3DS Nintendo

Nintendo Still Isn’t Sure Where Zelda Tri Force Heroes Fits In Zelda Timeline

One question that keeps popping up in interview regarding the forthcoming The Legend of Zelda: Tri-Force Heroes is where does the game fit with regard to the Zelda timeline? Game Informer chased this up with the director of The Legend of Zelda: Tri-Force Heroes, Hiromasa Shikata, and you can read his response below.

“That’s a tough question. The Zelda timeline is quite complicated if you look at the history of Zelda I think you can see there are three branches. I can’t really designate which one of those branches we’re looking at, but as far as the design itself, it really is Link Between Worlds. But it’s not – as far as a timeframe – before or after. We haven’t really settled on or said that.”

31 comments

  1. >>>It’s a useless Zelda game that shouldn’t have been made>>>

    1. I agree. Just like the Four Swords games should have never been made. They’re probably the only games with the “Legend Of Zelda” title that I don’t care anything about.

      1. I really enjoyed Four Swords Adventures on the Gamecube, so…to each their own. While this isn’t the ideal Zelda game I would have hoped for, and I probably don’t see myself buying it, I don’t fault them for trying new things with the series as long as they still give me Zelda games that are as solid as the main games in the series. There are very few people that post on this site that are more disappointed than I am with Nintendo, but just because a game is being made that you don’t like doesn’t mean it doesn’t warrant being made. Chill out, people.

      2. Yoooo, have you ever played Four Swords? My god, it’s puzzles are challenging, it’s a GREAT entry in the 2D series, I have no idea why you think it’s some sort of “Party Game”.

        1. He’s a solo gamer. He apparently hates being socially active on video games. So anything that allows us to play with others is a party game. I could be wrong, though, but that’s the impression he gives.

    2. Couldn’t agree more, it’s just dumb. And I thought they already had said before it was a spinoff and didn’t belong to the timeline at all?

      1. >>>It seems that they are getting the Sonyan Flu, which is a short memory term illness>>>

    3. It’s a party game. Just like the Metroid and Animal Crossing party games announced. Nintendo has basically been spending the last year developing casual games. :/

      Metroid and Zelda got the shaft, at Least Zelda has Zelda U coming, whereas Metroid…they haven’t even begun a concept for a new one, just told us, “At this point, if another Metroid was made, It would probably be for NX.” – basically, “We got noth’in.”

      1. >>>They can talk all they want, I know what their Top Secret projects are, one of them is Metroid>>>

        1. I’m sorry to say, High Command gave you and all of us a Metroid. It’s called Federation Force, and it’s the only Metroid we’re getting for at least another 3 years…that’s if they start thinking about a console Metroid right now. :/

    4. But your all knowing and masterful Nintendo base couldn’t be wrong!?!?!

      Pfffffffffft.

  2. I’ll never understand why people fret over this timeline so much. It rarely impacts the actual story of these games, let alone the gameplay.

  3. It really doesn’t matter for Zelda games where they fit in the timeline. It absolutely means nothing…..it’s all gameplay that’s awesome about zelda.

  4. I wish they would just do away with the timeline, I really would like to see some of the races return along with a few extinct or missing races.

    1. The problem is that they didn’t really focus on having a solid timeline or continuity and put it in as an afterthought, then continued with doing whatever they wanted in each game without thinking of the repercussions. If they had ensured the history from the beginning, or at least made a better effort to work on it while making all the games, it wouldn’t be as big a deal – but now every time there’s a new game they’ll have to really do some word-crunching in order to make it fit into the greater narrative, which can be a doubled edged sword: it can help the game by giving it even more world-building and lore by tying it into the overall continuity, but it can also greatly limit it by doing so.

  5. Well, me and my friend had a blast playing 4 swords on 3ds, and we were waiting for another game like this, am not sure why people hate it, I mean you still getting Zelda U, not like Metroid fans who will get that 3ds game instead of Metroid U

  6. And why does this even matter? Lets be realistic here, there are three “links” running around dungeon crawling. Does that mean there’s three Zelda’s? How about make the damn game and put it out instead of wasting time back tracking for a story that isn’t there.

  7. If the game’s story is very good & solid, go ahead & add it to the Zelda timeline. If it’s not good, keep it far away & as a side game. Four Swords & Four Swords Adventures were great & fun and had a nice story, even if the first Four Sword game didn’t have much of a story to begin with & was just there to start the game off. Then again, the original Legend of Zelda only had a story to kick start the game but it’s not shunned by a majority of the Zelda fans, so why should Four Swords be the exception? Speaking of, I wish they had given the Four Swords a cooler name like Tetra Sword or something representing the number 4.

  8. It doesn’t matter, Zelda’s timeline is just a “thing”. They probably only made an official statement about it to release Skyward Sword as the “first Zelda game in the timeline”, but I doubt they take this concept seriously on all the titles they make. In the end it really doesn’t matter unless a game is a direct sequel to another, other than that Zelda’s timeline is pretty much irrelevant.

    1. Uhm… More than half of the Zelda fanbase cares, actually. Nintendo wouldn’t have given us an official timeline if that wasn’t the case.

Leave a Reply

%d bloggers like this: