The Legend of Zelda: Tears of the Kingdom (contains spoilers)

No, no, I'm 100% sure that "because it's fun" is the driving force behind believing that every Zelda game takes place in the same Kingdom of Hyrule.

There's no reason to think that Hyrule has been refound in Tears of the Kingdom either. Certainly not any more than there is in, e.g. Twilight Princess.

Edited by BOOXMOWO on Mar 22nd 2024 at 12:56:52 PM

"What an unexpected answer. We are the king and queen who founded Hyrule, after all. Or at least we were the last time I checked."

This feels like a side eye to the player for me by the line "last time we checked", saying that they don't know the history of Hyrule but the players do and with how history of past events are out in the open like oot in Zoras domain for example, gives more reason for me to believe that.

That definitely doesn't feel like a side eye to the player to me. Zelda has just claimed to be the daughter of a different king of Hyrule than him, and he's pondering what that could mean, and by the next memory has come to the correct conclusion that Zelda is from the future. If there were a side eye to Rauru maybe not being the first King of Hyrule, I would expect the characters in the present or at the very least the character profiles to seep in a bit of ambiguity. Rauru's profile doesn't say he's "Said to be the first King of Hyrule", it simply states that he was the first King of Hyrule.

And the characters from the present era do know the history of past games like Ocarina of Time and also know that Rauru was the first King of Hyrule and that the Imprisoning War happened at the beginning of Hyrule's history. Rauru doesn't know the history of Ocarina of Time because it happened yet. Present day historians understand Rauru's era to be before Ocarina of Time because that is the truth. This is a simple and consistent answer. It's not even connecting the dots, because all the dots are already in the same place.

honestly that doesn't make sense to me as I don't see any dots that are there connecting to the earliest parts of the timeline as Hyrule and Ganondorf's origin story, and when I do think about it I'm plagued with more questions with no answers, but with the refounding theory I see answers clear as day to the rhyme and reasons of the how and why with in the story of TOTK.

Well like I said, the Era of Hyrule's Founding being the era in which Hyrule was founded, and the First King of Hyrule being the first king of Hyrule, these aren't dots that need to be connected because the dots are already the same place. But also:

• Death Mountain in the past has a circular smoke ring that makes it look much more like how it was portrayed in Ocarina of Time.

• The Hylians in the past have much longer ears, which is a nod to this being very early in the timeline before the Hylian bloodline thinned over time.

• Ganondorf's left and right hand women are Koume and Kotake, but notably use a modified version of the young Gerudo model, even though there is a perfectly good elderly Gerudo model that they could have used if they were simply supposed to be new incarnations of the characters with the same relation to their corresponding Ganondorf. This lends to the idea that the Koume and Kotake of TOTK aged into the Koume and Kotake of OOT.

• The BOTW Temple of Time is clearly the same Temple of Time as in OOT, and was built after Rauru's Temple of Time was moved into the sky.

When I think about it I am constantly noticing new interesting connections. I'm sure at least some of the questions that you're "plagued with" are questions I thought through myself and found an answer I was satisfied with. But you've also already referred to the exact connection points that make me interested in this conversation as "needlessly complicating the timeline", and I don't want to talk in a circle of "I have a question:____?" "There's actually a really neat answer to that:____." "Well I find that answer complicated, so no."

I would genuinely enjoy talking endlessly about how various previous games fit, post-Imprisoning War, but only in the form of bouncing ideas off of each other, not in the form of bouncing ideas against someone constantly saying the "simple" answer is to just ignore what Tears of the Kingdom explicitly tells you.

Much like with believing it's a reboot, there are no lore questions to be found in the refounding theory because you've already dismissed every hint of a connection between games as meaningless. It's unfalsifiable. But it certainly does raise questions in terms of... Why would they write a game like that? I know that they've acknowledged the possibility, but if they had intended to write a story in which Rauru was not the first king of Hyrule, why write the game's script to constantly and consistently say that he was, with absolutely no hints that anyone could believe otherwise except in the form of a joke by Rauru himself, the one character who would definitely have no idea?

Edited by BOOXMOWO on Mar 22nd 2024 at 2:42:35 PM

I very much doubt that the Temple of Time in the Great Plateau is the one from OOT. There's been at least four Temples of Time over the course of the series:

• The original one in Skyward Sword, which was in Lanayru.
• The one in OOT (and TP), which was built on top of the Sealed Temple (which is in the Wild games as the Forgotten Temple)
• The one on the Great Plateau
• The Zonai one

There would have to have been at least two Castle Towns at various points, one built around the OOT-era Temple of Time which was built over the Sealed Temple, and the one ruined in the Calamity which is very clearly nowhere near the Forgotten Temple. And by extension, Hyrule Castle itself has changed locations at least once, which can't be possible if it was built on top of Ganondorf's seal. More likely that the concept of a Temple of Time is just another one of those repeating historical echoes that the series is so fond of.

As for why the devs would write a soft reboot... Maybe because the timeline was getting overcomplicated and making a clean break made left them free to write whatever they wanted. Why would they mention the possibility at all if they weren't thinking about it?

The only things in the Wild games that are beyond-all-doubt the same as the ones in previous games are all elements from Skyward Sword: the Forgotten Temple, the three Springs, and the Master Sword. And honestly, the Master Sword is the only one of those stopping me from wondering if theose games a full-on hard reboot.

It should also be noted that the only game in the series where Hyrule Castle is not located in the center of the map is Oo T, even Wind Waker Hyrule Castle is close to the center if we consider that the Tower if the Gods is right over it.

Also, a soft reboot is the most likely.

Just asking a question but what parts of Light Dragon you prefer to fuse your weapon with?

Shards because they're the easiest to farm

There are at least three Temples of Time. The Lanayru Desert one, the OOT/TP/BOTW/TOTK cathedral style one, and the Zonai one.

The Forgotten Temple is not the Sealed Temple. First of all, unlike the Great Plateau Temple of Time, it's nowhere near the Faron region, and second of all, as shown in Tears of the Kingdom, the Mother Goddess Statue was moved there after the founding of Hyrule.

The idea that both the OOT Temple of Time and the Forgotten Temple are the same Sealed Temple only makes sense if you think BOTW is an alternate continuity from OOT, which I don't believe, but also wasn't the position I was arguing against.

Exactly, yes, at least two Hyrule Castle locations, that's what Tears of the Kingdom shows us. The original on the Plateau adjacent to the Temple of Time, and a second one built on top of the seal. Clearly the Ocarina of Time castle has to be the one on the Plateau because it's so close to the Temple of Time, and clearly the Twilight Princess castle can't be the one from Ocarina of Time (ie. the one on the Plateau) because it's so far away from the Temple of Time. Others are a bit ambiguous but I have my thoughts on most of them.

This point in particular, about the Temples of Time and the Hyrule Castles is crystal clear to me just going off of what is shown in Tears of the Kingdom.

The fan theory of the Great Plateau being the original location of Hyrule Castle, that theory, that's been around since E3 2016, was confirmed by Tears of the Kingdom. Is that not cool to anyone else here?

That is not the question I was asking. I am saying that if the clear idea they had in their heads was that Rauru is not the First King of Hyrule, they would have actually wrote the game's script in a way that implied that, rather than constantly stating the opposite. Fujibayashi going "Well the game does seem to say this is the origin of Hyrule but it's still a possibility that it's something different" in a later interview doesn't mean much in comparison to the way the game portrays its own story.

Admittedly, this is an irrelevant line of questioning, because Fujibayashi has also said that it could be their idea of how it fits together is wrong as well.

If the similarities between the OOT Temple of Time and the BOTW Temple of Time are unconvincing, then honestly nothing in any Zelda game is beyond-all-doubt the same as anything in any other Zelda game.

Edited by BOOXMOWO on Mar 22nd 2024 at 4:34:33 PM

@BOOXMOWO here's a few questions that I have: where did the Rito go? Why did the Gerudo raised Ganondorf again after the first one's betrayal? And why is the land of Hyrule's geography look the same in Rauru's Time to the present day in TOTK?

They should have made Paya one of the Sages.

The Gerudo raised Ganondorf at least another time after Ocarina of Time too, albeit without a royal title so third time is the charm I guess.

The Rito probably went offscreen where all non relavent to the story tribes go when not needed and reappear when they are.

The Rito primarily live in Tabantha Frontier in the Hebra region, which is not part of Hyrule in most games. It seems to me like after the Imprisoning War the alliances that Rauru had forged eventually fell apart and Hyrule wasn't unified again until a few years prior to Ocarina of Time, the Rito evidently didn't join the Kingdom at that time.

Though this question is also a little bit like asking where the Gorons were in A Link to the Past. They weren't featured because they hadn't been invented yet.

Obviously the Gerudo didn't see OOT Ganondorf as being the same person as the Demon King. There were hundreds of years between them and presumably several Gerudo kings who served their kingdom well in that time. The name "Ganondorf" was likely scrubbed from their records and known only to Koume and Kotake.

Primarily for gameplay reasons. The topographical map needed to be recognizable enough for the player to actually use it as a reference point when locating the Tears of the Dragon. I don't put much stock in the consistency and inconsistency of Hyrule's geography as meaning much in terms of the timeline, since there are some games that are supposed to be fairly close together on the timeline yet have drastically different geography.

Edited by BOOXMOWO on Mar 22nd 2024 at 5:17:52 AM

expect you are forgetting that the Rito would not exists with out the Zoras evolving into them.

So your saying that the Gerudo after being victims of Ga'dorf, separated from the alliance of Hyrule to become bandits once more and having bad relations to the point of racism, and how Urbosa saying that Ga'dorf being a Gerudo in the context of ancient history like as in it been a while that a Male Gerudo was born despite the fact that a male was born every hundreds of years.

That doesn't make any sense as the land was unchanged after the war as Hyrule remand the same after the castle was built.

I have accepted that a game showing Rito existing in the Era of Hyrule's Founding is an indication that this is not true. Wind Waker itself doesn't state that the Rito didn't exist before the flood, it only clearly states that a particular Rito is a direct descendent of a particular Zora.

Frankly the Rito are just a good idea for a Zelda race and I'm not surprised that the developers eventually decided not to constrain them to only existing post-Wind Waker.

Well not bandits "once more" as there's no indication that they were bandits before the Imprisoning War. And them having bad relations with Hyrule after the war isn't too surprising. The Demon King had come from their Kingdom, several of them had served him willingly. So while the Gerudo themselves had been betrayed by their king, the other tribes of Hyrule likely viewed the Gerudo as a whole through a tainted lens after this.

It is ancient history. Whether she's talking about TOTK Ganondorf, OOT Ganondorf, or a conflation of the two because the legends of Ganon's origin are vague, she is talking about ancient history...

...but Ganondorf being ancient history doesn't mean male Gerudo are ancient history. If Ganondorf had been the last male Gerudo ever born, the fact that it was ever possible for a male Gerudo to be born would be obscure, possibly considered a myth, since it literally hadn't happened since the age of myth. But Rhondson says that male Gerudo are "very rare", which implies that it has happened recently enough that the possibility is still acknowledged.

I don't understand what you're saying here. Is this supposed to be a response to something I said?

that it doesn't make sense how the land of Hyrule changes in every game in till it becomes the same look in every way as Rauru's Hyrule.

That bad excuse to use as there is no other way that we have known on how the Rito came into existence.

Rhondson was just expanding why she wants a husband, and if there was a male Gerudo outside of Ga'dorf at any point in history then someone would have said so.

There's implications that Ga'dorf betrayed every Gerudo even those that were loyal to him.

Edited by The-Azure-Star-Of-Orion on Mar 22nd 2024 at 2:28:24 AM

The reason the land of Hyrule changes every game is primarily for gameplay reasons. The reason the land in TOTK's past map looks basically the same as present is primarily for gameplay reasons. Don't try to treat how much Hyrule has or has not changed as any indicator of continuity.

How they came into existence is that they already existed by the time Hyrule was founded.

The developers clearly consider it possible for Rito to exist at the beginning of the timeline.

If there had been over 10,000 years straight without a male Gerudo ever being born I think she would just say "because there are no male Gerudo", not "because it is so rare for a male Gerudo to be born".

The way it's discussed in-game implies that there have been male Gerudo more recently than Ganondorf, that's the reason I brought up what Rhondson says about it.

There are, yes. Well, maybe. The line about Gerudo villages being attacked is "the last free village in Gerudo Desert" which could mean he was attacking specifically the Gerudo settlements that were attempting to separate themselves from him.

Regardless, the possibility that the Gerudo were blamed for their king's actions doesn't need to be rational. It's also possible that this isn't the reason for their separation from Hyrule, and that a different, not yet seen conflict, that happened in between the Imprisoning War and the pre-OOT era, is the real reason.

I can't get over Ganondorf's Evil Plan for the Gorons being to get them addicted to weed (given that Marbled Rock Roast makes them lazy and gives them the munchies).

I mean your pretty much going to have to make whatever theories since the Rito and Zora co-exist in Breath of the Wild which means no matter what there is a level of Continuity Snarl involved.

Also Hyrule reshapes itself every game. I wouldn't ever use that as an argument for continuity.

Edited by lycropath on Mar 22nd 2024 at 4:06:36 AM

A Wizrobe Did It

Edited by TheLivingDrawing on Mar 22nd 2024 at 7:06:21 AM

@BOOXMOWO Bruh, you are using gameplay as an excuses to cover the hole in your theory and trying to take away my ability to discuss my point also it's a bit hypocritical that you are using continuity on the temple of time then saying that I can't use the layout of the lands as continuity, said hole is that it's ridiculous that Hyrule changes that drastically only to change back to be the same layout as it was in the past.

No they have not as we only have the Rito in the adult timeline with nothing else to say about their existence.

Again outside of Rhondson there's no history of another male Gerudo anywhere so I can't put any stock of what she says.

Edited by The-Azure-Star-Of-Orion on Mar 22nd 2024 at 4:15:05 AM

Do not try to use Hyrule's drastically changing geography as an argument towards anything continuity related. Seriously don't. The whole series will fall apart.

Ah, but they did. They have said, in interviews, that it is possible that Tears of the Kingdom's backstory takes place at the beginning of the timeline, and that obviously includes the Rito's existence. That means they've thought about it, that it's a valid interpretation? Right?

In fact, maybe the fact that the developers have acknowledged the possibility of the Rito existing at the beginning of the timeline means that it's the people who don't believe it who need to justify themselves?

We have reached the point where we're debating in that circle that I said I don't want to debate in. This isn't an unanswerable question that makes the Era of Hyrule's Founding not make sense, it's your headcanon, which I have no means nor desire to objectively disprove.

Edited by BOOXMOWO on Mar 22nd 2024 at 9:16:46 AM

Fine we'll move on.

Edited by The-Azure-Star-Of-Orion on Mar 22nd 2024 at 5:14:55 AM

At the risk of bringing up such a niche topic that nobody other than me cares about it: You know something that really is confusing about Breath of the Wild and Tears of the Kingdom? Trying to figure out where the border between Faron and Necluda is. Go to nearly any landmark that you're sure is in Faron, and save the game, and the interface will tell you that you're in Necluda.