After Age Of Calamity, What Direction Do You Think BoTW 2 Is Headed? *SPOILERS FOR AOC*

[Grunty]

So I just finished the story for Age of Calamity yesterday, and they definitely split the timeline again... right? So from what I can figure given this game's events, Breath of the Wild 2 will either completely ignore Age of Calamity or it will continue on with BoTW 1's story as we knew it prior to this game.

But idk if they'll go with the original story. It seems they're more likely to go with the new timeline as they wanted a valid reason to have the champions be present in the new game without just resurrecting them somehow.

I do have to say though that this was a complete curveball. I was 100% certain when the game was announced that it was going to end with how BoTW started. The Champion's being killed, Link being taken to the resurrection chamber... even after the time traveling guardian was introduced and I KNEW in my heart they were going to change things, I was in denial to the very end waiting for them to all go down in a blaze of glory lol Ah well... what could have been.

Which game's events do you think they'll be following for the sequel?

 

[lvl 99 Pixel]

They will probably just do whatever makes a good game because even when its not a spin off game they play it pretty loose with timelines and continuity.
Id be kind of annoyed if they follow a side games plot because im really not into having to play a musou type game as a prerequisite.

 

[An Army of Bees]

They'll follow the one actually made by the BOTW team, and not the spin-off musou game.

 

[Lord Fanny]

I imagine they'll just ignore it completely since it sold a fraction of what BOTW did

 

[Pirate Bae]

I don't think AoC is considered "canon" so it will definitely follow BOTW.

 

[mopinks]

I strongly doubt BotW2 will acknowledge AoC's existence

 

[Lobster Roll]

As one of the millions that didn't want to buy Age of Calamity, I'm sure they're not going to have the story from that game have any bearing on the events from BOTW to its sequel.

 

[Aaronrules380]

I don't think they'll consider AoC at all given it's a spin off made by another company and all

 

[lvl 99 Pixel]

I imagine they'll just ignore it completely since it sold a fraction of what BOTW did

Click to shrink...

Sales? BOTW2 would have started development well before AoC. I doubt it had much bearing on the sequels story.

 

[Neoxon]

I would imagine that AoC will be almost completely ignored in BotW2 beyond maybe a passing mention from the New Champions. And given that Koei Tecmo seemingly co-owns the AoC OCs, bringing them back would involve extra legal steps.

 

[mrbogus]

I would hope to see a real continuation of Breath of the Wild without any of the alternate timeline/universe stuff from Age of Calamity.

I'm not quite sure how they'll pull it off story-wise, but that's never stopped a Nintendo sequel before.

 

[Grunty]

They'll follow the one actually made by the BOTW team, and not the spin-off musou game.

Click to shrink...

I don't think AoC is considered "canon" so it will definitely follow BOTW.

Click to shrink...

The story and such was overseen by Aunoma and the Zelda team. And yes, it is canon.

 

[Lord Fanny]

Sales? BOTW2 would have started development well before AoC. I doubt it had much bearing on the sequels story.

Click to shrink...

Both of these things can be true

 

[CyberWolfBia]

Maybe the biggest acknowledgement you'll see from AoC in BoTW2, is if they have some flashback showing Young Impa. Beyond that, I doubt we'd see anything from AoC carried forward

 

[Aaronrules380]

Sales? BOTW2 would have started development well before AoC. I doubt it had much bearing on the sequels story.

Click to shrink...

I mean if AoC's story is involved at all it'd likely be because the Nintendo people overseeing it made sure to push certain elements to support what they were planning for BotW2. Because yeah, unless they were actively developing and coordinating AoC's story in tandem with their plans for BotW2 (which is not impossible but also not really guaranteed by any means) it'd be impossible for it to really be a factor

 

[Deleted member 1839]

Multiverse here we go.

 

[Neoxon]

Maybe the biggest acknowledgement you'll see from AoC in BoTW2, is if they have some flashback showing Young Impa. Beyond that, I doubt we'd see anything from AoC carried forward

Click to shrink...

Koei Tecmo supposedly also has partial rights to any AoC-specific designs, including Young Impa. Using that design would require KT's approval.

 

[J-Soul]

It's not a coincidence that age of calamity writes itself out of the timeline. It'll get a nod at best.

 

[Aaronrules380]

The story and such was overseen by Aunoma and the Zelda team. And yes, it is canon.

Click to shrink...

Overseen can mean a lot of things. It could imply direct involvement, or it could be them getting scripts and such and approving them without being actively involved in creating the story. Or it could be somewhere in between.

 

[RochHoch]

AOC is a non-canon spin-off. Nintendo doesn't give a shit about that story.

It's just gonna be a follow-up to BOTW.

 

[Dyle]

There will probably be a throwaway mention of Terrako by Zelda and that will be it. Age of Calamity's tea leaves give us nothing to work with

 

[An Army of Bees]

Overseen can mean a lot of things. It could imply direct involvement, or it could be them getting scripts and such and approving them without being actively involved in creating the story. Or it could be somewhere in between.

Click to shrink...

I took it as "we are watching to make sure they don't fuck with our thing"

 

[CyberWolfBia]

Koei Tecmo supposedly also has partial rights to any AoC-specific designs, including Young Impa. Using that design would require KT's approval.

Click to shrink...

Well, it still Impa, their fully owned character, so if they feel like pulling something from AoC, it has to be her design.... maybe the only other one without zero chances would be Terrako..; Don't see them going through the effort for the other OCs or other plot elements though;

 

[Pirate Bae]

Overseen can mean a lot of things. It could imply direct involvement, or it could be them getting scripts and such and approving them without being actively involved in creating the story. Or it could be somewhere in between.

Click to shrink...

Yeah.

I sincerely doubt that the BOTW2 dev team would follow the story of a musou spin off title over a main entry in the series.

 

[mopinks]

Koei Tecmo supposedly also has partial rights to any AoC-specific designs, including Young Impa. Using that design would require KT's approval.

Click to shrink...

does it count as an AoC-specific design if it's just an existing design with a new hat

 

[slothrop]

They won't be beholden to the canon of either game if they don't feel like it. they don't really give an f* about canon in Zelda. They make the game they want to and then invent a way it fits in later -- I mean you've seen the Zelda "timeline" right?

 

[Aaronrules380]

I took it as "we are watching to make sure they don't fuck with our thing"

Click to shrink...

Yeah, that's my guess as well. Which means that they were most involved in the sense that they were given the story material and vetoed anything they didn't feel was acceptable for the franchise. I really doubt they were heavily involved in actually writing it.

 

[Tochtli79]

I think and hope they'll ignore AoC. It was a fun game but the story changes didn't add anything of value.

 

[Broseph]

The trailer of BotW2 makes it seem like a direct follow to the first game so I don't think AoC will be relevant at all

 

[Crossing Eden]

They'll most likely ignore as much as possible from it and BOTW2
will probably be all the better for it.

 

[Arkeband]

AoC is not a "timeline split", it's clearly a "what if" non-canon spinoff. I would expect BotW2 to not reference it in any way outside of maybe some Easter eggs, which then the Zelda fandom will try to cram into a scatterplot timeline diagram because all the games must be retroactively connected somehow, thanks Nintendo.

 

[The Unsent]

It will probably be just a direct sequel. I don't believe in the split timeline of the main games, I think Nintendo just said that to sell a book or give fans something to talk about, I think it's broad strokes/loose continuity like the James Bond films.

 

[Grunty]

I think and hope they'll ignore AoC. It was a fun game but the story changes didn't add anything of value.

Click to shrink...

Thinking about it more now, it would change basically everything. BoTW essentially would have never happened. Calamity Ganon was already defeated, The Champions and the King would still be alive, Link would have never been placed in a slumber which also prevented him from aging, etc etc.

So yeah, maybe they'll just continue the split timeline with a sequel to AoC in the future with its own events continuing onwards. They sure love their split timelines lol

They won't be beholden to the canon of either game if they don't feel like it. they don't really give an f* about canon in Zelda. They make the game they want to and then invent a way it fits in later -- I mean you've seen the Zelda "timeline" right?

Click to shrink...

I'm actually a big fan of the timeline and was disappointed that BoTW is apparently not even a part of it.

 

[Ishaan]

I don't think AoC is considered "canon" so it will definitely follow BOTW.

Click to shrink...

The story and such was overseen by Aunoma and the Zelda team. And yes, it is canon.

Click to shrink...

Overseen can mean a lot of things. It could imply direct involvement, or it could be them getting scripts and such and approving them without being actively involved in creating the story. Or it could be somewhere in between.

Click to shrink...

There's enough information out there that lets us reliably know three things for certain:

1. Age of Calamity isn't canon. It is a "what-if" story that has no actual bearing on Breath of the Wild. We know this due to the numerous inconsistencies it has with the original events leading up to BOTW itself. There isn't much room for debate here.

2. The original idea to create a Warriors game set against the backdrop of the Great Calamity came from Hidemaro Fujibayashi (BOTW director) and Satoru Takizawa (art director). However, the actual story outline was written by Omega Force, and went through multiple revisions, with the Zelda team going over each draft until OF had something they felt was acceptable.

3. Aside from giving their "okay" to the overall story, the Zelda team also had to sign off on the game's visuals, depiction of Hyrule, and character dialogue, to ensure thematic consistency with BOTW. (But again, this is to ensure thematic consistency, not to have the story be canon/non-canon)

If you want to read more about the game's development, I've recorded all known details in the Development section of the game's Zelda Wiki page, complete with citations for everything to ensure accuracy.

 

[Grunty]

There's enough information out there that lets us reliably know three things for certain:

1. Age of Calamity isn't canon. It is a "what-if" story that has no actual bearing on Breath of the Wild. We know this due to the numerous inconsistencies it has with the original events leading up to BOTW itself. There isn't much room for debate here.

2. The original idea to create a Warriors game set against the backdrop of the Great Calamity came from Hidemaro Fujibayashi (BOTW director) and Satoru Takizawa (art director). However, the actual story outline was written by Omega Force, and went through multiple revisions, with the Zelda team going over each draft until OF had something they felt was acceptable.

3. Aside from giving their "okay" to the overall story, the Zelda team also had to sign off on the game's visuals, depiction of Hyrule, and character dialogue, to ensure thematic consistency with BOTW. (But again, this is to ensure thematic consistency, not to have the story be canon/non-canon)

If you want to read more about the game's development, I've recorded all known details in the Development section of the game's Zelda Wiki page, complete with citations for everything to ensure accuracy.

Click to shrink...

For #1, I'm not seeing the inconsistencies as a reason for not being canon. Aren't those 'inconsistencies' a direct result of Terrako's influence? Everything changed because of his aid and warnings of what was going to happen in the future. And even if it was just a "what-if" scenario, that also doesn't make it non-canon. An entire Zelda timeline is based off of "what if Ganon defeated the Hero of Time".

 

[Ishaan]

For #1, I'm not seeing the inconsistencies as a reason for not being canon. Aren't those 'inconsistencies' a direct result of Terrako's influence? Everything changed because of his aid and warnings of what was going to happen in the future. And even if it was just a "what-if" scenario, that also doesn't make it non-canon. An entire Zelda timeline is based off of "what if Ganon defeated the Hero of Time".

Click to shrink...

The difference is that things like the Fallen Hero incident have been spun off into their own timelines, where their consequences were felt in other games. Those games aren't "canon" to the events of Ocarina of Time itself (because Ocarina has two direct sequels in Majora and Twilight Princess) but are the canon of their own timeline.

(And yes, obviously the Fallen Hero timeline was something they did retroactively, but that's a separate discussion)

In the case of AoC, there's been nothing to suggest this is anything other than a fun one-off. It isn't canon to the Breath of the Wild we played in 2017, and won't be canon to the events of BOTW2. And that's the difference—that it could be "canon" to a separate timeline later down the line, but it isn't canon to anything that currently exists.

 

[Wolf]

It's funny to me how so many people in this thread are calling AOC definitively non-canon when canon means fuck all in Zelda games.

We also still have DLC coming that can easily reverse everything and send the story back to a spot where it could set up Botw2. Not saying it will happen, but it absolutely could and to speak like AOC is non-canon knowing zeldas timeline fuckery is... Perplexing to say the least. There isn't much to say it IS Canon, but it sure as hell has been treated as The Prequel To BotW in ways that none of the other musou Nintendo IP have been, so suggesting it can't be simply because it's a musou is a bold claim imo.

Nintendo does what nintendo wants. And saying it'd be legal annoyance for AoCs characters to appear in Botw2 is laughable given the relationship nintendo clearly has with that team since they've made multiple high profile games with their IP. Nintendo would simply have to ask and nobody would tell them no.

AoCs ending sucked. Because it made no sense and just.... Ended. Abruptly. But so did Hyrule Warriors 1, which needed billions of DLC to truly wrap things up. So I'm not really easy to jump to conclusions until the DLC is all out.

 

[LinkStrikesBack]

For #1, I'm not seeing the inconsistencies as a reason for not being canon. Aren't those 'inconsistencies' a direct result of Terrako's influence? Everything changed because of his aid and warnings of what was going to happen in the future. And even if it was just a "what-if" scenario, that also doesn't make it non-canon. An entire Zelda timeline is based off of "what if Ganon defeated the Hero of Time".

Click to shrink...

No. Things are incorrect even before the robot appears. Iirc, Link is supposed to have the master sword before AOC starts, for instance.

 

[karmitt]

Breath of the Wild 2 will completely ignore Age of Calamity

 

[EarlGreyHot]

They will follow BOTW.

AOC is a fun little 'what if?' scenario.

 

[Yoshimitsu126]

Zelda probably gets captured again and Link has to save her again. But maybe we get to play a stealth mission as her.

God I hope that doesn't happen.

 

[Glom]

They won't be beholden to the canon of either game if they don't feel like it. they don't really give an f* about canon in Zelda. They make the game they want to and then invent a way it fits in later -- I mean you've seen the Zelda "timeline" right?

Click to shrink...

The series is an anthology of folk tales. It is the Legend of Zelda after all, not the Historical Account of Zelda. The loose continuity between games, like how a game may reference another as folklore, is part of that.

We also still have DLC coming that can easily reverse everything and send the story back to a spot where it could set up Botw2.

Click to shrink...

It is unlikely that the DLC would do anything so drastic. The point of DLC is to add to a game, not complete it otherwise they sold you an incomplete game in the first place.

 

[Grunty]

The difference is that things like the Fallen Hero incident have been spun off into their own timelines, where their consequences were felt in other games. Those games aren't "canon" to the events of Ocarina of Time itself (because Ocarina has two direct sequels in Majora and Twilight Princess) but are the canon of their own timeline.

(And yes, obviously the Fallen Hero timeline was something they did retroactively, but that's a separate discussion)

In the case of AoC, there's been nothing to suggest this is anything other than a fun one-off. It isn't canon to the Breath of the Wild we played in 2017, and won't be canon to the events of BOTW2. And that's the difference—that it could be "canon" to a separate timeline later down the line, but it isn't canon to anything that currently exists.

Click to shrink...

But I don't understand the sentiment that it isn't canon? Everything they've ever said about the game, from interviews to its very press release, is that the game takes place 100 years before BoTW and tells the story of what happened before that game's events. From an interview with Game Informer:

What was the decision process like when you determined you wanted to make a second Hyrule Warriors game that also serves as a prequel to Breath of the Wild?

Aonuma: We weren't able to depict the Great Calamity in BotW, but [Breath of the Wild director Hidemaro] Fujibayashi-san wanted to find a way to bring those events to life. Development on this project started when he got together with Hayashi-san from Koei Tecmo Games, who was interested in bringing the experience gained from working on Hyrule Warriors into a subsequent project, and we recognized the value of creating this new game.

https://www.gameinformer.com/interv...lamity-team-made-a-breath-of-the-wild-prequel

I think they've done more than enough to indicate that the game is considered an official prequel to BoTE without having to literally come out and say "it's canon".

The big difference here is, again, them using Terrako as a means to split the timeline. This is basically the 2020 version of Ocarina of Time's ending: Link goes back in time and the child era is created with MM, TP, etc. But the world that Link saved still exists resulting in TWW, PH, and ST.

 

[LinkStrikesBack]

But I don't understand the sentiment that it isn't canon? Everything they've ever said about the game, from interviews to its very press release, is that the game takes place 100 years before BoTW and tells the story of what happened before that game's events. From an interview with Game Informer:

Click to shrink...

They were deliberately misleading in the pre-release interviews because they didn't want to give away that the game isn't actually a prequel, nor showing the events that happened 100 years before BOTW.

The big difference here is, again, them using Terrako as a means to split the timeline. This is basically the 2020 version of Ocarina of Time's ending: Link goes back in time and the child era is created with MM, TP, etc. But the world that Link saved still exists resulting in TWW, PH, and ST.

Click to shrink...

Again, this isn't where the "timeline split" if any, occurred. AoC contradicts BOTW even before Terrako appears. The biggest obvious change is BOTW Link had the master sword before becoming Zelda's knight. In age of calamity, he doesn't get the master sword until several missions and in a big gameplay moment.

AoC is "canon", as much as , say , "Cadence of Hyrule" is. It's self consistent, but won't even be mentioned in main games because it isn't consistent beyond that.

 

[Glom]

But I don't understand the sentiment that it isn't canon? Everything they've ever said about the game, from interviews to its very press release, is that the game takes place 100 years before BoTW and tells the story of what happened before that game's events. From an interview with Game Informer:

What was the decision process like when you determined you wanted to make a second Hyrule Warriors game that also serves as a prequel to Breath of the Wild?

Aonuma: We weren't able to depict the Great Calamity in BotW, but [Breath of the Wild director Hidemaro] Fujibayashi-san wanted to find a way to bring those events to life. Development on this project started when he got together with Hayashi-san from Koei Tecmo Games, who was interested in bringing the experience gained from working on Hyrule Warriors into a subsequent project, and we recognized the value of creating this new game.

https://www.gameinformer.com/interv...lamity-team-made-a-breath-of-the-wild-prequel

I think they've done more than enough to indicate that the game is considered an official prequel to BoTE without having to literally come out and say "it's canon".

The big difference here is, again, them using Terrako as a means to split the timeline. This is basically the 2020 version of Ocarina of Time's ending: Link goes back in time and the child era is created with MM, TP, etc. But the world that Link saved still exists resulting in TWW, PH, and ST.

Click to shrink...

That quote doesn't really do much. They wanted to show the Calamity. But they didn't. Clearly they just thought it would make a cool setting for a Hyrule Warriors game. You also need to recognise that they needed to play it cagey with the prequel label to avoid spoiling the twist.

Ultimately, the canonicity of AoC is a tree falling in a forest meta question. It isn't canon to BOTW clearly, so if nothing else references it, saying it is canon but in another timeline is pointless.

The timeline shouldn't be taken literally like Worf jumping between quantum realities. The different branches should be thought of as different oral traditions.

 

[Ishaan]

But I don't understand the sentiment that it isn't canon? Everything they've ever said about the game, from interviews to its very press release, is that the game takes place 100 years before BoTW and tells the story of what happened before that game's events.

Click to shrink...

Right. I think this is where we need to read between the lines and understand that they didn't want to give the alternate timeline surprise away until people had a chance to play the demo. Call it a marketing strategy, or simply a line not to give the twist away, or both. But ultimately, that is what it comes down to.

Once the demo was released, it was made abundantly clear that AoC isn't a canon prequel to the Breath of the Wild we got in 2017, and more of a fun, one-off "what-if" reimagining of those events. I get the impression they released the demo at least in part so people wouldn't go in with the wrong expectations.

The big difference here is, again, them using Terrako as a means to split the timeline. This is basically the 2020 version of Ocarina of Time's ending: Link goes back in time and the child era is created with MM, TP, etc. But the world that Link saved still exists resulting in TWW, PH, and ST.

Click to shrink...

I agree that this is similar to the time-travel shenanigans in Ocarina. The difference is that when people say "canon" in this case, they usually mean that this is a prequel to Breath of the Wild as we know it, or that it might factor into BOTW2. Neither of those is likely to be the case, though. Rather, AoC makes it so Breath of the Wild never happened, and that timeline carries on in a different fashion. (Something that might be fleshed out in the DLC)

 

[Razmos]

It's funny to me how so many people in this thread are calling AOC definitively non-canon when canon means fuck all in Zelda games.

We also still have DLC coming that can easily reverse everything and send the story back to a spot where it could set up Botw2. Not saying it will happen, but it absolutely could and to speak like AOC is non-canon knowing zeldas timeline fuckery is... Perplexing to say the least. There isn't much to say it IS Canon, but it sure as hell has been treated as The Prequel To BotW in ways that none of the other musou Nintendo IP have been, so suggesting it can't be simply because it's a musou is a bold claim imo.

Nintendo does what nintendo wants. And saying it'd be legal annoyance for AoCs characters to appear in Botw2 is laughable given the relationship nintendo clearly has with that team since they've made multiple high profile games with their IP. Nintendo would simply have to ask and nobody would tell them no.

AoCs ending sucked. Because it made no sense and just.... Ended. Abruptly. But so did Hyrule Warriors 1, which needed billions of DLC to truly wrap things up. So I'm not really easy to jump to conclusions until the DLC is all out.

Click to shrink...

The ending didn't feel rushed or nonsensical to me? They all worked together to beat Ganon and they were able to beat him because Zelda awakened to her abilities and the champions weren't killed and were able to use the divine beasts to weaken him.
I don't really think there is much more they could have shown in the ending other than a pointless montage of Hyrule being repaired. All the villains were dead, the future champions were back in their time, Link continues as Zelda's bodyguard and the King is still in charge and that's pretty much it.

I think the DLC may add some more story that might tie into BOTW2 but I don't think it needs to show anything other than that really

 

[Ushojax]

I hope that the time travel stuff is confined to AOC, Terrako was cute but his powers were poorly explained and seemed like they would break the story if applied to a non-Musou title. The time travel was just a way to get both sets of Champions into the game and I hope it doesn't have any bearing on BOTW2.

Now the fortune teller guy with the orb, I can see him being part of the story for sure. We never really found out what his deal was.

 

[Vidiot]

They're going against both either way. Since Ganon was just supposed to be like a force of nature by the time BotW came along. Now nope, Ganondorf is still a dude but he's trapped and his malice took physical form or whatever. I'm fine with it and I know I'm assuming but whatever. Bring it the fuck on!