Thoughts on amiibo/DLC items in BotW/TotK now that TotK treats them...differently...?

[Mangrove]

I think there's some confusion on items being in the game and the backstories of those items being canon. Obviously, the Nintendo Switch isn't a game console in the world of Hyrule, but there is a shirt in Hyrule that looks like the Switch logo, it's just that the logo means nothing to the inhabitants of Hyrule. In-universe, the Switch logo doesn't reference a game console. Out-of-universe, it's an easter egg. I guess I can't confirm it means NOTHING to the people of Hyrule, maybe they see it as ancient symbol or something, but who knows. With the rest of the sets, they still have an in-universe presence, but it doesn't imply that the out-of-universe histories (or their histories from other games) of these items came with them, unless there's more in evidence given in their own descriptions/elsewhere in game. That's my take at least.

I see the other approach not being that Link is actually naked and Cece is just making up comments based on Link's exposed torso, but that that interaction isn't happening at all, and it's a non-canon interaction, kind of like Link dying in-game to a shield surfing incident. But this would extend to repeat armor sets that have seemingly new origins in TotK, no? This goes into pick-and-choose territory, and I don't see anything wrong with items that look like old items appearing as they do, so I see no reason to pick-and-choose. I concede that some item descriptions have stronger timeline implications than others, which would mean parallel events would have had to happen in the past for these to exist, but I've grown tired of BotW/TotK's lack of strong commitment to old lore, not hinting at when these things could've occurred in the past, so I'mma hand-wave this away with a white flag for mercy.

TotK already has an issue with continuing from BotW though, where NPCs don't seem to remember Link, making me think that a lot of sidequests in BotW aren't 'canon', meaning the Tunic of the Wild might've not been in the Forgotten Temple in TotK's lore, but I personally find it dumb if that were the case. I like the idea of Zelda making it, but I wish there were some in-game hints of why these things are the way they are.

 

[GZ Zelda]

Just the rewards, yeah. I'm very specific about the stuff I'm disregarding.

Spoilers for specifics:

Ok so our good friend Link canonically flies around the Sky Islands, canonically stumbles across a chest with a map to Gleeok's Den, canonically heads down into the Depths, canonically kills King Gleeok and then...what happens? There isn't a chest with a hat with wolf fur clinging to it? It's just...like, what happens in the canon?

TotK already has an issue with continuing from BotW though, where NPCs don't seem to remember Link, making me think that a lot of sidequests in BotW aren't 'canon', meaning the Tunic of the Wild might've not been in the Forgotten Temple in TotK's lore, but I personally find it dumb if that were the case. I like the idea of Zelda making it, but I wish there were some in-game hints of why these things are the way they are.

Misko's treasures largely make sense canonically: there is a variety of ancient armor that Misko collected and hid around Hyrule. It's just a question of who made the Dark Skeleton Wild set armor: the Sheikah and Link never got it in BotW, the Zonai and there are two copies, or Zelda. I think "there are two copies" is the most satisfying answer for me, I don't know though.

This goes into pick-and-choose territory, and I don't see anything wrong with items that look like old items appearing as they do, so I see no reason to pick-and-choose. I concede that some item descriptions have stronger timeline implications than others, which would mean parallel events would have had to happen in the past for these to exist, but I've grown tired of BotW/TotK's lack of strong commitment to old lore, not hinting at when these things could've occurred in the past, so I'mma hand-wave this away with a white flag for mercy.

I'm inclined to include everything always, I think this creates the greatest sense of realism. When the Twilight armor is said to have wolf hair clinging to it, I take that "seriously" in the sense that it is true for the Hero of the Wild that the armor he just found in the Depths from a chest linked to an old map has wolf hair clinging to it. And I do think you have to build your placements with that in mind, same as the location names and Goron child sculpture and Ruto references. It is true that BotW and now much more explicitly TotK seemingly reference all 3 timelines: what does that mean? Parallel events?

Or we can just hand-wave the references as fun easter eggs, and stick with the ZE timeline, disregarding the two new games and kind of loosely molding them to the end of the DT (but also the backstory is now towards the beginning of the UT) or AT as I am more inclined towards (so that a refounding is plausible). I do think we should have kind of a community collective understanding of what this means, though, so that we can actually start to understand character motivations, overlapping events etc. But consensus in Zelda is not easy so...who knows?

 

[Mangrove]

It is true that BotW and now much more explicitly TotK seemingly reference all 3 timelines: what does that mean? Parallel events?

I agree with this 100%, but I don't know how far it can take us.

I do think we should have kind of a community collective understanding of what this means, though, so that we can actually start to understand character motivations, overlapping events etc. But consensus in Zelda is not easy so...who knows?

To know more about it, we need the games themselves to point us in a direction, but Nintendo doesn't want to do that. It's up to us to weigh evidences, and what evidence has more "weight" than others is subjective. I'd say, as a community, we already settled on the Downfall Timeline being the most likely intended path with what we have, but these games don't give us hints on when Gor Coron and the Elder's son could've came into play in the past, or how much the events of TP repeated on that line. For Koroks at least, the painting in ALBW can be used to imply the evolution happened before ALBW, but there's not much more to explore there. I think all we can realistically do is settle with a hand wave, or sweeping the mess under the carpet.

 

[Ryuu Kage Desu]

They're about as canon to Zelda as Link is to the world of Mario. A sleeping Link can be found in Mario RPG. Does that mean that Link and Mario canonically exist in the same universe?

In that universe, it is canon that there is someone dressed like that, who is sleeping. That does not mean the person is the literal Link, and all Mario games are now Zelda canon. I have two master sword replicas, in my house. This does not mean I am typing this from Hyrule, or that my swords are not physically real. Just because items look the same, does not mean they have to be the same.

Reading further, it seems like you are picking and choosing what you want to be canon, rather than providing a maxim for it. In general, I say that if something is in the native game, and in game characters react to it, or has some other in story narrative effect, it is canon.

What is your maxim?

 

[Mikey the Moblin]

So the game is canon

I'm not sold on this one yet personally
need to wait for an official timeline placement