Dictionary.com said:

retcon

/ret'kon/ [short for `retroactive continuity', from the Usenet newsgroup rec.arts.comics]
1. n. The common situation in pulp fiction (esp. comics or soap operas) where a new story `reveals' things about events in previous stories, usually leaving the `facts' the same (thus preserving continuity) while completely changing their interpretation. For example, revealing that a whole season of "Dallas" was a dream was a retcon.
2. vt. To write such a story about a character or fictitious object. "Byrne has retconned Superman's cape so that it is no longer unbreakable." "Marvelman's old adventures were retconned into synthetic dreams." "Swamp Thing was retconned from a transformed person into a sentient vegetable." "Darth Vader was retconned into Luke Skywalker's father in "The Empire Strikes Back".

Bear with me on this.

I know that Ocarina of Time has seen many releases. There was its original release, plus its Player's Choice/Million Seller release on the N64 (which, for all intents and purposes, we'll count as one release, since the changes made in its rerelease were superficial). There was also its release on the Master Quest disc on Gamecube, which fans will remember if they pre-ordered Wind Waker. Nintendo also released Ocarina of Time in a Zelda compilation on Gamecube, which also featured Majora's Mask and the two NES Zelda games. The game was THEN released on the Wii's Virtual Console, and less than two years ago, the game saw an enhanced port/remake on the 3DS.

Now, I'm not saying that Nintendo needs to rerelease Ocarina of Time anytime soon. What I'm talking about can happen many years from now. However, since the release of Hyrule Historia, we now know Nintendo's official interpretation of the Zelda timeline.

At the end of Ocarina of Time, the timeline essentially splits into three.

Timeline A.) Link falls in the last battle with Ganon, and Hyrule goes into decline. A war takes place to seal away Ganon (though it is not explained whether or not a new Link is involved)
Timeline B.) Link successfully defeats Ganon, and Hyrule as it exists in Adult Link's timeline continues on without him.
Timeline C.) Link successfully defeats Ganon, and Link returns to being a child, so Ganon never obtained the Triforce in the first place.

If Nintendo wants to explain ANY of that in a game, how should they do this? As I see it, there are a couple ways they could handle it:

Option 1: In a future rerelease of Ocarina of Time or Ocarina of Time 3D, Nintendo offers up different endings to the game:
In this scenario, we deal with a new version of Ocarina of Time. It likely either receives yet another graphical overhaul, or maintains many of the assets of OoT 3D. This game contains a 'bad ending' in which Link loses. Whether or not such an ending is optional would be up to Nintendo. Perhaps it's not unlike some of the Castlevania games, where you have to see a bad ending before you can play to the game's 'true' finale. Perhaps you lose the final battle, but then wake up in the Sacred Realm, where Rauru and Zelda explain that you have fallen. Due to magical interference or other mumbo jumbo, that world is beyond saving, and the only way to defeat Ganon is for them to send Link back to the moment before the battle. Perhaps you have to do a little sidquest to get the light arrow. As an idea, they could simply have you try to fight Ganon before you play through the dungeon remixes in Ganon's Tower. You fight to Ganon and lose to him. You then have to go through that final remixed dungeon and obtain the Light Arrow, and are now fully equipped to defeat him and get the true ending. It wouldn't be unlike in the original Zelda, where you CAN confront Ganon without the prerequisite equipment.

In another ending to the game (where you defeat Ganon), they rewrite Zelda's dialogue. She basically explains that Link will get the chance to relive his life as a child, and regain the seven years that he missed in his slumber earlier in the game. She also explains that even though she can send him back, HER world will continue on, because the powers of the Ocarina of Time are limited when anyone but Link uses it. It really doesn't have to make all that much sense - it would just have to be some time travel babble that explains that the timeline will be split in two. They could even do a split screen of what exactly is happening.

Option 2: Create a new game that explains Nintendo's new Timeline Theory
In a new game, it starts off like a combination of Symphony of the Night and Mega Man X. You start off in the final battle with Ganon, being thrown RIGHT into the thick of things. Things play out similarly to the way they did in Ocarina of Time. However, there's no way you can defeat Ganon (much like Mega Man X' first battle against Vile). Ganon stops Link, and he maintains power of Hyrule for a short time. Zelda goes off into hiding, using her guise as Shiek to stay hidden among the remaining citizens of Hyrule. She goes on her own adventure and rallies the people and armies of Hyrule together, as they work together to seal Ganon away. With Link's absence, this proves to be quite difficult. Where before, only one hero stood in Ganon's way, now Zelda must rely on herself and a new alliance to put Ganon away for good.

That doesn't really HAVE to be the plot of the game. Perhaps you take control of Ganon from the very beginning, and you play an entire game from his perspective. The game could be darker, and have kind of a melancholy ending, as Ganon inevitably gets sealed away by the end of the game. We see how Ganon continues to transform from a cunning thief into more of the pig like beast that we see in a Link to the Past, the Oracle games, and the NES games. However the game plays out, all that matters is that it establishes a new story arc in which Link falls at the hands of Ganon.



Is this something Zelda fans even WANT Nintendo to touch? From a story perspective, there's a TON to mine here. There's also room for a lot of new gameplay opportunities, as Nintendo has given themselves a window where games can exist without Link. New gameplay tropes, new characters, new styles of gameplay, etc. If Nintendo retcons OoT, would you rather see them do that in a future rerelease of Ocarina of Time, or possibly in a new spin-off game? Or possibly both? Maybe this sealing war could be some sort of strategy game where you control the various armies of Hyrule. Maybe it could even be some sort of multiplayer game where the player creates their own character, be it Zora, Gerudo, Hylian, or Goron.

OR, is this something that's better left in the history books? Is it simply time to just move forward and put all this timeline stuff behind us? Would such a retcon only confuse future (and old) players who don't want to concern themselves with any of this?

What direction do you think Nintendo should take? Should they even take a direction?

URL to share (right click and copy)

I hate to say it, but reading through the Hyrule Historia made me kind of realize...Zelda stories are pretty clunky all-around. With the exception of a few games that pulled some nice emotional punches (Wind Waker, Link's Awakening, Majora's Mask, parts of Skyward Sword), most Zelda plots hinge way too much on some inconsistent Triforce behavior and Ganondorf getting sealed/breaking the seal/resealed (sometimes under a lesser puppet like Agahnim, Zant, or even Vaati). There are too many repeated things to make the full Zelda timeline a very good cohesive story at all.

Too bad, because I really like the series and the book.

I kind of want Nintendo to "fix" this, too--give some sort of better storyline or approach to the struggle between good and evil. But the Zelda series kind of shies away from mining its full narrative potential most of the time. One of the most jaw-dropping story elements to me was discovering sunken Hyrule in TWW, and the numerous plot twists immediately after that. I love stuff like that; it references the old games, but does so in a fresh and memorable way. The series as a whole could have great moments from doing more things along these lines, but it seems that they'd rather pull worlds and characters out of nowhere (Twilight Realm) or continually throw Ganondorf in and out of the Sacred Realm until the end of time.

Why is there any need for Ocarina of Time to be retconnned? There is nothing to gain from that, nothing. The story and geography fit in perfectly with the rest of the games and if you complain about why there is the 3rd split and why doesn't that occur in any other game I will scream Gunpei Yokoi until my Zora lungs hurt.

I was surprised when the Hyrule Historia book was announced, I had no idea so many people cared about the timeline. I feel like people are missing the point of Zelda games if this is the stuff they focus on. It's clear, and Nintendo have admitted, that they don't put much effort into Zelda stories, so we shouldn't put much effort into thinking about them. Piecing together the timeline is like trying to complete a jigsaw puzzle where every hundred pieces is from an entirely different jigsaw puzzle.

Man, I think you guys are nuts. I'd love to see a game that centers around Shiek or Ganon around that time period. Would I rather have a brand new game doing it's own thing? 100% yes. But the recent RFN podcast about Hyrule Historia had me thinking....and I think that would make a super, super cool game, and it would be a great way to play a game in the Zelda universe that shakes things up a lot.

@Mop it up To be fair, the timeline is just one section of Hyrule Historia. I was much more interested in it from a concept art standpoint, and I wasn't disappointed.

GameDadGrant said:

Oh man, I dunno. If anything, I think Skyward Sword needs a retcon, since Nintendo does a pretty good job of screwing up their own story-telling with this franchise.

gencid said:

If anything needs a retcon, Hyrule Historia does.

Amen. It's sad to think that the more attention Nintendo tries to pay to the story, the more they manage to screw it up, but that seems to be the case with these two releases especially.

And it really wouldn't take much to retcon away these errors and OoT's silly three-way split. Just take the Metroid Prime approach. Throw in some lore scattered throughout the world in the form of Pensieve-esque memories, book pages, or some other information-holding item. They're completely optional, so they put absolutely no significant weight on the current story. Sure, there's the option to use this lore to enhance the story of the current game, but it could all be used to talk about past games if so desired.

Have one page explain how the Hero of Time Link spent a few months in Hyrule with Zelda after he returned to the past, and she went in hiding with Impa where she trained to become Sheik, before he left for Termina while his present self remained asleep in the Sacred Realm. Have another page explain how TP Ganondorf was a new Gerudo king named after the sealed-away OoT/TWW Ganondorf, and underline the already substantiated fact that the Triforce marks in TP weren't the actual Triforce. Have another page deal with FSA Ganon eventually breaking out of the Four Sword and starting the Imprisoning War that would eventually lead to the events of ALttP. Have another page talk about how the Master Sword created by the sages was lost in the final battle with TWW Ganondorf, and SS Link eventually created a new one, which was eventually found and used in ALttP and laid to rest forever, and how at some later point, an Old Zora came into possession of the broken pieces of the old Master Sword (substantiated by OoA), and eventually traded the pieces to Oracles Link, allowing him to reforge the sword in those games.

Four pages, and all of the major Hyrule Historia timeline plot holes are gone (except for FS's placement and Oracles Link supposedly being the same guy as ALttP/LA Link; so six pages would take care of every plot hole). You wouldn't even need to remake OoT in order to try to justify something that really can't be justified. (After all, to make Hyrule Historia's version of OoT work, you'd have to do the alternate endings thing, AND have alternate dialogue explaining that the type of time travel Zelda was using to send Link back in time was different from the type of time travel seen everywhere else in the game, AND that this type of time travel was going to send Link not only back in time, but also to an entirely new universe where he would have never existed (or would have to forcibly merge with his incarnation from this new universe, essentially causing that incarnation to cease to exist as this Link takes over that Link's life). Alternately, they could just change the time travel in OoT so that Link returning to the past actually changes time rather than just fulfilling it (which means dropping or radically altering the Song of Storms sidequest), and then just acknowledging that Link going back in time is going to erase the adult timeline, ultimately rendering it another what-if timeline alongside the fallen hero timeline (of course this option still doesn't explain why the classic games take place in the fallen timeline, especially since the most recent ALttP retcon tells us that the Four Sword eventually made its way into the Dark World in that game... which is something that would make perfect sense if FSA took place right before it).)

@rebonack

I tend to agree with this. Ocarina of Time is my favorite game of all time, but Nintendo seems obsessed with it (and to the detriment of the follow-up games). As far as the timeline goes, I think the "third branch" that Nintendo unveiled in that Zelda artbook (the one where Link fails) is the dumbest thing they've come forward with, as there's nothing stopping them from saying every Zelda game has two branches, one where you beat the game and the other where you don't play the game and Link dies as a result, lol.

I'm never a fan of retconning anything, so I'd rather they leave alone what's already been done. There was a time when I cared about how all of the games tied together, but I feel like the split timeline has only cheapened that aspect of it, and I'm not really interested in how it all shakes up anymore. I'd prefer it if they start making future Zelda games all standalone entries (ala Majora's Mask), or just set them beyond what is currently the end of the timeline, and start a new lore that isn't bound by what happened in Ocarina of Time and other games.

@V_s


...I'm sure you've already gone through all this before...but what plot holes?

I thought the Historia timeline was pretty good.

@TheBigG753
Do you understand the mechanics of multi-universes and parallel universes? They is a split to every game where you die, there just isn't anything that takes place after you lose, thus it has no point of being mentioned.

@V_s
Yeah I found no plotholes, everything fits together nicely.

Pokefreak911 said:

@TheBigG753
They is a split to every game where you die, there just isn't anything that takes place after you lose, thus it has no point of being mentioned.

...So far.

Shadowlink said:

Pokefreak911 said:

@TheBigG753
They is a split to every game where you die, there just isn't anything that takes place after you lose, thus it has no point of being mentioned.

...So far.

Right. That's why the third split in the timeline is dumb.

@TheBigG753

It's dumb to have possibilities?

@TheBigG753
How is it dumb!!

@Shadowlink

There are plenty of possibilities for Nintendo to keep making Zelda games, without resorting to shoehorning-in silly concepts to make everything fit together. No one is forcing them to continue feeding the mystique and aura surrounding Ocarina of Time except themselves.

@TheBigG753
This doesn't detract from the games in any way so why are you treating it like it does...

@TheBigG753

...That.... doesn't answer the question.


Of course there's a ton of possibilities. But just because they've chosen certain ones over others doesn't automatically make them dumb...

Actually a failure timeline is actually kind of unique. I don't know many games where failure is a canon ending.

@Pokefreak911

I'm not discussing the quality of the games, I'm discussing the timeline and the original topic about how it should all get explained. And my point is that with the release of "Nintendo's official Zelda timeline", I no longer have the interest in following the timeline that I once did. There's no sense in trying to figure it all out, because as the introduction of the third timeline points out, Nintendo has no problem going back and re-arranging it to whatever is most convenient for them.

As far as detracting from the games, I think the obsession with the timeline does more harm than good, and does limit the possibilities for a new Zelda game. I don't want the designers go into making a new Zelda game with the idea that "Well, this game has to fit in between here and here, but in order to do that we need to add another split timeline at the end of this other game where Link failed, etc." I'd rather they go make a new Zelda game without consideration for how it fits in the timeline, mostly because I think Hyrule Historia rendered it as something that doesn't deserve to be taken seriously anymore. At least it's led me to stop taking it seriously.

Shadowlink said:

I don't know many games where failure is a canon ending.

I think most game designers are smart enough to limit their endings to stuff the player can actually do. I think a Zelda game that ended with failure as a possibility would be really cool. What's not really cool is going back years later and saying "HEY WAIT THE GAME HAD A 3RD ENDING ALL ALONG THAT WE JUST MADE UP BC WE DON'T KNOW WHERE TO FIT THE NES/SNES-ERA GAMES!" At that point, it's just not something I can justify caring much about anymore, seeing as the guys running the series don't seem to.

@TheBigG753

What do you mean rearrange it though?

We've never had a full timeline before, and certainly nothing that contradicted what Hyrule Historia says.

@Shadowlink

Nintendo had been saying "2 timelines" for years. Young Link and Old Link. And now they've added Dead Link, a branch that could be applied to every game ever made, but only applies to OoT because its so "special". It's convenient, and it's them making it up as they go along.

EDIT: Gotta go to work. Good discussion. I still think it's dumb.

I've never been much for caring about the overall timeline and honestly it strikes me as causing more problems than it solves (sort of like when 343i decided to make Halo 4 multiplayer have a canonical explanation). It doesn't add anything for those who don't care and for those that do it introduces a lot of inconsistencies.