Recently I was in Barnes & Noble and came upon a copy of "Hyrule Historia." It's a beautiful book that I regret not asking anyone to get me for Christmas. It's beautiful, full of the kind of information any Zelda fan would love to know, and a timeline. To be more specific, THE timeline that Zelda fans have been debating for the past two decades at least. From what I've read, most people are content with the version given. Others, while they might not agree it's the best or even logical, respect the fact that Nintendo deigned to finally release a timeline at all. But for the sake of voicing a view that I have not read, I thought it worth explaining why, despite being a huge fan of the series since the first installment, I couldn't care less about this timeline (sorry, THE timeline).
Here's the situation - for the first three games everything was fine. You had The Legend of Zelda, Zelda II: The Adventure of Link, and The Legend of Zelda: A Link to the Past. It was explained that the third was a prequel, which was fine; nothing's complicated so far. But after the fourth game (Link's Awakening), which also happened prior to the original game, we got to Ocarina of Time. Now time travel was involved, and since then we've had sequels that have all taken place prior to The Legend of Zelda. At least, that was most people's understanding. Every game always turned out to be another prequel, and this is around the time people starting asking about their order.
To be fair, plenty of other games, especially well-known series, have clearly established timelines. Mass Effect 2 and 3 came, unsurprisingly, after Mass Effect 1. Same with the Halo games, which have included one or two that deviated from the main storyline. Still, it was always clear. Even Metroid, a series just about as old as Zelda, had a timeline. But not Zelda until relatively recently.
It's shocking how much energy and creativity has been expended to solve this "problem," but my question is why? It's helpful to consider the following games - Link to the Past, Ocarina of Time, Twilight Princess, and Skyward Sword. All of them tend to follow the structure of get X (usually 3) things (pendants, stones, etc.) first, then there's a big moment (a fight and/or cutscene) involving the villain, and after that you find more things before the last fight. Also consider that in all of them you play Link, Zelda tends to need rescuing, and you nearly always face Ganon in the end. From a writing standpoint, it seems incredibly awkward to have to explain why, in every installment, there are three characters who always have the same names and play the same essential role. Most people say they are all descendants of older generations, but imagine a series of books or movies where the hero always has a son or grandson or great-grandson who has the same name, wears or finds the same green tunic to wear, and always gets mixed up with his Zelda and Ganon counterparts. In "Lord of the Rings" Frodo is a younger relative of Bilbo and also goes on a related adventure, but they are not interchangeable in terms of their character. Nor are their adventures or enemies precisely the same. Their stories are linked, not redundant.
I prefer to think of the series as what I believe creator Shigeru Miyamoto once described it as - a fairy tale. It's a classic story whose structure makes for great gameplay. Actually, perhaps it's better to think of it as a modern myth in the same way that Superman or Batman is a modern myth. The Nolan Batman films had nothing to do with the Tim Burton films, and no one had a problem with that. The reason is obvious - as long as the essentials of the character are respected, you have creative license. And just like Bruce Wayne's parents are always killed, Alfred is his butler, etc., Link is always the hero, Hyrule is always the location, there's always a Kakiriko Village, and on and on. I think of most Zelda games as rewordings of the same basic story that are interesting depending on awhat has been changed. As far as I'm concerned, Link to the Past and Ocarina of Time are almost the same game (same structure, two worlds, same villain), but the Young vs Adult Link element, the added races like the Gorons and more make them unique, never mind the difference between 2D and 3D.
The benefit to thinking of the games in this way is that you can appreciate the fact that in a very short amount of time, the video game industry has matured to the point where it has produced modern myths. Superman's foster parents are always Martha and Jonathan Kent and Mario's always got a brother Luigi. Spider-man's uncle dies and Samus is always an orphan. There are plenty of examples outside Nintendo, but I do believe that Mario, Metroid, and Zelda are special if only because of how long they have lasted. They are among the modern myths that are as endlessly adaptable, just like stories from ancient Greece, where Homer, Sophocles, Aeschylus, and more could create immortal works from the same mythic material.
In twenty years, I hope not only that we will still be playing new Zelda games, but that there will eventually be new designers for them, so that we can profit from the variety of creative visions that are out there. But more than that, I hope these future designers will not feel constricted by the urge to somehow make everything fit or logical. For God's sake, the geography of Hyrule changes in every game.
So will I eventually buy Hyrule Historia (once I'm not poor, that is), of course. I can't wait. But I won't be gritting my teeth or sighing in relief about a timeline.
-Matt
(Speaking of my poverty, feel free to help minimize that by buying my novel, Saviors, from Holon Publishing, Amazon, or Barnes & Noble!)
http://holonpublishing.com/books/saviors
No comments:
Post a Comment