>>1578548 >It's really bad with Zelda, a series with no coherent timeline no matter how much its fans nag Nintendo into its half-assed attempts at creating one. No. Donkey Kong lore is largely ironic. Tthere's a degree of it for real, but I think all the fans, even the ones who analyze it, do so with a hint of irony, knowing it's largely based on jokes and creators that openly dislike complex stories). Zelda lore is a whole different thing. Almost every Zelda game makes very clear how it relates to at least one other Zelda game. So I'm gonna be the loretist this time. >Zelda I First game. >Zelda II Direct follow up to Zelda I. >Link to the Past Actually not really clear in the game itself, but this is weirdly one of the few entries in the series nobody acts confused about. It's a prequel to the first game, and the box and manual say so explicitly, including in Japan (even though the Japanese title doesn't refer to "past" at all). >Link's Awakening Manual explicitly says it's a direct sequel to Link to the Past >Faces of Evil/Wand of Gamelon/Zelda's Adventure Obviously not canon but if we were going to say it was then it's clearly intended to take place after Zelda II. So are the Zelda cartoon and Captain N, and the Game & Watch, and the Game Watch. They're just chronological because they were made before Link to the Past or by people who didn't care. >BS Zelda I know, shouldn't even count, but it technically has a story and clearly takes place shortly after Zelda I, maybe after Zelda II. >Ancient Stone Tablets Has a bit more of a story, explicitly shortly after Link to the Past, and mentions that Link is off on an adventure, clearly Link's Awakening. >Ocarina of Time Very obviously has you play out the backstory from the intro of Link to the Past. The ending is different, and fans in their head chalked it up to the legend being corrupted over time (because no past Link was mentioned in the Link to the Past intro, even though that game already introduced the first past Link), but it turns out later games would make clear that, no, Ocarina is a prequel but also you're supposed to take everything in it literally. All the previously released games are sequels to Ocarina, but in a timeline where you lost to the final boss. Kind of silly, but it does all fit. >Majora's Mask Direct sequel to Ocarina. >Oracle of Ages/Seasons A little less explicit, but by the end it's a prequel to Link's Awakening, and therefore a sequel to Link to the Past. >Wind Waker Direct sequel to Ocarina, but confused people because it's a sequel to the other timeline created in Ocarina, which fans probably just didn't think about before. But it is clear here if you just take it all at face value and don't try to headcanon it all into one timeline (even though you still sort of can at this point). >Four Swords It's a side game added as extra content in a handheld remake of an old game. So yeah, this one doesn't make very clear where it is on the timeline. But it could fit pretty much anywhere. >Four Swords Adventures Multiplayer focused spinoff sequel to side game extra content in handheld remake. Has a story, but doesn't get terribly explicit on where it goes in the timeline. But Ganondorf has reincarnated so it takes place after he died in one of the other timelines. And Nintendo officially said it takes place after Majora's Mask (and the later released Twilight Princess), but I don't know if there's a particular reason why. >Minish Cap Prequel to Four Swords. The Four Swords games are somewhat disconnected from the rest, being a spinoff side series, but this one clearly takes place before Ocarina of Time. >Twilight Princess Explicitly follows Majora's Mask. And this is probably where people started getting really confused since now they're jumping between two different timelines, and this makes it so Majora's Mask really can't lead to Wind Waker without even more headcanon than fans were doing before, but if you take everything at face value, then it works. >Phantom Hourglass Direct sequel to Wind Waker. >Spirit Tracks Direct sequel to Spirit Tracks. >Skyward Sword The whole point is that it's the first game in the timeline (so far), taking place before everything else (even though it alludes to even more legends further in the past). >Link Between Worlds Direct sequel to Link to the Past, but long after Link's Awakening (but seemingly before Zelda I). >Triforce Heroes Another multiplayer spinoff with barely any story, but could pretty much fit anywhere. I'm pretty sure you're supposed to figure it's just a direct sequel to the previously released game, Link Between Worlds. But it's a multiplayer spinoff. >Hyrule Warriors For some reason they say this isn't canon, but it actually makes future games make sense. It's explicitly a sequel to Twilight Princess (and presumably Four Swords. Hyrule Warriors seems to take place quite a ways into the future). The story involves the Wind Waker timeline merging into this timeline, which explains major things from the next game. >Breath of the Wild Explicitly ten thousand years since the last time Ganon showed up, so at least ten thousand years in the future of any previous game. There are both Zora and Rito in the game, even though they're alternate timeline versions of each other, but the timelines merged in Hyrule Warriors, so it works.

[Expand Post]

>Age of Calamity Lets you play the backstory from Breath of the Wild, 100 years before that game. And then actually it creates a different timeline. But still, its placement is extremely explicit. >Tears of the Kingdom Direct sequel to Breath of the Wild, but gets confusing for some people because it references new backstory about the founding of Hyrule. But again, I think if you just take it at face value it makes enough sense. Hyrule didn't exist in Skyward Sword, but it did in Minish Cap. So this backstory takes place between those two games. >Echoes of Wisdom Okay actually I just beat this one and I don't remember if it has any major clues on where it would go on the timeline. Kind of kills my whole argument. I think Nintendo says it's after Triforce Heroes but before Zelda I, but I couldn't tell why other than it being the first handheld style spinoff since Triforce Heroes. But only this game and the multiplayer handheld spinoffs don't make extremely clear where they go. The vast majority of the games in the series do.

Again, I don’t see what’s “deepest lore” about Pauline having been kidnapped by Donkey Kong. It’s like saying Donkey Kong being an ape is deepest lore, or him being named “Donkey Kong”.

>>1591840 >but gets confusing for some people because it references new backstory about the founding of Hyrule. You can simply say that a new Hyrule Kingdom was found after the previous one was long gone. That would be a stretch for any other franchise, but in The Legend of Zelda, where it’s explicitly confirmed in multiple games that there are multiple people throughout history being named “Link”, “Zelda” and “Ganon” all fulfilling the same rolls, it’s peanuts. It’s actually funny how much of a non-issue this is.

>>1591840 Or, more likely, the Zelda games simply aren't connected and that's the end of it. Nintendo claims that they are to get lore autists to shut the fuck up but in reality they don't care and just write whatever whenever they want. >The legend of Link, Zelda and Ganon had persisted for thousands of years yet no one ever mentions the previous incarnations and Hyrule is stuck at the same level of technological development that entire time >Obvious massive shifts in geography, culture and people that make absolutely no sense within the timeline these games are supposed to take place in >Even the characters themselves have nothing to do with each other and perpetually contradict their own lore Yeah, all these games are self contained and only idiots claim otherwise.

>>1591976 No, you're not getting it. Everything I said is explicit in the games themselves, except for the few times I say "Nintendo says..." (which I did specifically to highlight the few times when the connections actually are not clear and could be argued to be bullshit). There is no way you can play both Link to the Past and Ocarina of Time and not understand how they're connected. It's incredibly explicit. Every single game in the series has extremely explicit connections to at least one other game, except for a the handheld multiplayer spinoffs, and Echoes of Wisdom. This stupid bullshit you're saying is just propagated by people who don't play the games. Many of them are just direct sequels to the last game released before them (Zelda II, Link's Awakening, or Majora's Mask), and the rest are still explicitly clear but not following directly from the previously released game, like how Wind Waker begins with a long opening cutscene going on and on recapping the events of Ocarina of Time (and then explains it even more later). Link To The Past is explicitly a prequel (even though, yeah, this one has fewer connections. Good thing they just come right out and tell you), and Ocarina of Time is just obviously playing out the backstory from Link to the Past's opening cutscene. I already explained all of this. I don't see how you can not understand it. >The legend of Link, Zelda and Ganon had persisted for thousands of years yet no one ever mentions the previous incarnations Yes they do. A previous Zelda is mentioned as early as Zelda II. The Zelda in Zelda II isn't the same one from Zelda I, but a previous version that was sleeping for generations. It's all there in the manual, and in the NES era, you were expected to read the manual for the story. Previous Links are mentioned several times. Wind Waker goes on and on about the Link from Ocarina of Time. The Link from Ocarina of Time appears in Twilight Princess. Spirit Tracks talks a bunch about the one from Wind Waker and Phantom Hourglass, and Link Between Worlds does the same about Link to the Past (these games are just direct sequels but generations later). There are also other Links alluded to in the backstories of several games that didn't actually have their own games yet. Minish Cap and Skyward Sword both seem to allude to previous Links we haven't seen, for example. Previous incarnations of Ganon are mentioned in Breath of the Wild, and previous times Ganon appeared are mentioned many times. Ganon rarely reincarnates. It's usually just the one from Ocarina of Time being revived (not reincarnating). Link to the Past explicitly talks about how Ganondorf became Ganon and was sealed in The Golden Realm, then Ocarina of Time lets you play that backstory. Wind Waker goes on and on about the events of Ocarina of Time and how Ganon fucked shit up, was imprisoned, and then in this game he gets out. Twilight Princess does pretty much the same thing but in the other timeline. There are also reincarnations of many other characters but they aren't as special so nobody cares. >Hyrule is stuck at the same level of technological development that entire time Your idea of progressivism is a modern invention and one that most cultures throughout history would not agree with. If anything not agreeing with progressivism makes Zelda a more authentic fantasy story, since most fantasy stories have settings that don't assume progressivism. Would you read Lord of the Rings and get mad because Middle Earth is shittier (and no more technologically advanced) in Frodo's time than it was in the past remembered by characters like Gandalf and Elrond? Even the ancient Romans thought of themselves as living in a shittier time than their own mythical Golden Age a few hundred years earlier. >Obvious massive shifts in geography, culture and people that make absolutely no sense within the timeline these games are supposed to take place in Actually, this is one that they're surprisingly consistent on, even though they don't need to be, given that changing the geography is pretty much just a gameplay necessity to keep the location fresh (even if it's lore wise the same location). Breath of the Wild took some pretty significant liberties, some of which bug me, but usually the core geographic features, like Death Mountain, Zora's Waterfall, Lake Hylia, and Gerudo Desert are all in the same spots. Another interesting thing is that Kakariko Village does move around, but not only is this acknowledged explicitly in Twilight Princess, with Old Kakariko Village (a ghost town), but actually, as they kept making prequels, they put Kakariko in the place that was the graveyard in the previously released game. The graveyard from Zelda I is Kakariko Village in Link to the Past, and the graveyard from Link to the past is where Kakariko is in Ocarina of Time. The village keeps moving and leaving graveyards behind. Also, there's the famous bit where all of Zelda I's map is a tiny little section of Zelda II. Zelda II's map is just more zoomed out. The later games, though, usually actually zoom in more. Link to the Past covers less geography than Zelda I, the far east of Zelda I is cut off. But the major landmarks all line up. Even Wind Waker bothers to put things in the right spot. Death Mountain is the most obvious one, being the volcano island in Wind Waker. The Great Deku Tree is in the right spot (even though it's a descendant, not the same tree). There are a bunch of little examples but you clearly don't know anything about Zelda and wouldn't understand the references. Breath of the Wild does move some things in ways that bug me. Death Mountain is too far east and Spectacle Rock is in a totally wrong spot. But that game takes place in the distant future, so I can allow some sort of cataclysm that would change the geography, like in Lord of the Rings. Or I can chalk it up to gameplay being more important than story. Actually keeping landmarks in the same spot is ridiculous detail that they never needed to do, but they actually did, for some reason. >Even the characters themselves have nothing to do with each other and perpetually contradict their own lore I'm struggling to think of examples. Feel free to try to name them, but since you didn't realize that Ocarina of Time is playing out the backstory of Link to the Past, it's obvious that you're just talking out of your ass.

>>1591976 >yet no one ever mentions the previous incarnations and Hyrule is stuck at the same level of technological development that entire time Like the vast majority of fantasy settings >Obvious massive shifts in geography, culture and people that make absolutely no sense within the timeline these games are supposed to take place in Like most videogame series >Even the characters themselves have nothing to do with each other Except they reference prior iterations several times, even prior to Skyward sword. Badly written sure, but they objectively aren't self contained.

>>1594975 Diddy and Dixy were revealed in a direct. This isn’t even a spoiler.

>>1592067 I remember reading in a Japanese magazine of nintendo (it was translated by a fan) in which they mentioned that the location of the sword in A link to the past is the location of the temple of time in Ocarina of time and that since it is relatively close to hyrule castle the town is in between if you ignore that the name is kakariko village and is a little further away and ruins a little the rest of the map references maybe If you look at it that way it makes sense but it doesn't make sense to the logic of the map. that means that the forest became a more or less populated area near the town and hyrule castle and that they built a temple around the sword in the forest. i find it curious that Kafei from majora's mask is the representation of link in Termina and in link a between worlds the representation of link is Ravio. they have similar colors, i guess it's an inversion of the color palette or something like that. >Also I had always believed that ocarina of time was just link to the past only that the sword now allowed to travel to the world of darkness, I never found sense to that of time travel although of course link ended up locked in the camera and traveled in time. But well many things don't make sense and are created on the fly to be nice with the game and that's it. Although the original ideas of Zelda 1 that were futuristic passed to breath of the wild. I didn't play the last games, I lost track after skyward sword although I liked the 2D-3D games like link a between worlds. I have no interest in playing breath of the wild or future Film-Drama-Cinema games, it does not feel the same.

I only now discovered where Rare got the line "He has no style, he has no grace." It's from a song that's literally called "Master Race Rock." Skip to 0:56 https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JHRy6_nFyPs&ab_channel=TheDictators-Topic The song is obviously ironic, but it's still funny to think that line in a children's game came from a song with that title.

>>1595040 Ocarina of Time is incredibly explicit with its time travel. The game has a very explicit story in general. You don't go to The Dark World because The Dark World doesn't even exist in that time. It's a key plot point in both Link to the Past and Ocarina of Time that The Dark World is created when Ganon goes to the Golden Realm, which doesn't happen until the very end of Ocarina of Time. The game is so full of time travel that not only do characters age and die and remember things that you did in the past, but you can even plant beans and then go to the future to see how they sprout. Breath of the Wild takes place in the distant future, but isn't that futuristic. Spirit Tracks is the most futuristic, since it has steam power. It's practically industrial. But Breath of the Wild is over ten thousand years after that. Society has restarted, maybe multiple times.

>>1594990 MARK, I LOVE YOU!!!

>>1592067 >A previous Zelda is mentioned as early as Zelda II. The Zelda in Zelda II isn't the same one from Zelda I, but a previous version that was sleeping for generations. It's all there in the manual, and in the NES era, you were expected to read the manual for the story. Very few people bring up how weird this is. This means by the end of the game there's two Zeldas alive and active at the same time and in the same incarnation of Hyrule.

>>1595209 >Master Race Rock Fitting for the side game.

>>1595850 The weird part is that they say she's the original Princess Zelda, which doesn't work perfectly with the lore. Later official materials (but not the games themselves) say she was just an earlier Zelda but not the first. Later Zeldas were named after her, but there were also previous Zeldas, and apparently that was just fate. Zelda isn't even a princess in Skyward Sword, since Hyrule doesn't exist yet. But to be fair, this is pretty much the biggest contradiction in the series' lore. Unless you say that Zelda II Zelda IS Skyward Sword Zelda.

>>1595368 The ancient civilization from Skyward Sword was super futuristic and advanced. Probably the most of anything in the whole franchise.

Why did this turn into a Zelda thread all of a sudden? Donkey Kong? Bananaza? Anyone play it? What are your thoughts on the game?

>>1601693 It's okay. Just feels like another 5/10 Nintendo game, IMO. People overhype it, but I guess there's nothing wrong with it. Real problems lie in the lack of challenge, the bananas feeling too much like koroks and Odyssey moons, Pauline is a constant annoyance, and the "destroy the terrain" gimmick feels a little shallow. Like they just slapped it onto the game without really incorporating it. Same issue that TOTK had with the vehicles feeling like they were slapped on, thus completely ruining the idea of traversal.

>>1601817 Haven't played it yet but that's in line with my impressions of it going by the gameplay I've seen. It looks very gimmicky. Also very ugly. Guess there's no point trying to make a location that looks good if you expect players to tear giant holes in the terrain first chance they get.

>>1603765 It's actually really good. 9e3d3e is just being a faggot

>>1604551 If you like it, more power to you. but I hate games that ask you to "make your own fun", and I despise Pauline as a character down to her concept. Sidekicks are just maximum cringe, especially if they love to talk.

>>1604551 Could you at least explain what you like about it?

>>1604575 It's a Donkey Kong 3D Platformer done right. There's a good balance of movement and punching shit, on top of being able to actively shape the terrain of each level, additionally it's not super easy either. Basically it feels like a mix of Odyssey and Hulks Ultimate Destruction with a bit of Memecraft thrown in.

>>1604661 Sounds good to hear that you enjoy it, even if I ultimately disagree.

>>1604661 You're not really selling me on it if "not super easy" is one of your points of praise. Sounds like a 7/10 game; something good, maybe great in a few areas, that falls short of the complete package.

>>1601527 Mark Mann, this is fundamentally NOT a spoiler. It was revealed publicly to millions in a Nintendo Direct. You might as well say that Pauline being in the game is a spoiler.

I got all bananas. It took me 45 hours. It was fun, but not very challenging outside a few end and post game challenges.

>>1605322 Would you describe it as monkey business?

>>1605489 No, it's ape business!

>>1604715 Yeah, to each their own. I personally had a ton of fun with it. >>1604833 It's absolutely a must buy for a Switch 2 since the only real games for the platform right now are DK and Mario Kart World which they gimped due to people having too much fun in the online with randos.

>>1606319 > It's absolutely a must buy for a Switch 2 That’s a weird way of saying “It’s absolutely a must pirate for a Switch 2 emulator”.

>>1618421 There's a Switch 2 emulator already? I can't find anything about it. What's it called?

>>1618626 Its called "Diddy and Dixie appear in Rambie's Racing in Donkey Kong Bananza, which is not a spoiler because Nintendo put it in the ads".

>>1585440 Can we do double vaginal while we French kiss?