Part IV: Comparing the Games

The (currently) eight different games in the Zelda series all have different relative canonicities. This is due to several factors which I will discuss below.

Series Progression

As one proceeds chronologically through the creation of the Zelda games/manuals (LoZ, AoL, ALttP, LA, OoT, MM, OoA/OoS), an interesting pattern emerges. In each game, the artwork becomes more detailed, the text more intricate and detailed, and the gameplay more compelling and integral to the storyline. You can see this for yourself by comparing each game as the graphics progressively improve, as the storyline gets longer and more interesting, and as the gameplay gets more intricate and interwoven with the story (as in item-trading sequences and mythical stories about certain items).

This pattern leads me to the following conclusion: in general, as one progresses through the Zelda series, the relative canonicity of the games increases. This is supported by empirical evidence ("empirical" means I'm looking at a general pattern in the evidence and using that to draw a conclusion): in older games, the story, graphics, and gameplay were thrown together in a relatively unsophisticated manner. In newer games, these same elements are put together more carefully and with greater respect for detail. Thus, newer games should be given more weight than older ones.

You can notice from this pattern that older games are more open to interpretation than newer games. Older Zelda games (namely LoZ and AoL) left out a lot of storyline details, so many things, such as the time period of the games and exactly when Ganon's army stole the Triforce of Power in LoZ, are open to wide interpretation. Newer Zelda games tend to fill in most storyline holes with solid facts, so not as many issues are open to debate. As you can see, those games which leave out details have less authority and more ambiguity. In general, the more facts a game's story tells, the more canonical it is.

Interestingly enough, story-wise this trend seems to have been reversed with the recent Oracle games. Since Capcom is new at making Zelda games (they reversed Miyamoto's normal procedure for making Zelda games, and then deferred to him for help), and since Miyamoto wasn't involved as deeply, the story seems to be hastily contructed and inconsistent with previous games. It's true that the introductory story is at the same level as the older NES games, and that this reduces their authority a bit. However, they are not inconsistent, and anything these games say is still canon, though perhaps less so than ALttP or OoT.

To conclude, I would rate the Zelda games as follows, from most to least canon: OoT, MM, ALttP, LA, AoL, OoA/OoS, LoZ. Thus, I would consider evidence from OoT, for example, to have more weight than evidence from AoL. This is of course a fuzzy area and open to interpretation, especially with the games in the middle of the list.

Comparing Different Accounts

Sometimes, the same event in Hyrule's history is described in more than one game. One major example is the account of the Imprisoning War in ALttP and in OoT. In some respects the two accounts are entirely inconsistent with each other. Both games have comparative authority, so which one is to be believed?

To answer this questions and others like it, it is necessary to examine more deeply the intent of each game. In ALttP, the Imprisoning War happened centuries prior, and ALttP even admits that "these events were obscured by the mists of time and became legend." OoT, on the other hand, deals exclusively with the Imprisoning War (apparently). The account given is contemporary to the time period, and thus is likely to be a lot more accurate and a lot more detailed. Thus, I would consider the account in OoT to be more authoritative.

This conclusion, however, does not rule out the ALttP account completely. There's likely to be a good reason why the Hylian scrolls the ALttP manual is based on were wrong about the Imprisoning War. I think it more likely that they were simply mistaken about the events in OoT, rather than completely wrong. We have to see how, from a certain point of view, the events described in ALttP could possibly be seen as true. This is why I find it worthwhile to try to resolve the conflicting accounts in OoT and ALttP, rather than simply rejecting the ALttP account in favor of the one in OoT.

So, when comparing differing accounts, it's necessary to keep in mind not only the relative canonicity of the games, but the intent and purpose behind each game. Relative canonicity is a valuable guide, but should not be an absolute yardstick by which we discard and accept evidence. All evidence should be considered, keeping in mind it's relative weight.

Table of Contents: