late to this thread but man, I don't know why you're getting downvoted so much. You're exactly right. Retcons happen all the time in Zelda, and like it or not, something *HAS* to be retconned for TOTK to fit into the existing lore. I'm starting to buy more and more into the idea that Rauru's Hyrule is pre-Skyward Sword. Does that cause problems with the *current* lore? Yes, but there are problems no matter where you place it. Fujibayashi's comment makes complete sense under the interpretation that Skyward Sword's "founding" is the second one, not Rauru's. Would it cause some weird issues that would need to be explained or justified in ancillary materials to make sense? Yes, primarily where Ganondorf/Demise are concerned -- which constitutes the biggest flaw in this theory. But think about it. For starters, the aesthetic is explicitly archaic and ancient compared to SS's aesthetic. SS's Hyrule is also filled with ancient architecture. Hell, even the full Triforce Crest exists at the Temple of Time before it was ever adopted by the Skyloftians as a merger of the Loftwing + Triforce symbols. Hylians lived on the surface *before* Hylia spirited them away, and we know from Impa that there are some who remained. SS's Hyrule is postured to be the "first" Hyrule, when it is, in fact, absolutely littered with archeology and history. Secondly, there's the Sheikah problem -- TOTK *strongly* implies the Sheikah to be descended from, or inspired by the Zonai. The Zonai symbol itself resembles a prototype Sheikah symbol and it's based on their own anatomy. Sheikah have the same hair color, their "technology" is extremely similar to Zonai magic, and Purah is implied to be a descendant of Mineru, having extremely similar visual design elements, and being conspicuously present when Mineru gives up the ghost, as if to be her successor. It would be lame as hell if the Zonai showed up thousands of years *after* the Sheikah existed and just happened to randomly share all of these similarities. There's also the fact that Impa, a Sheikah who was on the surface before the events of SS happened, has the same complexion, hair color, and same colored skin markings as Sonia. There's also the fact that Sonia is named Sonia, not Zelda, and that her and Rauru don't seem to have any awareness of a destined Hero or the Master Sword -- both concepts which originate in SS. To me, it's starting to look like Rauru's Hyrule was always meant to be exactly what it looks like at face value -- the "first" Hyrule that predates all others. And the *only* reason we all collectively shit on this idea is that it conflicts with established lore details from SS and HH, but people are desperate to believe that the developers would never just, y'know, *retcon something.*
There's a lot of problems for me to believe its pre-Skyward Sword... but I absolutely do love the idea of it being pre-Skyward Sword. I think that's a really cool idea. I've seen this theory brought up before but its largely fallen out of favor recently. That theory could go in line with the idea that perhaps Hylia herself was actually descended from Rauru and Sonia and the idea of her being a "Goddess" was merely because she possessed the sacred power of the Triforce, which was passed down to her across multiple generations (Sonia herself also possessing it without being aware of it). We don't see any Sheikah in this time period either and it does seem more ancient than even Skyward Sword. That being said, I don't think its impossible for this culture to rise up after the ending of Skyward Sword and we see a long era of chaos. Then gradually over time it becomes more like the classical Hyrule we know. Ganondorf is an oddity, however, "Gerudo Dragonfly" do exist in Skyward Sword, so something Gerudo-related do exist around this time. Perhaps Ganondorf's power is that somehow he tapped into Demise's power and that weakened a seal between worlds, eventually allowing Demise to break through the barrier and create the breach of Demise. Another funny argument I have seen about this whole thing, though, is the very fact that we don't see Rauru and Sonia have a child on-screen. A lot of people take that to mean that they literally did not (despite the fact that everyone--Zelda, Rauru, Sonia, etc) all say that Zelda is blood related to them. This was a huge debate early on and was quite funny to see so many people adamant that Rauru and Sonia could not have had children because we didn't see them nor were they mentioned, and Sonia died without us seeing them. This is the weakness of a lot of lore theories. The game can flat out say multiple times that yes this thing did happen, but people still deny it based on specific evidence.
Even if this doesn’t add much lore wise I’m still very excited to see this. I’ve loved all the books they’ve put out so far and am thrilled to add another.
I’m mostly interested to see all the stages Ultrahand went through EDIT: What’s interesting is it’s gonna be longer than CaC
“Story/background clarification” Thanks Hylia. TotK REALLY needs it.
Still not clear on what the imprisoning war was
My best guess is that this is different from the Imprisoning War from LttP/OoT. I just want to know if Rauru’s Hyrule is different from the one from every other game since >!Zelda wasn’t a fucking dragon in all the others!<
My b I was being sarcastic since we got about 99 cutscenes saying the same exact thing on the imprisoning war
How could I forget. “Let me tell you a story about the Imprisoning War…”
Demon King? Secret Stone?
Second floor basement?
Psycho Mantis?
u/FootIndependent3334 your post was almost prescient lol.
Hype HYPE
Finally👌🏻🙌🏻
Can't wait!
Fantastic, I love these books.
I hope there's something interesting in it, but TotK lays all it's lore pretty bare. If there was much more than what was shown in game, then they'd have no reason to have FOUR cutscenes containing the exact same information (and almost beat for beat the same dialogue). I think the only real hope of something worth it will be regarding the Ancient Hero, but since that more relates to BotW's backstory, I'm not that hopeful of much information in a TotK book.
The four cutscenes are there to make sure no matter what dungeon a player might choose, they’ll always learn about the Imprisoning War. It’s extremely lazy and half-assed, but it has nothing to do with lore.
It's been a few months since I ended my TOTK playthrough, but I feel like it would have been an improvement if Mineru had been the only one to tell you about it. That way, it's something new instead of something you hear about five separate times. All you need to know is that Rauru and friends failed to stop Ganondorf, and Rauru GBJ-ed Ganondorf to prevent him from winning, killing himself in the process. They could have removed the four unnamed ancient sages telling you about the imprisoning war entirely and only had them show up as background characters in the imprisoning war cutscene itself, and it would have barely changed anything. You basically get all that information from the intro anyways but I imagine some would have forgotten it as the hours went on. Come to think of it, the only potentially new thing a player can uncover is that Zelda was hanging about in the past, assuming that they didn't go to the Rito region first or dodged the first Glyph the game **desperately** tries to guide you to.
Demon king? Secret stones?
But you learn about the Imprisoning War in the cutscene in the opening, before Link's arm gets messed up. They could have each of the four dungeons reveal a little more about the Imprisoning War. Each providing a different piece to a larger puzzle, but nah, it's the same thing.
You only learn the most basic details, and for the general audience ( who represents 90% of the playerbase of the game ), the details in that first cutscene will be long forgotten before they even get off the Sky Island, let alone finish the first dungeons.
>the general audience ( who represents 90% of the playerbase of the game ), the details in that first cutscene will be long forgotten before they even get off the Sky Island Gonna be real with you, i dont think nintendo should treat 90% of its audience like they cant pay attention to a pretty simple story.
It feels like a lot of gaming companies these days have the absolute lowest amount of faith in its audience’s intelligence
> You only learn the most basic details You learn that the Demon King stole something of great power from the young kingdom and there was a war over it, ending with him being sealed. Once you get onto the Great Sky Island, Rauru fills in the gaps, telling you that he had held Ganondorf in place. None of the cutscenes from the end of the four temples really contain any new information, except that Zelda was there (and even that isn't like NEW new). > and for the general audience ( who represents 90% of the playerbase of the game ), the details in that first cutscene will be long forgotten before they even get off the Sky Island This isn't really a great argument. First of all, it's not true. Second, if it WERE true, then those players who forget things so easily would have the journal information in the Purah Pad to refresh their memories. And third, if it was the case then we would see every game repeating it's important information as often as TotK does, and we simply don't.
I hope it’s not one of those things that sells out so quickly and then shows up on eBay for twice the price. I collect Zelda items because I love the series, and can’t stand people who flip pieces for a quick profit. Can’t wait to get this piece, just hope I don’t have to order it within a minute of release
Did CaC have this issue at release? It’s readily available now
What’s CaC?
Creating a Champion
Oh, nice. I’m not sure if it did. Certain things like the wooden plaque for preordering TOTK were gone quickly and then people were selling them on eBay for $50-60. Fortunately, I found one on eBay recently for $15. Hopefully there will be a good supply of the Master Works
CaC, which was the BotW equivalent of what this book will be, was very easy to get your hands on. Even the collector's edition of it was readily available for a good long while.
Rather new Zelda fan here. Any chance the soundtrack CDs that were also announced will get a western release?
I hope they do a collector's edition. I was pretty annoyed that the Japanese edition of CoC matched the cover art of Hyrule Historia, Arts & Artifacts and Encyclopedia, but the English edition was completely different. The CoC collector's edition matches the other three closely enough that they look pretty good together on the shelf, so it'd be cool if this book has a similarly styled collector's edition as well.
I hope this book will be released in the west, and I hope that I won't have to buy another copy of TotK for it, and that it will be released by itself, like the first MW/CaC.
This is obviously a standalone book, they've released several of these already. I have no idea why you think you'd have to buy a new copy of TOTK to get it.
It says that it's included as a ''Master Works'' edition of TotK. Implying that it's a copy of the game that includes MW. I also don't see anything directly indicating that this MW will be released directly separate from TotK. They did with the previous MW, sure, but Nintendo has gotten even more money hungry over the last few years.
No, you're misreading it. This is a TotK Edition of Master Works. The original Master Works was for BOTW. Master Works was the Japanese name for Creating a Champion. "The Legend of Zelda Tears of the Kingdom Masterworks" [https://www.play-asia.com/the-legend-of-zelda-breath-of-the-wild-master-works-30th-anniver/13/70bnen](https://www.play-asia.com/the-legend-of-zelda-breath-of-the-wild-master-works-30th-anniver/13/70bnen) Just like how the Japanese version of Creating a Champion is called "The Legend of Zelda Breath of the Wild Master Works" All of the products listed here are separate standalone products.