With apologies to Robert Lamm, who wrote the song in this post’s title, and his group Chicago, which recorded it: Does anybody in the Zeldaverse really know what time it is? And why – unlike the sentiment portrayed in the song’s lyrics – why do so many care so much?
For many years, we Zelders have played Legend of Zelda games as they were released (or four years after, in the case of Breath of the Wild); enjoyed them (or not, in the case of Skyward Sword); and thought little about connections to previous games. We approached them as standalone adventures that were either reminiscent of, or different from (and sometimes both), previous entries in the series. Clearly, main characters were recycled – Link, Zelda, Ganon – as were various themes like the Triforce. Items, too, such as the Master Sword, made repeat appearances.
Fundamentally, however, we played each game on its own without thought to how it fit into some larger story or timeline. We didn’t ponder why it is that Link and Zelda, despite being around for more than 30 years (or 10,000), don’t have the gray hairs and wrinkles we do.
This is not to say that the concept of time wasn’t a factor in the games: Indeed, it was THE factor in both Ocarina of Time and Majora’s Mask and was central to Skyward Sword also. Even in BOTW, the passage of time, whether in a given day or with each blood moon, was a factor in gameplay. But did we puzzle ourselves about whether the events of BOTW occurred on the “Hero is Defeated” or the “Hero is Triumphant” timelines, let alone the Child or Adult era branches of the latter? In a word: No.
(Itzal dislikes the Hero is Triumphant versus Hero is Defeated timeline divergence, which occurs after Ocarina of Time.[1] Is he somehow to blame for shattering the timeline because we didn’t finish OOT? Demelza reminds Itzal that if he hadn’t left that heart in the Goron Mines we might have finished. Itzal mutters under his breath that he never liked OOT anyhow.)
After some research, we understand that it all comes down to canon. (That’s canon, not Ganon, Gentle Reader.)
Perhaps we’re not all that serious as players; when we hear the word canon, we are more likely to spell it with two Ns in the middle rather than engage in spirited debate about whether something is established fact as evidenced by gameplay, statements by the series developers, or other official sources.
Or perhaps Itzal cycles through cutscene screens too quickly and thus misses the canon. After all, “Where’s the button that lets you skip?” is typically the first thing he says once Impa starts talking. In fact, we laughed to learn that Impa’s name is derivative of the word impart,[2] because boy howdy, does that woman love to impart.
Regardless of the reason, we were, until recently, oblivious to a certain heated debate on the interwebs about where BOTW fit into the franchise’s timelines. Er, it’s a game, after all? Not precisely the History Channel. Fussing about where BOTW sprouts on Hyrule’s chronological family tree begs the second line of the Chicago song: Does anybody really care?
In another word: yes. There are countless online articles and discussion forums that tackle that very question, in excruciating detail, with much seriousness and evidence quoted from here and there and plenty of disagreement over the conclusions to be drawn.
Although we may not know canon from cannon, we do know where to look; we[3] consulted producer Eiji Aonuma, who had this to say about the decision not to clarify BOTW’s timeline: “[P]eople were enjoying imagining the story that emerged from the fragmental imagery we were providing. If we defined a restricted timeline, then there would be a definitive story, and it would eliminate the room for imagination, which wouldn’t be as fun….We hope everyone can find their own answer, in their own way.” [4]
Aounuma’s explanation predated the release of Hyrule Warriors: Age of Calamity, which allegedly injected still more speculation into the “when” of BOTW. (We say allegedly because we didn’t advance far in that game, as even a 65-inch television doesn’t suffice for the two of us to share a screen, given that Demelza has a tendency to tug the leash in one direction and Itzal yanks back in the other. We barely made it past the opening credits, tbh.)
Indeed, as we[5] researched this question further down the rabbit hole, we found additional speculation about whether Age of Calamity was canon or not; and if it was canon generally, was it canon with respect to BOTW? Or does AOC create yet another alternative timeline, as some suggest? (Erm, how, exactly, does this discussion unfold in Nintendo World Headquarters? “Age of Calamity is not real, of course. Calamity is fantasy, unlike Ocarina of Time, which clearly happened.“)
For the record, we take no position on the canon-ness of Age of Calamity, in this or any alternate reality.
Skyward Sword, though, that game got us to thinking about timelines. It’s clearly the beginning of Hyrule’s story. Since Itzal did not fast-forward through the cutscenes (only because he couldn’t find the proper button[6]), we learned why there’s a Zelda and a Link in every game.[7] And the whole time-shifting thing in Skyward Sword, from past to present…surely that will be revisited in the sequel to BOTW? Otherwise why torture us with a Skyward Sword re-release? (Itzal opines that this torture is because many of the game designers are sadists; Demelza can see how he might think that, but she couldn’t possibly comment.)
Thus, we offer our canonical, not to be confused with comical, speculation over the coming sequel to BOTW: There will be shifting of time, once again. Further, the time-shifting will occur between a present that is just after the events of BOTW to a past that is just after the events of Skyward Sword. And that means that there will be no resolution about which of the three (or four) divergent timelines into which BOTW, and therefore its sequel, fall.
Of course, that’s all conjecture and guesswork; we are way out over our skis with this timeline business. But since Nintendo still hasn’t released the sequel to BOTW, we all got time enough to cry.
[1] The Legend of Zelda Hyrule Historia, Dark Horse Books, 1st English Edition, January 2013, p. 69.
[2] The Legend of Zelda Hyrule Historia, Dark Horse Books, 1st English Edition, January 2013, p. 2.
[3] Once again, the royal “we” refers to Demelza because Itzal does not, in fact, know his canon from a hole in the wall and unless there is a cocktail by this name (hmmm…), he isn’t likely to give away much lifespan caring now.
[4] Legend of Zelda, Breath of the Wild: Creating a Champion. Dark Horse Books Illustrated Edition, November 2018, p. 424.
[5] See “royal we” above.
[6] Oh, how Itzal hates those controllers!
[7] Yes, we know Zelda doesn’t appear in Link’s Awakening, but she’s at least mentioned, when Link is talking to Marin. Keep your snarky tweets to yourself, Ungentle Reader.