Ever since Nintendo teased us at E3 with what could be The Legend of Zelda for the Wii U, I have been mulling over in my head where this game could rationally fit in the timeline. And I’m sure I’m not the only one. But then I really started to speculate and guess the plot and time placement of the upcoming Zelda Wii U and I realized this: I don’t want another title that is set in a time era before the NES Legend of Zelda.

Why?

As a fan of the series, I’m kind of bored with stories that have rules to adhere to. This will be the first original HD Zelda title making its way to the Wii U (The Wind Waker HD is a remake, and Hyrule Warriors is a one-off title), so why not set the standard for what is to come?

If we look at Hyrule Historia, The Legend of Zelda and Zelda II: Link’s Adventure are the last in the timeline, or at least in the timeline split where the hero is defeated. The era these titles rest in is referred to as The Era of Decline, which begs the question: How can we create a new age in the Zelda world and bring Hyrule back to its former glory?

The previous asked question just happens to illustrate what could be posed as a scenario could be wonderfully executed in a game that doesn’t have to be bound in expectation of what is to come, but would leave the player eagerly looking forward to the final moment of a game set in this part of the timeline as it is unknown territory.

The Era of Decline just sounds like it’d make for an “all hope is lost” kind of game, which can make for great storytelling. If ever a game scenario could utilize the darker elements explored in Majora’s Mask and Twilight Princess, it sounds like it would be in this era, with a hero trying to restore peace or magic or whatever to the land.

The first question I was asked when I brought this topic up was “wouldn’t you be afraid that it’s still going to alter the timeline?”

Not really is my answer. Sure, it’s going to alter the timeline regardless because it will be added in somewhere. But if this new title were to be set after Zelda II, motifs from previous games can still be utilized. For example, though it would be set after the fall of Ganon, Ganon is an evil force that has been imbued with the Triforce of Power – so there has to be some mystical way for him to come back. Because true evil is NEVER defeated. Maybe borrow from Hyrule Warriors and have some dark figure claim the Triforce and wish for Ganon to be revived. This is single handedly my biggest regret about Hyrule Warriors not being in the official canon of the timeline – the story is actually really clever and very Zelda appropriate. Sure, Zelda II: The Adventure of Link ends on a pretty prosperous note, but this is Hyrule. There is always some evil brewing.

If this game has a rooted history stemming from Ocarina of Time and before, then we can finally get an explanation for the lack of The Master Sword in both NES adventures. Sure there was The White Sword, but it is not The Master Sword. I feel that is what could make for compelling storytelling in a future era based Zelda game – this is where we were, and here we are now. A game set after Zelda II can also open up so many more future stories that don’t have to be constrained to fit in the Pandora’s Box that is the Legend of Zelda Timeline.

I think that is what disappointed me about Skyward Sword. It was fascinating that Nintendo chose this game as the first game in the series (at least for now), but to me, there can’t really be a game that goes before Skyward Sword now as the game plays out to formation of both The Master Sword and Hyrule. While Skyward Sword did a fairly decent job at introducing a lot of new characters and explain the ancestry of the heroes chosen by fate, I felt like I got nothing completely new out of a Zelda experience. Yes, the game had innovative controls and made for a debatable fun (or not as fun, depending on your stance) game.

I think it’s hard for most to picture the grand scale of lore that was introduced back in the 80’s from the first two NES titles and then to compare that to these large, epic in comparison adventures such as Skyward Sword or Twilight Princess, when these later games have really built upon their previous entries and The Legend of Zelda and Link’s Adventure are just “those other Zelda games.”

The other aspect of why I feel a future era game makes sense is this speculation of open-world feel. The original NES title was very much an open-world game in comparison to Ocarina of Time. How? If you look at how you’re able to play the two games, Ocarina of Time follows a formula, and short of mods for the game, you have to follow the story. The Legend of Zelda for the NES was you do whatever dungeon you wanted. We saw this idea return for A Link to the Past and A Link Between Worlds, albeit a little more structured.

Overall, the lore from the franchise is relatively unexplored in the decline part of the timeline and perhaps an “end of days” Zelda could be fun to explore again – maybe get that intended darkness from Twilight Princess mixed with a world of citizens abandoning all hope could make for an interesting tale to be told in the franchise, and it sounds like a Majora’s Mask worthy entry.

Of course this was not even a playable reveal for Zelda for the Wii U. What was displayed at E3 could and could not be the final product. So, while we’re all grasping at straws for what we’re hoping to see at E3 2015 from Nintendo, this is my hope – that we open up another branch of the timeline and get a chance to explore new stories and times.

What are your thoughts about Zelda Wii U’s timeline placement? Sound off in the comments below.