Spoiler Warning: This article and the comments section may contain spoilers for The Legend of Zelda: Tears of the Kingdom.

In a vacuum, Tears of the Kingdom‘s lore is impressive and expansive. I love the idea of meeting the first King and Queen of Hyrule, learning the history of the Zonai, and exploring Zelda’s powers and abilities. It’s a neat expansion of the conflict we saw 10,000 years ago in Breath of the Wild‘s prologue.

But compared to the whole timeline(s), it doesn’t add up. In Skyward Sword, Hylia brings humans to Skyloft following a conflict with Demise. She gives up her immortal form and reincarnates as Zelda. At the end of Skyward Sword, Link and Zelda remain on the Surface, implying that they go on to create the first kingdom of Hyrule. But Tears of the Kingdom suggests that the Zonai descended to the Surface from the gods, and Rauru founded Hyrule as its first king. It may not seem like a big deal, but these contradictions add up.

As someone who thought the notion of the timeline was the coolest thing ever, the fact that Tears of the Kingdom seemingly ignores it entirely feels off to me. Even aspects of the lore don’t add up to Breath of the Wild, let alone the rest of the timeline. While some admittedly compelling fan theories try to explain why these inconsistencies exist and work in the grand scheme of things, that’s just it: they’re fan theories. Until we get confirmation from Nintendo, Tears of the Kingdom‘s story functions as a standalone game instead of being part of the ensemble timeline. That has implications of its own, so I’ll save that for another day.

But what do you think? Does it bother you that Tears of the Kingdom‘s lore doesn’t match previous games and the timeline? Let us know in the comments!

Tagged With: No tags were found for this entry.