In the early 1990s, Nintendo was in the early stages of creating a CD-ROM add-on for their Super Nintendo Entertainment System (known as the Super Famicom in Japan). One of the companies they were considering collaborating with was a company called Philips Entertainment. They signed a deal, but after witnessing the poor reception of Sega’s “Sega CD” add-on, Nintendo scrapped the idea of making a CD-ROM add-on for their own console.

The Creation of the Unholy Triforce


As a part of breaking their deal with Philips, Nintendo gave them the rights to use Link, Zelda, and Ganon in their games, among other Nintendo characters. They released three Zelda games for their CD-i platform: Link: The Faces of Evil, Zelda: The Wand of Gamelon, and Zelda’s Adventure. Even Impa appears in The Wand of Gamelon, and various classic Zelda enemies appear within the games, such as Iron Knuckles, Moblins, and Darknuts. While Nintendo took no part in the development of these games, they did give Philips free reign to use the characters as they saw fit in games for their system, the CD-i. This, to me, suggests that they are in fact canon. When you consider that Nintendo contractually agreed upon giving Philips the right to use these quintessential characters in three Zelda games for the CD-i platform, this strongly adds to the argument that these games have a place in the Zelda timeline.

It doesn’t matter that these games do not appear in Hyrule Historia, or that Nintendo doesn’t even want to acknowledge their existence.  The fact of the matter is that they are Legend of Zelda games, and so they should have a place in the timeline regardless of whether or not Nintendo wants to acknowledge this fact. Classic Zelda characters and enemies alike appear within the titles, and unlike certain games that contain Zelda characters such as Super Smash Bros. Brawl, these stories all center around Link, Zelda, and Ganon, and are Zelda games, even if not developed by Nintendo.

The History of the Timeline

Up until The Wind Waker, there was no real established timeline.  Shigeru Miyamoto, creator of the Zelda series, gave his own chronology of events regarding the timeline in an interview with Nintendo Power shortly after the release of Ocarina of Time.

: Where do all the Zelda games fall into place when arranged chronologically by their stories?

: Ocarina of Time is the first story, then the original Legend of Zelda, then Zelda II: The Adventure of Link, and finally A Link to the Past. It’s not very clear where Link’s Awakening fits in–it could be anytime after Ocarina of Time.

“Ocarina of Time is the first story, then the original Legend of Zelda, then Zelda II: The Adventure of Link, and finally A Link to the Past”

link_pulls_master_sword_ootAnd the timeline confusion begins with this simple act..

In an interview with Nintendo of America localization manager Dan Owsen after the release of Ocarina of Time, Dan re-affirmed Miyamoto’s order of events, but also described Ocarina of Time as the “Imprisoning War”, an event which is depicted in the prologue of A Link to the Past. This further cements that as of 1998, A Link to the Past was chronologically last in the series, with the original Legend of Zelda and The Adventure of Link preceding it, with all three taking place after Ocarina of Time. And this came straight from the mouth of Shigeru Miyamoto himself.

: Dan, it appears something about the The Legend of Zelda: Link to the Past translation is jumbled. It is said the events played out in Ocarina of Time were the events that happened in the story of A Link to the Past, and therefore were to solve many story holes. But if Zelda 3’s instruction manual is read, these events sound completely different, and now there seem to be more holes than ever. It clearly states on the back of the box of A Link to the Past that it was a prequel to Zeldas 1 and 2, but Miyamoto says it comes after them. What’s the truth?

: The truth is, the text on the box (and possibly the Nintendo Power guide) is wrong. D’oh! If you just ignore the box text, the stories fit together better. Basically, the events in Ocarina are the “Imprisoning War” described in the SNES version’s story. The Golden Land was the Sacred Realm before Ganondorf corrupted it. The order of the stories is: Ocarina, Zelda 1, Zelda 2, A Link to the Past. Since Link’s Awakening was a dream (or was it?) it’s hard to say where it fits.

Timeline_Hyrule_Historia_splitA very different timeline than Miyamoto envisioned in 1998!

This is a very different picture than what we have in Hyrule Historia. A split timeline wasn’t even truly hinted at until a 2002 interview at a Wind Waker summit that had both Eiji Aonuma and Shigeru Miyamoto in attendance to answer questions.

The timeline as it exists today didn’t truly begin to take form until after The Wind Waker was developed

: Where does The Wind Waker fit into the overall Zelda series timeline?

: You can think of this game as taking place over a hundred years after Ocarina of Time. You can tell this from the opening story, and there are references to things from Ocarina located throughout the game as well.

: Well, wait, which point does the hundred years start from?

: From the end.

: No, I mean, as a child or as a…

: Oh, right, let me elaborate on that. Ocarina of Time basically has two endings of sorts; one has Link as a child and the other has him as an adult. This game, The Wind Waker, takes place a hundred years after the adult Link defeats Ganon at the end of Ocarina.

: This is pretty confusing for us, too. (laughs) So be careful.

What does all of this tell us? The timeline as it exists today didn’t truly begin to take form until after The Wind Waker was developed, and possibly later than that. A split timeline, with two branches, was finally confirmed with the release of Twilight Princess.

: When does Twilight Princess take place?

: In the world of Ocarina of Time, a hundred and something years later.

: And the Wind Waker?

: The Wind Waker is parallel. In Ocarina of Time, Link flew seven years in time, he beat Ganon and went back to being a kid, remember? Twilight Princess takes place in the world of Ocarina of Time, a hundred and something years after the peace returned to kid Link’s time. In the last scene of Ocarina of Time, kids Link and Zelda have a little talk, and as a consequence of that talk, their relationship with Ganon takes a whole new direction. In the middle of this game [Twilight Princess], there’s a scene showing Ganon’s execution. It was decided that Ganon be executed because he’d do something outrageous if they left him be. That scene takes place several years after Ocarina of Time. Ganon was sent to another world and now he wants to obtain the power…

Twilight-Princess-WallpaperThe timeline split is confirmed with the release of Twilight Princess

The timeline that Hyrule Historia presents has been 17 years in the making, at the very least. Much has changed over time and Miyamoto himself has even contradicted this new “official” timeline at one point or another. While we can still use the Hyrule Historia timeline as a guide to place the CD-i Zelda games within the Zelda canon, Nintendo also gives us just cause to do so because the timeline has never been truly set in stone until Hyrule Historia was released. As it has been chronicled here, there have been many contradictions over the years, and the timeline has been more of an evolution if anything. Hyrule Historia itself says on page 68 that “This chronicle merely collects information that is believed to be true at the time, and there are many obscured and unanswered secrets that still lie within the tale. As the stories and storytellers of Hyrule change, so too, does its history. Hyrule’s history is a continuously woven tapestry of events. Changes that seem inconsequential, disregarded without even a shrug, could evolve at some point to hatch new legends and, perhaps, change this tapestry of history itself.”

The timeline that Hyrule Historia presents has been 17 years in the making

With that being said, why can’t the stories of the CD-i games be woven into this chronicle as well, given that Hyrule Historia gives us the justification to do just that?

Where the CD-i Games Fit

Now that we’ve established that the official timeline for the games has developed over a long period of time and was never set in stone, we can begin to decide where to place The Faces of Evil, The Wand of Gamelon, and Zelda’s Adventure into the official timeline. But the question is, where do we place them? There are three options: the Adult Timeline, the Child Timeline, or the Downfall Timeline. The games could theoretically fit into any of them as things stand now, but there are some subtleties that lend credence to the fact that the games fit best in either the Child Timeline or the Adult Timeline.

Not everything in the Zelda timeline fits perfectly; it’s more like a puzzle

In the Downfall Timeline, Ganon is destroyed and his resurrection is foiled in The Adventure of Link. True, he could have been resurrected at a later point in time, but given the ambiguous nature of Ganon’s demise in the Child Timeline and the Adult Timeline, I would tend to think that it is more likely that these games take place in one of those timelines.

Now let’s take a look at the Child Timeline. The Child Timeline ends in Twilight Princess, with Ganon(dorf) being stabbed by Link through the chest. His death is somewhat unclear though; we don’t know if he’s gone for good, or if his Triforce of Power merely deactivated for the time being and he went into some kind of ‘hibernation mode’. While it is possible for the CD-i games to take place in the Child Timeline, between the hundreds of years that separate Majora’s Mask and Twilight Princess, the landscape has not changed dramatically. In the CD-i games, the landscape of Hyrule does seem to be quite different, and Link and Zelda embark to lands that are unheard of in previous games.


This leaves the Adult Timeline, the most likely setting for the Unholy Triforce to dwell. Towards the end of the Adult Timeline, Ganon has the Master Sword plunged into his forehead and turns to stone. In a previous CD-i article, we talked about how the CD-i games, much like the proper Zelda games, reference mythologies and cultures from all around the world. This is somewhat speculative, but what if someone, hundreds, maybe thousands of years later once the oceans recede, were to release the Master Sword from Ganon’s forehead? If he were to reanimate, it would be very similar to 1938’s The Sword in the Stone by T.H. White. If thousands of years have passed, and the legacy of Hyrule has continued to be passed down by Tetra and Link in The Wind Waker to future generations, the various new locations that are explored in the CD-i games and the new terrain of Hyrule would be explained perfectly. Not everything in the Zelda timeline fits perfectly; it’s more like a puzzle. But this would make the most sense out of the three options we are given.

The CD-i games are just as much a part of the Zelda franchise as any other Zelda game

The Zelda timeline is constantly evolving, and has been evolving since its inception 28 years ago. At one point Ocarina of Time was meant to depict the famous Imprisoning War; now, according to Hyrule Historia (pg. 93), it doesn’t. Originally A Link to the Past was meant to be the final chapter in the series, but according to Hyrule Historia, it takes place before the original Legend of Zelda, once again contradicting what is now considered to be the official timeline. As much as some fans don’t want to hear it, the timeline for The Legend of Zelda series was made up as they went along; there was never any grand plan. The CD-i games are just as much a part of the Zelda franchise as any other Zelda game, and they are more than deserving of a place in the official timeline of The Legend of Zelda series.

  • Nick

    You will never, ever, ever convince me that those games are canon, EVER

  • Laleiro

    Stop trying to make CD-I happen, it is not going to happen.

    • Morgan

      It did happen though.

  • True Davad

    You mentioned that they were NOT DEVELOPED BY NINTENDO and then claim them to be canon?! How can it be canon if Nintendo didn’t oversee their creation? Should the fan games be considered canon? They are centered around Zelda characters and elements too. What about the Tingle games? They were even made by Nintendo. The CD-I games were NEVER Canon! Nintendo would have to have overseen their creation for them to be canon. Only Nintendo can decide what is in the Timeline and what isn’t. They say the CD-I are not in the timeline, so they are not. End of Story. I don’t mean to be rude but your logic is flawed.

    • Morgan

      The Oracle games were pretty much made by capcom, not nintendo. Your logic is flawed because Nintendo did agree on essentially licensing the series out to Phillips to use. I had more I could have used in the article, but again it was already over 2,000 words, which is huge. The timeline was made up as they went along so really, is anything “canon” then by your logic?

      • heroofmasks

        accuallynintendo oversaw the oracle games and minish cap and gave them the opertunity to codevelop the games the cdi quote zelda games nintendo had nothing to do with there development after they broke up the project with phillips they gave them the right to use zelda link and ganon not to make accual zelda games is phillips did nintendo woulda sued them faster then a bullet

        • Morgan

          Zelda games were made. Multiple Zelda enemies appear, and characters, including Impa. I never said they co-developed. They did, I *believe*, had a say in the artwork but that’s it. They had nothing to do with the games themselves, which has been stated in the article. It doesn’t mean they aren’t Zelda games.

          • Kevin

            They aren’t canon so they don’t fit into the timeline.

          • Morgan

            according to who?

          • Kevin


          • Morgan

            Why does Nintendo get to tell us what goes in the timeline and what doesn’t? Just because they don’t condone the CD-i games? Which is funny since it was their deal with Philips that allowed the games to be made in the first place…

          • Kevin

            Maybe because they owned and created the franchise? There is a reason they don’t like them. It is because they are the s*** stain on the series.

          • Morgan

            And how many times have they contradicted themselves regarding the timeline? I’ve lost count. And I didn’t even include every example I could have. It reaches ridiculous heights.

          • Kevin

            Does not matter. They decide what goes in the timeline. I would expect changes and contradictions as more games come out. That is always going to happen.

          • Morgan

            It does matter. It means the timeline was not planned. They should plan then and not have the games contradict themselves, like ALttP and ALBW. No excuse for that. And it just strengthens the argument that the timeline was not planned, just made to satisfy a select group of fans. The fact that there are in-game contradictions and contradicting quotes from the developers just strengthens the argument that the timeline is an evolution and will continue to evolve, and that the CD-i games have a place in this legend if we choose so.

          • Kevin

            Considering there was a 20 year gap between ALTTP and ALBW it makes sense that they changed it. There were over 10 games between the gap. They had to change it so Ganon could be revived and brought back in ALBW.

          • Morgan

            they didn’t have to retcon the entire ending of ALttP to get that result though. And Ganon wasn’t even revived in ALBW or really brought back.

          • Kevin

            He was revived but he merged with Yuga right after. It does not suprise me they chose that way to retcon it but I agree it is weird.

          • Morgan

            from my interpretation he was just a vessel for the ToP. Yuga was in control the whole time, there was no hint of Ganon throughout.

          • Kevin

            True. That is how I felt. It is similar to how he was in the oracles. I just wish Ganon had been more of his own character then bascally Yuga’s tool.

          • Kevin

            The CDi games will never have a plae in the timeline.

      • KrisKatsu

        No they weren’t, if I remember right, in one of the Nintendo Power’s I have (No pun intended lol) Nintendo stated that they had one of their teams work on one game while Capcom had theirs work on the other, with a possible third game in the talks, which never saw the light of day sadly!

        I don’t remember who worked on which though! 🙁 none the less they where both great games 🙂

      • True Davad

        My point IS that not everything is canon. The fan games are not canon,
        the Tingle games are not canon, and the CD-I games are not canon. Only
        Nintendo can decide what is cannon. If they don’t put it in the
        timeline, it is not there. End of Story. You say my logic is flawed but
        you didn’t even respond in a way that makes sense considering what I
        actually said.Nintendo included the oracle games in the timeline, otherwise they would not be canon. Your trying to make an argument work that is flawed by the definition of what canon is. Only the Nintendo can decide what is canon, none of us have any say beyond influencing Nintendo. In a later article you mention that Hyrule Hystoria stated that the timeline could be changed by the developers. That means it is a decision made by the developers. I would like to stress that I have not commented on whether they are Zelda Games or not, but this article is about the Timeline. And Nintendo did not put them in. So they are not in.

        • Morgan

          well you could also say that once a work like Zelda enters the public domain, it belongs to the public, so we decide what’s canon or not. Just because Nintendo does not acknowledge them does not mean they do not exist or that they do not have a place in the timeline.

          • True Davad

            Zelda is not Public domain. Nor is the Timeline.
            Your attempts are logic strange.

          • Morgan

            Not really. The interpretation of the series IS public domain once it is released to the public. Just like with films, such as star wars. so much left to interpretation. yeah george lucas can say all he wants, but in the end, when you release something into the public domain the argument can be made that it then belongs to the public. and its interpretation.

          • True Davad

            You clearly don’t know what public domain means. Public Domain means that the copyright has expired and that anyone can do anything with it as the public is essentially the owner. Nintendo still has Copyright so Zelda is not public domain.

          • Morgan

            I am just presenting an argument that many others have made before me. Many others.

            I’m not using the legal definition of public domain, and I’m not meaning that we *literally* own Zelda. What I am saying is that how we interpret the games and how they all fit together, including the CD-i games; it can be argued that that does belong to the public, and no developer quotes or “Hyrule Historia” can really tell us how to interpret the story of Zelda.

          • True Davad

            So you are saying is that we can change canon and decide that whatever we what is true about the series? Then there would be no such thing as canon. Then I could say that for Majora’s Mask Navi was hiding inside Epona and aftyer the Game fused with her to become a fairy horse And mated with Link in the Lost woods to produce the Hero’s Shade, who then burned of his parts and turned them into an ancestor to Epona of Twilight Princess? There is a reason why the developers have to be the ones to decide canon. Otherwise their is nothing official and therefor no timeline to fit games into. So either way your argument is invalid.

  • Nathan Maddox

    If you open up your hyrule historia, it says that the CD-I games aren’t canon

    • Morgan

      Hyrule Historia is flawed. And the timeline it presents was made up as it went along. why should we trust it? yeah I used it as a guideline to place the series, but, HH also says that the timeline could change at any time if the developers so desire it…

      • Darkstar

        A Link Between Worlds recently proved that too.

        • Morgan

          Also I didn’t even go into the fact that ALBW retcons a lot of ALttP’s story and could possibly fit into its own timeline split. This goes really really deep.

          • JaidynReiman

            I’d agree with this notion, except Ocarina of Time itself already retconned a lot of LTTP’s storyline. In fact, I’m pretty sure its been implied that the Sages from Ocarina of Time were supposed to be the same sages mentioned in LTTP (“Sage” was translated into “Wise Men”).

            The Imprisoning War was supposed to take place following OOT assuming Link failed (though as noted elsewhere its possible Link himself did survive). Although I think originally the Imprisoning War was supposed to be OOT, and each game keeps changing things so it never remains consistent. It didn’t start with ALBW and it won’t end with that, either.

          • Morgan

            No the IW occurs generations later re: Hyrule Historia.

          • JaidynReiman

            I was pretty sure the IW occurred right after OOT, but I haven’t read Hyrule Historia in a while. Yes I did read those parts when it first came out.

            And of note, I’m still pretty sure that when OOT came out the implication at that time was that OOT was the Imprisoning War, and the Hyrule Historia retconned it. I could be wrong, but I thought that was implied when it came out.

          • Morgan

            Yes that is the case. It is in the article. Another point to show how the story and timeline have evolved. The timeline as it is now didn’t even begin to take shape until TWW.

  • Silver Beatle

    In that case even Captain Nintendo or the animated series would be canon… And Excuuuuuse me Morgan, but they aren’t.

    • Morgan

      No because it’s totally different. that’s a fallacy. these were games that nintendo at least had input on the character design to stay consistent with how the series had been. yeah that’s the only thing they did but they are zelda games and are canon. it’s a very plausible argument.

      • Silver Beatle

        They are Zelda games, yes. But they are not canon. They had permission, but Nintendo wasn’t involved. Their boxes mention “Licensed by Nintendo” but that’s it, not even the logo is there. (Which is on TLOZ OoS, OoA and tMC) Would that mean that the events on videogames based on Licensed cartoons, movies or comics are canon on their corresponding universes? No, they just have permission. Greetings!

        • heroofmasks

          ofcourse becouse nintendo had much to do in the development of mc and the oracle games if they didnt who knows how diffrent the oracle games and mc would be

          • Silver Beatle

            They would have ended as bad as the CDi games… and non canon either.

          • heroofmasks

            not really but they woulda been alot diffrent prob woulda gave link a gun as a wepon shudder

  • CEObrainz

    I do like how you tried to fit the CD-I games into the timeline, however because of it’s content it can’t be (not to mention Nintendo doesn’t acknowledge it).

  • Ericzander

    Great article Momo!

    Obviously the commenters don’t know what they’re talking about. Wand of Gamelon is obviously the best Zelda game.

  • Darkstar

    How does “between the hundreds of years that separate Majora’s Mask and Twilight Princess” match with ” [Twilight Princess takes place] in the world of Ocarina of Time, a hundred and something years later.” Clearly, TP takes place sometime between 101-199 years after MM/OOT.

    • Morgan

      Actually I do know it is a fact that the translation was jumbled. It is closer to hundreds of years than just 100-200.

      • heroofmasks

        well oot/mm link is related by blood the only links related by blood unless they all have the same blood as ss link everytime there reincarnated meaning the same blood type yea they be the only link accually related not including the reincarnation of ss thing in wich case yes tp woulda tooken place atlease 100 or more years after the events of mm so link could get old die and get reincarnated and dont say ooh he got lost in the woods and became a stalfos becouse

        1 kids who get lost in the lost woods become skull kids use navi on them when your a kid adults turn into stalfos
        2. if u 1st person him you can see that shade aka the hero of timeis accually a ghost hes more related to the ghost in the castle that point where to go or at secrets

        • Morgan

          LoZ Link and AoL Link are supposedly related to ALttP Link, “possibly”, per page 106 HH. OoT Link is believed to be a Hylian Knight, like ALttP Link, per page 93, though I think this means more lineage than anything else:

          “Looking back through the ages, it is possible that Link, the Hero of
          Time, was once a Hylian Knight himself. This may be the reason his
          mother became embroiled in the fires of war.”

          It’s possible Link from Zelda LoZ, AoL, ALttP, and OoT are all related in some way, as they all share the heritage of the Hylian Knights, who, according to page 93, ALttP, are descendents of the “Hero” who governed the Crest of Courage. Crest here can either mean like the pendant of courage or something of Farore’s, or literally, the ToC.

          So it’s possible almost every Link is directly related.

          • heroofmasks

            zelda 1 and zelda 2 link is the same oddly and alttp took plac in the hero is defeated timeline so its either the timelline link left behind after picking up the master sword or if he was kill meaning there is in no relations to alttp and oot link becouse link either was killed or dissapeared but there all reincarnated wither or not some are relates it is possible there not all related remember at the end of ss link and zelda got together so that would make all links princes but there not altho that woulda be a kool plot in a zelda game have zelda be his sister and him her brother she gets captured or somone invades hyrule and exiles you so your goal its to drive the evil force back save your sister

          • Morgan

            in the DT it never states Link was killed, only that he was defeated. we simply do not know. but they can still be related without being directly related and share the same lineage of the “Hylian Knights”. The Hylian Knights were a clan, they were all related. so if all of these links were related to the Hylian Knights or descended from them, they are in some way related.

          • JaidynReiman

            Personally I fully believe that Link survived the Final Battle in the downfall timeline, but was severely wounded. Its true, its not stated that Link died, just that he was defeated.

          • Morgan

            Exactly. Completely agree. Then the sages and Zelda somehow still seal Ganon, per HH, and generations later the Imprisoning War takes place.

          • True Davad

            Link does not know his ancestry in Ocarina of Time, I think ancestry records were lost during the great flood so Zelda doesn’t even know she is royalty, and that is probably not the only Link that cannot trace his lineage back to his previous incarnations. Also it is never specifically stated they marry though it is implied they may be into each other and they are certainly good friends. We never know for sure who he marries in any game. Also if Zelda has his sister then they could not marry again because of Incest. I think Incest among incarnations is the biggest problem with Zelink.

          • heroofmasks

            i never said anything about them falling in love not every link and zelda fall in love oot they didnt in tp they didnt in fact in thos games its implied to be more link xmalon according to nintendo and link x Ilia ss and st are really the only ones they show any kind of love connection to each other there can still be a love connection just with link and someone else or him and no one

          • JaidynReiman

            My theory was always that Link’s father in OOT was a Hylian Knight and was killed in the Hyrulean Civil War. In fact, Link may be the FIRST Hylian Knight, given the fact that Skyward Sword implies that Zelda (whom is Hylia) later started the Hylian Royal Family and formed the Kingdom of Hyrule, likely with Link as her “Knight.” (And if the SS manga is anything to go by, it may have stretched even further back in time to yet another of Link’s ancestors).

  • heroofmasks

    while i agree the time line is flawed if it even is the official timeline could be a hoax until nintendo releases a real one i gotta say considering nintendo didnt pay phillips to make the cdi games and how there not on a nintendo system and nintendos names not even on it there not official zelda games nintendo didnt even co develop them or had someone from nintendo overseeing the project like they did with capcom trust me if nintendo did co develop they woulda took 1 look at them games in develop and slap phillips so hard and tell them do it again and make it like how a azelda games to be

  • Majora’s servant

    The CD-i games contradict each other so they aren’t even canon by themselves. In Faces of Evil, Gwonam says that “It is written: only Link can defeat Ganon,” even though Zelda defeats him in the other two CD-i games.

  • KrisKatsu

    Simply put, there’s a reason Nintendo wants no part of these games and there’s a reason why they are not mentioned in the Hystoria. The simple fact is they “ARE” not “CANON” no matter how much you’d like them to be, correct me if I am wrong but doesn’t canon generally refer to it being made by the original creators/teams/companies/overseers etc? its one thing if Big N was there holding their hands while the CD-i games where being made but they weren’t, heck they didn’t even have input into the matter.

    The only thing about these that are canon if you wanna argue the point is the art work on the cases!

    • JaidynReiman

      The whole month is just a joke, plain and simple.

      • Morgan

        This article was not a joke. I am dead serious.

  • Jonathan Sulzbach

    It’s tough to write anything about the Unholy Triforce without getting a lot of angry comments. Are the games embarrassing? Yes. Are they canon by Nintendo’s standards? No. But had the CD-i been a success and the games turned out well, you bet!

  • veeronic


  • Kevin

    This site is a joke. What Zelda site celebrates the CDI games?

  • Guest

    the way I put it in the deleted coment was a joke… blasphemer

  • justjoined

    To quote the author: “This, ‘to me’, suggests that they are in fact canon.” The average reader who knows nothing about Zelda would read that sentence and conclude that you are making a suggestion rather than stating a fact. Face it, this article wouldn’t even exist if the games were treated as canon. Even if you ignored their omissions in Hyrule Historia, how do you explain Nintendo’s position regarding the non-existence of these games over the last 20+ years? There’s been no mention, no promotion, no spinoff games, no spin off characters, no re-release, no likeness or otherwise that can be traced back to these games. Nothing. Moreover, Nintendo is a company that cherishes its history more than any other, so the fact that they completely and totally 100% ignored these titles for so long should tell you all you need to know about where they fit in the timeline.

  • Pingback: The best of CD-ii Month | Zelda Universe()

  • Ian Mullins

    There are a massive amount of butthurt fanboys in this comment section.

  • Pingback: CD-ii Month: Where the CD-i games fit in the official Zelda timeline | morganlewisbackup()